5 ms·
> That's an argument for banning swastikas, not banning anyone who displays a swastika. This seems semantic. For example, cheating is banned in many games, and
by arcticfox 6y ago
> That's an argument for banning swastikas, not banning anyone who displays a swastika.
This seems semantic. For example, cheating is banned in many games, and if you cheat, you get banned. Banning cheating and cheaters is effectively the same thing.
- octocop 6y agoChoice is still present, is a person who is paralyzed and unable to speak by default non-racist?
- gamblor956 6y agoThere is a huge difference between thinking bad thoughts and expressing or acting on them. You can be as racist as you want in your own head. No one is stopping that. You can express those racist thoughts all you want on your own property. But you have absolutely no right to express or act on those racist thoughts on someone else's property.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- pmiller2 6y agoIt's not like they can say or do anything racist, so the net effect is the same as if they were not racist.
- bastawhiz 6y agoPeople who are paralyzed and unable to speak aren't spreading hate in video games, so it's pretty pointless to hold them up as a counterexample. I know my grandparents probably have a lot of racist thoughts but unless they're unloading them at the Thanksgiving dinner table I'm not telling my grandmother to shut her mouth.
- strombofulous 6y agoThis is not the same thing at all. Banning swastikas would mean resetting the decals of a car with swastikas, not preventing the account from using the game license they paid for. Banning cheating means you ban the account of the person who cheated.
- arcticfox 6y ago"Banning cheating would mean preventing the cheat, not preventing the account from using the get license they paid for." They're two different responses to bad behavior, both totally fair.