Got temporarily banned from a forum, curious if you consider it justified or not.

[Raziell]

Im wondering if you can take a look at this and tell me if it was justified.

So... I made a really long post with feedback&suggestions for a videogame. I considered the dialogue to be too simple/mundane. Note that this post was 99% (I thought 100% but apparantly not) constructive. The thing I said at one point though - was (paraphrasing myself): "The dialogue in this game was so simple at times that I was wondering if the target group was mentally disabled children".

Now. The moderator that banned me gave the reasoning "insulting mentally disabled children" and I was like "WHAT?". I was going to use "retards" but that word only implies hostility, so I used mentally disabled children to lessen the strong negative effect and opted for mentally disabled children instead - I thought such an euphemism would get my point better across.

The thing Im insulting here if anything (I thought criticism was allowed, I also provided valid arguments beforehand) was the simplicity of the dialogue.

For example.

If I say "That old dinner smelled like an old hag" - then Im not insulting anyone (you cant insult an object (old dinner)). Im implying a generalization that old people smell, sure. But it is used as a metaphor to get another point across entirely.

If I say "That guy was stubborn as a rock" - then this implies that someone is unwilling/resistant to change his mind. It certainly isnt an insult towards a rock, also not really an insult towards the guy in question. It is an observation, again by using an analogy/metaphor.

When I use "Dialogue is so bad it is as if its aimed at mentally challenged children" as an argument, then Im using a metaphor to criticise the dialogue! Im not attacking or insulting mentally challenged kids in any way at all.

Fact: Mentally challenged children has problems with more complex/higher thinking. Everyone knows this.

If I call a red apple for a red apple, then Im not insulting the red apple!
If I call a greedy person for greedy, then Im yet again making a factual statement.
If I call a bully for a bully - then Im not insulting a bully - he IS a bully!
If I call a person without legs for physically disabled. Then Im not INSULTING THEM - Im stating a fact/observation.

So lets say that I use this as a metaphor: "Jeff ran so slow to the finnish line that I thought he didnt have legs" or "Jeff ran so slow to the finnish line that I thought he was physically disabled" then the target of this observation is Jeff, not people without legs. Im taking the attributes of the factual state of someone or something - and applying it to someone as a metaphor or analogy.

So. What exactly is the fault with my reasoning here if any? Im still puzzled why I got a one day ban. I wasnt insulting mentally challenged children in any way. Note that I had no malevolent intentions here at all, I simply used a fitting metaphor to best describe a situation (atleast in my eyes).

Not sure if I hit something taboo or burnt myself on some language error (since english isnt my mother tongue) but logically this ban made no sense to me.

Can someone please tell me what Im missing? I really need an outside opinion on this. I really have zero idea if I deserved that ban or not.

Edit: Cant say this enough but I dont see how comparing someone or something to another in a metaphor - can be considered an insult based on the FACTUAL state of what it is compared too. Again, if I call blue water for blue water for example, then the fact that water is blue is a 100% correct attribute to blue water.

[Flick Montana]

Welcome to the world of political correctness.

[Raziell]

Welcome to the world of political correctness.

So I should blame society?

You are probably correct. How did I miss such an easy answer... If only everyone could use logic instead of emotions the world would be so much better off >.<

[Flick Montana]

Welcome to the world of political correctness.

So I should blame society?

You are probably correct. How did I miss such an easy answer... If only everyone could use logic instead of emotions the world would be so much better off >.<

I'm of the opinion that if someone disagrees with your viewpoint, they will actively search out an excuse to assassinate character rather than attempt an intelligent defense. Maybe they were upset about your comments and jumped at the chance to avoid the issue you brought up by labeling you as racist/bigot/insensitive/etc.

That's all wild speculation, but I've seen it before. It doesn't sound like your comment was meant to be taken seriously, but maybe they were just too dense to realize that.

[Raziell]

Welcome to the world of political correctness.

So I should blame society?

You are probably correct. How did I miss such an easy answer... If only everyone could use logic instead of emotions the world would be so much better off >.<

I'm of the opinion that if someone disagrees with your viewpoint, they will actively search out an excuse to assassinate character rather than attempt an intelligent defense. Maybe they were upset about your comments and jumped at the chance to avoid the issue you brought up by labeling you as racist/bigot/insensitive/etc.

That's all wild speculation, but I've seen it before. It doesn't sound like your comment was meant to be taken seriously, but maybe they were just too dense to realize that.

Yeah :/ People to tend to jump straight into ad hominem instead of rational discussion. What bothered me about this moderator was that he gave me a one day ban over such a small issue when I had no previous warning history at all. What he couldve done was edit it out and send me a message that I shouldnt say something like that (Even though I still think that I wasnt out of line).

Lots of people tend to misinterpret on purpose, Im not sure if this is due to an unconcious or concious desire for conflict or what it is.

[scheherazade]

Originally posted by Raziell: When I use "Dialogue is so bad it is as if its aimed at mentally challenged children" as an argument, then Im using a metaphor to criticise the dialogue! Im not attacking or insulting mentally challenged kids in any way at all.

Forums are a public venue and though it may not have been your intention, the remark, as you have paraphrased, is demeaning to other people. There are plenty of ways to comment on poor dialogue without using such metaphors. The moderators and administrators of most forums are quite aware of public scrutiny and are usually quick to respond to breeches of protocol which seemingly display a lack of respect or sensitivity.

Your feelings are hurt by the discipline, even as the children you mention might be hurt by the metaphor regarding their lack of comprehension. A one day suspension is not a big thing and perhaps instead of defending your actions, a bit of time to reflect on your words and how you may better have stated your concern about the dialogue would be a more useful exercise. Hindsight is usually 20/20.

I think we have all opened our mouths on occasion, only to change feet, as the saying were. This too, shall surely pass and it is but another learning opportunity and I thank you for sharing it with us.

[Implicate Order]

The use of metaphor is for 'added punch' to a statement and could be construed as an unnecessary and insenstive 'cheap win point' by those that may have a close association with the mentally handicapped.

[Harold14370]

I'm with Raziell on this. Mentally handicapped children have trouble comprehending complex ideas. It's the very definition of the condition, and was probably the most accurate way of describing the game. No sense pretending the condition does not exist. The mentally handicapped children are probably not reading the forum anyway.

OTOH, one could have predicted the politically correct reaction, like I'm probably going to get for agreeing with you.

[Raziell]

Thanks for the replies people. I think I will just stay silent not to make matters worse. I actually intended to write a defense but Im scared that I'll get another ban for that. Its sad to see that fear of power abuse hinders free speech even on the internet.

I was planning on taking this up with my linguistics teacher at uni, but that might be taking it too far.

[Paleoichneum]

I will point out you do not have free speech on the internet. You have the privilege of posting on privately owned sites that are overseen by people who decide what they will allow.

you could have just as easily made your point without making insulting references to the disabled and not had any problems as a result.

[Raziell]

I will point out you do not have free speech on the internet. You have the privilege of posting on privately owned sites that are overseen by people who decide what they will allow.

you could have just as easily made your point without making insulting references to the disabled and not had any problems as a result.

Did you read my post? I did not at any point insult disabled people.

If I got my mail late and said "The postman was late as a snail today" am i insulting the snail? A snail moves at slow pace. It is a fact. It is the attribute of being slow which is borrowed. The postman being slow is simply and observation.

If I work too slow at work, and the boss tells me "You are working as slow as a guy with one arm" then he makes a factual observation linking it to the attribute of having one arm implying disabled people would work slower due to their handicap. Is this not a logical conclusion?

Look at it this way. If I tell you: "Paleoicheneum, you are strong as a lion!" am I giving lions a compliment, is the intended purpose of this metaphor to compliment lions?

[Harold14370]

Do mentally handicapped children play video games? I would imagine that they do. It could provide mental stimulation as well as fun for them. Perhaps there are really video games designed with those children in mind. Now if someone were to go on the games forum and accurately describe such a game, as well as its intended audience, would that be an insult?

[Paleoichneum]

Please supply the actual quote that you made on the other forum so we can examine it as it was rather then as a later paraphrase.

Harold, it is quite clear that the video game was not intended for special needs children, so you point is not viable.