Jusunlee.com Forums Pages (2): « 1 [2]
Show all 39 posts from this thread on one page

Jusunlee.com Forums (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/index.php)
- Random Thoughts (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=2)
-- very offened by a new member.... (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=10731)

Posted by twinkie on 02-15-2003 01:28 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Alchemist
I think he was saying that "Damn Koreans" might have been kidding.

o . . . sorry for the misunderstanding.

__________________
anger management problem.

Posted by Street RSX on 02-15-2003 03:11 AM:

hes just saying damn koreans.. hes not being racist realliee..
hes probabli pissed at some koreans dat did something to him.. imean some of us are still saying damn nazis or damn those kkk's.. same shit rih?? yoo cant reallie say that hes offending yoo.. i kno yoo think to yourself inside about some things.. especialli since your so patriotic and hav so much pride in korea.. that yoo probablie said to yourself damn japanese.. cuz of WW2.. which wuz kinda badd.. i mean.. no ones perfect.. thats just his opinion.. and hes not being fulli racist.. so i guess just let him be..

Posted by krnxswat on 02-15-2003 04:15 AM:

we've had a discussion about user names before. just let it pass. s/he didn't do anything offending to the forums so far

__________________
immagijibae: seons a hoeeeeeee, he wears them g-strings, and i also knowwwww, they hurt his dinga-lings~ la l alalala~ nanannan~ oh~ seons a hoeeeeee, he wears them g-strings..............
immagijibae: liiiiiiiiiiiiiike my new 1-minute-made-up song???????

Posted by micron on 02-15-2003 12:52 PM:

actually, this person started a thread with the intent to infuriate people. i caught it early and deleted the thread and disabled his account.

and just my personal view of the matter (and thus exercising my right to express), its fine and noble to defend freedom of speech and expression. really, i understand where you guys are coming from. but if i may offer another perspective - i, for one, would not go into a bar full of african americans to call them n*ggers (if i may say). i would not go to a kkk convention to call the people there ignorant rednecks (again if i may say). i sure can as garanteed by the Constitution, but i would not, because i know it would offend people there. the enlightened may look upon the situation (if i ever were to express myself in such a way) and reply, 'oh, he is just exercising his rights'. but believe me, it will offend people, many - most - actually. the motive was to offend - ofcourse people have the right to be offended and demand repercussion. but rather than defending those who chose to excericise that right, i find it somewhat disheartening that some of you chose to defend the offender of his rights. ofcourse he has the right to express, that was never the issue, but whether or not his expression was acceptable.

and for the same reasons, i cannot go around making threats to the President. freedom of speech and expression is only valid to a certain extent. likewise, speech and expression cannot be justied for that reason alone (as peoples definition to the extent to which it is acceptable is different). i think the real reasons why the Constitution garantees such rights is so that greater good may come out of it, not the other way around.

and to psychoSnowman's why not: why not not? why not not not? why not not not not?

Posted by ajy on 02-15-2003 12:59 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by jusunlee


and to psychoSnowman's why not: why not not? why not not not? why not not not not?


that is so 3rd grade

Posted by micron on 02-15-2003 01:05 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by AjY 2k
that is so 3rd grade
haha, ofcourse i wouldnt expect someone like you to grasp what im trying to convey. 3rd grade if you may, you are definitely garanteed the right to say it.

Posted by ajy on 02-15-2003 01:07 PM:

you sound cool!

Posted by Alchemist on 02-15-2003 05:15 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by jusunlee
haha, ofcourse i wouldnt expect someone like you to grasp what im trying to convey. 3rd grade if you may, you are definitely garanteed the right to say it.


I think he was referring to how

why not not = why (What you're saying)
why not not not = why not (Psychosnowman)
why not not not not = why (You)


Sorry for the trouble though. I don't think we mean to defend him or his actions, I think we just didn't know of any of his actions while considering possible stuff.

Posted by PsychoSnowman on 02-15-2003 05:53 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by jusunlee
and for the same reasons, i cannot go around making threats to the President. freedom of speech and expression is only valid to a certain extent. likewise, speech and expression cannot be justied for that reason alone (as peoples definition to the extent to which it is acceptable is different). i think the real reasons why the Constitution garantees such rights is so that greater good may come out of it, not the other way around.

and to psychoSnowman's why not: why not not? why not not not? why not not not not?


I think that's a terrible hypocrisy in our government and i don't like advocating that view. But, this is a forum and the rules apply and i'll outline later why i said that.

I think the reason the constitution guarantees such rights is so as to not allow censorship to incur, which it does and that is such an evil. Whatever good is subjective as you outlined, and i think the mere fact that we are inhibited for what we say is evil in its nature, the only good it promises is not to be censored in speech and that happens, not hoping people will say things that will help things. It's both ways, not one way. but this is really not too relevant to this because we are just talking about a person on a forum with confined rules.

Anyway, this is a forum with defined rules, i wasn't applying the rules of the constitution in their purest form to this forum simply becuase it has its own rules and is in a sense isolatory. The same goes for schools, they have their own rules and the constituion isn't going to outweigh some voluntary establishment you commit yourself to. So, according to the rules, since i and a number of people were unaware of his troll like actions on the forum saw no malfeasance on his part in regard to the forum nettiquette. As in there isn't any part of the nettiquette that says you can't have any username you want. There's a clause in there that talks about flaming and making bad comments about things in general, and since i didn't know he ever did that i was like: why not? just becuase his name is damnkoreans we need to oust him on some high moral ground or soemthing? it was not a good gesture to defy the rules at the time to make him change his name just for the sake of it being offensive as it wasn't in the nettiequette (i don't believe....?), and if he didn't say anything which we thought then he did not wrong. So i'm like "why not?" becuase there was no valid reason for people to force him to change his id.

But, since he did start a thread with mal intent, then sure disable his account. It's the forums, not some public area of the united states, they ahve their own rules and since he actually did violate one then go ahead and ouste him, it's justified.

And to your questions of why not not not, etc. I believe that was my point. If we can think so strongly in one direction....and there's another side to it....why pick and choose and choose one side that has equal to or less weight than the other? that was the point. People were responding like it was so unjust when he didn't break anyting according to anyone's knowledge since you deleted the thread, and were asking why he could have that kind of name when he seemingly didn't do anything, i could very easily just say "why not?" and end the whole thing. They weren't factoring in the other perspective, and the other side of ousting him seems much more structurally fair than the moral ground they were claiming on being offended, it doesn't outweigh whatever rules you've outlined. But, of course he did more than just make a name, so just telling you what i thought since we didn't see it beforehand.

-edit- the whole thing really just went back to the issue of the username who chose "jesus" as theirs. I saw this instance as one very close to it. There were talks in backstage about being offended and whatnot, and people acted like they were so offended and in the right by being offended by his username and i believe people even suggested multiple times to make him change it. That's just not even called for, his name is jesus.....so. There are people in the united states who's legal name is jesus, or god or whatever. It's just a username, and no one should be forced to change their name just on the subjective meaning it entails. I mean, who are we of all people, to become the deciding entity of what names are proper or not? that's just oppresive. Now, the admin...that's a different story

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Posted by ajy on 02-15-2003 06:06 PM:

snowman pwned jusun!

Posted by micron on 02-16-2003 07:33 AM:

PsychoSnowman
i dont want to go off tangent and argue with you about the validity of freedom of speach/expression and how the us government handles it. i have some opposing views, but maybe ill start a debate thread later instead.

but let me say this in response to the argument youve presented: there is nothing in the netiquette the explicitly forbids people from demanding repercussions when they are offended. for the same reasons damnkorean has the right to use such username, people have the right to demand him to change it. it would be a bit hypocritical to grant such right only to one party and forbid it to another.

but i personally take a different view of the whole matter, as i stated earlier (not to be didactic in any way). in society, it is the offender we try to rehabilitate to not offend, not the other way around. in the same way, i believe if anyone has to compromise, it would have to be damnkorean (even when considering only his username and not his actions), as he is the cause of the problem, not the people who were offended. its my a personal belief that it is much more effective to solve a problem by addressing the cause rather than the effects of it.

and to your response to 'why not': i understand that. but for you to deny the peoples right to become offended and demand repercussions with a simple 'why not' would put you to the same light as one of them. for as many reasons you may have to defend your assertions, they have for theirs as well. to be didactic and assert that you are right is what im trying to suggest is wrong (which, unfortunately, would be impossible without being didactic, putting me to the same light as well). thus, it is my personal belief that a simple 'why not' never justifies for any action.

as for the username Jesus, i dont think i ever clarified, hes real name isnt Jesus - ofcourse had it been his real name, his username would have been perfectly acceptable. instead, he deliberately used that username to bring attention to himself. hes a friend of Alchemist actually.

Posted by PsychoSnowman on 02-16-2003 05:11 PM:

I'm not trying to challenge what your decision is in this post, i'm just continuing to clarify my opinion since i think it was misperceived. Anyway...

quote:
Originally posted by jusunlee
PsychoSnowman
i dont want to go off tangent and argue with you about the validity of freedom of speach/expression and how the us government handles it. i have some opposing views, but maybe ill start a debate thread later instead.


good idea, i was thinking the same thing.

quote:

but let me say this in response to the argument youve presented: there is nothing in the netiquette the explicitly forbids people from demanding repercussions when they are offended. for the same reasons damnkorean has the right to use such username, people have the right to demand him to change it. it would be a bit hypocritical to grant such right only to one party and forbid it to another.


Granted, but i tend to not like pleas of people that ask for an exception in any structural code that leads to a more inhibiting and censoring and also oppressive system. I didn't say they couldn't be offended, nor that they should not have the right to be. I'm saying go ahead, but don't expect any results. For the reason taht they are asking for an exemption in this case for his name to be taken (on the basis of his username not his actions) away, and that's not breaking any rule in the nettiquette.

quote:

but i personally take a different view of the whole matter, as i stated earlier (not to be didactic in any way). in society, it is the offender we try to rehabilitate to not offend, not the other way around. in the same way, i believe if anyone has to compromise, it would have to be damnkorean (even when considering only his username and not his actions), as he is the cause of the problem, not the people who were offended. its my a personal belief that it is much more effective to solve a problem by addressing the cause rather than the effects of it.


Yeah, we think differently on this. I don't like punishing the offender, becuase usually i think the only reason he is an "offender" is because of the biggoting nature that exists within society that won't allow whatever the crime to be considered not an offense. This is directly opposite from what you said and i know i'm not trying to make you change your mind i'm just getting my point of view across, if anyone is to compromise, it should be the people who are in offense in this case because they are calling for a breaking of the rule (i.e. making him change his name), not one who is in perfect accordance with teh nettiquette. Who has broken the rule and become offensive? the people, and we shouldn't reject him on the basis of majority opinion.

I realize we do this in our status quo, punishing the perpetrator, and i just think it's not hte most optimal and logical way to do things. In ways, it is didactic.

quote:

and to your response to 'why not': i understand that. but for you to deny the peoples right to become offended and demand repercussions with a simple 'why not' would put you to the same light as one of them. for as many reasons you may have to defend your assertions, they have for theirs as well. to be didactic and assert that you are right is what im trying to suggest is wrong (which, unfortunately, would be impossible without being didactic, putting me to the same light as well). thus, it is my personal belief that a simple 'why not' never justifies for any action.


I'm not denying their right to become offended though, i'm saying they shouldn't be granted the exemption they desire for his username to be taken away on the mere basis of some perceived moral high ground. I don't think i'm in the same instance because i'm not trying to break the rules, i don't htink i was articulating it clearly enough. But, it all comes down to me not limiting the emotions of the people, but rather not allowing them to be granted the exemption they want when it would be not right in my opinion. Not hypocritical, they can be offended, that was in mind when freedom of speech was enacted, but the offense hsouldn't outweigh the essence of the standard. The why not justification was saying that since there are other perspectives with equal or less (supplemented on the basis of empathetic morality...) weight than the one i was on, then there is no reason to advocate either. But, i think that the mere fact that we may be moving towards a breaking of the nettiquette in their calling for him to rename his username shouldn't be pursued which is why i advocate my view.

quote:

as for the username Jesus, i dont think i ever clarified, hes real name isnt Jesus - ofcourse had it been his real name, his username would have been perfectly acceptable. instead, he deliberately used that username to bring attention to himself. hes a friend of Alchemist actually.


ah, all right. Thanks.

note: throughout the post i subsumed everyone into the category of who was offended that "they" would want him to change his name, i know it's not everyone and far from it, but i dind't want to spend the extra words every single time i mentioned themt o clarify who i was talking about. Thanks.

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Posted by micron on 02-18-2003 09:14 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by PsychoSnowman
I'm not trying to challenge what your decision is in this post, i'm just continuing to clarify my opinion since i think it was misperceived.
yes i know. i wasnt trying to challenge your views either, just offering another perspective to the matter as no one went through the trouble to do so.

i misperceived some of your original stance, but our opinoins still differ. my purpose (of offering another opinion) is accomplished, but theres no conciliation (as far as viewpoints go). i think our fundamental difference is coming from our different school of thought. yours seem to be of postmodern (as expressed in your arguement of offender vs society, individual over the community) and poststructual (where meaning is lost, no absolute truths) while my perspective is coming from a modern/romantic and structual view of the matter.

in that case, it would be quite unlikely one of us will convince the other. futher discussions should really go in debate if you want to continue in a larger scale (schools of thought) as the difference here is really an outcome of our different school. haha i suppose that means we'll have a lot of arguing to do in the future, as theyre directly conflicting perspectives.

Posted by Mash1mar0 on 02-18-2003 09:27 AM:

always jusunlee vs. psychosnowman

__________________


with onE magic pill i EscapE from painful rEality and Enter the wholE nEw diffErEnt world....

I'm not addictEd... I can stop anytimE i want to...

Posted by touch_my_butt on 02-20-2003 12:18 AM:

i say we jump him. . . all agree?

Posted by touch_my_butt on 02-20-2003 12:21 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Street RSX
hes just saying damn koreans.. hes not being racist realliee..
hes probabli pissed at some koreans dat did something to him.. imean some of us are still saying damn nazis or damn those kkk's.. same shit rih?? yoo cant reallie say that hes offending yoo.. i kno yoo think to yourself inside about some things.. especialli since your so patriotic and hav so much pride in korea.. that yoo probablie said to yourself damn japanese.. cuz of WW2.. which wuz kinda badd.. i mean.. no ones perfect.. thats just his opinion.. and hes not being fulli racist.. so i guess just let him be..



damn...we're compared to nazi's n KKK now?...what has the korean race come to....jpjp~

Posted by nickels on 02-20-2003 05:44 AM:

someone sign up 'damnblacks' and Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson will be here in no time

Posted by niggoreanboi on 02-20-2003 05:45 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by nickels
someone sign up 'damnblacks' and Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson will be here in no time


-_-; lol damn those black people right and damn those korean just damn every race right

Posted by Alchemist on 02-20-2003 05:25 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by touch_my_butt
damn...we're compared to nazi's n KKK now?...what has the korean race come to....jpjp~


I think he was referring to the steriotypes of Germans and southerners.
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:07 PM. Pages (2): « 1 [2]
Show all 39 posts from this thread on one page