Does it break any rules to have a username that praises IS?

GothicKratos

san-mpq wrote:

There is a very negative word used to describe homosexuals, that I will not repeat on here for fear of censorship/deletion, but starts with the letter "f" - this word's original meaning was "a bundle of wood" - now if someone were to use this word in today's society (knowing what it means to many), others would likely see this as offensive, whether it was meant to be or not. Same thing with (previous to it being repatriated by the LGBTQ community) the word "gay," a word formerly used to mean "happy." I don't think we would be pretending that the author of a name containing either word was saying it in any other context, other than the context of modern society.

This is a great point, and I agree, up and to the point that the term "Islamic State" is most definitely used frequently to not mean ISIS/ISIL - maybe not on the new in the last six months - but it is used in the manner I spoke, especially by those peoples, and even moreso especially as a reference to the entire 'state' of Islam and all it's peoples. It would be different if it was the only way the word was used in common language, at which point you'd be basically arguing why you should be able to call an African-American a "negro" - 'well, it means black' - but clearly and obviously you're not using that term in that manner, you're using it in a discriminatory manner.

san-mpq wrote:

In this day and age, with ISIS/ISIL being in the news daily, and often referred to as "IS" (and they have also self referred as such), I think it is foolhardy to pretend that this OP is using it in any other context. While this is not against the law, and I would defend this person's right to free speech, I think we ought to at least call a spade a spade. So he wants to use "IS" in his name, feel free under free speech. However, the company whom you represent solely by playing their game, may in fact see this as trolling. I know I do. It's a name that is obviously going to stir up some controversial arguments, and knowing this, should, in my opinion, not be used. Not because it is against the law, but because it brings ideals and views into a game where they really do not belong.

This is another great point. He absolutely has the right to free speech, even if he is attempting to promote ISIS/ISIL, but it's also well within the right's of the company to censor any outward messages that may reflect poorly on them. Additionally, I completely agree that it realistically has no application as a username on a video game, especially so if it's a representation of ISIS/ISIL, but still to a point as a religious statement, is a bit too profound, so to speak, for a video game username.

At the end of the day, the bottomline is literally the first thing I said; if it is not aggressive (i.e. representing the ideals of ISIS/ISIL), discriminatory (i.e. representing certain sexist and racist aspects of Sharia Law), or otherwise offensive in nature (i.e. "The`Terrorists`Win" or something equally obnoxious) there is no real grounds to remove the username, other than attempting to be as PC as possible.

Unknown

This is the most inappropriate thread I've ever seen.

Just delete it.

And, no - anything about religion ,
especially the crazy ones,
is not ok as a name.

Ducky

Chungachangas wrote:

And, no - anything about religion ,
especially the crazy ones,
is not ok as a name.

Wouldn't that be all of them?!

san

GothicKratos wrote:

san-mpq wrote:

This is a great point, and I agree, up and to the point that the term "Islamic State" is most definitely used frequently to not mean ISIS/ISIL - maybe not on the new in the last six months - but it is used in the manner I spoke, especially by those peoples, and even moreso especially as a reference to the entire 'state' of Islam and all it's peoples. It would be different if it was the only way the word was used in common language, at which point you'd be basically arguing why you should be able to call an African-American a "negro" - 'well, it means black' - but clearly and obviously you're not using that term in that manner, you're using it in a discriminatory manner.

san-mpq wrote:

This is another great point. He absolutely has the right to free speech, even if he is attempting to promote ISIS/ISIL, but it's also well within the right's of the company to censor any outward messages that may reflect poorly on them. Additionally, I completely agree that it realistically has no application as a username on a video game, especially so if it's a representation of ISIS/ISIL, but still to a point as a religious statement, is a bit too profound, so to speak, for a video game username.

At the end of the day, the bottomline is literally the first thing I said; if it is not aggressive (i.e. representing the ideals of ISIS/ISIL), discriminatory (i.e. representing certain sexist and racist aspects of Sharia Law), or otherwise offensive in nature (i.e. "The`Terrorists`Win" or something equally obnoxious) there is no real grounds to remove the username, other than attempting to be as PC as possible.

I appreciate the input GK. Again, I am talking about the last 12 or so months being today's context. This is the reality today. Perhaps a biased one from the point of view of a North American that is constantly subjected to news reports of IS this and ISIL that. Nonetheless, most North Americans have only heard the term used in this context, and I would argue that this is the context used when most people are asked about what IS stands for... If you don't believe that this is the case, please Google it and see what comes up. Words are defined by their current use, not intention.

On your second point, you are right in that no religious sentiments should invade video games. Nonetheless they do. Most are completely benign. Political ideals are similar. Most names containing such ideas are benign (i.e. LiberalsRule or DemocratsAreSilly). Some, however, are simply not welcome (reference anything to Hitler, Nazis or SS, and see what I mean). I believe that IS fits the second category, given the political situation in the world today, especially with what is happening throughout France, Belgium, and other parts of Europe. Given this context, I believe that this fellow is attempting to incite or provoke others by utilizing this name, which is considered (as jr points out) trolling.

Arondite

Customer Support confirmed the name I desired is fine and won't cause removal / fluffification or sandboxing.

Thanks for your concern and opinion, guys, but like I said, IS doesn't refer to extremists. The "f word" point has some credence in the specific case you described because no one uses it to refer to a bundle of sticks anymore. My usage of IS is, contrary to your news outlet or white washed television, the most common usage of the term. Sorry to disappoint, but this is simply factual.

I appreciate all of the positive and negative intellectual input.

san

Arondite wrote:

Customer Support confirmed the name I desired is fine and won't cause removal / fluffification or sandboxing.

Thanks for your concern and opinion, guys, but like I said, IS doesn't refer to extremists. The "f word" point has some credence in the specific case you described because no one uses it to refer to a bundle of sticks anymore. My usage of IS is, contrary to your news outlet or white washed television, the most common usage of the term. Sorry to disappoint, but this is simply factual.

I appreciate all of the positive and negative intellectual input.

This is actually offensive, and uncalled for. The arguments presented have mostly been intellectual, and you sir, appear to be showing your troll... whoops... true... colors.

san

jralbino wrote:

troll
trōl/
verb
gerund or present participle: trolling

1.
informal
make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.

I, nor anyone else here, possibly with the exclusion of a moderator, would have the answer for this. Whatever the answer is, there's no reason for this to be a post rather than a message to the mods or a d3 employee.

VERY good point jr. If this poster was looking to do anything other than troll, they would have PMed the mods or contacted customer support directly, and kept the discussion away from here.

Arondite

san-mpq wrote:

Arondite wrote:

Customer Support confirmed the name I desired is fine and won't cause removal / fluffification or sandboxing.

Thanks for your concern and opinion, guys, but like I said, IS doesn't refer to extremists. The "f word" point has some credence in the specific case you described because no one uses it to refer to a bundle of sticks anymore. My usage of IS is, contrary to your news outlet or white washed television, the most common usage of the term. Sorry to disappoint, but this is simply factual.

I appreciate all of the positive and negative intellectual input.

This is actually offensive, and uncalled for. The arguments presented have mostly been intellectual, and you sir, appear to be showing your troll... whoops... true... colors.

White washing is a very real thing in N.A. And a lot of European areas as well. It's not an opinion in presenting - if you think IS refers exclusively, or even primarily, to extremist factions of islam, you're a victim (willingly or unknowingly) of poor information and islamophobia.

Try to bear in mind, having an opinion that is different from your own is not trolling.

Unknown

Topic is lame and OP is soulless troll, anyone who listens to this stuff and actually believes it, shouldn't because it is inflammatory speech that spreads hate only.

Mod GothicKratos didn't have to personally reply or engage with topic, then going as far as to rationalise OP's actions. Imagine if all mods were allowed to express their religious inclined speech and have discussions and opinions about them. There would be no end to this.

Arondite

zpzpz wrote:

Topic is lame and OP is soulless troll, anyone who listens to this stuff and actually believes it, shouldn't because it is inflammatory speech that spreads hate only.

Mod GothicKratos didn't have to personally reply or engage with topic, then going as far as to rationalise OP's actions. Imagine if all mods were allowed to express their religious inclined speech and have discussions and opinions about them. There would be no end to this.

Nothing I've said has been inflammatory, and I've spoken in favor of tolerance. How is this facilitating the spread of hate? Lol.

GothicKratos

zpzpz wrote:

Mod GothicKratos didn't have to personally reply or engage with topic, then going as far as to rationalise OP's actions. Imagine if all mods were allowed to express their religious inclined speech and have discussions and opinions about them. There would be no end to this.

Not sure if serious or just blatant trolling, but...praised be to Allah if we had freedom of speech, or, or, you know, Jehovah be damned, the freedom to have an intellectual conversation! WHERE WOULD THE LINE BE DRAWN?! I engaged the thread positively and meaningfully, none of my posts (up until this segment of this post) have been any form of trolling, but, yes, people are trolling in this thread. Quite frankly, half the people pointing fingers at the troll are doing so in a trolling fashion. Every heard of "feeding the trolls", yeah, normally, you don't do it, and by calling him a troll, you only give him means to start another fire, which I might add, he did not do. He actually hasn't negatively engaged with anyone, besides making an off-handed joke in regards to something said to him. Bottom line, if you think somebody is a troll, why even post in their thread?

That aside, I chose, along with a few other people, to use this as a way to have a serious conversation. If you don't want to be a part of that, don't read the thread.

======

san-mpq wrote:

On your second point, you are right in that no religious sentiments should invade video games. Nonetheless they do. Most are completely benign. Political ideals are similar. Most names containing such ideas are benign (i.e. LiberalsRule or DemocratsAreSilly). Some, however, are simply not welcome (reference anything to Hitler, Nazis or SS, and see what I mean). I believe that IS fits the second category, given the political situation in the world today, especially with what is happening throughout France, Belgium, and other parts of Europe. Given this context, I believe that this fellow is attempting to incite or provoke others by utilizing this name, which is considered (as jr points out) trolling.

We agree here, basically. I agree there are definitely subjects that are tender, specifically in certain areas, that should not be up for grabs as a username. There was actually a bit of a hot button discussion on this about Colossus using the Hammer and Sickle for his gem emblem a little while back, and I see both sides of the coin really, but ultimately, it comes down to each and every one of us to be respectful to one another, and it just wasn't.

That being said, I was erring on the side of caution before jumping to the conclusion that he was simply trolling. Normally speaking, honestly, I probably would have jumped straight to the "I don't get it, why it this a thread" bandwagon if I was a regular user, but not being presumptuous is part of the task list, unfortunately lol.

san-mpq wrote:

I appreciate the input GK. Again, I am talking about the last 12 or so months being today's context. This is the reality today. Perhaps a biased one from the point of view of a North American that is constantly subjected to news reports of IS this and ISIL that. Nonetheless, most North Americans have only heard the term used in this context, and I would argue that this is the context used when most people are asked about what IS stands for... If you don't believe that this is the case, please Google it and see what comes up. Words are defined by their current use, not intention.

I italicized the part of your statement that sticks out the most to me. See, to me, that very statement is what befuddles me about today's social rights movements. There's this idea, which you mentioned, about that "f-word", that it can be "repurposed", and every single time I see something like that, I can't help but thing of Clerks II, where they talk about "bringing porch monkey back", like, inside that movie it was so absurd it was comical, but there are people that really try and do this.

Now, let me take a break from this real quick, just to say, I am a firm believer that a word only has as much weight as the individual that hears it gives it.

That being said, lets talk about the phrase "Islamic State" for a second and why it's different from your example of the "bundle of sticks word" and my example of "negro". First and foremost, despite whatever the popular usage of it is in the media or social media outlets, it has never ceased to mean any of the things I mentioned in my post with the Wikipedia blurbs. It's not a depreciated meaning. It's not a word that has only been used for decades to disparage the LBGT community. It's not a word that's been used for decades only to disparage and characterize African-Americans. It's a word that's been used for centuries to refer to either that state of Islam as a whole, or individual republics that whole Islam as it's law and order. It has recently (though, admittedly in the past, also) been used by a radical group of extremists to self-define their movement. This is not a word that's been rebrandished by the Islam community to mean "crazy folks that blow themselves up for virgins". It's a word that's being misused by extremists. To be frank, it'd be like implying a Baptist would picket a military funeral, because Westboro Baptist Church dominates their portrayal on the television.

Contrary to popular belief, perception is not reality. For example, perceiving me as a bad moderator for engaging in this conversation may be the perception of some members of the community, but it doesn't make it the truth.

That being said, I'm not trying to say you're wrong, per se, I just believe differently than you. I'd be more than happy to drop the subject whenever you want to.

Arondite

GothicKratos wrote:

zpzpz wrote:

Mod GothicKratos didn't have to personally reply or engage with topic, then going as far as to rationalise OP's actions. Imagine if all mods were allowed to express their religious inclined speech and have discussions and opinions about them. There would be no end to this.

Not sure if serious or just blatant trolling, but...praised be to Allah if we had freedom of speech, or, or, you know, Jehovah be damned, the freedom to have an intellectual conversation! WHERE WOULD THE LINE BE DRAWN?! I engaged the thread positively and meaningfully, none of my posts (up until this segment of this post) have been any form of trolling, but, yes, people are trolling in this thread. Quite frankly, half the people pointing fingers at the troll are doing so in a trolling fashion. Every heard of "feeding the trolls", yeah, normally, you don't do it, and by calling him a troll, you only give him means to start another fire, which I might add, he did not do. He actually hasn't negatively engaged with anyone, besides making an off-handed joke in regards to something said to him. Bottom line, if you think somebody is a troll, why even post in their thread?

That aside, I chose, along with a few other people, to use this as a way to have a serious conversation. If you don't want to be a part of that, don't read the thread.

======

san-mpq wrote:

On your second point, you are right in that no religious sentiments should invade video games. Nonetheless they do. Most are completely benign. Political ideals are similar. Most names containing such ideas are benign (i.e. LiberalsRule or DemocratsAreSilly). Some, however, are simply not welcome (reference anything to Hitler, Nazis or SS, and see what I mean). I believe that IS fits the second category, given the political situation in the world today, especially with what is happening throughout France, Belgium, and other parts of Europe. Given this context, I believe that this fellow is attempting to incite or provoke others by utilizing this name, which is considered (as jr points out) trolling.

We agree here, basically. I agree there are definitely subjects that are tender, specifically in certain areas, that should not be up for grabs as a username. There was actually a bit of a hot button discussion on this about Colossus using the Hammer and Sickle for his gem emblem a little while back, and I see both sides of the coin really, but ultimately, it comes down to each and every one of us to be respectful to one another, and it just wasn't.

That being said, I was erring on the side of caution before jumping to the conclusion that he was simply trolling. Normally speaking, honestly, I probably would have jumped straight to the "I don't get it, why it this a thread" bandwagon if I was a regular user, but not being presumptuous is part of the task list, unfortunately lol.

san-mpq wrote:

I appreciate the input GK. Again, I am talking about the last 12 or so months being today's context. This is the reality today. Perhaps a biased one from the point of view of a North American that is constantly subjected to news reports of IS this and ISIL that. Nonetheless, most North Americans have only heard the term used in this context, and I would argue that this is the context used when most people are asked about what IS stands for... If you don't believe that this is the case, please Google it and see what comes up. Words are defined by their current use, not intention.

I italicized the part of your statement that sticks out the most to me. See, to me, that very statement is what befuddles me about today's social rights movements. There's this idea, which you mentioned, about that "f-word", that it can be "repurposed", and every single time I see something like that, I can't help but thing of Clerks II, where they talk about "bringing porch monkey back", like, inside that movie it was so absurd it was comical, but there are people that really try and do this.

Now, let me take a break from this real quick, just to say, I am a firm believer that a word only has as much weight as the individual that hears it gives it.

That being said, lets talk about the phrase "Islamic State" for a second and why it's different from your example of the "bundle of sticks word" and my example of "negro". First and foremost, despite whatever the popular usage of it is in the media or social media outlets, it has never ceased to mean any of the things I mentioned in my post with the Wikipedia blurbs. It's not a depreciated meaning. It's not a word that has only been used for decades to disparage the LBGT community. It's not a word that's been used for decades only to disparage and characterize African-Americans. It's a word that's been used for centuries to refer to either that state of Islam as a whole, or individual republics that whole Islam as it's law and order. It has recently (though, admittedly in the past, also) been used by a radical group of extremists to self-define their movement. This is not a word that's been rebrandished by the Islam community to mean "crazy folks that blow themselves up for virgins". It's a word that's being misused by extremists. To be frank, it'd be like implying a Baptist would picket a military funeral, because Westboro Baptist Church dominates their portrayal on the television.

Contrary to popular belief, perception is not reality. For example, perceiving me as a bad moderator for engaging in this conversation may be the perception of some members of the community, but it doesn't make it the truth.

That being said, I'm not trying to say you're wrong, per se, I just believe differently than you. I'd be more than happy to drop the subject whenever you want to.

You're an eloquent man and speak clearly and with wisdom. I like you, sir.

You've covered it pretty precisely - the meaning of Islamic State has been well established for centuries and hasn't waned in usage at all. The recent usage is, as you've stated, a bastardization of the term stolen by a group of extremists who intentionally misuse the term and, in larger part, citizens of American and European countries who don't really know any better (usually through no fault of their own).

san

While I appreciate your opinion GK, I have to disagree that IS is any different than the Colossus issue or any other hot button issue. Actually, I find the hammer and sickle less offensive, personally, being from a former communist/socialist state.

With all respect to you as a person and a moderator, I believe your views on this fellow's actions reflect some very naive ideas, albeit likely of noble intention. I have a theory which goes something like this - in an attempt to be as liberal as we possibly can, we become as conservative as an extremist. Although I am a firm believer of free speech, I think that going too far in that direction (or any other) is not only foolish, but also dangerous. One that sees themselves as an advocate of free speech to the degree where there is no censorship of anyone or any topic, allows the extremist/bigot/violent individual to spread hate and propaganda. From what you have talked about here, I believe that your views lean towards free speech, and with (as already mentioned) very good intention. However, I believe that by continuing to side with this sort of view, you and others inadvertently invite more and more of such testing of the limits of free speech, and ultimately extremist views (of all sorts).

I will bow out of this discussion at this point, as there is no need to give further attention to this sly, smart, and subversive form of trolling.

Good day, and good luck .

Arondite

san-mpq wrote:

While I appreciate your opinion GK, I have to disagree that IS is any different than the Colossus issue or any other hot button issue. Actually, I find the hammer and sickle less offensive, personally, being from a former communist/socialist state.

With all respect to you as a person and a moderator, I believe your views on this fellow's actions reflect some very naive ideas, albeit likely of noble intention. I have a theory which goes something like this - in an attempt to be as liberal as we possibly can, we become as conservative as an extremist. Although I am a firm believer of free speech, I think that going too far in that direction (or any other) is not only foolish, but also dangerous. One that sees themselves as an advocate of free speech to the degree where there is no censorship of anyone or any topic, allows the extremist/bigot/violent individual to spread hate and propaganda. From what you have talked about here, I believe that your views lean towards free speech, and with (as already mentioned) very good intention. However, I believe that by continuing to side with this sort of view, you and others inadvertently invite more and more of such testing of the limits of free speech, and ultimately extremist views (of all sorts).

I will bow out of this discussion at this point, as there is no need to give further attention to this sly, smart, and subversive form of trolling.

Good day, and good luck .

Now, I've played nice this whole time...but even I am left wondering what you might even be talking about.

I don't see how permitting free expression can limit free expression. I, further, haven't trolled even for an instant. The views I've expressed are not only reflective of my honest and true feelings on top of being objectively truthful.

GothicKratos

san-mpq wrote:

While I appreciate your opinion GK, I have to disagree that IS is any different than the Colossus issue or any other hot button issue. Actually, I find the hammer and sickle less offensive, personally, being from a former communist/socialist state.

I know you said you wanted to bow out of the conversation, but this actually really intrigues me. Why do you find ISIS/ISIL references more offensive than the Hammer and Sickle? I would assume because of the original symbolic meaning of the hammer standing for industrial workers and the sickle for the poor, and I've heard a few people use this as a reasoning that it wasn't always held in a negative light, that it was only held into a negative light because of people misusing that representation for their own gains. If you'd rather just drop me a message, feel free to do so, I completely understand not wanting to continue the conversation inside this thread.

san-mpq wrote:

With all respect to you as a person and a moderator, I believe your views on this fellow's actions reflect some very naive ideas, albeit likely of noble intention. I have a theory which goes something like this - in an attempt to be as liberal as we possibly can, we become as conservative as an extremist. Although I am a firm believer of free speech, I think that going too far in that direction (or any other) is not only foolish, but also dangerous. One that sees themselves as an advocate of free speech to the degree where there is no censorship of anyone or any topic, allows the extremist/bigot/violent individual to spread hate and propaganda. From what you have talked about here, I believe that your views lean towards free speech, and with (as already mentioned) very good intention. However, I believe that by continuing to side with this sort of view, you and others inadvertently invite more and more of such testing of the limits of free speech, and ultimately extremist views (of all sorts).

Again, I know you said you wanted to discontinue the conversation, but I just wanted to say that I absolutely agree. The more freedom you give any group of people, the more a group of outliers will push the envelope. It's been proven a million times over in human society. That being said, my stance on most things is pretty simple; if you're not interfering with another person's well being, whether it be directly or indirectly, nobody should have any right to judge or otherwise apply connotation their actions. I don't really care what you're doing as long as you're not a leech on society and/or contributing to society, and as mentioned prior, not impeding on another person's pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

That's basically why I stood a neutral ground until I knew what implication the OP was asking about, because any reference to ISIS/ISIL is not acceptable, in my opinion, just as a swastika or the hammer and sickle would inappropriate, not being they are inherently bad (because, as I'm sure you know, neither started with as the symbol of an evil cause), but because they hard heavily tied to negative connotations. ISIS/ISIL are terrorists. Plain and simple. No different than the Nazi Party, the Russian Soviet Party, the Korean Communist Party, or any other movement that maintains that subjugation and violence is the way to obtain peace.

I kind of got the idea that you thought I thought it was okay for OP to represent ISIS/ISIL in his username, so I just wanted to clarify. Have a good day, and may the luck of the Token be with you!

Unknown

GothicKratos wrote:

simonsez wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

An Islamic State is not the same thing as ISIS/ISIL

He didn't say an islamic state, he said THE islamic state. It's the same thing

THE Islamic State could be many things.

The Islamic State of Pakistan. The Islamic State of Iran. The Islamic State of Afghanistan.

Jumping to the conclusion that OP wants to change his username to praise a radical terrorist group, maybe not the best. Let's let him clarify.

Pakistan, Iran et al are generally referred to as Islamic republic of <.....> . They don't go by the moniker islamic state of <.....> even if they could be described as islamic states. You're being trolled by a troll.

It's a bit like saying that everyone describes the UK as the democratic state of UK... which they don't.

Arondite

bonfire01 wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

simonsez wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

An Islamic State is not the same thing as ISIS/ISIL

He didn't say an islamic state, he said THE islamic state. It's the same thing

THE Islamic State could be many things.

The Islamic State of Pakistan. The Islamic State of Iran. The Islamic State of Afghanistan.

Jumping to the conclusion that OP wants to change his username to praise a radical terrorist group, maybe not the best. Let's let him clarify.

Pakistan, Iran et al are generally referred to as Islamic republic of <.....> . They don't go by the moniker islamic state of <.....> even if they could be described as islamic states. You're being trolled by a troll.

It's a bit like saying that everyone describes the UK as the democratic state of UK... which they don't.

Actually, it's quite common. But again, that's not even the context I was using - the context I was using "Islamic State" is to refer to the entire body of the Islamic peoples worldwide. This is the most common usage of "Islamic State" in addition to being the easiest and most identifiable way to refer to the Islamic peoples.

mhorham

First of all let's not be develope mentally challenged. There is a difference between " a islamic state" and "the islamic state". One can refer to any political entity,such as iran or pakistan that has a theocracy in place espousing islam,while tbe other refers to the radical movement in the muslim religion that supports the establishment of a caliphate and is responsible for most if not all of the atrocities in the middle east. Let's stop dancing around and rationalizing and call a spade a spade

GothicKratos

Beating the dead horse of what OP 'really meant' is pointless. "The Islamic State" can and does refer to many things, including, but not limited to, entire countries and an entire body of people, as well as being used to impractically represent movements of crime and hatred (ISIS/ISIL, Al-Qaeda, et el).

@Arondite: A bit of advice from one user to another; in the future, try to be less "succinct" in your posts. Some of your statements come off as arrogant and/or brutish. Statements like "Stop crying" or other one sentence, boilerplate responses, come off, as I said, quite arrogant, and try to avoid replying to post simply with a snap back at a user, because all this will do is garner a reputation of being, like I said, brutish. Perception may not be reality, but it's still a very tangible thing. The further we get into this thread, the less I feel like I should have bothered to stick my neck out there.

Arondite

GothicKratos wrote:

Beating the dead horse of what OP 'really meant' is pointless. "The Islamic State" can and does refer to many things, including, but not limited to, entire countries and an entire body of people, as well as being used to impractically represent movements of crime and hatred (ISIS/ISIL, Al-Qaeda, et el).

@Arondite: A bit of advice from one user to another; in the future, try to be less "succinct" in your posts. Some of your statements come off as arrogant and/or brutish. Statements like "Stop crying" or other one sentence, boilerplate responses, come off, as I said, quite arrogant, and try to avoid replying to post simply with a snap back at a user, because all this will do is garner a reputation of being, like I said, brutish. Perception may not be reality, but it's still a very tangible thing. The further we get into this thread, the less I feel like I should have bothered to stick my neck out there.

I can come off as very arrogant when provoked. I'm a firm believer in second chances, but not at all in thirds or fourths.

When someone just doesn't know something, that's fine and I'm never angry or frustrated with them. When they don't know something, are given the appropriate information and would then rather sit and stew in their wrongness than to learn and grow... It's a very bitter thing to me.


EDIT -

I did mean to add, you've been nothing but a gentleman and a scholar and I do appreciate all of your input and your attempts to educate.