Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

recedite

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

What was she expecting? White hoods and swastika's lol.

She seemed a tad disappointed that there was nothing much to report.

recedite

Links234 wrote: »

While things are certainly getting better for gay people in general in the US, a lot of those far right anti gay types are turning their ire towards transgender people now...

Ain't nothing compared to what some transgenderists are having to put up with in Germany nowadays;

Dortmund, Germany: Last Sunday three North African Migrants attempted an execution by stoning after finding out that the two women they sexually harassed were actually men. Their honor was hurt, they grabbed nearby stones and attempted to execute them. They testified that "people like them" need to be stoned to death in accordance to Islamic law..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2yoZW6LSHY

Victims now too scared to go outside the house. Shocking stuff.

Its a strange paradox, but the ultra liberal element of western society needs the far right element, just to protect them from being destroyed by their own ultra liberal policies.

Links234

recedite wrote: »

Ain't nothing compared to what some transgenderists are having to put up with in Germany nowadays;

I had been wondering how long it would take for this story to turn up here, but not very long at all it seems. It's funny how right wing types are all of a sudden feigning concern for transgender people, though in your case the contempt is barely concealed at all:

transgenderists

....yeah

So, this concern for trans people from the right wing, where was it when it was revealed that the number of murders of trans people was at an all time high in the US in 2015? Where was the concern when Vicky Thompson was sent to an all-male prison in the UK, and was subsequently found dead? Where was the outrage when Islan Nettles was beaten to death? Where's the concern for the spate of killings of transgender women in Argentia, where one prominent trans activist was murdered in her own home, and another who's dismembered body was discovered in landfill and was so badly burned, could only be identified by DNA? Where was the concern over Jennifer Laude's murder at the hands of a US marine? Where was this concern when Levan Kochlashvili was acquitted of the murder of Sabi Beriani, whom he stabbed to death then set her on fire. Where's the concern over transgender Americans being 4 times as likely to live in poverty?

Oh yeah, it didn't exist! They were much too busy throwing insults at trans people and regurgitating those inane attack helicopter memes. Oh but now (presumed) Muslims attacked transgender women, they can shove their disgust and animosity aside for a moment and swarm at the opportunity like the despicable vultures they are.

At least in this instance there's a good outcome, those responsible have been arrested thankfully. Tamara Dominguez wasn't so lucky, she was ran over multiple times until she was dead in a Missouri parking lot. What a horrific way to die. Her killer is still unknown. As if anyone would believe for a second this newfound concern is genuine, opportunistic sh*tes who want to use this incident drum up more hatred can bite me, everyone knows they'll go back to calling trans people mentally ill degenerates as soon as the moment's passed.

Pherekydes

Links234 wrote: »

So, this concern for trans people from the right wing...

But we need the far right element!

Hey, would you prefer to be stoned by Muslims or have your head kicked in by Russian skinheads?

Links234

Pherekydes wrote: »

But we need the far right element!

Hey, would you prefer to be stoned by Muslims or have your head kicked in by Russian skinheads?

Eh, eh... Can I phone a friend Chris?

The Randy Riverbeast

The people most concerned about LGBT and womens rights all of a sudden often tend to be the very same people who are always complaining about the feminazis and gaystapo weeks ago.

Their views on these groups tend to be closer to the immigrants they say need to be kept out, so much for the PC thought police.

Links234

You forgot about the homeless, sure the right were so very, very concerned about homeless people when refugees were fleeing Syria. What did they do for the homeless? Sure they went and solved the problem didn't they! Oh wait, no, they didn't do spit.

Nodin

Links234 wrote: »

You forgot about the homeless, sure the right were so very, very concerned about homeless people when refugees were fleeing Syria. What did they do for the homeless? Sure they went and solved the problem didn't they! Oh wait, no, they didn't do spit.

Personally speaking, if I was a gay trans homeless person and saw the same people trying to help me I'd become a refugee myself.

recedite

Links234 wrote: »

Where was the concern when ...

Whataboutery.

BTW I have no animosity towards transgenderists, nor do I support the far right. I am merely pointing out that sometimes liberals, left to their own devices, would allow themselves to be destroyed.

Churchill was too right wing to be quoted nowadays, yet there was a time when people thought he was needed.
Fight fire with fire, as they say.

PopePalpatine

recedite wrote: »

Whataboutery.

BTW I have no animosity towards transgenderists, nor do I support the far right. I am merely pointing out that sometimes liberals, left to their own devices, would allow themselves to be destroyed.

Churchill was too right wing to be quoted nowadays, yet there was a time when people thought he was needed.
Fight fire with fire, as they say.

You were the one who said that LGBT individuals and the left needed the far-right to protect them from homophobic/transphobic immigrants (and "from themselves"), if that's the case, the far-right's love of attacking the LGBT community can't simply be dismissed as whataboutery.

Links234

recedite wrote: »

BTW I have no animosity towards transgenderists

QED

Absolam

Links234 wrote: »

QED

What... 'if you don't adopt our preferred nomenclature you're against us'? That seems a tad fascist....

I hardly think transgenderist carries sufficient (if any) connotation to pigeon hole a user of the word as someone hostile to transgender/ist people.

robindch

The Donald welcomes onboard a very special person:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkKl-7Z1dg8

Nodin

robindch wrote: »

The Donald welcomes onboard a very special person:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkKl-7Z1dg8

I'm mostly glad that Mr Trump has forgone his usual habit of mocking the afflicted in this instance.

Links234

Absolam wrote: »

What... 'if you don't adopt our preferred nomenclature you're against us'? That seems a tad fascist....

I hardly think transgenderist carries sufficient (if any) connotation to pigeon hole a user of the word as someone hostile to transgender/ist people.

Perhaps you're unaware of any connotations it carries, but it's something I've only ever seen used by people who, how shall I put it? Really, really don't like people like me. Much in the same way that when someone speaks of "The homosexual lobby" they don't have anything particularly nice to say about gay people in general, the connotations are perfectly clear and it is far from a neutral term. After all, you'd never hear someone say in conversation "Oh my brother is part of the homosexual lobby" in lieu of "my brother is gay" would you? It's very coded language, it seeks to speak about gay people as if they were not people but rather an organization/institution, it's language that is used to depersonalize and dehumanize the people the subject is talking about. So rather than speaking about gay people's sexuality as if it were an intrinsic part of themselves, it's being spoken about as if it were an adherence to something; this "lobby" as it were.

Likewise, refering to transgender people as an 'ist' is depersonalizing and dehumanizing in much the same way. We use that suffix to describe something a person does, or something a person believes or practices. We say things capitalist, communist, in this context it denotes a belief or political ethos, or we use it to describe what a person does, a hobbyist, guitarist, physicist. It's coded language that speaks about transgender people as if they were not people, but as being a practice or belief. Another comparison that might be apt is that it's like refering to a gay person as someone who a "practitioner of homosexuality", that's the sort of connotation "transgenderist" has, you might not be aware of it or have not encountered the term before, but I have and I see the venom behind it.

feargale

Nodin wrote: »

I'm mostly glad that Mr Trump has forgone his usual habit of mocking the afflicted in this instance.

I suppose she will be in the running for Secretary of State then. After all, in that job you need someone who knows where Russia is.

robindch

Dave Schilling muses on the raw shock of a Palin-Trump linkup:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/20/sarah-palin-donald-trump-endorsement-speech-quotes

recedite

Links234 wrote: »

Perhaps you're unaware of any connotations it carries...... but I have and I see the venom behind it.

An eloquent speech, but I think you are falling into the same trap that most people fall into; that is of assuming that other people are either for or against you when they are not. As in any sphere of life, the vast majority of people are neither for nor against you. They are more interested in their own issues. But in your particular case, you will easily recognise the people who are genuinely against you, because they advocate actual physical violence eg stoning.
I am advocate for a society in which transgenderists feel completely free and at ease to express themselves, without being afraid to show themselves in public for fear of a culture clash.

Nodin

recedite wrote: »

An eloquent speech, but I think you are falling into the same trap that most people fall into; that is of assuming that other people are either for or against you when they are not. As in any sphere of life, the vast majority of people are neither for nor against you. They are more interested in their own issues. But in your particular case, you will easily recognise the people who are genuinely against you, because they advocate actual physical violence eg stoning.
I am advocate for a society in which transgenderists feel completely free and at ease to express themselves, without being afraid to show themselves in public for fear of a culture clash.

...people like the far right. Who nobody needs.

Absolam

Links234 wrote: »

Perhaps you're unaware of any connotations it carries, but it's something I've only ever seen used by people who, how shall I put it? Really, really don't like people like me. <..> Another comparison that might be apt is that it's like refering to a gay person as someone who a "practitioner of homosexuality", that's the sort of connotation "transgenderist" has, you might not be aware of it or have not encountered the term before, but I have and I see the venom behind it.

Well.. definition-of doesn't add any negative connotation.
Nor does changelingaspects,
Or wiktionary
Or Susans Place
So it seems not uncommon to use it as a neutral term. I think it's more reasonable to say you took offence where none was offered.

Samaris

Absolam wrote: »

Well.. definition-of doesn't add any negative connotation.
Nor does changelingaspects,
Or wiktionary
Or Susans Place
So it seems not uncommon to use it as a neutral term. I think it's more reasonable to say you took offence where none was offered.

It's a relatively new term for a relatively new issue. Given someone who does appear to be transgender themselves have raised an issue with that particular term and the connotations that they've experienced with that word, would it really be so hard to say "transgender people" or something like that instead?

I dunno, who's being more affected by it? It seems to me that it takes less effort to adopt a more neutral term when it is requested and explained than to argue that the person should shut up.

Having said that, Links did jump on it a bit harshly where offence was presumably not intended, so that does tend to raise defensive hackles.

JPNelsforearm

Samaris wrote: »

It's a relatively new term for a relatively new issue. Given someone who does appear to be transgender themselves have raised an issue with that particular term and the connotations that they've experienced with that word, would it really be so hard to say "transgender people" or something like that instead?

I dunno, who's being more affected by it? It seems to me that it takes less effort to adopt a more neutral term when it is requested and explained than to argue that the person should shut up.

Having said that, Links did jump on it a bit harshly where offence was presumably not intended, so that does tend to raise defensive hackles.

The problem with that is you get into the ever spiraling definition game, see Black being changed to "African Americans", to the recent "people of colour", (which seems awfully close to the segregation era "coloureds" descriptor imo). So long as no malice is meant, no harm no foul. Its language policing with no logic behind it, it stems from some lunatic fringe of academia, lets not get into this whole craic of taking offense at terms, content and intent is what counts.

Samaris

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

The problem with that is you get into the ever spiraling definition game, see Black being changed to "African Americans", to the recent "people of colour", (which seems awfully close to the segregation era "coloureds" descriptor imo). So long as no malice is meant, no harm no foul. Its language policing with no logic behind it, it stems from some lunatic fringe of academia, lets not get into this whole craic of taking offense at terms, content and intent is what counts.

Content and intent does count, yep, but if you're speaking to someone and they request you not use the term you're using for them (not a general sense, Links actually said it from a personal point of view), it's just basic courtesy to comply rather than insist on using said term when you know it's hurtful to the person you're addressing.

That isn't something that really should be argued under "this is a free country and I'll use what terms I like" sorta thing, it's just common respect and manners, really.

Edit, help me, boards...: If a black person asked that I stop referring to them as African-American, on the grounds that they'd never seen Africa, wouldn't know Kenya from Nigeria and it's also implying that they're not true Americans, so please just call them black, or, y'know, American, I would.

JPNelsforearm

Double Post@MOD

JPNelsforearm

I just find the whole thing a tad overwrought and hysterical. Ive worked and played rugby in England. My English work colleagues couldnt pronounce my name. Should I have cared? Made a big show of correcting them,
? and continued correcting them?. I laughed and slagged their inability to pronounce and then got in with my work, let a few of them stumble over/mispronounce my name for the best part of two years lol.
The lads I played rugby with called me Paddy/Irish, (some with more than a hint of condescension perhaps). Its a only a name/term, there is more to life than berating/correcting people over things like that. Unless you have some John Hagee type gunning for you and exhorting the masses against you, using a term as an epithet, it all seems a bit silly.

Samaris

Still, if someone you're speaking to is actually bothered, isn't it more courteous to accede to their wishes when speaking to them? Your story is a wholly different situation, unless you're suggesting that the person can't spell or pronounce "transgender" :P

looksee

Yes, you can accede to their request, when it has been given, but Links did rather jump in complaining about something that most people wouldn't have a clue about. I had never heard the term transgenderist, thus it did not have any negative connotations to me. It did to Links, but maybe she could have just said so, rather than getting offended immediately.

I find it increasingly difficult to remember all this stuff that I am supposed to avoid, I certainly can't remember all the CIS stuff. We had a big debate in the Accessibility & Mobility and whatever the other word is about whether we should be saying 'disabled' or one of several other possibilities, I don't intend any of the possible words in an offensive way but i can't remember which I am supposed to use, language has changed in the last 50 years or so. Why is 'Traveller' better than 'Itinerant' or 'Tinker' - at least the last term has the background of a useful trade and tradition behind it. What will the the next PC word?

looksee

duplicate

Samaris

looksee wrote: »

Yes, you can accede to their request, when it has been given, but Links did rather jump in complaining about something that most people wouldn't have a clue about. I had never heard the term transgenderist, thus it did not have any negative connotations to me. It did to Links, but maybe she could have just said so, rather than getting offended immediately.

Yeah, I commented on that too, and one tends to get a better response from explaining the issue immediately rather than assuming that it was done from malice rather than ignorance of there even being an issue. Although really, it's a rather silly word. Can anyone off the top of their heads give a reason why to use it rather than "transgender" anyway?

looksee wrote: »

I find it increasingly difficult to remember all this stuff that I am supposed to avoid, I certainly can't remember all the CIS stuff. We had a big debate in the Accessibility & Mobility and whatever the other word is about whether we should be saying 'disabled' or one of several other possibilities, I don't intend any of the possible words in an offensive way but i can't remember which I am supposed to use, language has changed in the last 50 years or so. Why is 'Traveller' better than 'Itinerant' or 'Tinker' - at least the last term has the background of a useful trade and tradition behind it. What will the the next PC word?

Well, yeah, but all that is part of a wider debate rather than this one. In general, I'd just go by the rule that if someone is specifically asking me not to use a term about them when speaking to them personally, I won't use it.

If you're talking -about-, then I figure use the most neutral term.

If you're speaking -to-, then use whatever you're requested to use (within reason).

If you're being spoken to, probably best to assume that unless the speaker is being deliberately aggressive, they're probably not intending insult.

In this case, Links requested (albeit a bit rudely at the start) not to use the term "transgenderist", whatever the hell it's supposed to mean, so...eh, I don't see the issue with not using it.

Shrap

Samaris wrote: »

Can anyone off the top of their heads give a reason why to use it rather than "transgender" anyway?

Yes, I can quite easily use it, and very much in the way links is alerting us to, ie. "The transgenderists are lobbying for the bathroom rules to be changed to suit them"

Not too hard to think of an example that shows the for or against any relevant issue by use of a particular word, even if they haven't done it yet. I get what links is saying. Any tribe who use "ists" is generally against the relevant movement, ie. abortionists.

However.....not throwing the baby out with the bathwater (no pun intended) is an aspiration that should maybe be used more wisely.