Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

looksee

Activist, environmentalist, violinist, artist, botanist, abolitionist, agriculturalist, biologist, atheist, Buddhist, etc.

Shrap

looksee wrote: »

Activist, environmentalist, violinist, artist, botanist, abolitionist, agriculturalist, biologist, atheist, Buddhist, etc.

Point taken


*damn artists; always wanting their own interpretation.....pah!*

looksee

recedite

Shrap wrote: »

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..

Well, as the bathroom issue is what got us onto the subject originally, then your example is very apt. Supposing the rest of society accepted that transsexuals could and should use the bathroom of their newly acquired gender. That still does not mean the same majority would be happy with the transgenderists choosing one day to use the men's, and the next day to use the women's.
The suffix "ist" does not denote an opposition to something, it denotes more particular path or philosophy, and a certain element of choice is inherent in that.

One eyed Jack

Samaris wrote: »

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

Because it can be used in the same context as feminists or masculinists - people who align themselves with a particular social or political ideology or philosophy.

One doesn't have to be transgender to be a transgenderist, they may simply support rights for people who identify as transgender. One doesn't have to be a woman to be a feminist, and one doesn't have to be a man to be a masculinist.

The people with disabilities/people who are disabled/differently enabled, etc, is a fcuking minefield that usually as Samaris says I'll take my cues from the person themselves. Without those clues, I'll usually use what's called "people first" language (it's a bit long winded, but usually the people I'm talking to aren't so focussed on political correctness and identity politics as they are focused on the person).

When it comes to black people, I'll refer to them as black people when I need to (because the opposite to Samaris' point - any of my friends who are black have never visited America (they're mostly from Northern and West African countries), so calling them African-Americans would sound a bit... odd.


"People First" language, Wikipedia

recedite

One eyed Jack wrote: »

..any of my friends who are black have never visited America (they're mostly from Northern and West African countries), so calling them African-Americans would sound a bit... odd.

African-Americans is only for North America it seems.
The equivalent here would be African-Irish... in theory. But I don't think anyone uses it, or would want to.
I've heard the term "The New Irish" being used, but that could mean anything really. You''ll hear it being used for kids who were born in Ireland but don't "look" Irish, as if its some sort of honour being bestowed on them, to consider them Irish. But that says more about the preconceptions of the person using the term, than about the person being referred to.
Yep, the whole thing is a minefield.

Absolam

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.

Personally I've no investment in whatever form of the word is used, so I'm going to do what I think Links should have done instead of leaping to take offense.


Recedite, are you deliberately using the term 'transgenderist' as an aggressive term, or do you feel there is an unbiased reason for using it rather than, say, 'transgender person'?

pH

It's hilarious that this very thread title calls certain people "half-baked" and "fruitcakes", there's plenty much worse in actual posts, yet posters here are getting worked up by "transgenderist" like it's the new N-word.

Even if it's a pejorative, it seems "It's OK for me, but not for thee" once again, and before some really special snowflake wants to wave rule 837 "Oh our insults and harassment are different because they insult things people have chosen" or some such inane drivel - no need, I've heard it before.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Recedite, are you deliberately using the term 'transgenderist' as an aggressive term

No.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

No.

There we are then. Problem solved.

PopePalpatine

So...Donald Trump retweeted a neo-Nazi.

robindch

Trump boasts that he could murder somebody and none of his voters would care:

https://vine.co/v/iiBTWtmM7dW

Custardpi

As much as one can find reasons to dislike Trump you have to hand it to him for his honesty in this instance for calling it as it is. He's at least recognising as everyone else is that for a political candidate, particularly one ultimately aiming for such a high office to repeatedly out himself as a gigantic arsehole, be excoriated by commentators right, left & centre & still come up smelling of roses is the most bizarre phenomenon that has been seen in decades.
Other politicians, to explain their popularity would have spouted some bs about the "real America" seeing their inner goodness as a devoted family man or whatever but Trump just lays the total wtfery of it out there. One has to ask, just how dysfunctional & devoid of trust & faith has the American political system become that Trump has become the preferred candidate for so many (not that many - Clinton/Sanders will still win) people there?

PopePalpatine

Ted Cruz: "I'm a Christian first, American second." You couldn't imagine a member of a different religion (or none at all) feeling so self-entitled as to paraphrase Cruz.

recedite

Cruz is now trying to trump Trump by being even more Trumpy than the man himself. But he's doing it all wrong.

Interesting contrast with what Enda Kenny judged would go down well on this side of the pond;

I am proud to stand here as a public representative, as a Taoiseach who happens to be a Catholic but not a Catholic Taoiseach. A Taoiseach for all of the people, that's my job.

Here's a working link to the Trump " street murder" quote BTW.

recedite

Nutty right wing crusaders attempt the "reconquista" of a Luton high street.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cd8_1453579640

In the same town; right wing fanatics tell a woman wearing a red dress to "put on some clothes".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgKMI1wV0ps&feature=youtu.be

JPNelsforearm

recedite wrote: »

Nutty right wing crusaders attempt the "reconquista" of a Luton high street.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cd8_1453579640

I think it says more about muslims in Luton and innate ghettoisation by ethnicity/religion then it does about anything else tbh. Pretty much the future of Europe. Would say, the Iona institute(or other group) get the same response if they marched through a town, looking to make "Ireland christian" or something?

Shrap

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

I think it says more about muslims in Luton and innate ghettoisation by ethnicity/religion then it does about anything else tbh. Pretty much the future of Europe. Would say, the Iona institute(or other group) get the same response if they marched through a town, looking to make "Ireland christian" or something?

Only if they similarly looked like the EDL on steroids and went to deliberately provoke an area not well known for it's Catholicism. The Village in Belfast, for example.

So no. I disagree it says more about Muslims in Luton.

Nodin

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

I think it says more about muslims in Luton and innate ghettoisation by ethnicity/religion then it does about anything else tbh. Pretty much the future of Europe. ?

.....well no suprises there then. Personally I think the muslims of luton deserve credit, because had the EDL tried that cack with nationalists or loyalists up the north they'd never be seen again.

orubiru

Custardpi wrote: »

As much as one can find reasons to dislike Trump you have to hand it to him for his honesty in this instance for calling it as it is. He's at least recognising as everyone else is that for a political candidate, particularly one ultimately aiming for such a high office to repeatedly out himself as a gigantic arsehole, be excoriated by commentators right, left & centre & still come up smelling of roses is the most bizarre phenomenon that has been seen in decades.
Other politicians, to explain their popularity would have spouted some bs about the "real America" seeing their inner goodness as a devoted family man or whatever but Trump just lays the total wtfery of it out there. One has to ask, just how dysfunctional & devoid of trust & faith has the American political system become that Trump has become the preferred candidate for so many (not that many - Clinton/Sanders will still win) people there?

Sometimes I wonder if that's the whole point.

Does he really have a genuine ambition to become president? Does he really have any expectation that he will win?

He seems to be making a mockery of the entire system and a lot of people are not responding well at all. Too many people are happy to give themselves a public pat on the back on Facebook and Twitter for being "Anti-Trump" instead of thinking about how and why he has become so popular.

There's a lot of time devoted to obsessively ranting about how bad Trump is. I'm sure, for a lot of people, a vote for Trump is nothing more than a "f*ck you" to a society that they feel is letting them down. Maybe someone should look into that?

recedite

orubiru wrote: »

Does he really have a genuine ambition to become president? Does he really have any expectation that he will win?

Is he not consistently ahead in the polls for the republican nomination?
After that, he still has to beat the democrat. But whoever is in the opposition party usually has an advantage, because people like to vote for change.

Just because he is ridiculed in the European media doesn't mean he can't win.
Its a bit like Putin in Russia. The people who actually put their ballot in the box don't give a crap about what our media have been saying.

Nodin

orubiru wrote: »

Sometimes I wonder if that's the whole point.

Does he really have a genuine ambition to become president? Does he really have any expectation that he will win?

He seems to be making a mockery of the entire system and a lot of people are not responding well at all. Too many people are happy to give themselves a public pat on the back on Facebook and Twitter for being "Anti-Trump" instead of thinking about how and why he has become so popular.

There's a lot of time devoted to obsessively ranting about how bad Trump is. I'm sure, for a lot of people, a vote for Trump is nothing more than a "f*ck you" to a society that they feel is letting them down. Maybe someone should look into that?

It's a well known phenomena that in America, its one thing to be racist but quite another to admit it. I suspect a lot of people in the US may still harbour racist prejudices and, whatever they might say to a pollster, might indeed vote for him. That being said I personally can't imagine it would be a majority.

Links234

Apologies for not replying sooner, but with boards being, well, at this point it's boards being boards, it's been impossible to even use the site.

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.

There's this rather worrying fallacy that assumes that someone's not really bigoted against someone else unless they fall into an extreme, eg; someone's not really a racist unless they're a member of the KKK or similar. We saw this kind of argument rear it's ugly head during the whole 'Pantigate' debate, it was one of Iona's talking heads who said something about how homophobe should be used to describe someone who goes around beating up gay people. It was an astonishingly arrogant thing to claim, a notoriously anti-LGBT organization that campaigned against marriage equality every step of the way, spread anti-LGBT propaganda and claim that gay people are a danger to children, will destroy marriage/society, etc... But aren't homophobic because they are not literally punching 'the quares' in the face!

Physical violence is not a good metric to measure whether someone is against you or not. The US evangelicals who are exporting their hate to Uganda and other countries don't explicitly advocate violence, but they're certainly preaching that gay people are a danger to society, prey on children, and are engendering a society that feels homosexuality must be expunged. Likewise the laws against "promoting homosexuality" in Russia, it's fostering a culture of homophobia where people are emboldened to attack LGBT people.

Hatred against transgender people is cultivated exactly the same way. These sorts of proposed laws that are targetting trans people with fines or arrest for going to the toilet is not something innocent or innocuous that nobody should care about because somewhere else, people got stones thrown at them. Did you know that trans people have a much higher rate of urinary tract infections and kidney infections? That's not to do with any medication, but because quite often we hold it rather than go to the toilet due to anxiety and fear. Trans people face harassment and assault, even sexual assault, in public toilets; we are the ones at risk. I've suffered from a kidney infection before for precisely this reason, there have been times when I have felt so anxious I held it in until I got home, or held it until I could make it across town to that one place I've gone to before and I know is safe. Now imagine the threat of a fine on top of that, and how that would impact on our lives?

But it's worse than that, such a law doesn't just make trans people's lives harder in that aspect. Hatred is cultivated by claiming trans people are a threat, there's more than enough far-right Christian propaganda out there that we are perverts and rapists who'll prey on women and children. This kind of legislature codifies into law that trans people represent a threat, that we represent some sort of danger, why else would there be laws against us doing something as mundane as using the loo? And if this ramped up rhetoric and push for criminalizing trans people and stripping them of their rights from the Christian right after they've pretty much lost on marriage equality results in the increased deaths of trans people like the record number of murders in the US in 2015? Well, they can just wash their hands of that, because after all, they're not literally throwing stones at the transgenderists now, are they?

But it's the religious demagogues, far-right politicians and the like who are stoking the flames, hatemongering, creating a culture where transgender people are seen as threats to be expunged, they are enabling those who would commit acts of violence. They are, so to speak, handing out stones to throw and saying these perverts and degenerates are your enemy. Some of those right wingers might genuinely not want to see violence towards trans people, but still want there not to be trans people any more and so want to make life harder for people like me that we just choose not to be trans any more, as if it were something we could or even would choose in the first place. But they contribute to the culture of hatred against trans people none the less, it's still driven by bigotry.

So yes, I know when people are against people me as you put it, and it isn't just people throwing stones, it's the ones trying to enact discriminatory laws, it's the ones calling us mentally ill, the ones regurgitating 'bathroom predator' scaremongering.

Speaking of...

recedite wrote: »

In the event that somebody say of male anatomy decided to use the ladies toilets, simply because they were a pervert, but claiming to be transgender, it could cause upset to other people.

Oh dear.

You see, it's stuff like this that makes me think you might not quite like people like me. I'm not jumping on your back over use of terminology that is usually only used by people who really, really don't like trans people, it's that too, but coupled with other things you've said that I've interpreted as red flags. I mean, you did seem to be defending legislation that specifically targetted trans people, you know?

And then, you kinda just dismissed concern over that proposed discriminatory law and the far right in the US by pointing to the incident in Dortmund, and saying that trans people have it much worse in Germany and how they need the right wing. But then, when confronted with the fact that things are indeed much, much worse for trans people in the US, you call that whataboutery? Like, seriously? It takes some serious ignorance to claim trans people have it worse in Germany, but to be that dismissive over what trans people face in the US, that came across pretty damn callous; like you only just cared enough about the two women in Dortmund to use them as a derail tactic. I probably just misread the situation though. Possibly.

But you say you 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. And you said you totally don't say "transgenderist" with any negative context, in spite of the connotations it has. So yeah, I'm sure I just took you up all wrong. Probably. Possibly.

Just... one more thing.

You know when you say how we need the right? You know that the stuff the right-wing espouses, even just the law restricting bathroom rights under penalty of a fine, is fundamentally opposed to transgender people being completely free and, well, being able to live their lives without being afraid? Yeah, about that. You see, the right wing is pretty much fighting against basic human rights for trans people all the time, things like getting kicked out of accommodation for being trans, or getting fired for being trans, or being refused service for being trans, things like that are perfectly legal in a lot of states. So like, you still think we need the right?

And what exactly do you mean when you say "Transgenderist"?

Absolam wrote: »

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.

Thanks for those cherries, including the one from, wow, 1996! A fine vintage indeed. But no, you're wrong, and the only thing your sources show is that they're out of date, nothing more. Yes, in the past it seems to be used in a kind of odd alternative term, sometimes referring to someone who might be transgender but doesn't want to transition? It's early, formative language. But not in recent years. It's come into it's own as a snarl word these days. I run into the term on various social media, forums, blogs, or comments on articles related to trans issues and it is very often a term that denotes a very serious ire, sometimes it's a confused usage that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but most often it's stuff like this:

https://twitter.com/AdversAerialOne/status/622667105331204096

It gets used not just in a pejorative sense, but in a downright venomous way; "Transgenderist agenda" or "transgenderist ideology" or "transgenderist cult" and so on. More often than not, it is coded hate, a snarl word to use against trans people, dehumanzing language like I articulated earlier. It's something that once I hear, I instantly raise an eyebrow, I'm suspicious about the person using it. I didn't get offended, didn't even ask anyone not to use it, but I got suspicious. But hey, I'm sure Recidite didn't mean anything by it. Probably. Possibly. It's not like he's regurgitating bathroom predator memes that are usually used to scaremonger against trans people. Or posting guff about how "transgenderists" will flip-flop around between mens and womens toilets depending on the day. Wait...

recedite wrote: »

That still does not mean the same majority would be happy with the transgenderists choosing one day to use the men's, and the next day to use the women's.

Yeah. Suspicious.

Absolam

Links234 wrote: »

Thanks for those cherries, including the one from, wow, 1996! A fine vintage indeed. But no, you're wrong, and the only thing your sources show is that they're out of date, nothing more. Yes, in the past it seems to be used in a kind of odd alternative term, sometimes referring to someone who might be transgender but doesn't want to transition? It's early, formative language. But not in recent years. It's come into it's own as a snarl word these days. I run into the term on various social media, forums, blogs, or comments on articles related to trans issues and it is very often a term that denotes a very serious ire, sometimes it's a confused usage that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but most often it's stuff like this: It gets used not just in a pejorative sense, but in a downright venomous way; "Transgenderist agenda" or "transgenderist ideology" or "transgenderist cult" and so on. More often than not, it is coded hate, a snarl word to use against trans people, dehumanzing language like I articulated earlier. It's something that once I hear, I instantly raise an eyebrow, I'm suspicious about the person using it. I didn't get offended, didn't even ask anyone not to use it, but I got suspicious. But hey, I'm sure Recidite didn't mean anything by it. Probably. Possibly. It's not like he's regurgitating bathroom predator memes that are usually used to scaremonger against trans people. Or posting guff about how "transgenderists" will flip-flop around between mens and womens toilets depending on the day. Wait...

Well, as it turns out, I was right. Recedite, like those sources I quoted, wasn't using the term in an aggressive fashion; he flat out said so. And if he had wanted it to be aggressive, he certainly wasn't going to pretend he didn't after the fact, was he?
So as I said, you took offence where none was offered.

oscarBravo

Absolam wrote: »

Well, as it turns out, I was right. Recedite, like those sources I quoted, wasn't using the term in an aggressive fashion; he flat out said so.

And yet, having been told that the term was offensive, he ostentatiously used it again immediately.

Absolam

oscarBravo wrote: »

And yet, having been told that the term was offensive, he ostentatiously used it again immediately.

Actually, he was told why Links234 found it offensive, not that there was any objective reason for it to be offensive (and patently there is no objective reason for it to be offensive). As I said, Links234 took offence; Recedite didn't offer it. As Recedite himself said.

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

And yet, having been told that the term was offensive, he ostentatiously used it again immediately.

You can choose to be offended by the word, or by my "ostentatiousness" if you want. Similarly the muslim migrants who tried to stone the trangenderists to death in 21st century Europe chose to be offended by the flamboyance of their victims.

But by obsessing over the minutae, you only confirm my original point; that when left in charge, ultra liberalism allows the destruction of liberalism. It becomes obsessed with political correctness, while being too tolerant of intolerance.

Donald trump shows complete disdain for this kind of political correctness. So, according to the theories of the ultra-liberals, that makes him "a joke" and "totally unelectable". But maybe those theories are wrong. Maybe his supporters are not just a bunch of racists, maybe they are in fact the ordinary "common sense" punters.

oscarBravo

Absolam wrote: »

Actually, he was told why Links234 found it offensive, not that there was any objective reason for it to be offensive (and patently there is no objective reason for it to be offensive).

Clearly you are in a much better position to know what's objectively offensive to transgender people than a transgender person is.

Is there anything else you'd like to explain to Links234 about what's objectively true about transgender people?

robdonn

recedite wrote: »

But by obsessing over the minutae, you only confirm my original point; that when left in charge, ultra liberalism allows the destruction of liberalism. It becomes obsessed with political correctness, while being too tolerant of intolerance.

Donald trump shows complete disdain for this kind of political correctness. So, according to the theories of the ultra-liberals, that makes him "a joke" and "totally unelectable". But maybe those theories are wrong. Maybe his supporters are not just a bunch of racists, maybe they are in fact the ordinary "common sense" punters.

I'm getting so tired of the term "political correctness" being thrown around like it's something that is being forced on you in every moment of your life.

Political correctness = Don't be a dick.

I think we all accept that we all have the right to offend and be offended, but why would you want to offend? When someone says that you can't say something they are not actually holding you down and forcing you to keep quiet, they are simply saying that you're a dick for saying it.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

You can choose to be offended by the word...

I'm not choosing to be offended by the word. You used the word - I thought it was an awkward and unusual construction, but didn't think much more of it - and then had it pointed out to you by a person to whom you applied the word that it was more generally used as an offensive term than as a descriptive one. In reply to that post, you used it again.

Now, if I used a term in conversation with someone, and they pointed out that the term was generally considered by people like them to be offensive, I have a couple of options: I can accept that they probably know better than me what's going on in their world, and not use the term again; or I can immediately use it again. I don't think it's unreasonable, if I choose the latter course of action, to conclude that I'm consciously choosing to cause offence.

Donald trump shows complete disdain for this kind of political correctness. So, according to the theories of the ultra-liberals, that makes him "a joke" and "totally unelectable". But maybe those theories are wrong. Maybe his supporters are not just a bunch of racists, maybe they are in fact the ordinary "common sense" punters.

Here's a radical thought: when Donald Trump says something overtly racist or sexist, and his supporters cheer him on: maybe his supporters are racist and/or sexist. Occam's Razor, innit.