Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

Absolam

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

If it's objectively offensive, it's not just offensive to transgender people.
If it's only offensive to transgender people, it's subjectively offensive.

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

Sure; see above.

Regardless, knowing that it is not recedites intent to offend Links234, I'm more than a little appalled that recedite is the one expected to modify his behaviour, rather than Links234 modify her reaction to what was shown to be an innocent comment.

MrPudding

Absolam wrote: »

Regardless, knowing that it is not recedites intent to offend Links234, I'm more than a little appalled that recedite is the one expected to modify his behaviour, rather than Links234 modify his reaction to what was shown to be an innocent comment.

Just to clarify. If I decide to use the N word in conversations with black people, but I had no intent to cause offence, that is ok and any n******s that take offence should cop themselves on...? Is that right? After all, I don't mean to cause offense and it would be appalling if I was expected to modify my behaviour.

MrP

Otacon

Absolam wrote: »

I'm more than a little appalled...

Are you subjectively or objectively appalled?

Links234

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 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.

And yet I flat out said I wasn't offended, but...

Absolam wrote: »

As I said, Links234 took offence

How curious.

Now, I will point out, again, that I never said that anything Recedite said was offensive. That's not something I ever say in a discussion, it's simply not useful, it imparts nothing to the other people you're engaging with, and more often clouds the conversation. You should also note that when I pointed out the use of the term "transgenderist" it was in the context of Recedite saying they have no animosity towards trans people, the point I was making was I don't believe you. I didn't request that anyone modify their behaviour, I highlighted something that made me doubt their sincerity.

But it's a kind of derail tactic on your part. Claiming the other party is 'offended' is often used to to discard the entirity of what they're saying, you paint them as overly emotional, not seeing things clearly, or even enraged. That in and of itself is a fallacy, as a person could be angered by something and have a good argument. By continually hammering on that you believe I took offense, you're dismissing everything that I am saying, you're not engaging with me beyond claiming I'm offended. It's like a more long-winded, wordy "Lol, u mad?"

robdonn wrote: »

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.

Whenever I hear people rabble about "political correctness" I think to Neil Gaiman's salient words.

Absolam wrote: »

Regardless, knowing that it is not recedites intent to offend Links234, I'm more than a little appalled that recedite is the one expected to modify his behaviour, rather than Links234 modify his reaction to what was shown to be an innocent comment.

Her reaction.

robdonn

Links234 wrote: »

Her reaction.

Treating other people with respect gone mad!

Links234

Also, as a follow on to some of the points other people are making, it's not that the term "transgenderist" is offensive, it's that in context, it can impart something about the person using it and what they think of trans people. In the same sense, when someone says "homosexualist" it can usually tell you something...

The deep hostility of the homosexualist movement
Alabama Education Official Warns Of 'Homosexualist' Common Core Takeover

I think that if someone said "Homosexualist" most people might raise their eyebrows and wonder. Likewise, I can't help but think that someone consistently using the term "Transgenderist" while at the same time regurgitating anti-transgender talking points might not be sincere when they say they have no animosity towards, ahem... transgenderists. I mean:

recedite wrote: »

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.

Flamboyance? Really? I've watched the video where the two women were speaking, and there's no way anyone could reasonably call them flamboyant. Unless you're saying that transgender people, well, transgender women in particular, are inherently flamboyant? Because that reeks of a very nasty judgment call, the kind of thing that people sometimes say to dismiss anti-gay attacks, oh the victim was probably flamboyant, etc. It sounds like you're giving a backhanded insult to the victims here. It seems to me like there's a real streak of nastiness towards trans people in your posts. I'm sure I just imagined it though and you of course didn't mean any animosity and others might show up to tell me how wrong and offended they think I am. Probably.

Because of course, you didn't mean anything aggressive by it.

robdonn

Links234 wrote: »

Because of course, you didn't mean anything aggressive by it.

Links234

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

Here's something interesting, Data: 62% of the people Donald Trump RTed this week follow multiple White Supremacist accounts. Because nothing says ordinary "common sense" punters like #whitegenocide.

recedite

robdonn wrote: »

.. you're a dick for saying it.

Objectively offensive.

MrPudding wrote: »

Just to clarify. If I decide to use the N word..

Objectively offensive.

Links234 wrote: »

Now, I will point out, again, that I never said that anything Recedite said was offensive.

Not objectively offensive.

recedite

Links234 wrote: »

..when I pointed out the use of the term "transgenderist" it was in the context of Recedite saying they have no animosity towards trans people, the point I was making was I don't believe you. I didn't request that anyone modify their behaviour, I highlighted something that made me doubt their sincerity.

If it helps, I'll mention that I used to go to showings of the Rocky Horror Show in Harolds X cinema before it closed, including on one occasion in drag. Afterwards in the pub next door I was able to experience at first hand the hostile stares and comments from some people. I only did that once, just for the craic, but it is instructive to walk a little way in someone else's shoes. And even now I still think its a great movie. If everyone saw it at a young age there would be less hostility around the issue.

MrPudding

recedite wrote: »

Objectively offensive.

Why is the N word objectively offensive? It doesn't offend me.

MrP

JPNelsforearm

I think the most insane thing about this is not divine providence Ted Cruz blah blah blah, its that Glen Beck has built himself a replica ****ing Oval office...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiuhCh-tzWU

Absolam

MrPudding wrote: »

Just to clarify. If I decide to use the N word in conversations with black people, but I had no intent to cause offence, that is ok and any n******s that take offence should cop themselves on...? Is that right? After all, I don't mean to cause offense and it would be appalling if I was expected to modify my behaviour. MrP

Is it possible that you could be aware of the existence of the N word and not also be aware of it's primarily negative usage? If so, then sure, I'll support you using it in a conversation with black people with no intent to cause offence. After all, it's readily evident that there are people who use it in conversations with black people with no intent to cause offence (and who cause no offence doing so).

Absolam

Otacon wrote: »

Are you subjectively or objectively appalled?

I would have said subjectively, unless it is apparent to independent observers and assessors of the state of appal that I am appalled, in which case I may also be objectively appalled.

Absolam

Links234 wrote: »

And yet I flat out said I wasn't offended, but...

My apologies then; you assumed recedite was demonstrating contempt towards transgender(ist) people, and such contempt was demonstrated by his use of the term transgenderist, despite his clear that statement that he has no animosity towards transgenderists. You said refering to transgender people as an 'ist' is depersonalizing and dehumanizing. If you don't think you were taking offence, fair enough. Shall we say you felt recedite was being contemptuous when he wasn't instead?

Links234 wrote: »

Now, I will point out, again, that I never said that anything Recedite said was offensive. That's not something I ever say in a discussion, it's simply not useful, it imparts nothing to the other people you're engaging with, and more often clouds the conversation. You should also note that when I pointed out the use of the term "transgenderist" it was in the context of Recedite saying they have no animosity towards trans people, the point I was making was I don't believe you.

Actually, you highlighted recedites use of the term transgenderist to illustrate what you felt was his barely concealed contempt; when you referred to recedites statement that he had no animosity towards transgenderists, it was to say that his use of the word demonstrated his animosity. Maybe you weren't taking offence, but you sure weren't trying to find out if he was offering it.

Links234 wrote: »

I didn't request that anyone modify their behaviour, I highlighted something that made me doubt their sincerity.

I don't disagree; it was Samaris that suggested a preferred alternative should be used. Though I can't really say claiming the use of the word alone demonstrates animosity towards transgender people isn't an indication that you would prefer recedite to use another word, can you?

Links234 wrote: »

But it's a kind of derail tactic on your part. Claiming the other party is 'offended' is often used to to discard the entirity of what they're saying, you paint them as overly emotional, not seeing things clearly, or even enraged. That in and of itself is a fallacy, as a person could be angered by something and have a good argument. By continually hammering on that you believe I took offense, you're dismissing everything that I am saying, you're not engaging with me beyond claiming I'm offended. It's like a more long-winded, wordy "Lol, u mad?"

Not really; I have no investment in any of the terms anyone wants to use, and don't really care for the arguments for or against them. My issue is with attacking people for what they are perceived to believe, rather than engaging with them about what they actually believe (especially in a discussion forum).

Links234 wrote: »

Her reaction.

As you say; I've amended my post accordingly.

oscarBravo

Absolam wrote: »

Is it possible that you could be aware of the existence of the N word and not also be aware of it's primarily negative usage? If so, then sure, I'll support you using it in a conversation with black people with no intent to cause offence.

...after the negative connotations have been pointed out?

Absolam

oscarBravo wrote: »

...after the negative connotations have been pointed out?

Sure; if we can presume that after using the word, and the subsequent claim that you're contemptuous of certain people by virtue of using that word, that you've had a look at how the word is used and it appears in your opinion not to necessarily denote such contempt, then yes, I'll continue supporting you using it in a conversation with black people with no intent to cause offence.

One eyed Jack

"The Cotton Ceiling" is a concept I would consider an appropriate demonstration of transgenderist politics -


…"The cotton ceiling is a theory proposed by trans porn star and activist Drew DeVeaux to explain the experiences queer trans women have with simultaneous social inclusion and sexual exclusion within the broader queer women’s communities. Basically, it means that cis queer women will be friends with us and talk day and night about trans rights and ending transmisogyny, but will still not consider us viable sexual partners.

The term cotton ceiling is a reference to the “glass ceiling” that second wave feminist identified in the workforce, wherein women could only advance so high in the workforce but could not break through into positions of power and authority. The cotton represents underwear, signifying sex.“…
(Email exchange found here – warning transphobia)


Article here: http://www.insufferableintolerance.com/unpacking-terf-arguments-nothing-conspiracy-theorist-bunkum/

Email exchange here: https://factcheckme.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/the-cotton-ceiling-really/

I'm not sure if it's half-baked right-wing or half-baked left-wing or can those terms even apply any more!!

Absolam

I'm not sure thinking some people don't want to sleep with you for whatever reason is really 'politics'? I'd say it's more an example of how some transgender women (or transgenderists) may still find it difficult to have the life they want after transitioning because of other peoples preferences.

oscarBravo

Absolam wrote: »

Sure; if we can presume that after using the word, and the subsequent claim that you're contemptuous of certain people by virtue of using that word, that you've had a look at how the word is used and it appears in your opinion not to necessarily denote such contempt, then yes, I'll continue supporting you using it in a conversation with black people with no intent to cause offence.

I see. Basically it boils down to an insistence on using a term that's not in common use, particularly by the people to whom it refers, one of whom has pointed out negative connotations, on the grounds that...

...what, exactly? Why would someone continue to use a word under such circumstances? What's the emotional attachment to the term that requires its continued use despite the potential downsides?

Absolam

oscarBravo wrote: »

I see. Basically it boils down to an insistence on using a term that's not in common use, particularly by the people to whom it refers, one of whom has pointed out negative connotations, on the grounds that...
...what, exactly? Why would someone continue to use a word under such circumstances? What's the emotional attachment to the term that requires its continued use despite the potential downsides?

Not really. Basically if it boils down to if someone uses a word they believe is offensive with the intent of causing offense, they've set out their stall and can take their lumps. If they use a word they don't feel is offensive with no intent to cause offense, they've no reason to feel responsible for any offense someone else may take.

oscarBravo

Absolam wrote: »

Not really. Basically if it boils down to if someone uses a word they believe is offensive with the intent of causing offense, they've set out their stall and can take their lumps. If they use a word they don't feel is offensive with no intent to cause offense, they've no reason to feel responsible for any offense someone else may take.

Well, no. That's completely fair right up to the point where they have the negative connotations pointed out to them. Continuing to use the word beyond that point is the part that puzzles me.

What puzzles me more is the... I dunno, is "cis-splaining" a word? that accompanies it. You know, the whole "I don't care what you as a transgenderist (sic) take from my use of the term; I don't mean anything hostile by it, therefore it doesn't matter that the term is generally used by people who are hostile" vibe.

Otacon

Absolam wrote: »

Not really. Basically if it boils down to if someone uses a word they believe is offensive with the intent of causing offense, they've set out their stall and can take their lumps. If they use a word they don't feel is offensive with no intent to cause offense, they've no reason to feel responsible for any offense someone else may take.

...up until they find out that the word does cause offense.

Links234

oscarBravo wrote: »

I dunno, is "cis-splaining" a word?

Yes, it's definitely something I've heard a few times, but it's kinda obnoxious, so not something I'd tend to use. It does kinda get the sentiment across, the sort of arrogant "Speaking as someone who isn't transgender and doesn't face issues that trans people face, let me dictate to you about those issues because I know better" which is going on here. It's really, really patronizing and down-talky, and well, yeah just lets go with "cis-splaining" because it's concise and I honestly just couldn't be bothered arguing further over terminology, it's rather exhausting. I think I've gotten my point across to most folks clearly, and anything further would just be spinning my wheels.

orubiru

Absolam wrote: »

Not really. Basically if it boils down to if someone uses a word they believe is offensive with the intent of causing offense, they've set out their stall and can take their lumps. If they use a word they don't feel is offensive with no intent to cause offense, they've no reason to feel responsible for any offense someone else may take.

That doesn't really make any sense.

I could have a really great joke that I like to tell at social gatherings and 99% of the time it could end with uproarious laughter and a standing ovation.

One night, I tell the joke and it really upsets someone at the party.

I'm still going to feel responsible for that. I'm still going to feel guilty. I'm definitely going to apologize and try to explain in a polite, gentle and reasonable fashion.

What I am probably not going to do is say "f you buddy, it's just a joke and everyone usually laughs so you can take your offense an stick it..." No. This is not reasonable behavior.

Now, if someone was giving out to me because they took offense to my wearing a blue shirt or because I butchered the pronunciation of the Japanese dish we had for dinner then I might tell them to kindly go away.

Still, it's perfectly reasonable to feel responsible, and maybe even backtrack, when you find out that you may have caused someone to feel offended and/or uncomfortable.

Are you trying to tell me that the use of the phrase "Transgenderist" doesn't raise an eyebrow here?

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

What's the emotional attachment to the term that requires its continued use despite the potential downsides?

Maybe its an attachment to freedom? A refusal to be cow-towed by the herd mentality?

orubiru wrote: »

One night, I tell the joke and it really upsets someone at the party.
I'm still going to feel responsible for that. I'm still going to feel guilty. I'm definitely going to apologize and try to explain in a polite, gentle and reasonable fashion....

I take it you're not actually a comedian then. Or even into comedy.
Because if you were, you'd know that 90% of most comedian's material is offensive to somebody, somewhere. If they stopped using it because of that, would the world would be a better place? Would it be more liberal, or less liberal? That is the dilemma of liberalism. Sometimes you have to risk being labelled as un-PC in order to defend liberalism itself.

Otacon

recedite wrote: »

Maybe its an attachment to freedom?

Everybody is free to use said words/phrases but in doing so, they give up the 'I don't mean to offend' excuse.

orubiru

recedite wrote: »

I take it you're not actually a comedian then. Or even into comedy.
Because if you were, you'd know that 90% of most comedian's material is offensive to somebody, somewhere. If they stopped using it because of that, would the world would be a better place? Would it be more liberal, or less liberal? That is the dilemma of liberalism. Sometimes you have to risk being labelled as un-PC in order to defend liberalism itself.

Plenty of comedians, and other public figures, apologize for jokes or comments all the time and will often accept that maybe they've gone a bit too far.

This isn't a comedy club though and my example was just about some dude making a joke at a party. If a movie or a comedy performance is offensive then, fine, the offended people can just leave or not show up in the first place.

Here though? I don't think anyone here is saying you ought to keep your opinions to yourself or to be less liberal. Just pointing out that there are connotations that come with using that specific phrase. I think this was pointed out in a perfectly understandable and rational way.

The phrase "Transgenderist" elicits the same kind of eye-roll from me as phrases like "The Abortionists" or "Homosexual Lobbyists" or whatever.

Using "transgenderist" certainly raises an eyebrow and it does so for the, pretty valid, reasons that have already been pointed out and so I'm not convinced that "sure, I'm just going to go ahead and use it anyway" is an appropriate response. It seems incredibly rude, actually.

Nodin

orubiru wrote: »

The phrase "Transgenderist" elicits the same kind of eye-roll from me as phrases like "The Abortionists" or "Homosexual Lobbyists" or whatever.

Using "transgenderist" certainly raises an eyebrow and it does so for the, pretty valid, reasons that have already been pointed out and so I'm not convinced that "sure, I'm just going to go ahead and use it anyway" is an appropriate response. It seems incredibly rude, actually.

Homosexualist*, that's another one.

*seen it in "Alive" in reference to Colm O'Gorman.

One eyed Jack

orubiru wrote: »

Using "transgenderist" certainly raises an eyebrow and it does so for the, pretty valid, reasons that have already been pointed out and so I'm not convinced that "sure, I'm just going to go ahead and use it anyway" is an appropriate response. It seems incredibly rude, actually.

The reason that transgenderist didn't raise an eyebrow for me is because I read it in the same context as if the word feminist was used - a political ideology that seeks to promote the rights and welfare of people who identify as transgender. Do we all agree with feminism? Of course not. Do we all agree with transgenderism? Of course not. That's why I pointed out the concept of "The Cotton Ceiling", because it demonstrates where feminist and transgenderist ideologies are at loggerheads with each other.

Criticism of feminism is no more a criticism of women than criticism of transgenderism is a criticism of people who identify as transgender. I am no more prejudiced against women than I am against people who identify as transgender. I simply do not agree with some of the transgenderist ideology in the same way as I do not agree with some of the feminist ideology. It doesn't mean I have anything against women or people who identify as transgender.