Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

Absolam

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

Perhaps becuase you're avoiding the idea thot because one person feels it has negative connotations, it doesn't mean another must agree?

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

Nope, no one said it doesn't matter that the term is generally used by people who are hostile (and we have only source for the notion that it isn't, and a number of sources for the notion that it isn't); that's a discussion about what people who are hostile are doing. What matters is how it is being used by the person using it; they're not responsible for how others (even others generally) may, or even do, use it. Expressing your view that it's 'cis-splaining' only says you're not looking at in the wider context of an exchange between any two people; why should the gender identity of those involved be used to define the limits of the discussion?

Otacon wrote: »

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

And then? Why should someone feel they gave offense just because someone else takes it?

Absolam

orubiru wrote: »

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.

That's up to you; it's certainly not up to anyone else to tell you what you must do. Or even should do.

orubiru wrote: »

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.

Which is fine. If you want to feel responsible and maybe even backtrack, when you find out that you may have caused someone to feel offended and/or uncomfortable that's up to you. It's certainly not up to someone else to tell you you are being contemptuous because you did it.

orubiru wrote: »

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

Well, it certainly does since Links234s outburst. At least on this thread, since a quick search shows it has never otherwise been referred to on A&A, and the only eyebrow raised to one of it's four mentions in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender was by... Links234 in 2011. It's been used four times in After Hours and once in the Gentlemens Club without claims of prejudice, so, shall we say an eyebrow so far? Which is still not to say it necessarily should raise eyebrows, and certainly not that people in general consider it's a pejorative term; if I google 'transgenderist' I can work my way through pages of results without seeing a negative connotation attached to the word.. Though I'm guessing this discussion has given it one to a few people for whom it would have passed without thought otherwise. I can't say that's a good thing, can you?

robdonn

recedite wrote: »

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

I think I used that reasoning once, I was 12 and trying to get out of cleaning my room...

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

Well, it certainly does since Links234s outburst. Which is not to say it necessarily should, or that people in general consider it's a pejorative term. Though I'm guessing this discussion has made it one to a few people for whom it would have passed without thought otherwise. I can't say I think that's a good thing.

That's called learning.

"Oh, I did not know that this word had a negative connotation towards some people. I shall be more more careful about how, when and if I use it in the future."

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

That's called learning.
"Oh, I did not know that this word had a negative connotation towards some people. I shall be more more careful about how, when and if I use it in the future."

You could also call it proselytism. I didn't used to believe, but now I've seen the light.....

JPNelsforearm

robdonn wrote: »

That's called learning.

"Oh, I did not know that this word had a negative connotation towards some people. I shall be more more careful about how, when and if I use it in the future."

Its called being a pussy, people always find things to complain about, and since the advent of the internet, its about finding ever more pointless things to whine about to give yourself validation, "oh no you used the wrong word", we aren't even talking about actual insults here, its literally a case of "the wrong word"(as dictated by the PC police).

PopePalpatine

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Its called being a pussy, people always find things to complain about, and since the advent of the internet, its about finding ever more pointless things to whine about to give yourself validation, "oh no you used the wrong word", we aren't even talking about actual insults here, its literally a case of "the wrong word"(as dictated by the PC police).

Like being asked to not be an asshole.

JPNelsforearm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Like being asked to not be an asshole.

Its a word, man up. Id rather be perceived as an asshole than kowtow to some pathetic mess getting upset and crying over a word. This PC stuff is a joke. Its childish.

It isnt even a word in this case, its a bloody suffix thats upsetting people, A SUFFIX! This is insanity.

recedite

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

its about finding ever more pointless things to whine about to give yourself validation, "oh no you used the wrong word", we aren't even talking about actual insults here, its literally a case of "the wrong word"(as dictated by the PC police).

And its not like there is nothing of significance to whine about.
Two muslim "refugees" attempted the ritual execution by stoning of two trangenderists in modern Germany, and they were only stopped because the police happened to be driving past at the right-moment.
But here on this thread I'm supposed to be the arch villian for using an "insensitive" word. There is no criticism at all for the muslims "expressing their cultural diversity". No discussion about the long term repercussions for the people living in that society, or the compromises they will have to make while living their daily lives from now on. Political correctness gone mad.

pH

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Its a word, man up. Id rather be perceived as an asshole than kowtow to some pathetic mess getting upset and crying over a word. This PC stuff is a joke. Its childish.

It isnt even a word in this case, its a bloody suffix thats upsetting people, A SUFFIX! This is insanity.

But never a complaint about the words misogynist, sexist or racist etc. Just imagine telling people they were being an asshole for using them, and they need to stop.

The hypocrisy of the word police is what amazes me - they want to be free to slur and slander all they want, but the slightest use of a word they don't like results in the hysterics we've seen in this thread!

Nodin

recedite wrote: »

And its not like there is nothing of significance to whine about.
Two muslim "refugees" attempted the ritual execution by stoning of two trangenderists in modern Germany, and they were only stopped because the police happened to be driving past at the right-moment.
But here on this thread I'm supposed to be the arch villian for using an "insensitive" word. There is no criticism at all for the muslims "expressing their cultural diversity". No discussion about the long term repercussions for the people living in that society, or the compromises they will have to make while living their daily lives from now on. Political correctness gone mad.

Is it possible to have a discussion on any subject without it being a segue to "the muslims..."?

Overheal

US Pastor loses his appeal and will now be tried for crimes against humanity for helping to draft law in Uganda that - initially - called for the execution of homosexuals. After worldwide outrage they softened it to life in prison.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/12/08/american-pastor-who-helped-uganda-create-kill-the-gays-law-will-be-tried-for-crimes-against-humanity/

The Randy Riverbeast

pH wrote: »

But never a complaint about the words misogynist, sexist or racist etc. Just imagine telling people they were being an asshole for using them, and they need to stop.

The hypocrisy of the word police is what amazes me - they want to be free to slur and slander all they want, but the slightest use of a word they don't like results in the hysterics we've seen in this thread!

You must have never read one of those refugee threads. Its full of more people whining about being called racist than people being called racist because they want to implement the PC thought police to suit them while complaining about PC.

PopePalpatine

Overheal wrote: »

US Pastor loses his appeal and will now be tried for crimes against humanity for helping to draft law in Uganda that - initially - called for the execution of homosexuals. After worldwide outrage they softened it to life in prison.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/12/08/american-pastor-who-helped-uganda-create-kill-the-gays-law-will-be-tried-for-crimes-against-humanity/

That article's from December 2014.

It looks like all he'll face will be a fine, and his trial is due to start some time in the first half of this year...and he'll be represented by the Liberty Counsel, who provided representation for Kim Davis. (Patheos)

pH

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

You must have never read one of those refugee threads. Its full of more people whining about being called racist than people being called racist because they want to implement the PC thought police to suit them while complaining about PC.

OK I'm confused about your point - so are those complaining about the use of the word "transgenderist" in this thread in the wrong, or are those throwing around the word "racist" (despite people asking that they're not called it) in these other threads in the wrong?

Links234

pH wrote: »

But never a complaint about the words misogynist, sexist or racist etc.

Aside from the fact that people on boards constantly fly into histrionics over exactly that, and there's even been plenty of infractions handed out for calling someone racist, or bigoted. But sexist, racist etc describes an attitude, belief, or practice, I'm sure you can understand what calling transgender people "transgenderists" therefor implies; that being trans is a belief or practice. You'd have to be really thick or wilfully ignorant not to get that. You would never refer to a straight person as a "straightist" because its taken that being straight is an intrinsic quality, something a person IS. That's what "transgenderist" implies; that being transgender is not something intrinsic, and that's what is so insidiously nasty about what the term implies.

Like, why do heterosexualists gotta be so obtuse?

Shrap

Links234 wrote: »

Like, why do heterosexualists gotta be so obtuse?

Ha....yes. I'm thinking we need another word to describe some of us here - obtusists. Not sure it will strike so close to the bone as the term "transgenderist" strikes to the heart of people who's very (personal) identity is a new "concept" to those of us who feel born into the right gender. And therein lies the problem. It is a concept to the majority. You have my empathy Links....

One eyed Jack

Shrap wrote: »

Ha....yes. I'm thinking we need another word to describe some of us here - obtusists. Not sure it will strike so close to the bone as the term "transgenderist" strikes to the heart of people who's very (personal) identity is a new "concept" to those of us who feel born into the right gender. And therein lies the problem. It is a concept to the majority. You have my empathy Links....

There's a term for that - cisgender.

I'm not sure why Links thought to mention heterosexuality, as that is a term that relates to sexual orientation and not to being transgender or transsexual, where the more appropriate term would be cissexual for those persons who are not transsexual.

Am I cis-splaining now?

Rhetorical question

pH

Overheal wrote: »

US Pastor loses his appeal and will now be tried for crimes against humanity for helping to draft law in Uganda that - initially - called for the execution of homosexuals. After worldwide outrage they softened it to life in prison.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/12/08/american-pastor-who-helped-uganda-create-kill-the-gays-law-will-be-tried-for-crimes-against-humanity/

I know that those posting in this thread don't like the truth to get in the way of a good story, but at far as I can tell there's a civil lawsuit against this man Lively - he's certainly not being tried for crimes against humanity in any normal senses of those words.

Secondly, again as far as I can tell he completely disassociated himself from the death penalty aspects of the Ugandan legislation, this man's views as presented to the Ugandans seemed to belong to the "treat the gay away" camp - and as unpleasant as they are, they pretty much represent Irish thinking up until 1993
- to some degree he's just as guilty as every Irish government member up until that time - in many ways he's far less guilty of anything as he had no real power in the situation - even people like Garrett Fitzgerald presided over a government that has laws in place that criminalised homosexuals.

Thirdly the whole thing seems incredibly racist, the very idea that three white guys who turn up for 2 days have this amazing power of persuasion over the Ugandan people and government seems to deny the Ugandans any agency in this themselves - if you really believe this to be true, surely sending 4 new white guys to run a conference on legalising homosexuality and gay marriage would solve the problem.

recedite

pH wrote: »

Thirdly the whole thing seems incredibly racist, the very idea that three white guys who turn up for 2 days have this amazing power of persuasion over the Ugandan people and government seems to deny the Ugandans any agency in this themselves .

Good point. Even the notion that a US court could convict somebody for being an adviser in the criminal justice system of another country seems incredibly high-handed to me. If they convict him, then they convict the whole Ugandan parliament and its legal system. In which case they are saying no country has a right to have its own laws if they differ from those of the US, or whatever it sees as an acceptable international norm.

For that reason alone I doubt anything will happen to the guy. But its still useful publicity for the curiously named SMUG (sexual minorities uganda) to publicly humiliate the guy while he is back home in the US.

During the Nuremburg trials the whole legal and political system of nazi Germany was indicted by US/British courts, but only after the nazi regime had been consigned to history, and the country placed under US/British martial law. So it seems to me that the US would first have to invade Uganda and set up a puppet regime, with new laws, in order to get adequate jurisdiction. Or else refer the matter to the ICC in The Hague, who would be unlikely to do anything.

oscarBravo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Excuse my French, but that's a load of bollox:

recedite wrote: »

Two muslim "refugees" attempted the ritual execution by stoning of two trangenderists in modern Germany...

So, now that it's clear that the word was used to refer to actual transgender people, and not to people who advance it as a political ideology (whatever the hell that means) - does it raise an eyebrow yet?

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

So, now that it's clear that the word was used to refer to actual transgender people, and not to people who advance it as a political ideology (whatever the hell that means) - does it raise an eyebrow yet?

Are you quite sure they weren't cross-dressing male gender biologically male heterosexuals? If not, maybe just use as broad a term as possible.

One eyed Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

Excuse my French, but that's a load of bollox:

It's really not though. There's as much politics involved in issues affecting people who identify as transgender and issues with regard to people who identify as transgender, as there is involved in issues affecting or regarding women. People are more familiar with the term feminism so it doesn't jar like the term transgenderism. If Links hadn't explained that some people use the term in a derogatory fashion, I would still have thought of it as a benign term. Now I know that depending upon context, it can be used as a derogatory term depending upon who uses it.

In that respect, it's no different to people using "feminist" as a derogatory term (I've often been called a feminist and I take great exception to that characterisation), or "politically correct" as a derogatory term (I looked up the history of the term "political correctness", it was originally used by the Left, as a derogatory term for the ideologies espoused by the Right!!).

So, now that it's clear that the word was used to refer to actual transgender people, and not to people who advance it as a political ideology (whatever the hell that means) - does it raise an eyebrow yet?

I still can't see how recedite intended to use the term in a derogatory way if they were unaware of how it could be perceived in a completely different context. Links took exception to the term being used because she is familiar with the term being used in a completely different context. I just don't see how recedite could be held accountable or responsible for someone else reading their post and interpreting it in exactly the opposite context based on recedite's use of one term of which he was unaware it could be used in a completely different context.

Links said she wasn't offended, recedite made it clear he meant no offence - where's the problem?

oscarBravo

Links said she didn't believe recedite has nothing against transgender people. On balance, that's a perspective for which I have a lot of sympathy.

One eyed Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

Links said she didn't believe recedite has nothing against transgender people. On balance, that's a perspective for which I have a lot of sympathy.

For sure, I think anyone who has experienced discrimination can sympathise with Links position, but not being familiar with a particular type of discrimination it's understandable why someone wouldn't be able to relate to a particular type of discrimination that someone else has experienced and is more attuned to, and so that person will perceive certain words used in a particular context without even attempting to understand how the person who used the word means it to be understood.

To give a more common example, one word which gets my back up is the use of the word 'retarded'. There was a spectacular irony during the discussions on marriage equality where people were arguing that "anyone who denies a section of society their rights is a retard". The word is a pejorative term for people with an intellectual or learning disability.

These people arguing for society to afford dignity to one group in society, were completely ignorant of the fact that the language they were using was an insult to another group in society. Most people would know that they were using the word 'retard' to refer to these people as idiots, but for some people, it has a far more barbed meaning.

For Links, understandably, the word 'transgenderist' has a far more barbed meaning that is bound to get her back up, but I don't think the use of the term was intentionally derogatory. Instead it meant that Links missed recedite's point, and it was a valid one IMO, that the ultra-liberal left now finds itself in a position where they need the far-right to protect them from the results of their own policies.

oscarBravo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

To give a more common example, one word which gets my back up is the use of the word 'retarded'. There was a spectacular irony during the discussions on marriage equality where people were arguing that "anyone who denies a section of society their rights is a retard". The word is a pejorative term for people with an intellectual or learning disability.

These people arguing for society to afford dignity to one group in society, were completely ignorant of the fact that the language they were using was an insult to another group in society. Most people would know that they were using the word 'retard' to refer to these people as idiots, but for some people, it has a far more barbed meaning.

And how would you feel about someone who, when they had this barbed meaning pointed out to them, replied by immediately misusing the word "retarded" again? Would you agree that, since no offence was intended, those people should feel free to continue to describe things they disagree with as "retarded"? If it continued to get your back up, would you feel that the fault lay with you?

For Links, understandably, the word 'transgenderist' has a far more barbed meaning that is bound to get her back up, but I don't think the use of the term was intentionally derogatory. Instead it meant that Links missed recedite's point, and it was a valid one IMO, that the ultra-liberal left now finds itself in a position where they need the far-right to protect them from the results of their own policies.

Firstly, the idea that society needs the far right is, frankly, derisory.* And secondly, Links didn't miss recedite's point; she disagreed with him, and I agree with her.


* I could have said "retarded" here. In the context of the post to which I was replying, that would have made me a gigantic arsehole. Maybe I'm just missing the point.

One eyed Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

And how would you feel about someone who, when they had this barbed meaning pointed out to them, replied by immediately misusing the word "retarded" again? Would you agree that, since no offence was intended, those people should feel free to continue to describe things they disagree with as "retarded"? If it continued to get your back up, would you feel that the fault lay with you?

I'd feel that I had made my point, but that they were entitled to continue to use the word if they want, how they want. I'm not one of these "free speech" advocates, but I think one has to pick one's battles.

Firstly, the idea that society needs the far right is, frankly, derisory.* And secondly, Links didn't miss recedite's point; she disagreed with him, and I agree with her.


* I could have said "retarded" here. In the context of the post to which I was replying, that would have made me a gigantic arsehole. Maybe I'm just missing the point.

I wouldn't have viewed you as a giant arse hole at all, because it would take a lot more than their use of language before I'd judge anyone so harshly.

The current social and political climate in Europe makes for some strange bedfellows alright, but if the people on the Left were any way smart, they would see the extreme right-wing as useful idiots.

The Black Oil

No, Dougal. You're forgetting I'm called Ted as well.

https://twitter.com/LibyaLiberty/status/694432218161242112

Igotadose

Hilarious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXS9IZnvzPI&feature=youtu.be

robdonn

https://twitter.com/TheNardvark/status/694968109040586754