Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

You are perfectly free to believe that a person with a penis should not be in a women's changing rooms. I disagree and can argue that point separately.

Don't bother mate.

You probably haven't got an exclusive definition for penis so it's pointless.

The very fact that my child knows the difference between a boy and a girl yet you don't is bizarre to me but **** it, we are going around in circles. Best of luck to you

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Do you mean "no means no" in sexual situations?

As for hate speech these things have legal definitions. A legal definition can be used in legal contexts. Take a look at any new piece of legislation. It's full of definitions. These definitions are only relevant for the purpose of law and not relevant to everyday speech or how people think.

Define sexual.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

No it was not an exclusive definition as for each element of the definition I have shown objects commonly called tables that did not fit the definition. If the definitions given were exclusive then those objects would not be tables.

It is true that the "gamete" definition you have exclusively defines a category.

What 'category' is that?

LLMMLL wrote: »

But that category is not what women are. It does not include trans women who are women. So you have not given an exclusive definition of women.

Hold on what? I haven't given an exclusive definition because it excludes? That makes no sense at all. Again, trans-women aren't women. You can't define what a women is because you know full well that biological males can't be women. You can't even adequately describe your 'conceptualisation' of women

LLMMLL wrote: »

You have given an exclusive definition of a category of idividuals who IN YOUR OPINION are women.

It is not 'MY OPINION'. I have sourced my definitions. They are not opinions. You seem to not understand that.

Here's oxford learners dictionaries definition of woman:

an adult female human

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/woman?q=woman

Here's dictionary.com:

an adult female person.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/woman

Here's miriam-webster:

an adult female person

LLMMLL wrote: »

I've answered the question about my conceptualization of women multiple times. It includes cis women and trans women. Asking me to define my conceptualization is just asking me to define women exclusively and my answer to that (which I have given multiple times) is I won't do that as I do not believe one exists.

Yes, you don't believe one exists. But I have just shown you above that one does. It doesn't include trans-women because they are not woman. You are simply in denial. It's akin to a flat Earther saying that pictures of the globular World don't exist. But, unfortunately for them, they do.

What do you mean by conceptualisation exactly anyway? Your answer still tells us nothing as to what a woman is, or what a female is. We are not mind readers.

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

You are perfectly free to believe that a person with a penis should not be in a women's changing rooms. I disagree and can argue that point separately.

What's your definition of a penis? Or conceptualisation if you must.

CtevenSrowder

Deleted User wrote: »

Define sexual.

"My conceptualisation of no is that it includes both a negative and a positive".

Gruffalux

In case anyone wonders where this tedious ahistorical amoral word play comes from where everything in the world apparently has a liminal half existence that eludes concrete definition, because there is no truth, no truth but that truth, then here...

"Deconstructionism
A term tied very closely to postmodernism, deconstructionism is a challenge to the attempt to establish any ultimate or secure meaning in a text. Basing itself in language analysis, it seeks to "deconstruct" the ideological biases (gender, racial, economic, political, cultural) and traditional assumptions that infect all histories, as well as philosophical and religious "truths." Deconstructionism is based on the premise that much of human history, in trying to understand, and then define, reality has led to various forms of domination - of nature, of people of color, of the poor, of homosexuals, etc. Like postmodernism, deconstructionism finds concrete experience more valid than abstract ideas and, therefore, refutes any attempts to produce a history, or a truth. In other words, the multiplicities and contingencies of human experience necessarily bring knowledge down to the local and specific level, and challenge the tendency to centralize power through the claims of an ultimate truth which must be accepted or obeyed by all."


And if anyone ever wants to hear someone dish the dirt on deconstructionism them Camille Paglia, famous scholar, lesbian and upholder of biological truth and reason against radical trans ideology, is available to watch on videos. She is as difficult to listen to as the snuffling Slavoj Zizek (who I dislike) because of her verbal tics and intellectual impatience, but the brilliant contempt she heaps about the sh1theap that is deconstructionism is worth it for as long as you can take her. Especially her contempt for Foucault, the disturbed, death obsessed man for whom the Marquis de Sade was a hero who did not go far enough.

Gruffalux

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Define sexual.

Haha we have crawled through that mire. It definitely has very little to do with genitals, I've been told. Its a kind of cerebral indefinite, even sexless, "thing".

CtevenSrowder

Gruffalox wrote: »

In case anyone wonders where this tedious ahistorical anoral word play comes from where everything in the world apparently has a liminal half existence that eludes concrete definition, because there is no truth, no truth but that truth, then here...

"Deconstructionism
A term tied very closely to postmodernism, deconstructionism is a challenge to the attempt to establish any ultimate or secure meaning in a text. Basing itself in language analysis, it seeks to "deconstruct" the ideological biases (gender, racial, economic, political, cultural) and traditional assumptions that infect all histories, as well as philosophical and religious "truths." Deconstructionism is based on the premise that much of human history, in trying to understand, and then define, reality has led to various forms of domination - of nature, of people of color, of the poor, of homosexuals, etc. Like postmodernism, deconstructionism finds concrete experience more valid than abstract ideas and, therefore, refutes any attempts to produce a history, or a truth. In other words, the multiplicities and contingencies of human experience necessarily bring knowledge down to the local and specific level, and challenge the tendency to centralize power through the claims of an ultimate truth which must be accepted or obeyed by all."


And if anyone ever wants to hear someone dish the dirt on deconstructionism them Camille Paglia, famous scolar, lesbian and upholder of biological truth and reason against radical trans ideology, is available to watch on videos. She is as difficult to listen to as the snuffling Slavoj Zizek (who I dislike) because of her verbal tics and intellectual impatience, but the brilliant contempt she heaps about the sh1theap that is deconstructionism is worth it for as long as you can take her. Especially her contempt for Foucault, the disturbed, death obsessed man for whom the Marquis de Sade was a hero who did not go far enough.

Our friend LLMMLL has admitted to be doing a degree that included Philosophy courses were the students were treated to trying to define a hammer. So their deconstructionist antics should come as not much of a surprise. As they recall

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm having a fantastic flashback to our lecturer trying to get us to define a hammer and the absolute fury of a bunch of first year physicists screaming "a hammer is a hammer, A HAMMER IS A HAMMER" as he picked apart their definitions. Bright young minds.

So clearly deconstructionism is alive and well in Irish Universities. Though thankfully, the philosophy element has now supposedly been removed from the curriculum due to the students hatred of it.

hetuzozaho

God just watched his Youtube video "Go F*** yourself, Google" from the other night. Yikes.
The man needs a holiday!

He really seems to spend a lot of time on platforms he hates It can't be good for you!

CtevenSrowder

Gruffalox wrote: »

Camille Paglia

"Heh, huh, hum, m'kay".

Bannasidhe

Gruffalox wrote: »

Haha we have crawled through that mire. It definitely has very little to do with genitals, I've been told. Its a kind of cerebral indefinite, even sexless, "thing".

You were never told that so stop with the hyperbole.
You were told that not everyone is as fixated on genitals as you seem to be and that celibate long term relations, incl marriage, can and do happen.
No one said, implied, intimated, suggested, posited, inferred, that this was the norm, majority, usual - it was merely said that sex is not everything - there are other factors in adult human attraction.
Ask Yeats - his attraction to Maude Gonne is considered one of the Great Irish Romances but never a sniff of sex did he get as Gonne wasn't interested regardless of Yeats possessing the 'correct' genitals.

Gruffalux

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

"Heh, huh, hum, m'kay".

Haha yes especially m'kay. Every 2 seconds. I do appreciate her though. She is a tough lady with a sound mind who is also called a transphobe so we are in good company.

Annasopra

Sittingpretty wrote: »

Out of interest are there any trans people on this thread?

Totally get if people would rather not sayowing to their privacy btw.

Why on earth would there be given the sheer level of hostility here.

CtevenSrowder

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Why on earth would there be given the sheer level of hostility here.

It's called debate. You wouldn't understand.

Gruffalux

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You were never told that so stop with the hyperbole.
You were told that not everyone is as fixated on genitals as you seem to be and that celibate long term relations, incl marriage, can and do happen.
No one said, implied, intimated, suggested, posited, inferred, that this was the norm, majority, usual - it was merely said that sex is not everything - there are other factors in adult human attraction.
Ask Yeats - his attraction to Maude Gonne is considered one of the Great Irish Romances but never a sniff of sex did he get as Gonne wasn't interested regardless of Yeats possessing the 'correct' genitals.

I always thought Yeats rather silly about Maud Gonne. He did have sex with her in Paris in middle age. Apparently it was not up to much. She rejected again his marriage proposal and he responded by promptly asking her daughter Iseult to marry him. She said no. I love his poetry but what a big wally.

Hand in Your Pants

Deconstruction as a tool to understand and create meaning around texts and ideas is an eminently useful discipline for Arts students. Same for postmodernism.

Whether some people have ideological issues with it is beside the point. You can't just remove important parts from the history of ideas that don't float your boat when preparing a student syllabus.

Sittingpretty

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Why on earth would there be given the sheer level of hostility here.

If you consider the debate in this thread to be hostile then you’ve led a sheltered debating life thus far

Bannasidhe

Gruffalox wrote: »

I always thought Yeats rather silly about Maud Gonne. He did have sex with her in Paris in middle age. Apparently it was not up to much. She rejected again his marriage proposal and he responded by promptly asking her daughter Iseult to marry him. She said no. I love his poetry but what a big wally.

She turned him down 3 times and Iseult told him to sling his hook too.
A wally with a willy tho - which wasn't enough for either Maud or Iseult to be attracted to him.

Bannasidhe

Sittingpretty wrote: »

If you consider the debate in this thread to be hostile then you’ve led a sheltered debating life thus far

A debate where someone used the term 'degenerates' and it got thanked is absolutely hostile.
Thankfully the mods nuked it. It still sat there for a while tho.

Gruffalux

Hand in Your Pants wrote: »

Deconstruction as a tool to understand and create meaning around texts and ideas is an eminently useful discipline for Arts students. Same for postmodernism.

Whether some people have ideological issues with it is beside the point. You can't just remove important parts from the history of ideas that don't float your boat.

The whole effing point is deconstructionism tries to remove EVERY idea prior to it in the history of ideas. It is nihilistic in the extreme and I can challenge it as much as I like as it is a syphilitic infection in modern thought. It is worth people knowing where this idea that nothing can be defined comes from. Grand for a dabble on your arts degree but fcuk that for a game of cowboys in real life.
You can like it but I do not.

Quantum Erasure

Hand in Your Pants wrote: »

Deconstruction as a tool to understand and create meaning around texts and ideas is an eminently useful discipline for Arts students. Same for postmodernism.

Whether some people have ideological issues with it is beside the point. You can't just remove important parts from the history of ideas that don't float your boat when preparing a student syllabus.

ah, i was too slow and didn't get in there before your edit...

"Like postmodernism, deconstructionism finds concrete experience more valid than abstract ideas and, therefore, refutes any attempts to produce a history, or a truth."

Gruffalux

Bannasidhe wrote: »

She turned him down 3 times and Iseult told him to sling his hook too.
A wally with a willy tho - which wasn't enough for either Maud or Iseult to be attracted to him.

Well who likes wallys?

Silentcorner

Gruffalox wrote: »

Well who likes wallys?

I find the less we know of the people who create art the better off we all are!!

Sittingpretty

Bannasidhe wrote: »

A debate where someone used the term 'degenerates' and it got thanked is absolutely hostile.
Thankfully the mods nuked it. It still sat there for a while tho.

I didn’t see that, nor do I agree with it and I doubt any of the other decent people contributing do either.
Hostility has certainly not been the overriding style of debate here.

Joeytheparrot

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Why on earth would there be given the sheer level of hostility here.

There's a fair few white people on the BLM thread and there is a ton of hostility against white people there. Mad isn't it? On a discussion forum? Who'd have thunk it?

It's always good to not rely on others to give what they imagine your opinion to be.

But thank God we have you Joey. You will always stick up for anyone as long as they believe in your narrative. A very unbiased mod who has no problem promoting or condoning the use of the word terf.

The world might be a little different outside of your jurisdiction where anything you don't like is worthy of a ban or played off as hate speech

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

What 'category' is that?

The category of individuals that fall within the definition.

Hold on what? I haven't given an exclusive definition because it excludes? That makes no sense at all. Again, trans-women aren't women. You can't define what a women is because you know full well that biological males can't be women. You can't even adequately describe your 'conceptualisation' of women

You have given an exclusive definition but not an exclusive definition of women.

FVP's definition of table was an exclusive definition. Any object with legs and a flat surface designed for eating etc. Is exclusively defined by that definition. However this exclusive definition of a group of objects does not describe all tables so is therefore not an exclusive definition of table.

It is not 'MY OPINION'. I have sourced my definitions. They are not opinions. You seem to not understand that.

Here's oxford learners dictionaries definition of woman:



https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/woman?q=woman

Here's dictionary.com:



https://www.dictionary.com/browse/woman

Here's miriam-webster:





Yes, you don't believe one exists. But I have just shown you above that one does. It doesn't include trans-women because they are not woman. You are simply in denial. It's akin to a flat Earther saying that pictures of the globular World don't exist. But, unfortunately for them, they do.

What do you mean by conceptualisation exactly anyway? Your answer still tells us nothing as to what a woman is, or what a female is. We are not mind readers.

Dictionary definitions do not exclusively define words. They attempt to describe how they are used. They are not designed for people to use in their political games of exclusion.

Linguistics has moved on from the quite silly pre 1950s notion that the role of the linguist is to specify the "rules" of language. Modern linguistics ATTEMPTS to capture and explain common patterns.

And it's a complete misunderstanding of my position to equate it with deconstructionism. But I'll get to that in my next post.

Quantum Erasure

Bannasidhe wrote: »

She turned him down 3 times and Iseult told him to sling his hook too.
A wally with a willy tho - which wasn't enough for either Maud or Iseult to be attracted to him.

so just because he had a dick she should have been attracted to him? is this some weird 'incel' logic...?

da_miser

https://imgur.com/a/9HPfREe

Why not debate him?
If he is wrong, show he is wrong.
If you are in the right you should have nothing to fear in debating the other side

CtevenSrowder

LLMMLL wrote: »

The category of individuals that fall within the definition.

Yes women. Adult human females i.e. not biological males.

LLMMLL wrote: »

You have given an exclusive definition but not an exclusive definition of women.

How is it not an exclusive definition of women?

LLMMLL wrote: »

FVP's definition of table was an exclusive definition. Any object with legs and a flat surface designed for eating etc. Is exclusively defined by that definition. However this exclusive definition of a group of objects does not describe all tables so is therefore not an exclusive definition of table.

The definition given of women does describe all women.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Dictionary definitions do not exclusively define words. They attempt to describe how they are used. They are not designed for people to use in their political games of exclusion.

Yes how they are used. And that is how people use the word. To specify adults, who are female. It only a tiny minority of ideologues who do not.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Linguistics has moved on from the quite silly pre 1950s notion that the role of the linguist is to specify the "rules" of language. Modern linguistics ATTEMPTS to capture and explain common patterns.

Irrelevant. You can call a trans-woman a woman all you want, but it is an incorrect description. Like calling something that is black, white.

LLMMLL wrote: »

And it's a complete misunderstanding of my position to equate it with deconstructionism. But I'll get to that in my next post.

This will be amazing I'm sure.

LLMMLL

Gruffalox wrote: »

In case anyone wonders where this tedious ahistorical amoral word play comes from where everything in the world apparently has a liminal half existence that eludes concrete definition, because there is no truth, no truth but that truth, then here...

"Deconstructionism
A term tied very closely to postmodernism, deconstructionism is a challenge to the attempt to establish any ultimate or secure meaning in a text. Basing itself in language analysis, it seeks to "deconstruct" the ideological biases (gender, racial, economic, political, cultural) and traditional assumptions that infect all histories, as well as philosophical and religious "truths." Deconstructionism is based on the premise that much of human history, in trying to understand, and then define, reality has led to various forms of domination - of nature, of people of color, of the poor, of homosexuals, etc. Like postmodernism, deconstructionism finds concrete experience more valid than abstract ideas and, therefore, refutes any attempts to produce a history, or a truth. In other words, the multiplicities and contingencies of human experience necessarily bring knowledge down to the local and specific level, and challenge the tendency to centralize power through the claims of an ultimate truth which must be accepted or obeyed by all."


And if anyone ever wants to hear someone dish the dirt on deconstructionism them Camille Paglia, famous scholar, lesbian and upholder of biological truth and reason against radical trans ideology, is available to watch on videos. She is as difficult to listen to as the snuffling Slavoj Zizek (who I dislike) because of her verbal tics and intellectual impatience, but the brilliant contempt she heaps about the sh1theap that is deconstructionism is worth it for as long as you can take her. Especially her contempt for Foucault, the disturbed, death obsessed man for whom the Marquis de Sade was a hero who did not go far enough.

Eh well I don't believe any of the above so.......

My position is based on a combination of science, psychology, philosophy, and linguistics.

I am discussing how we understand concepts and attach words to these concepts.

For example, no child learns what a table is from being provided a definition of table. They see objects with common patterns and derive mental representations (conceptualizations) of these objects. These mental representations get their names not from dictionary definitions but from other people referring to that object. The child has a mental representations of something and a parent (for example) points to it and says "table" and that's how a child understands table.

The only time a definition exactly matches a concept is when the concept is invented at the same time as someone defines it. Basically when a new item is invented or a new phenomenon is discovered. Even then the definition and conceptualization may shift once the general population starts to use the words.

Any word that is commonly used before science has a go at defining it will rarely if ever match the definition. There are always fuzzy boundaries and exceptions to the rule, as I have shown with tables.

This has absolutely nothing in common with deconstructionism. It's not that nothing can be defined. It's that very few things can be defined exclusively, and people should not use their pretend definitions to wage a political battle that will curb people's rights.