Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
President Trump President Trump

08-04-2017 , 04:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
@Tilted, No but saying they are a man is effectively denying they are transgender.
I still disagree.

transgender:
denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender does not correspond with their birth sex.


Saying a man whose sense of personal identity is that they are a woman is not in fact a woman does not deny how they feel about it.
08-04-2017 , 05:21 PM
We are going to disagree on this but I'm not prohibiting the conversation because I'm insisting I am right and you are wrong. In many ways I'd rather we had the debate but so far can see no way of doing that while preventing it becoming highly objectionable.

Making the effort to avoid offense to transgender people while discussing it was the other option.
08-04-2017 , 06:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiggyMac
Where does it stop though? If someone wants to say they're Napoleon and we deny that they are Napoleon no one is denying that they believe they're Napoleon?

What about anorexics? Just because they believe they're not damaging their health doesn't make it true.

I think I agree with Jordan Peterson here - denying that there is an issue impedes those who need help in dealing with their issues. They seem to be working against their own interests.
Maybe they dont want your "help" and don't think they have the issues you give them.
08-04-2017 , 06:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltedDonkey
I still disagree with this take. wil's posts do not deny the existence of transgender people; in fact, they explicitly acknowledge their existence in a number of places.

Saying a male-to-female transgender is not a woman is not equivalent to saying that they are not transgender.



This might be more suited for the mod thread, but I thought the PC thing was over. It's pretty obvious that posts calling something or someone "******ed" do not violate site-wide rules.

The problem with the PC rule, which I was very critical of, is it was incredibly unclear. This is not unclear however, just the opposite.


Quote:
2. The forum welcomes discussion of a wide variety of topics (current events, political issues, societal issues, philosophical issues, etc.). However, posts espousing the following viewpoints are not allowed in this forum:

white supremacy
homophobia
pro-pedophilia
misogyny
racism
bigotry towards minorities or religious groups
islamophobia
anti-semitism
hate speech
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/21...rules-1670588/


You cannot express bigotry. This includes referring to black people as ******s, referring to Jewish people as *****, and referring to transgender women as dudes in dresses, or "women" wink wink.
08-04-2017 , 06:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
We are going to disagree on this but I'm not prohibiting the conversation because I'm insisting I am right and you are wrong. In many ways I'd rather we had the debate but so far can see no way of doing that while preventing it becoming highly objectionable.

Making the effort to avoid offense to transgender people while discussing it was the other option.
Saying a view is highly objectionable pretty much implies it is wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AllCowsEatGrass
The problem with the PC rule, which I was very critical of, is it was incredibly unclear. This is not unclear however, just the opposite.



http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/21...rules-1670588/


You cannot express bigotry. This includes referring to black people as ******s, referring to Jewish people as *****, and referring to transgender women as dudes in dresses, or "women" wink wink.
One of these things is not like the others.
08-04-2017 , 06:52 PM
While we're at it, there's really no such thing as Islamophobia or Homophobia either.

Is someone running around going "Ack, I irrationally fear gay people!"?

I mean, should we also condemn Hinduphobia and Christianphobia as well?
08-04-2017 , 06:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiggyMac
While we're at it, there's really no such thing as Islamophobia or Homophobia either.

Is someone running around going "Ack, I irrationally fear gay people!"?

I mean, should we also condemn Hinduphobia and Christianphobia as well?
Suffix[edit]
-phobia
1. Used to form nouns meaning fear of a specific thing.
2. Used to form nouns meaning hate, dislike, contempt, or repression of a specific thing.


idiot
08-04-2017 , 06:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltedDonkey
Suffix[edit]
-phobia
1. Used to form nouns meaning fear of a specific thing.
2. Used to form nouns meaning hate, dislike, contempt, or repression of a specific thing.


idiot
-phobia
combining form
suffix: -phobia
extreme or irrational fear or dislike of a specified thing or group.

****ing moron.

Just because your biases want to change definitions doesn't mean we all have to buy into your collectivist bull****.

If you don't like lobster, do you have Crustaceanphobia?
08-04-2017 , 07:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiggyMac
-phobia
combining form
suffix: -phobia
extreme or irrational fear or dislike of a specified thing or group.

****ing moron.

Just because your biases want to change definitions doesn't mean we all have to buy into your collectivist bull****.

If you don't like lobster, do you have Crustaceanphobia?
The **** are you talking about? People have been using -phobia in that way for a long ****ing time man, I'm not changing the definition of anything.

Does every multiple definition word piss you off?
08-04-2017 , 07:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltedDonkey
The **** are you talking about? People have been using -phobia in that way for a long ****ing time man, I'm not changing the definition of anything.

Does every multiple definition word piss you off?
By your logic:

If you dislike lobster, do you have Crustaceanphobia?
08-04-2017 , 07:12 PM
Ok, so we can't call them "women", but can we call them women?

How about women?
08-04-2017 , 07:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiggyMac
-phobia
combining form
suffix: -phobia
extreme or irrational fear or dislike of a specified thing or group.

****ing moron.

Just because your biases want to change definitions doesn't mean we all have to buy into your collectivist bull****.

If you don't like lobster, do you have Crustaceanphobia?


JiggyBias minding the English language. Dictionary arguing sucks.
08-04-2017 , 07:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiggyMac
By your logic:

If you dislike lobster, do you have Crustaceanphobia?

If you made a point to disparage lobsters when they came up in conversation for no particular reason, probably.
08-04-2017 , 07:17 PM
Bottom-dwelling angle-shooters turning to definitions and technicalities in an attempt to preserve their ability to communicate bigotry.
08-04-2017 , 07:21 PM
JiggyMac how do you feel about the word "run"?

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/run?s=t
08-04-2017 , 07:22 PM
**** those *********** who think run means "to depart quickly; take to flight; flee or escape". The only true definition is "to go quickly by moving the legs more rapidly than at a walk and in such a manner that for an instant in each step all or both feet are off the ground."

I will not abide this postmodernist bull****!
08-04-2017 , 07:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbaddabba
If you made a point to disparage lobsters when they came up in conversation for no particular reason, probably.
Does someone do that?

"Lovely weather we're having, it would be better if there were no Muslims around.""

What planet do you live on?
08-04-2017 , 07:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltedDonkey
**** those *********** who think run means "to depart quickly; take to flight; flee or escape". The only true definition is "to go quickly by moving the legs more rapidly than at a walk and in such a manner that for an instant in each step all or both feet are off the ground."

I will not abide this postmodernist bull****!
Your non-sequitur must mean you concede that -phobia doesn't mean to just dislike something.

I mean, I might even concede that there are people who are Xenophobic. But Islamaphobic? Give me a break...

The term was invented:
https://newrepublic.com/article/8117...n-islamophobia

"At the end of the 1970s, Iranian fundamentalists invented the term "Islamophobia" formed in analogy to "xenophobia". The aim of this word was to declare Islam inviolate. Whoever crosses this border is deemed a racist. This term, which is worthy of totalitarian propaganda, is deliberately unspecific about whether it refers to a religion, a belief system or its faithful adherents around the world."

But, if you are so easily swayed by Iranian propaganda, more power to you.
08-04-2017 , 07:36 PM
Muslim immigrants are targets of association with criminality narratives and policy- 'be afraid they will try to **** your wife cucks' level of impressing PHear into OBeyIA.
08-04-2017 , 07:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiggyMac
While we're at it, there's really no such thing as Islamophobia or Homophobia either.

Is someone running around going "Ack, I irrationally fear gay people!"?

I mean, should we also condemn Hinduphobia and Christianphobia as well?
Plenty of Americans have an irrational fear of sharia law and Islam taking over America.
08-04-2017 , 07:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbaddabba
Ok, so we can't call them "women", but can we call them women?

How about women?
Nothing like that is acceptable. (I will get to the offending post(s) later)
08-04-2017 , 07:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by batair
Plenty of Americans have an irrational fear of sharia law and Islam taking over America.
Did they have that fear when the Iranians invented it in the 70s?
08-04-2017 , 07:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiggyMac
Did they have that fear when the Iranians invented it in the 70s?
Nothing to do with my point.
08-04-2017 , 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by batair
Nothing to do with my point.
Everything to do you with your point.
08-04-2017 , 07:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by batair
Nothing to do with my point.


ZiggyWhacKed ya.

      
m