Well, yeah, we go through this every time. We try to differentiate whether the "rightist" thinks that any and all speech should be acceptable in the work place (say, giving your black employees the title of "field hand" and referring to your women employees as "sugar tits" all day long), or whether it's simply this group that shouldn't be protected. And the response is typically some jargon about "do you really think that's the same thing?". Of course, no, we don't think it's exactly the same thing entirely, we're just trying to figure out which part they're objecting to and why. But then, this entire thread is a testimony as to how hard it is to figure out what these people are trying to say. Apparently it can only be expressed in 40m of jump cuts on a utoobz channel.

Go F.....

I mean, thank you.

What am I being insincere about? Sincerely, I'm 100% confused now.

Asking for a summary of something before I watch it isn't some bizarre thing. It's not an expectation of the entire argument in full. It's just asking you to explain the relevance of something before I waste twenty minutes on it.

And obviously articles aren't as lucrative for any number of people. What that has to do with credibility I have no idea.

What you seem to miss is that people are here to discuss with people (even if only in a petty, squabbling, manner. If I want to spend the afternoon watching youtube, I don't need this forum for it. So if you want to have a discussion, mindlessly exchanging hours of material without explaining why the other should pay any attention to it is pretty ****ing stupid.

Yeah, I mean your stupidity here is well recorded. Nobody thinks peer review is a magic standard that guarantees truth. It's just way better than going through a bunch of unfiltered, unverified, unqualified, unwhatevered nobody amateurs with a webcam.

To be fair, Theryn Meyer's video REALLY explains this point.
(She's trans, btw).
She makes it pretty clear:

"I will be respectful of you. I will try to accommodate you. But if I have to legally refer to you as something, then "****ing *****" will do just fine."

As if the Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton race hucksters haven't taught us something already.

What about qualified, PhD, Clinical Psychologists? Or those with Political Science Degrees?

Or does YouTube magically invalidate their credentials? And can you only have an valid opinions with degrees? Somebody better tell that ****ing Bill Gates and Steve Jobs that they're unverified, unqualified, nobody amateurs. Probably won't amount to anything.

This is a good start, in that you actually state an idea (why it would take ten minutes to say this I don't know) but it doesn't actually help us here.

Legal obligations are contextual. We could just as easily say:

"I will be respectful of you. I will try to accommodate you. But if I have to give money to you, then "****ing *****" will do just fine."

Whoever Theryn is is of course under no obligation to give me any money. Part of her legal rights are that I can't extort her. But if I were an employee, then of course she would.

Is her point "I can't be legally compelled to address you in a certain way at any time or place"? Because that's clearly wrong. If you call the judge a "spawny-eyed parrot-faced wazzock", you're getting a nice contempt of court smack in the face, right?

So wtf am I supposed to do with her statement? It hasn't answered anything useful to me at all.

Well, no, anyone can have an opinion and some of those opinions will be valid and reasonable. Of course, then the question comes back to: why should I listen to this one? And then we wonder again why you wouldn't summarise the source rather than just leave us to guess as to whether we'll be listening to someone's 30m long ad hoc reckons.



Here Mitchell and Webb parody the idea of opening the world up to anybody's opinion without heed for the source or credibility, and they manage it in a minute and a half.

LOL. Peer reviewed journals.

I can just imagine Clovis hunched over his peer reviewed journals, muttering to himself "Gee, I'm smart".

What a prize doofus.

The issue with Trans is that

1) It's not always clear.
2) You're asking someone to change their natural language usage - almost through no fault of their own.
3) And her final point is - you're actually making more difficult to interact with trans people. Because if they're afraid of legal action for accidentally using the wrong pronoun, they're better of not bothering.

And yes, in victim based society, where you incentivize people to claim this status....legally, then of course you're going to get abuses of the system.

You don't have to conscientiously work at not calling a judge "spawny-eyed parrot-faced wazzock". You do have to conscientiously work to call a she a "they" (the example used in the video). Just listen to the lawyer in the Theryn video - "How to ask about pronouns" and "You must do this because it's the law".

Ya peer review is just the worst. Long live youtooobz.

Very funny.

Of course the opposite of this is:
"Listen to your betters, we shall tell you how to behave."

I can see why you would hate this given that virtually every living human is better than you.

Mmmm...still taking Vioxx are we? I don't think that's safe for canines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ne...al_of_Medicine

Watch out, he'll be wishing death on you soon.

Your posts are just so awesome. You sir are the demi-glace of the right wing internet.

We need a betting pool to predict which logical fallacy Jiggy posts next.

Cool, and you should look up pseduo-intellectual.

I never talked about equivalency. Obviously YouTube has a higher noise ratio, but there is no difference (in regards to veracity) between The Economist I read each week, and their channel on YouTube.

Dismissing YouTube out of hand, as you and others do, is silly.

What? The Economist is on YouTube? ****ing trash! I guess I'll have to stop listening to their podcasts too. Utter rubbish.

Again, this only applies in the context of conducting certain business... none of this applies walking around day-2-day. This is really the whole point here. The fact it keeps getting intentionally obfuscated is really what these OSJers are always about in these kinda situations.

There's nothing unique about trans folk. Race, religion, place of origin, or the binary gendered aren't always clear either.

Yes, of course it is asking that business like language be used in a business setting. That's the whole point. Nobody is forcing a landlord to be a landlord/etc, or to not employ a property manager who is minimally civil.

Landlords/etc have a practical need to communicate with their tenants/etc, so the third point is just simply gibberish... unless it's an implied threat to black-list tran folk as tenants.

Jiggy and his ilk never post yooootubz of the WSJ, the Economist, or Science. It's always big bubba's conspiracy channel or deplorableAnnes opinion of the new world order.

1) So what? I've used this comparison before, but no one's addressed it:
Nobody's name is readily apparent. You could look at me and guess my name isn't Kwai Chang Caine, but no one's getting it right if they guess all day. But I do expect certain people in certain contexts to refer to me by name or some other acceptable term rather than another set of terms (like spawny-eyed parrot-faced wazzock). Adding that I prefer "he" in to the mix isn't much of a complication when it comes to people.

2) I grew up in what we locally refer to as "God's own country", more widely known as Yorkshire. In my part of the world, we refer to people as "love" or "duck". Generally, it's used by older people to younger, but frequently not. It's also used across genders i.e. a man might call another man "duck" or "love". While it's more associated with Lancastrians, you also occasionally hear "cock" (as in cockerel) as a term of affection among friends. Now, you can imagine as I grew older and visited places far and wide, that calling men "love" or "cock" would get a mixture of reactions. I had men confused, and a couple of women thinking I was being patronising. Saying "'Ay up, duck" as a greeting was not well understood. Now, if I move to America and my boss says "Don't call the customers cock, they don't like that", he is forcing me to change my "natural language". Is that bad? If women think I'm being a condescending arse for calling them "love" all the time, do I just plough through it? It seems a lot better to understand that language is contextual, and speak appropriately. You with me, cock?

3) Is actually a somewhat valid concern. But my counter is that in my above borderline tl;dr ramble, isn't it really easy to figure out how I'm supposed to adjust my language? I mean, once someone's told me their name a few times I usually get it. It can make interactions really awkward when you forget someone's name, but we figure it out largely without lawsuits.

Edit: I really don't have to work hard to use "they". It's a conversation I've had with older people about how common it was to use male pronouns as neutrals in a lot of contexts. My generation uses "they" as a neutral without any confusion. And I do, or at least have, had to work really hard in previous work not to call customers "wazzock".

This and because he spends his time watching "lol SJW" videos on YouTube.

How does one figuratively own a dog?

Lol,

Went on a search to find out who Theryn Meyer is and why I should care. Turns out she's an MRA whack job popular on redpill. Gee, I wonder what corners of the internet Jiggy frequents