There is not a shred of cognitive dissonance in consistently calling people by the term they prefer, nor is there any in standing in solidarity with people by asking other people to treat them with that same modicum of respect. To try to write this off as some sort of cognitive dissonance just seems like you're grasping at arbitrary fancy words to try to insult people you disagree with.

Almost everyone can understand why it would be offensive after pointing it out even if it isn't immediately intuitive.
Almost everyone understands that some people don't get protections from being offended, e.g. racists, asshats, and those suffering from too much cog d, etc.
So there aren't really any more arguments

.

It's bullshit man. It's entirely about it being used as a cudgel.

I am not criticizing you for the grammatical error. nor do I think you did it intentionally to slur. I do think that you are being extremely disrespectful to intentionally refuse to use preferred terminology after being informed. its really pretty simple.

Yeah, you've made it very clear that avoiding offensive and insulting mistakes is something you find just not worth making the tiniest effort about. It's much more important to you to maintain your own righteousness than it is to just say "Sorry, I didn't know that about 'transgendered.' I won't use it anymore."

It WAS used as a cudgel against you. No denying that. But it was a one-liner. No one thinks you meant it as a slur but you're just being stubborn at this point.

The guy who is is constantly preaching about narcissism might be a closet-narcissist. Go figure.
It's always Freudian.

That argument has been debunked. Stubborn people on the internet are fair game.

The analogue is being called something that you don't think is true and is by extension insulting or harmful, not that trans people are equivalent of racists in any way.

This should have been obvious but apparently wasn't.

If we were comparing two derogatory epithets where one was directed as a group that's gotten the short end of the stick and the other at one that hasn't, the former would represent a greater harm. Calling a straight person cis with a derogatory tone is like calling white people honkeys - it doesn't cut.

That doesn't mean that that the harm is solely defined by the target group.

There's a scale of harm based on the context of how tran-ed is used, all the way from using it condescendingly towards someone face to face to using it self referentially in an internet discussion.

At some point, anyone who was actually concerned with the harm being done would have to recognize that this spectrum of harm overlaps with the harm from aggressively insulting people from non-minority groups.

But this isn't actually about harm, which is why some of the people here who're disgusted by even the most benign use of the word transgendered are completely ok with aggressively insulting people for other reasons.

No, when I go off like this, it's entirely about my psychological response to gas lighting, and by extension, dishonest, and manipulative tactics used against me. It's not that I want to, I'm compelled to. It's not an excuse, but an explanation. It's compulsive, in some ways like a narcissist. I'm just as stubborn as a narcissist, because i will not give into those tactics, so I can understand the correlation. This is why I behave the way I do. A narcissist can't be that honest about their own flaws. I should not behave this way, just as they should not behave the way they behave.


I agree. I do not expect him to stop, it's not the purpose. In my brain, when dealing with dishonest and manipulative people, who will never admit it, I get validation when their dishonesty is exposed, and they double down.

While these people may continue to believe I'm bothered by not using a word, I know what bothers me, irrespective of what others think, and when it's pointed out they are lying, and they continue to double down on that lie, that's as close to validation or acknowledgment from the person that's a liar I can hope to get. For me, it's about seeking validation for the dishonesty that's been used against me.

None of my post has been about not being able to use a word. It's been about the behavior of those using it as a cudgel, and showing the irrationality of that, given the context. What happens though, they coopt my thoughts and post into something that alleviates the cogitative dissonance they are feeling, and ignore what I actually say.

It is not about offending people, or crossnerd would not lie about me comparing racist to transgender people. Trolly would not lie about what the catalyst was for my emotional response, then he would not lie about what I'm actually doing. We all know MrWookie operates in a dishonest way. My argument has no way paralleled with the righteousness of using that word, it's entirely about it being turned into a cudgel using deceit, and irrationality. How you know this is, when it was pointed out it was grammatically incorrect, I fully acknowledge that mistake because I know my intent was not to use it as slur. Every post after that was trying to get me to pass a moral litmus test that I wont ever use that slur again, but I made a grammar mistake, not using a slur. There was no moral error. I've never used it as a slur, and never will.....why do I need to acknowledge that I'm need to make an effort to essentially be more "decent". It was grammar mistake. Grammar mistakes are amoral.

What do they do, they respond with deceit and irrational arguments, consequently validating the claim.

I never have used it as a slur, and never will, and yet they are lying about my emotional response to using a purported slur I don't use. If they do no care about being honest, how serious do you think I'm to take them at their word when they say they are offended by something? It's not about being offended to them, it's about asserting moral superiority. I'm not claiming a righteousness here, I've fully acknowledged I made a mistake. I'm attacking the dishonesty of the reaction. This entire conversation does not occur, if I don't make a grammar mistake, yet I'm supposedly crying over not using a word? Dude, it's bullshit.

People had no real issue with itshot using the word. People had an issue with his push back when he was informed that using it was outdated and offensive.

Edit: this was a response to abbaddabba.

They are liberals. You have to give them some leeway with logical thinking and try to meet them halfway. Heart > Head.

The point i'm making is the hypocrisy in their unwillingness to acknowledge the parallels between the impact of using the term transgendered and other derogatory phrases that're intended to be insulting.

Comparing the derogatory use of the term racist and the term transgendered isn't drawing an equivalency between being racist and being transgender.

There are many ways to make that analogy that are far more accurate. It's been pointed out why. "Colored" is far better than "racist" ldo. So straining to make "racist" fit is disingenuous and done in bad faith. Claiming it's for RAA is BS. Here again, the initial use may have been an oversight in the heat of the moment. Stubbornly defending it after having the explanation is stupid or intentionally offensive.

bullshit....


You and MrWookie explicitly turned a grammar mistake into a moral mistake, within minutes. Stop ****ing lying.

So you think the analogy is accurate, but think there are better ones?

Coloured would be a poor choice to illustrate the point because both of the analogues are minority groups and the point is that it's not necessary that the target be a recognized minority for the harm to exist.

I didn't choose the analogy but I think it's a pretty appropriate one considering how commonly the word racist is used in a pejorative way towards people who aren't racist.

So you think the analogy is accurate

In the same sense that I think any bit of matter has a temperature, sure.


"Racist" is poor because it is provocative by drawing an offensive parallel (intentional or not) and introducing exactly the aspect you mention, that it is used correctly (to label racists) and sometimes to incorrectly label someone, whereas "transgendered" has little use, if any, as a derogatory epithet against cisgenders.

You don't have to acknowledge that. Call them sanctimonious and move on.

Here is ~everyone you have argued with stating that they would have had no issue if you had just acknowledged that you didn't realise it was considered offensive and agreed to change going forward:

The shift to moralising was 100% due to your reaction to being told that it is offensive and 0% due to your actual use of the word.

Do you want to break down the analogy into a logical syllogism? The analogy is perfectly reasonable and if he/we was trying to demonstrate the similarities in harm between pejorative terms being used towards minorities and non-minorities and, in that respect, your example of "coloured" would not be effective.

If you can come up with another term that would serve as a reasonable proxy for these purposes i'm not against it - I didn't choose the term racism for the analogy, but I do think it's a fair one.

This is missing the point entirely. The use of coloured in the analogy is because it is explicitly referring to an innate trait of a person. The use of racist, while it might cause offence, is not describing an innate trait. The whole problem with the -ed adjective is the implication that something caused the person to become "coloured" or "transgendered" rather than it simply being part of who they are. Calling someone racist has none of these issues so is simply a bad analogy.

I swear, this place is nuts.

Is not acknowledging something as offensive, immoral, or not decent, and is that why they have the issue?

and

Is a grammar mistake ammoral?

You just validated they have a moral issue with me not acknowledging a grammar mistake as a moral issue. You made it moral when you said it's use is "always offensive". You actually incorrectly labeled my usage as a noun, and verb, and stated that was what was offensive and that's what I initially gave push back on, because I used it as an adjective, then the goal post started moving. Take ownership of your poor reading comprehension, or using incorrect terminology that helped lead to this derail. As much as I'm stubborn, you are not correctly explaining what occurred, and you are doubling down.

What you don't understand, where people is, they see white people, or racist.

They do no not want to come to terms that people includes minorities, trans, and non racist, who are called racist. The reasons they have issues with it is, they have to come fact to face with their own offensive behavior, when it's pointed out the term racist is not always valid, and is used as a slur against people, they same way all slurs are. It's the perfect argument to someone appealing to offensiveness, and are not being honest.

It's a valid reductio ad absurdum.

no, you're missing the point of the analogy.

the point of his analogy is not to demonstrate that the words are offensive for the exact same reasons.

it's taken for granted that transgendered is offensive (in part because it inaccurately describes them), and that racism is offensive (to people if they think it isn't true).

and so the analogy is that that knowingly using offensive terms can cause harm all the same.