The non-PC language directed against LGBTQ+ is not commonly to do with truth, it's do with harm caused to people who are LGBTQ+.

The harm caused to people by calling them racists is usually welcomed by those who subscribe to the name calling thingy. It's the method they openly support and they don't care a jot if the person being attacked agrees with them or not. The harm is intentional and it's nothing whatsoever to do with being PC (or not).

But those around here who call people racists are fine with harming the people they attack.

I support using the law against hate speech and although I don't want to harm the people who fall fowl of the law (or any law come to that), I accept that they are harmed by it. Again nothing to do with being PC (or not)

Yes, this is why you have the issue. Instead of acknowledging that you unknowingly used a problematic word when multiple people in this thread, every piece of reference material, and multiple articles by trans people tell you that the word is offensive you instead kept doubling-down on saying it wasn't offensive.

To be clear, nobody gives a **** about whether what you said is grammatically correct. We care that you used an offensive word and continually refer to it a simply a grammar mistake and refuse to acknowledge the actual issue.

You ignored one question. Is a grammar mistake amoral? That is the crux of the push back that people have been deliberately dishonest about, now including you. Why would I have to acknowledge a grammar mistake as offensive, if it's widely accepted I did not not use it as pejorative?

Here is the thing, I've used pejoratives extremely infrequently, and they've all been related to liars. It's clear to someone reading my post, especially as often as you have, I don't use pejoratives to describe people. I use accurate terminology to aptly describe behavior/people. Like when I call MrWookie a narcissist, it's not a pejorative sense. He behaves like a narcissist under the definition of a narcissist. I do not need to acknowledge to not ever using a pejorative that I did not use (and it was acknowledged I did not use the pejorative), and will not use. You are not contending with that fact, at all.

You saying this is not a moral issue, but making it a moral issue, after you initial said it was offensive becasue it was a verb, noun, when you it was clearly an adjective. You are doing exactly what I described. There is nothing inaccurate about how I've labeled the behavior of the people giving me push back. If you can't admit your own mistake, and everyone has to lie, I call bullshit on people being offended.

I ignored that question because it is entirely irrelevant. Nobody gives a flying **** about the grammar. Nothing about your use of the word was a significant issue by itself. The issue is 100% to do with your reaction when told that it was offensive. Grammar is completely and utterly unrelated to any part of this conversation.

Unfortunately this topic has skipped all the interesting avenues it could have gone down such as parents rights/custody, pros and cons of alternatives with research, age of consent for various issues, how to interpret different levels of transitioning etc, and instead skipped to the heart of what dominates trans activism. It's all about control and power. forcing people to conform. Controlling their language, thoughts, what discussion is even allowed to take place.

Trans activists have not only insisted that you treat people with kindness, but that you conform to their invented language and actually share their beliefs. You can't even politely disagree. In canada you are actually compelled by law to adopt the language and play along with whatever identity has been fabricated. Sorry but none of this has been settled. certainly not to the point where any sensible person would force people to comply with that world view, without question. this is the authoritarian illiberal left

the problem stems from them using the concept of being offended as a weapon. if someone is offended then you are a bad person for your behavior and should comply. this is obviously a stupid concept. if the offended minority can control the majority, you will be paralyzed within your own stupidity. you actually need to think... and sometimes offend people... and accept that being offended will happen and the sun will rise the next day

here you can see how trying to accommodate any and ever aspect of offensive behavior has actually paralyzed the democratic socialist convention. Universities are now moving away from clapping and shifting to jazz hands



you can also see 2p2's favorite activist group obsessed over controlling people/traffic. they actually engage in fights with proud by dolts over the control of traffic. their faces melt off if you don't comply. Their favorite chant is "who's streets? our streets". the sjw illiberal left has well documented history of shutting down and rioting over mainstream conservative speakers. its not an instance here or there, its happening weekly and its getting rather mainstream. as we speak in the antifa thread there are people defending, deflecting, minimizing, ignoring, etc a video where an 81 year old lady in a walker is trying to cross the street and a protester stuck their foot under the wheel to scream nazi in her face repeatedly. the event was indoors and hosted by gay married jew dave rubin and a mainstream and totally benign canadain politician. think it through





the people try to police offensive language arent really concerned with offending people. this thread is the perfect example. the most offensive and insulting poster in politics over the past few days would have been banned over their posts if it was under just about any other screen name. now they are obsessed with the offensiveness in transgender vs transgendered. not because it was used as an insult or directed at someone that would be insulted (like about 50+ of their posts over the past few days) but because they committed wrong speak and the goal is to control them and make them conform

itshotinvegas. you made your point in 3 posts. you could have stopped and taken the W. you promised not to engage with wookie in the never ending pissy back and forth... and then did the exact same thing with his spirit animals. just let it go dude. I'm singling you out because it takes two to tango. Its you and an army of pissy dolts. If you stop, it ends. its the easiest solution since the mod has no problem with zero content high volume trolls dominating the forum.

Ok, so you think people who are called racist "usually" either hold racist beliefs or are callous *******s. If usually means more than 50% you're probably right. That still leaves a lot of people who aren't racist or callous *******s who get called racist routinely, and they don't welcome it.

When we talk about immigration for instance - I think that, as a matter of principle, anti immigration sentiment tends to be rooted in racism if you're breaking it down philosophically. But I don't think that's actually the reason most people are anti immigration, and when you call them racists for being anti immigration you're both being hurtful and unconstructive.

Thread needed some more dutiful propaganda pushing by juan valdez. The lying fear monger tweet he originally posted seems to have been no problem in this hot-button topic thread. Your propaganda tubes and tweets are WELCOME here!

I don't know why you think I think that. I couldn't be more clear about my view that the judgemental, name calling personal attack approach to politics is very silly and very poor politics.

This is the dumbest ****ing thread on the entire internet.

Quite possibly. Not least because there is no such thing as 'transgender children'. Children's notions are unformed, their social roleplay is provisional, their sexuality insofar as it exists is what's called 'latent' and transgenderism is something that can only be imposed on them by sexually abusive adults (abetted by abusive orgs like Mermaids). The purpose of this imposition, in line with the 'post-modern queer theory' laid down by Foucault, Butler and Rubin, is the normalisation, legalisation and enforcement of child sexual abuse.

In England there's an outcry over Muslim parents protesting against the 'No Outsiders' programme being taught to children at a Birmingham school. The parents are annoyed that their children are being taught that homosexuality is OK. There is, however, a bit more to it. The 'No Outsiders' programme, which also promotes transgenderism, was devised by the school's deputy head, Andrew Moffat. Although he titles it 'No Outsiders' for public consumption, in previous academic papers he called it 'Queering the Primary Classroom' and stated that its aim was 'to break down the barriers between teachers' bodies and children's bodies.' Which, you would have to say, is a bit disturbing.

Well, you said

"The harm caused to people by calling them racists is usually welcomed by those who subscribe to the name calling thingy. It's the method they openly support and they don't care a jot if the person being attacked agrees with them or not.

But those around here who call people racists are fine with harming the people they attack. I support using the law against hate speech and although I don't want to harm the people who fall fowl of the law (or any law come to that), I accept that they are harmed by it. Again nothing to do with being PC (or not) "

This could be interpreted in a few ways. It could be that you're suggesting that crossnerd is offending people she thinks are racist (many of whom are not), and that this is an acceptable form of harm because it's done in the name of curbing some other harm and is "usually" directed at people who are ok with that kind of hostility (in addition to many who are not). Maybe you aren't saying that but this was my impression.

Language with respect to disadvantaged and at-risk, groups changes pretty rapidly these days. And if someone said that there was an alement of virtue signaling in keeping up with every change, I wouldn't argue much.

This is a long way of saying that itshot's first use of transgendered didn't bother me very much.

I am more offended by the atrocious "logic" in his later posts.

This post did absolutely nothing to make the thread less dumb.

Also, if you wouldn't mind I'm interested in reading more about this Andrew Moffat guy. Can you link sources to the claims in your second paragraph?

I wasn't referring to crossnerd at all.

re the usual crowd of political name callers - I was saying the harm being welcomed, was by some of those who cause it, not by those who receive it. At best they are careless.

Some of them may think they take the same view I do about causing harm but even then they vastly overvalue their judgement and undervalue being reasonable. They are far from a law based system which while not perfect, does keep being reasonable and judicious at the forefront.

Btw, this from google.

No results found for "breaking down the barriers between teachers' bodies and children's bodies."

No results found for "break down the barriers between teachers' bodies and children's bodies."

My guess is that you using that as a quote must be improper, but maybe I'm wrong. A citation should help.

Mr.Wookie- I'm just going to chime in and say that you have been very good on these issues for many years. unlike some people who ,well nvm.

I'm sure you are right.
I missed that post because I actually don't read Juan Valdez posts, something that based on my posting style may come as a surprise but there are posters who I find tilting
I don't think hes especially bad or someone who should be barred from sharing his views or anything but for me personally I do find him tilting, something I do NOT like to say.

The only way for the thread to progress, was to agree with their logic (which was 100% invalid), every thing else was irrelevant. There was an absolute refusal to contend with the logic I presented that demonstrated that, they just repeated their flawed logic, used dishonesty, and demanded I comply with their moral litmus test, repeatedly. Then claimed they were not doing that, then did it again. Then claim, I'm concerned about not using a pejorative, I've never used (which the claim they made is clearly a lie that you don't seem bothered with). You agree with that flawed logic, and ignore the same behavior by others who abide by that flawed logic, and people lying to perpetuate it, which is your prerogative. That is offensive to my intelligence. You don't have a problem with the "atrocious logic", you have a problem with me not conforming.

^ Far and away the best post ITT

Exactly.

This is the validation I seek, and you don't seem capable of recognizing this validates everything I said.

I meant it was nice to post on topic again when you weren’t here.

My first post in this thread....

You’ll get no argument from that me that you need some kind of validation. I just don’t know why you need an entire thread derailed for days to get it.

You are the one who wanted something....not me. I was pointing out that want was invalid.

I'm sorry, what do you have to say about this:

Let's talk about the dangers of a child doing what they want.