Yeah, it was pretty obvious you preferred to use offensive terms out of spite

Activists. It's fine they think that. It's the same pathology of someone who gets annoyed at the improper use of a word like their, there, they're.

None of my other comments on this issue has ever drawn your, or other's ire, and you choose to go to war over me putting -ed at the end of a word.

Mind you, this after I completely destroyed your "vagina"argument, which is the real reason you deflected to semantics. Your flying monkey assisted in this digression of yours.

Using the n word to refer to black people is also grammatically correct.

A much more apt comparison is that using transgendered is analogous to using coloured for a person of colour. In both cases the use of an adjective ending in -ed can cause offence because it it can be seen to imply some sort of event caused the person to become that way as opposed to it simply being who they are.

This is what happens when you learn at the Jordan Petersen school of "Got mine, **** ya'll"

Your destruction of my argument was nothing but an appeal to an imagined hypocrisy. It was hardly anything resembling a rebuttal.

This will be my last response to you, ever. Time, and time again when you are hit with a valid criticism that you can't rebut, you deflect to a nebulous digression asserting some logical issue with a part of the criticism that has no real tangential context, or correlation, in this case semantics. What's odd about it is, the same people are quick to jump in to help you further the digression (M2B, Willd, and Max to certain degree). I'm done playing that game.

When it's invalid criticism, you respond with a rebuttal that is tangential and correlates with the context of the criticism. You never responded to the crux of my criticism about your vagina post.

Like, this is digression, of the digression. You've moved the goal post from using it as a "noun/verb" is offensive, when it was pointed out it was not used as a noun or verb, the issue became "past-tense", then using it as an adjective is wrong, despite the opposite being said five minutes earlier, and now moving on, it's a pejorative.

Here is the issue, because it can be used a pejorative, does not mean its used as a pejorative. Again, based on my other comments on this general topic, and the one MrWookie responded, in no way can it be ascertained that it was used as a noun, verb, or pejorative, and nothing about my post suggested that, and in fact, my post speaks the complexities involved in gender, as in, it's not a simple as identifying whether a kid has a vagina, or not. Further, in a previous post ITT, I also discussed how children showing transgender tendencies should not be rejected, or invalidated.

Once again, you both made a big deal about -ed at the end of word, that, albeit used colloquially, has the same meaning/and usage as transgender in the context it was written, and there is no reasonable argument you can make that associates the nefarious usages with how I used it.

The argument was always that transgendered is pejorative. The stuff on grammar was never that you were saying anything grammatically incorrect, but instead something offensive. If you had understood anything Will had written or in the article I linked, you would have seen that. Sorry you aren't all that perceptive.

4:1 against, +/- 37 minutes for the over/under on when you do respond to him next

The frustrating part is, I used it like I would use He is an admired person. Poor grammar resulted in the use of the -ed. Like, I would never knew -ed is not used on adjectives if it were not for this, which pisses me off that something good came from a SJW digression. The fact some people find colloquial usage of adjectives (which occurs frequently) offensive, is annoying.

Seems pretty narcissistic to declare that you are the ultimate arbiter of what is offensive regardless of what the marginalized people say on the matter, not to mention pretending that all the reasonable arguments we presented didn't happen.

People of the margins.

Yes

Something happened to marginalized people to make them marginalized. They weren’t born marginalized by nature.

CAN YOU DINGDONGS REALLY NOT UNDERSTAND??

The tedium of this conversation is ****ing intolerable, JFC

For sure "person of color" is way better than "colored person".
I think trans should be fine.

"Hey Bob is going to meet us on Saturday"
"Trans Bob or skinny Bob?"
"Trans Bob"

"Transgendered Bob" would be ridiculous. What are we arguing about?

When a person typically makes grammar mistakes like putting -ed at the end of adjectives, like, if they knew that was not supposed to happen (which is a common grammatical mistake), it's unlikely this conversation ever takes place. When you have a special set of posters, who have ridiculed a person's post and grammar as gibberish, but automatically assume it's not a grammar mistake in order to correlate the grammar mistake with some SJW outrage of the week, this is what happens.

nail meets head.

He must of not seen this post:

They change the rules as they go.

To be fair, there aren't actually very many of them and hardly anybody has ever met one.

lol itshot, what a hill to die on. you sound very small in this exchange.

You would never think I was the bigger person, so what's your point?

The point is to laugh at you like I did. I wouldn't do that and could easily accept a simple mistake or oversight in using the offensive term if you weren't such an a-hole about the whole thing. I love the victory dance, as always. Nice touch.

Nobody is ridiculing you based on grammar. People are ridiculing you because you refuse to back down on your mistaken use of a pejorative.

That doesn’t make you bad at grammar, it just makes you an *******.