Be Excellent To Each Other

And, you know, party on. Dude.

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Reply to topic  [ 14340 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69 ... 287  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 15:20 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
markg wrote:
Yeah, I think there's a difference between pointing out to someone who clearly meant no offence that something they said actually might upset someone or hearing the same thing and delightedly jumping up down pointing at them and ranting about how awful they are and how they don't understand anything about the world and how much more enlightened and better you are than them. NOT aimed at you myp but there's a fucking shitload of the latter goes on on twitter and the like.

Absolutely. There's always a minority of activists of every stripe who tend towards aggression and confrontation. It doesn't necessarily make their cause any less important, however.

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 15:37 
User avatar
Paws for thought

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 17154
Location: Just Outside That London, England, Europe
Normal - "conforming to the standard or the common type"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 15:46 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
Mr Dave wrote:
Normal - "conforming to the standard or the common type"

Yes, by all means quote dictionary definitions without taking into account the sociological meanings. :)

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 16:23 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
Cisgender has its origin in the Latin-derived prefix cis-, meaning "on this side of", which is an antonym for the Latin-derived prefix trans-, meaning "across from" or "on the other side of". This usage can be seen in the cis–trans distinction in chemistry, the cis–trans or complementation test in genetics, in Ciscaucasia (from the Russian perspective) and in the ancient Roman term Cisalpine Gaul (i.e., "Gaul on this side of the Alps"). In the case of gender, cis- is used to refer to the alignment of gender identity with assigned sex.

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 16:37 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
DavPaz wrote:
Had to google "cis". Is that to avoid calling people "normal"?

Mr Dave wrote:
Normal - "conforming to the standard or the common type"

Are you both only trying to get myp's goat? Or do you both genuinely not see how someone who is vulnerable due to being in a often-persecuted minority -- say, someone who is transsexual -- might find it upsetting to be considered 'abnormal'?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 16:46 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
But you know, it *is* "abnormal" (in the purest, correct, unloaded definition of the term) to be transexual? That's just a plain fact - it just IS - whether we like it or not. We should embrace facts and the truth, without fear or favour; for me, that's what this is all about, call a spade a spade. If people attach their own value judgements (or even petty bigotry) on such things then that's their problem, but throwing the baby (i.e. truth) out with the bathwater ain't the solution, and nor is prohibition/curtailment of discussion. (Would "atypical" be better - even though it means pretty much the same thing?)

I just find it absurd that we're "not allowed" to state facts, and/or this is, of itself, somehow wrong? There's plenty of very real stuff to worry about out there, rather than shite like this (soz). Me? I've just volunteered to help operate the food bank around here for example, which means more to me than the "correct" syntax and etiquette on bloody Twitter.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 16:49 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
Cavey wrote:
But you know, it *is* "abnormal" (in the purest, correct, unloaded definition of the term) to be transexual? That's just a plain fact - it just IS - whether we like it or not. We should embrace facts and the truth, without fear or favour; for me, that's what this is all about, call a spade a spade. If people attached their own value judgements on such things then that's their problem, but throwing the baby (i.e. truth) out with the bathwater ain't the solution, and nor is prohibition/curtailment of discussion. (Would "atypical" be better - even though it means pretty much the same thing?)

I just find it absurd that we're "not allowed" to state facts, and/or this is, of itself, somehow wrong? There's plenty of very real stuff to worry about out there, rather than shite like this (soz). Me? I've just volunteered to help operate the food bank around here for example, which more to me than the "correct" syntax and etiquette on bloody Twitter.

This is amazing, like you can't care about poverty and trans rights at the same time.

You are a clueless berk, sorry. You've been left behind in the world. Educate yourself, please. Just because you're not an authority on something (anything, it appears) doesn't mean it's not a problem.

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 16:50 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
Sorry, I didn't mean to be personal. But the only thing I'm intolerent of is intolerence itself. And that pissed me off.

Someone who's never been in the position of the marginalised or oppressed telling people they need to toughen up. Makes me fucking sick, tbh.

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 16:53 
User avatar
Unpossible!

Joined: 27th Jun, 2008
Posts: 38439
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
DavPaz wrote:
Had to google "cis". Is that to avoid calling people "normal"?

Mr Dave wrote:
Normal - "conforming to the standard or the common type"

Are you both only trying to get myp's goat? Or do you both genuinely not see how someone who is vulnerable due to being in a often-persecuted minority -- say, someone who is transsexual -- might find it upsetting to be considered 'abnormal'?

It was a genuine question as I've never heard the term before. I used quotes to attempt to avoid getting any goats.

Edit: I've known a few transsexuals in my decade at this melting pot of a university as well as countless gays, lesbians and all shades in between. Trust me when I say that "normal" should always be in quotes :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 17:02 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
Yeah I didn't feel DavPaz's question was inflammatory at all, tbh. He showed a genuine interest in learning.

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 17:03 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16552
Cavey wrote:
But you know, it *is* "abnormal" (in the purest, correct, unloaded definition of the term) to be transexual? That's just a plain fact - it just IS - whether we like it or not. We should embrace facts and the truth, without fear or favour; for me, that's what this is all about, call a spade a spade. If people attach their own value judgements (or even petty bigotry) on such things then that's their problem, but throwing the baby (i.e. truth) out with the bathwater ain't the solution, and nor is prohibition/curtailment of discussion. (Would "atypical" be better - even though it means pretty much the same thing?)

Well if we're just going to ignore anything like that and stick to dictionary definitions then why not just go ahead and call them freaks? You wouldn't because you know that's it's loaded with meaning beyond what the dictionary says. Why is not possible for you to accept that being described as abnormal is too for some people.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 17:05 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
...And this is exactly what I'm talking about guys; it's immediately turned personal.

Sorry, "clueless berk who's been left behind in the world" or no, I don't agree. END OF.
I want no part of that "world", thanks, and I'm not alone either.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 17:08 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
Cavey wrote:
...And this is exactly what I'm talking about guys; it's immediately turned personal.

Sorry, I don't agree. END OF.

Because you're being incredibly rude and dismissive. It's hard to keep my temper when you wade in here halfway through a discussion and IGNORE all the points previously made!

And no, you're not alone. There is a minority of reactionary old white men who would rather the world be like it was before, where you could be as bigoted as you liked without any fear of retribution. Thankfully the world is moving on from that and becoming much more enlightened.

I wrote:
Much is made of political correctness, but if you think of PC as standing for "politeness and courtesy" instead, it makes much more sense. Removing language from your vocabulary that upsets and stigmatises minority groups takes time and effort to unlearn, but anything that is more inclusive is a good thing imo. Do you really want to return to less enlightened times when people could use terms like 'nigger', 'faggot' and 'spastic' without other people batting an eyelid? It's not that they were any less offensive back then than they are now, it's just that the oppressed feel more confident in speaking up against their oppressors.


You wouldn't say those words anymore, would you? So why is it so fucking difficult for you to understand that words and language and meanings change constantly, and things you think are acceptable now just aren't?

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 17:15 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 69502
Location: Your Mum
Lonewolves wrote:
There is a minority of reactionary old white men who would rather the world be like it was before

You truly think that no young people, women or people of colour think like that?

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 17:15 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
I'm not ignoring anything, this is my opinion, as someone who has not one shred of bigotry towards anyone, least of all trans people. I just think it's all gone too bloody far; I certainly don't want to go back to people being able to use terms like the n-word or whatever but neither do I like where we now find ourselves?

I'm sorry if I've upset you, knew I should've kept my gob shut. It's just genuinely how I feel, it's deffo a generational thing and I was never the most tactful, thoughtful, self-aware person at the best of times.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 17:16 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
Grim... wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
There is a minority of reactionary old white men who would rather the world be like it was before

You truly think that no young people, women or people of colour think like that?

Of course there are, but they're statistically insignificant.

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 17:17 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 69502
Location: Your Mum
Lonewolves wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
There is a minority of reactionary old white men who would rather the world be like it was before

You truly think that no young people, women or people of colour think like that?

Of course there are, but they're statistically insignificant.

Considering this is a conversation about generalising, you probably could have chosen your words better.

Tricky, isn't it?

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 17:20 
User avatar
INFINITE POWAH

Joined: 1st Apr, 2008
Posts: 30498
Lonewolves wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
There is a minority of reactionary old white men who would rather the world be like it was before

You truly think that no young people, women or people of colour think like that?

Of course there are, but they're statistically insignificant.

There are what, in excess of one billion adherents to a particular religion, many of whom are non-white, and many of whom who, due to the tenets of their religion, believe all sorts of things that you would be very unhappy about, including things about transsexuality (and homosexuality for that matter) that would make "abnormal" look polite. The same goes for fundamentalist Christians (of both genders and many races - look at the laws passed in Uganda, for god's sake). It's emphatically not just the old white men who struggle with treating others equally, and to paint it as such is baffling. I'd suggest that actually the "old white men" in the group of "the intolerant" in this respect are the minority.

_________________
http://www.thehomeofawesome.com/
Eagles soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 17:21 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
Cavey wrote:
I'm not ignoring anything, this is my opinion, as someone who has not one shred of bigotry towards anyone, least of all trans people. I just think it's all gone too bloody far; I certainly don't want to go back to people being able to use terms like the n-word or whatever but neither do I like where we now find ourselves?

I'm sorry if I've upset you, knew I should've kept my gob shut. It's just genuinely how I feel, it's deffo a generational thing and I was never the most tactful, thoughtful, self-aware person at the best of times.

Yeah you have upset me, but thank you for the apology.

I don't you can go too far, imo. I just don't see how it's hard to stop saying a word or using phrases if someone says to me 'I don't like that.' More than anything else it's just common courtesy, surely? Also what is your rationale behind not being able to use the n-word, but being ok with using terms and phrases that trans people have decreed offensive? Especially as you say you have not one shred of bigotry towards them? I just don't understand where you're coming from. Either you believe in free speech at all costs (including the word 'nigger') or you believe in fostering inclusivity of all minorities, genders and abilities. I don't believe that's a false dichotomy.

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 17:22 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 69502
Location: Your Mum
Hello!

To the person that reported a post in this thread, could you let us know if a) it was an accident, or b) what the actual issue was?

Thanks!

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 17:24 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16552
Cavey wrote:
I'm not ignoring anything, this is my opinion, as someone who has not one shred of bigotry towards anyone, least of all trans people. I just think it's all gone too bloody far; I certainly don't want to go back to people being able to use terms like the n-word or whatever but neither do I like where we now find ourselves?

I'm sorry if I've upset you, knew I should've kept my gob shut. It's just genuinely how I feel, it's deffo a generational thing and I was never the most tactful, thoughtful, self-aware person at the best of times.

Isn't it more a case that you've just never really encountered a particular situation? I mean say you had an employee, a friend or even just someone on here who was transgender and they quietly told you that actually it made them feel a bit awkward when you described things in terms of normal or not normal. Would you start shouting in their face about how you can't say anything anymore or would you simply take on board what they were saying and change your language slightly? Unless I have massively misjudged you then I think you'd take the latter option.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 17:28 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
MrChris wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
There is a minority of reactionary old white men who would rather the world be like it was before

You truly think that no young people, women or people of colour think like that?

Of course there are, but they're statistically insignificant.

There are what, in excess of one billion adherents to a particular religion, many of whom are non-white, and many of whom who, due to the tenets of their religion, believe all sorts of things that you would be very unhappy about, including things about transsexuality (and homosexuality for that matter) that would make "abnormal" look polite. The same goes for fundamentalist Christians (of both genders and many races - look at the laws passed in Uganda, for god's sake). It's emphatically not just the old white men who struggle with treating others equally, and to paint it as such is baffling. I'd suggest that actually the "old white men" in the group of "the intolerant" are the minority.

I am talking about the western world here, of course. Where white people are in the majority. So the UK, US, Canada, western Europe, Australia, NZ etc.

And I'm not sure I agree necessarily with all your points here anyway. The majority of Muslims are pretty tolerant of others, honestly. It's only the fundamentalists that are the issue (and that goes for the Christian, Jewish, atheist and all other fundamentalists too).

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 17:30 
User avatar
Gogmagog

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 48607
Location: Cheshire
To be fair, I think it was the confusion over the use of the word cis to describe non trans people that has caused all of this arguments

_________________
Mr Chris wrote:
MaliA isn't just the best thing on the internet - he's the best thing ever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 17:30 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Lonewolves wrote:
Cavey wrote:
I'm not ignoring anything, this is my opinion, as someone who has not one shred of bigotry towards anyone, least of all trans people. I just think it's all gone too bloody far; I certainly don't want to go back to people being able to use terms like the n-word or whatever but neither do I like where we now find ourselves?

I'm sorry if I've upset you, knew I should've kept my gob shut. It's just genuinely how I feel, it's deffo a generational thing and I was never the most tactful, thoughtful, self-aware person at the best of times.

Yeah you have upset me, but thank you for the apology.

I don't you can go too far, imo. I just don't see how it's hard to stop saying a word or using phrases if someone says to me 'I don't like that.' More than anything else it's just common courtesy, surely? Also what is your rationale behind not being able to use the n-word, but being ok with using terms and phrases that trans people have decreed offensive? Especially as you say you have not one shred of bigotry towards them? I just don't understand where you're coming from. Either you believe in free speech at all costs (including the word 'nigger') or you believe in fostering inclusivity of all minorities, genders and abilities. I don't believe that's a false dichotomy.


:)

Hang on, we're most definitely at cross purposes here: I absolutely do not in any way approve of anyone using deliberately offensive, hurtful terms/terminology as against any minority group - but for me, these things have always been a matter of social taboos, which quite rightly evolve over time, rather than absolutes which are even matters of law? (I am bewildered that you thought I thought it's somehow okay for this..?)

I very much agree with what Markg said earlier: a distinction must surely be made between someone who clearly meant no offence, and someone who is being willfully rude.

Besides all of this, I was thinking along the original lines of discussion - the opinions of one group somehow not being admissible to another group, e.g. student debates, with exclusions effected by NUS or whatever? That just goes against the grain for me - let them speak, and if they turn out to be racist homophobes, get the rotten fruit out.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 17:32 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
markg wrote:
Cavey wrote:
I'm not ignoring anything, this is my opinion, as someone who has not one shred of bigotry towards anyone, least of all trans people. I just think it's all gone too bloody far; I certainly don't want to go back to people being able to use terms like the n-word or whatever but neither do I like where we now find ourselves?

I'm sorry if I've upset you, knew I should've kept my gob shut. It's just genuinely how I feel, it's deffo a generational thing and I was never the most tactful, thoughtful, self-aware person at the best of times.

Isn't it more a case that you've just never really encountered a particular situation? I mean say you had an employee, a friend or even just someone on here who was transgender and they quietly told you that actually it made them feel a bit awkward when you described things in terms of normal or not normal. Would you start shouting in their face about how you can't say anything anymore or would you simply take on board what they were saying and change your language slightly? Unless I have massively misjudged you then I think you'd take the latter option.


Of course Mark, I'd be mortified.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 17:34 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
Cavey wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Cavey wrote:
I'm not ignoring anything, this is my opinion, as someone who has not one shred of bigotry towards anyone, least of all trans people. I just think it's all gone too bloody far; I certainly don't want to go back to people being able to use terms like the n-word or whatever but neither do I like where we now find ourselves?

I'm sorry if I've upset you, knew I should've kept my gob shut. It's just genuinely how I feel, it's deffo a generational thing and I was never the most tactful, thoughtful, self-aware person at the best of times.

Yeah you have upset me, but thank you for the apology.

I don't you can go too far, imo. I just don't see how it's hard to stop saying a word or using phrases if someone says to me 'I don't like that.' More than anything else it's just common courtesy, surely? Also what is your rationale behind not being able to use the n-word, but being ok with using terms and phrases that trans people have decreed offensive? Especially as you say you have not one shred of bigotry towards them? I just don't understand where you're coming from. Either you believe in free speech at all costs (including the word 'nigger') or you believe in fostering inclusivity of all minorities, genders and abilities. I don't believe that's a false dichotomy.


:)

Hang on, we're most definitely at cross purposes here: I absolutely do not in any way approve of anyone using deliberately offensive, hurtful terms/terminology as against any minority group - but for me, these things have always been a matter of social taboos, which quite rightly evolve over time, rather than absolutes which are even matters of law? (I am bewildered that you thought I thought it's somehow okay for this..?)

I very much agree with what Markg said earlier: a distinction must surely be made between someone who clearly meant no offence, and someone who is being willfully rude.

Besides all of this, I was thinking along the original lines of discussion - the opinions of one group somehow not being admissible to another group, e.g. student debates, with exclusions effected by NUS or whatever? That just goes against the grain for me - let them speak, and if they turn out to be racist homophobes, get the rotten fruit out.

So if a trans person in your office said "please don't call me abnormal", you're saying you wouldn't say this to them?
Cavey, earlier this afternoon wrote:
But you know, it *is* "abnormal" (in the purest, correct, unloaded definition of the term) to be transexual? That's just a plain fact - it just IS - whether we like it or not. We should embrace facts and the truth, without fear or favour; for me, that's what this is all about, call a spade a spade. If people attach their own value judgements (or even petty bigotry) on such things then that's their problem, but throwing the baby (i.e. truth) out with the bathwater ain't the solution, and nor is prohibition/curtailment of discussion. (Would "atypical" be better - even though it means pretty much the same thing?)

I just find it absurd that we're "not allowed" to state facts, and/or this is, of itself, somehow wrong?

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 17:35 
SupaMod
User avatar
Commander-in-Cheese

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49232
Cavey wrote:
I just find it absurd that we're "not allowed" to state facts, and/or this is, of itself, somehow wrong?


My sister has a deformed left hand, as a direct result of my mother having been prescribed thalidomide when she was pregnant - which was since discovered to cause birth defects, as I'm sure you're aware. The term 'flid' joined the vernacular for a long period in a similar way to the term spastic, but it disappeared quickly when folks realised it was discriminatory and unpleasant. Is my sister a 'flid'? Yes, factually, absolutely. Is it reasonable to refer to her as such? No, not even slightly, and I'm certain you'd agree.

The only real barometer for how people should/can be referred to isn't the accuracy of the language, it's the impact of the language on those it refers to. Basically if there is any connotation of the pejorative in any word used to refer to a person or group of persons, the language is inherently harmful. Saying someone is abnormal is of course pejorative. I'd suggest in many, many cases it's not a deliberate way to cause offence, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make effort to avoid it.

I'm as guilty as anyone - I know I'm way more liberal with the use of 'retard' and such than I should be.

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 17:36 
User avatar
INFINITE POWAH

Joined: 1st Apr, 2008
Posts: 30498
Lonewolves wrote:
I am talking about the western world here, of course.


Oh, of course. Silly of me not to realise :)

But I would disagree even within that subset of the world that "old white men" are the majority of the intolerant. Anecdotally (yes, != data, but then your position on this seems based on no more than a received wisdom, which is basically the same thing), most of the homophobic people I've met have been in their 20s and 30s, and of both genders.

Quote:
And I'm not sure I agree necessarily with all your points here anyway. The majority of Muslims are pretty tolerant of others, honestly.


Well, I'm not sure how you can generalise like that with a straight face, but fair enough! Very little point arguing the toss on that one. :) I would note however that both Christianity and Islam have as part of them a holy book that says (or is commonly interpreted as saying) that being gay is a sin - so at the very least "abnormal". And a number of countries with religious-derived legal systems have the death penalty for homosexuality. But yes, it's all down to old white men. ;)

_________________
http://www.thehomeofawesome.com/
Eagles soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 17:41 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Lonewolves wrote:
So if a trans person in your office said "please don't call me abnormal", you're saying you wouldn't say this to them?


Yes, I absolutely am saying I wouldn't say it to them - and there's no way I would say it to anyone in the first place (whether in my office or anywhere else for that matter), so wouldn't need to be told.

This is NOT a contradiction. My original point was that, talking is general, generic, hypothetical terms (NOT to a specific person/individual), it is a fact to say this isn't the norm on a purely dispassionate population per capita basis, and (to me) it's stupid to say otherwise, BUT that doesn't mean I'd be comfortable actually saying it to any individual, and nor do I remotely think they are "abnormal" in any sense that I fear you mean?

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 17:41 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
Cras wrote:
The only real barometer for how people should/can be referred to isn't the accuracy of the language, it's the impact of the language on those it refers to. Basically if there is any connotation of the pejorative in any word used to refer to a person or group of persons, the language is inherently harmful. Saying someone is abnormal is of course pejorative. I'd suggest in many, many cases it's not a deliberate way to cause offence, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make effort to avoid it.

Yes, this is correct. Something I've learnt over the last couple of years is that you can have all the best intentions in the world, but if your words and actions are inadvertently causing harm, those intentions are for naught. Impact > intent.

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 17:43 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
Cavey wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
So if a trans person in your office said "please don't call me abnormal", you're saying you wouldn't say this to them?


Yes, I absolutely am saying I wouldn't say it to them - and there's no way I would say it to anyone in the first place (whether in my office or anywhere else for that matter), so wouldn't need to be told.

This is NOT a contradiction. My original point was that, talking is general, generic, hypothetical terms (NOT to a specific person/individual), it is a fact to say this isn't the norm on a purely dispassionate population per capita basis, and (to me) it's stupid to say otherwise, BUT that doesn't mean I'd be comfortable actually saying it to any individual, and nor do I remotely think they are "abnormal" in any sense that I fear you mean?

So you wouldn't say it to them out of politeness and courtesy because you know it would offend them. Right, we got there in the end I guess.

I'm not sure what your point really is. You seem to be talking about hypothetical situations that don't exist.

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 17:47 
SupaMod
User avatar
Commander-in-Cheese

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49232
Lonewolves wrote:
Yes, this is correct.


*glare*

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 17:48 
User avatar
INFINITE POWAH

Joined: 1st Apr, 2008
Posts: 30498
You have the official seal of approval Cras! Print it out and put it on the wall!

_________________
http://www.thehomeofawesome.com/
Eagles soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 17:49 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 69502
Location: Your Mum
Lonewolves wrote:
I'm not sure what your point really is. You seem to be talking about hypothetical situations that don't exist.

I think the situation is discussing it here on Beex.

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 17:52 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
Yup, we got there in the beginning as well Myp, I'd love to know where I said I would willfully and purposefully want to upset anyone, least of all potentially vulnerable and oft-persecuted minority groups. If anyone should be getting hot under the collar here it's me TBH, and there's a danger of that happening so I'm out of this discussion, save to say people should actually read what others have said, and in the correct context of having known where they're almost certainly coming from in all of this.

The original discussion was about denying the opinions of groups being heard by other groups such as at NUS debates and suchlike, but as per we've gone from that to people thinking that I, as an individual, would call trans people "abnormal" to their faces etc., just for pointing our a global, generic truth, which apparently you can't draw any distinction between the former and latter. It's ironic that this very discussion has turned into the very thing that I describe and despise (and as per Markg's example): a clear example of someone (me) being hauled up despite it being extremely obvious that no bad intent was intended. Are people so desperate to find heinous fault where there is none? Makes me sad as well as angry.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 17:54 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
MrChris wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
I am talking about the western world here, of course.


Oh, of course. Silly of me not to realise :)

But I would disagree even within that subset of the world that "old white men" are the majority of the intolerant. Anecdotally (yes, != data, but then your position on this seems based on no more than a received wisdom, which is basically the same thing), most of the homophobic people I've met have been in their 20s and 30s, and of both genders.

I have read studies that say that the majority of homophobic people are 65+. I might be able to dig out polls later.

MrChris wrote:
I would note however that both Christianity and Islam have as part of them a holy book that says (or is commonly interpreted as saying) that being gay is a sin - so at the very least "abnormal". And a number of countries with religious-derived legal systems have the death penalty for homosexuality. But yes, it's all down to old white men. ;)

Yep, but traditional conservative opposition to equal marriage is dropping as people become more socially liberal, and they are very much Christian. We know this but we don't know so much about Islam and Muslims because we don't humanise them in the same way.

And who makes the laws of the land? Old men usually. :)

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 17:57 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
Cavey wrote:
The original discussion was about denying the opinions of groups being heard by other groups such as at NUS debates and suchlike, but as per we've gone from that to people thinking that I, as an individual, would call trans people "abnormal" to their faces etc., just for pointing our a global, generic truth, which apparently you can't draw any distinction between the former and latter.

When I mean 'we', I mean we. :)

We had moved on a lot since then and we were discussing the use of 'cis' to mean 'not trans' (and as cis is the opposite of trans in Latin, it's a fair use imo). You hadn't made it clear you were talking about university speakers, so I apologise for jumping on you about a different subject.

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 18:00 
User avatar
INFINITE POWAH

Joined: 1st Apr, 2008
Posts: 30498
Lonewolves wrote:
I have read studies that say that the majority of homophobic people are 65+. I might be able to dig out polls later.

Please do - I suspect it's a higher rate of incidence in old people but it's far from uncommon in the younger. Certainly not to the extent to describe any one other than old white men as "statistically insignificant" in this respect.

Quote:
MrChris wrote:
I would note however that both Christianity and Islam have as part of them a holy book that says (or is commonly interpreted as saying) that being gay is a sin - so at the very least "abnormal". And a number of countries with religious-derived legal systems have the death penalty for homosexuality. But yes, it's all down to old white men. ;)

Yep, but traditional conservative opposition to equal marriage is dropping as people become more socially liberal, and they are very much Christian.

Well, yes, but again, the traditional conservative approach is not limited to old white men. Particularly in the US.

Quote:
we don't know so much about Islam and Muslims because we don't humanise them in the same way.

Who's this "we", paleface?

Quote:
And who makes the laws of the land? Old men usually. :)

Not white ones in most of the countries I was referring to, of course. :)

Yes, old white men can be intolerant. But to in essence describe them as the sum total of the problem of intolerance, even when you then move the goalposts to refer only to the west, is patently unsupportable.

_________________
http://www.thehomeofawesome.com/
Eagles soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 18:10 
User avatar
Gogmagog

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 48607
Location: Cheshire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_righ ... _territory

_________________
Mr Chris wrote:
MaliA isn't just the best thing on the internet - he's the best thing ever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 18:14 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
Yes, a lot of African countries have poor LGBT rights, because they're Christian, because white people went there as missionaries to dig them wells in return for taking bibles etc.

So still white people's fault.

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 18:18 
User avatar
INFINITE POWAH

Joined: 1st Apr, 2008
Posts: 30498
Because black people have no agency? Right, gotcha.

And presumably the white people created the religions in those middle eastern countries with very poor LGBT rights as well?

_________________
http://www.thehomeofawesome.com/
Eagles soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 18:21 
User avatar
Bad Girl

Joined: 20th Apr, 2008
Posts: 14353
And let's just forget about the historic spread of Islam in Africa.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 18:21 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
MrChris wrote:
Because black people have no agency? Right, gotcha.

And presumably the white people created the religions in those middle eastern countries with very poor LGBT rights as well?

Yes that's exactly what I think. Why not tell me about how I think about other things too, Chris? :roll:

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 18:26 
User avatar
INFINITE POWAH

Joined: 1st Apr, 2008
Posts: 30498
Lonewolves wrote:
MrChris wrote:
Because black people have no agency? Right, gotcha.

And presumably the white people created the religions in those middle eastern countries with very poor LGBT rights as well?

Yes that's exactly what I think. Why not tell me about how I think about other things too, Chris? :roll:

In what way am I telling you what you think? I'm (rather snarkily, admittedly, but then you are coming across as a massively sanctimonious pain in the bum at the moment, and that's the sort of response you consequently engender) pointing out the logical conclusion of your point about Africa and explaining the massive hole in your argument that it's all the whites' fault when it comes to the middle east. Your commitment to blaming whitey for everything is laudable, but I'm puzzled why you can't see that it's a bit, well, wrong.

_________________
http://www.thehomeofawesome.com/
Eagles soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 18:42 
User avatar
UltraMod

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 55715
Location: California
MrChris wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
MrChris wrote:
Because black people have no agency? Right, gotcha.

And presumably the white people created the religions in those middle eastern countries with very poor LGBT rights as well?

Yes that's exactly what I think. Why not tell me about how I think about other things too, Chris? :roll:

In what way am I telling you what you think? I'm (rather snarkily, admittedly, but then you are coming across as a massively sanctimonious pain in the bum at the moment, and that's the sort of response you consequently engender) pointing out the logical conclusion of your point about Africa and explaining the massive hole in your argument that it's all the whites' fault when it comes to the middle east. Your commitment to blaming whitey for everything is laudable, but I'm puzzled why you can't see that it's a bit, well, wrong.

I blame white people (and men in particular) for the historical and ongoing oppression of women and minorities in western (white) countries, which is what I refer to when I talk about these issues. Other countries and regions around the world have different problems and I don't place the blame entirely on us for that (Although the British Empire did own 75% of the world at one point, so it's fair to say we've definitely caused more than our fair share). I've already stated is an issue with fundamentalists in general, but you don't have to read if you don't want to.

Also lol @ 'massively sanctimonious pain in the bum' coming from you. I must have learned from the best. :)

_________________
I am currently under construction.
Thank you for your patience.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 18:53 
User avatar
INFINITE POWAH

Joined: 1st Apr, 2008
Posts: 30498
Lonewolves wrote:
I blame white people (and men in particular) for the historical and ongoing oppression of women and minorities in western (white) countries, which is what I refer to when I talk about these issues. Other countries and regions around the world have different problems and I don't place the blame entirely on us for that (Although the British Empire did own 75% of the world at one point, so it's fair to say we've definitely caused more than our fair share).


Well, that's all fair enough, and I can't say I disagree with it. It's just not quite what you said to begin with. If you recall, I took issue with the "it's all old white men and any other group is statistically insignificant" (I paraphrase, of course, so I apologise for the inaccurate use of quote marks). Which I maintain is incorrect and you've not said anything that backs up that original assertion. It's ok to admit you're wrong, you know. I have had practice. :)

Quote:
I've already stated is an issue with fundamentalists in general, but you don't have to read if you don't want to.


Why thank you! You're too kind.

But I did read that, and my response explained (although without referring specifically to those very words, apologies for not making it abundantly clear) why that was irrelevant to the point I was making (i.e. that it's not just fundamentalists when it comes to certain religions, because the founding texts have that intolerance built in. And I'm fairly sure I recall various attitude surveys of British Muslims showing fairly widespread intolerance of homosexuality).

Quote:
Also lol @ 'massively sanctimonious pain in the bum' coming from you. I must have learned from the best. :)


Aha. Goodness me. "I know you are but what am I". :) but I'm sorry, the sanctimonious point was an uncalled for comment and I apologise. Although it was true ;)

But I'm sure this is getting tedious for everyone involved now (and I have to go to a school governors' meeting), so I'll let you get the last word in and we can leave it there. :)

Fundamentally we don't disagree about the main underlying stuff, we're doing what beex does best and arguing about the peripheral :)

_________________
http://www.thehomeofawesome.com/
Eagles soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 19:09 
User avatar
Bad Girl

Joined: 20th Apr, 2008
Posts: 14353
Myp there, shaking his fist at history.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 7:09 
User avatar
Ticket to Ride World Champion

Joined: 18th Apr, 2008
Posts: 11843
Fistory


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 9:21 
Awesome
User avatar
Yes

Joined: 6th Apr, 2008
Posts: 12240
Lonewolves wrote:
but you don't have to read if you don't want to.


See, I like you, but I'm bored of reading about how I'm privileged and oppressing people I simply don't care about. It's 99% of your content at the minute and wish the old you was back.

_________________
Always proof read carefully in case you any words out


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Political Banter and Debate Thread
PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2016 9:37 
User avatar
Hello Hello Hello

Joined: 11th May, 2008
Posts: 13381
I can do something about framerates, if that'll help.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 14340 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69 ... 287  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Vogons and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search within this thread:
You are using the 'Ted' forum. Bill doesn't really exist any more. Bogus!
Want to help out with the hosting / advertising costs? That's very nice of you.
Are you on a mobile phone? Try http://beex.co.uk/m/
RIP, Owen. RIP, MrC.

Powered by a very Grim... version of phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.