ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 1st November 2019, 03:06 AM   #201
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,414
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
The issue I have is not that I disagree with that idea. There are certain posters who I don't engage with for exactly that reason. The issue I have is that it's not clear who the OP (and others) are talking about, so the factual question of whether or not they actually are sincere can't really be addressed in this thread.
I wish the MA allowed me to be clearer, but it doesn't, so I can't be. I don't think it's very difficult to understand who I'm talking about from the clues in my OP.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2019, 03:26 AM   #202
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 13,080
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
I wish the MA allowed me to be clearer, but it doesn't, so I can't be. I don't think it's very difficult to understand who I'm talking about from the clues in my OP.
I should say that I wasn't intending to fault your OP. I just think you and I probably disagree about which posters fit your description, but we can't really have that discussion.

Aside from that (possible) disagreement, while I originally didn't really like the idea expressed in the OP, I actually think that for those who I think your description applies to I already do take the tactic that you are suggesting, so in that sense I actually agree with you.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2019, 07:03 AM   #203
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 24,330
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Where’s a laughing dog?

If someone offers a sincere contribution that disagrees with progressive dogma, they will be labeled insincere rather than engaged with.

'k.

__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2019, 07:11 AM   #204
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 24,330
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I should say that I wasn't intending to fault your OP. I just think you and I probably disagree about which posters fit your description, but we can't really have that discussion.

Aside from that (possible) disagreement, while I originally didn't really like the idea expressed in the OP, I actually think that for those who I think your description applies to I already do take the tactic that you are suggesting, so in that sense I actually agree with you.

I suspect that the purported need to identify anyone in particular is something of a distraction.

Viewed as a spectrum there are going to be posters whom we agree are worth engaging with , those where there is room for disagreement, and those that leave little doubt they are not worth the effort regardless of the ideological prism through which they are seen.

The important part of the message is that, based on any one person's evaluation, they should choose not to engage the posters they see as not interested in engaging in sincere discussion.

As you have said, there are those who fit that description for most of us. Which means that most of us will agree on some level.

Whether they admit to it or not.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2019, 07:57 AM   #205
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 13,473
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
I suspect that the purported need to identify anyone in particular is something of a distraction.

Viewed as a spectrum there are going to be posters whom we agree are worth engaging with , those where there is room for disagreement, and those that leave little doubt they are not worth the effort regardless of the ideological prism through which they are seen.

The important part of the message is that, based on any one person's evaluation, they should choose not to engage the posters they see as not interested in engaging in sincere discussion.

As you have said, there are those who fit that description for most of us. Which means that most of us will agree on some level.

Whether they admit to it or not.
Except this boils down to a truism that really doesn't merit a thread.

This is a game of community rorschach, where participants share their impressions of inkblots that others are unable to view.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2019, 08:00 AM   #206
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,158
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Thank you for so clearly and effectively proving my point.
And now you've just proven his.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2019, 08:04 AM   #207
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,158
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
There have been a number of posters who advocate shunning some (most?) of the posters on this forum. Can you name anyone posting here who thinks you don’t have a right to exist?
None. It's hyperbole and nothing else.

The problem with the extremists is that they don't accept any deviation from their own views. If you're not 100% with them, then by definition you must want them dead.

Which is weird because luchog can be very reasonable on other topics.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2019, 08:13 AM   #208
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,158
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Is this how you see people being targeted by extreme rightwingers? That maybe they shouldn't be so outraged about having to always assert their right to exist, because they may at any point step over the point to where you no longer feel they are rational?
Nobody has to assert their right to exist. Nobody's suggesting any group be wiped out or ignored entirely. Disagreeing with someone doesn't mean you want them to disappear.

Originally Posted by luchog View Post
You can go look at pretty much any transgender thread on this board for many glaring examples.
He really can't. I don't remember anyone every saying that transgender people don't exist, or even that they shouldn't. There's disagreement on the nature of the 'condition', for lack of a better word, but that's it.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove breach of rule 12
Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove response to same
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward



Last edited by Agatha; 6th November 2019 at 10:15 AM.
Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2019, 09:17 AM   #209
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,134
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
He really can't. I don't remember anyone every saying that transgender people don't exist, or even that they shouldn't. There's disagreement on the nature of the 'condition', for lack of a better word, but that's it.

That's complete BS. I'm not going to name names, against the rules; but those threads are full of people going on about how transgenderism isn't real, that it's just a mental illness, that transwomen are just "blokes in dresses", that if people can "identify" as trans, then they can "identify" as helicopters with equal validity, that young transpeople are just confused kids being trendy, and on and on and on. Then, of course, there's the "transpeople are just men dressing in drag and pretending to be women so that they can invade women's spaces and sexually harass/assault real women. And that's not counting one particular poster who likes to post all sorts of bizarre conspiracy theories about how "transactivists" are "erasing lesbians" by "forcing them to have genital-mutilating surgery" and denying that they're really transmen having gender-correction surgery because that doesn't really exist it's just a mental illness promoted by a shadowy conspiracy of "transactivists" who control the media and medical industry.

I direct you particularly to the TERFs crash London Pride and the Trans Women are not Women threads.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.

Last edited by luchog; 1st November 2019 at 09:19 AM.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2019, 09:22 AM   #210
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,158
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
That's complete BS. I'm not going to name names, against the rules; but those threads are full of people going on about how transgenderism isn't real, that it's just a mental illness, that transwomen are just "blokes in dresses", that if people can "identify" as trans, then they can "identify" as helicopters with equal validity, that young transpeople are just confused kids being trendy, and on and on and on.
Here's the first problem: if you always use hyperbole, at some point people are not going to know where the reality is. A principle I call "crying dragon". You say those threads are "full of people" doing these things, but that's just not true in my experience.

Plus, saying it's a mental condition isn't denying the existence of transgenderism. In fact, quite the opposite. Saying that it's men in dresses, while simplistic and silly, is also not saying that. You're simply using two layers of exaggeration: exaggerating the number of people who take those positions, and the nature of those positions.

Quote:
Then, of course, there's the "transpeople are just men dressing in drag and pretending to be women so that they can invade women's spaces and sexually harass/assault real women.
That's certainly implied in some of the right-wing rhetoric on the issue, but how many posters here have argued that? One?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2019, 10:23 AM   #211
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,134
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Here's the first problem: if you always use hyperbole, at some point people are not going to know where the reality is. A principle I call "crying dragon". You say those threads are "full of people" doing these things, but that's just not true in my experience.

It's easy to pretend something doesn't exist when you're not the target of it. We've certainly seen plenty of that in the racism threads.

Quote:
Plus, saying it's a mental condition isn't denying the existence of transgenderism. In fact, quite the opposite. Saying that it's men in dresses, while simplistic and silly, is also not saying that.

Of course it bloody well does. It's de-legitimizing the experiences of transpeople. Telling them their identity is false, that they're deluded or playacting, is to deny the the validity of transgenderism. To say that it simply doesn't exist and can be explained away, or let's be honest here, gaslighted away, as something else that is more acceptable to the commentor. You're not really a woman, you don't identify as a woman, you're just confused and need to be cured; or hatching some nefarious plot and need to be punished.


Quote:
You're simply using two layers of exaggeration: exaggerating the number of people who take those positions, and the nature of those positions.

If anything, I've undersold the positions explicitly posted in those threads.

That's certainly implied in some of the right-wing rhetoric on the issue, but how many posters here have argued that? One?[/quote]


A whole lot more than that, which anyone who had bothered to read the threads linked, without the intent to dismiss it all out of hand, would easily see. It was explicitly stated by multiple people, and supported by quite a few more.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2019, 10:35 AM   #212
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,158
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
It's easy to pretend something doesn't exist when you're not the target of it.
And it's easy to dismiss people's objections by saying the above. In fact it's repeated over and over, every time this discussion pops up. It's not an argument. It's a platitude.

Quote:
Of course it bloody well does.
No, IT DOESN'T. Just like telling religious people that their god doesn't exist doesn't deny their right to believe or invalidate their religious experiences. nor does it mean that Christians, for instance, actually don't exist.

Quote:
Telling them their identity is false
More buzzwords. No one's doing that. At worst they're telling them that their perception doesn't match objective reality. That doesn't mean that they can't exist, or have those perceptions, or that they're not worthy human beings, or anything else. The problem is that you are putting the real bigots in the same bucket as everybody else who disagrees with you on any aspect of the discussion. No wonder you think those threads are full of evil people out to get you.

Quote:
To say that it simply doesn't exist and can be explained away
Well, what did you expect transgenderism to be? Some sort of metaphysical truth? It's a perception of oneself. Of course those can be explained, and of course often they don't match reality.

Quote:
You're not really a woman, you don't identify as a woman, you're just confused and need to be cured; or hatching some nefarious plot and need to be punished.
First of all, transition IS a proposed cure. Second, what you are here complaining about is people disagreeing on the definition of "woman". Some people insist that it should be whatever the person feels it is, while others would rather stick to a more workable or traditional definition. Where does the optimal solution lie? I don't know, but demonising either side (or, as you would put it, dehumanising them) just because they don't full agree is ridiculous; it won't lead to any productive answers.

Quote:
If anything, I've undersold the positions explicitly posted in those threads.
If that's what you think then you are completely divorced from reality where these issues are concerned. As I said, it's a damned shame, given how rational you are on other topics.

Quote:
A whole lot more than that, which anyone who had bothered to read the threads linked, without the intent to dismiss it all out of hand, would easily see.
See? You just cannot accept that someone might have read these threads AND disagree honestly with your assessment. So what's the point of discussing with you?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2019, 10:44 AM   #213
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 51,879
Christ, dude. I read but no longer participate in those threads. I don't have a dog in the transgender fight myself. But holy crap those threads are toxic. Not all posts but a good proportion of them are dripping with venom. I can't bear to be in there and I'm not even a target. I don't think luchog is off-base at all in characterising what goes on in those two threads.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2019, 10:46 AM   #214
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,158
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Christ, dude. I read but no longer participate in those threads. I don't have a dog in the transgender fight myself. But holy crap those threads are toxic. Not all posts but a good proportion of them are dripping with venom. I can't bear to be in there and I'm not even a target. I don't think luchog is off-base at all in characterising what goes on in those two threads.
Not that I think we can get into analysing individual posts, but what do you mean by "toxic"?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2019, 10:53 AM   #215
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 51,879
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Not that I think we can get into analysing individual posts, but what do you mean by "toxic"?
Brimming with hate, evident in tone and wording. Not everyone's equally sensitive to tone so you may just not see it.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2019, 10:58 AM   #216
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,158
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Brimming with hate, evident in tone and wording.
I read and participated in those threads and although the discussion is heated, I don't see hatred. Rolfe is certainly pretty vocal on the issue, and I can certainly understand why someone would disagree with her interpretations, but hate?

Quote:
Not everyone's equally sensitive to tone so you may just not see it.
I could just as easily say that perhaps you're seeing something that isn't there because of differing experiences, or over-sensitivity. Hypothetically. The point is that unless we can establish some sort of standard we'll never agree.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2019, 11:02 AM   #217
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 51,879
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I could just as easily say that perhaps you're seeing something that isn't there because of differing experiences, or over-sensitivity. Hypothetically. The point is that unless we can establish some sort of standard we'll never agree.
A good Commander Data response. However when it comes to the nuances and subtleties of emotion it's Counselor Troi who sees what's up. I'm confident in my analysis and I look amazing in an asymmetrical lycra unitard.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2019, 11:03 AM   #218
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,158
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
A good Commander Data response. However when it comes to the nuances and subtleties of emotion it's Counselor Troi who sees what's up. I'm confident in my analysis and I look amazing in an asymmetrical lycra unitard.
Well I can't argue against that, except to say that I'm more of a Spock person.

However I'm sure you'll agree that emotions don't really help us reach useful conclusions, no?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2019, 11:04 AM   #219
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,297
duplicate

Last edited by Mumbles; 1st November 2019 at 11:08 AM.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2019, 11:08 AM   #220
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,297
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Christ, dude. I read but no longer participate in those threads. I don't have a dog in the transgender fight myself. But holy crap those threads are toxic. Not all posts but a good proportion of them are dripping with venom. I can't bear to be in there and I'm not even a target. I don't think luchog is off-base at all in characterising what goes on in those two threads.
And I'll co-sign as well - with the added caveat that nearly every time I hear an actual story of a transgendered woman being involved in a sexual assault in a woman's bathroom, she's the victim of the assault rather than the perpetrator. In other words, the caterwauling about how transgendered women are just out to molest women/little girls runs strongly against the evidence we have.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2019, 12:02 PM   #221
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 51,879
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
However I'm sure you'll agree that emotions don't really help us reach useful conclusions, no?
I thought you thought you knew me pretty well by now? Absolutely disagree.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2019, 12:10 PM   #222
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,158
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I thought you thought you knew me pretty well by now? Absolutely disagree.
Really?

Would you therefore agree that my mother's opinion that elevators are dangerous deathtraps based on her personal fear of the things is rational? The point I was trying to make was that if we pit our feelings against one another we'll probably never get anywhere. Fruitful discussion involves finding common ground, and objective, dispassionate facts tend to fit the bill.

Where exactly do you disagree with this?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2019, 12:49 PM   #223
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,134
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
No, IT DOESN'T. Just like telling religious people that their god doesn't exist doesn't deny their right to believe or invalidate their religious experiences. nor does it mean that Christians, for instance, actually don't exist.

False equivalency. Saying god does not exist is not the same as saying Christianity doesn't exist. One is a physical fact, the other is a belief system. Even so there are a good deal of people who attempt to "convert" Christians by insisting that they're mentally ill, and need to be "cured" of their religion.

By comparison, transgenderism is not a belief system based on an unfalsifiable premise; it's a neurological condition which a growing body of physical evidence.

Quote:
At worst they're telling them that their perception doesn't match objective reality.

Now you're just engaging in semantic quibbling to evade the issue.

Quote:
That doesn't mean that they can't exist, or have those perceptions, or that they're not worthy human beings, or anything else.

Except that it does. At best, it says that those people are deluded and need to be cured of their delusion.

Quote:
Well, what did you expect transgenderism to be? Some sort of metaphysical truth? It's a perception of oneself. Of course those can be explained, and of course often they don't match reality.

And here's the BS I was talking about. Transgenderism is physical reality. The perception of one's gender is rooted in one's neurological development, it's not a mental illness or "metaphysical truth". Look up the work that neuroscientists like V.S. Ramachandran have done on it. The exact neuroscience that the anti-trans posters in those threads have been continually denying exists, or deriding as "metaphysical" as you've (maybe not intentionally) implied here.

Quote:
First of all, transition IS a proposed cure.

They why do so many people in those threads refer to it as "mutilation" rather than "corrective surgery", openly ridicule and deride those who go through the process, and attempt to exaggerate the number of transpeople who regret the surgery, or insist that those who express satisfaction are either "mentally ill" or are "brainwashed by the transactivist lobby".

Quote:
Second, what you are here complaining about is people disagreeing on the definition of "woman".

And if you'd bothered actually reading my posts in those threads you'd know exactly how wrong you are. I've always been quite open about the fact that I don't think transwomen or transmen are the same, nor should be the same, as biological women and men; and the insistence on forcing them into that box is internalized repression from a culturally-enforced, biological-essentialist strict binary worldview. A worldview pushed heavily by the anti-trans crowd -- because transpeople are not and cannot be identical to genetically-conforming cispeople, transgenderism is therefore either an illness or a plot.

The fact that you dismiss all this as "buzzwords" shows at best a willful ignorance on the matter.

Quote:
If that's what you think then you are completely divorced from reality where these issues are concerned. As I said, it's a damned shame, given how rational you are on other topics.

More gaslighting. Maybe not intentional, but that's what it is.

Quote:
See? You just cannot accept that someone might have read these threads AND disagree honestly with your assessment. So what's the point of discussing with you?

Hopefully to get someone who is still on the fence to examine their views and try to gain a better understanding of transgenderism, who transgender people are, why they are the way they are, how they're treated by mainstream culture and politics, and maybe how to change the culture to be less dehumanizing and dismissive of them.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I read and participated in those threads and although the discussion is heated, I don't see hatred.

It's very easy to ignore it and dismiss it when you're not the perpetual target of it.

I could just as easily say that perhaps you're seeing something that isn't there because of differing experiences, or over-sensitivity.[/quote]


And there's the other canard, "over-sensitivity". Just like all those "over-sensitive" minorities who complain about being the persistent targets of discrimination and state-sanctioned murder . That's privilege speaking, loudly and dismissively.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2019, 01:19 PM   #224
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,297
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Brimming with hate, evident in tone and wording. Not everyone's equally sensitive to tone so you may just not see it.
I've noted before that quite a few people - almost always white in the US - are seemingly unable to identify racism, even when it comes in obvious forms like Dolt 45's overt white supremacism, or people ranting about weed-smoking black brutesthugs. This is how we get, on one hand, people who insist that "nobody was calling him a racist until he started running for president!", and on the other loudly pointing out his racism when he was pushing birtherism, and for years before that.

I'll freely admit that luchog's likely more attuned to anti-trans attitudes than I am, for a similar reason - it's a simple matter of survival and identifying who could very easily flip out with little to no provocation. Belz, you may wish to consider the same could easily be true for yourself.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2019, 03:11 PM   #225
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,134
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
I've noted before that quite a few people - almost always white in the US - are seemingly unable to identify racism, even when it comes in obvious forms like Dolt 45's overt white supremacism, or people ranting about weed-smoking black brutesthugs. This is how we get, on one hand, people who insist that "nobody was calling him a racist until he started running for president!", and on the other loudly pointing out his racism when he was pushing birtherism, and for years before that.

I'll freely admit that luchog's likely more attuned to anti-trans attitudes than I am, for a similar reason - it's a simple matter of survival and identifying who could very easily flip out with little to no provocation. Belz, you may wish to consider the same could easily be true for yourself.

Being white, and growing up in an Evangelical Christian community, I know that I didn't see a lot of the less blatant sorts of racism growing up, and was somewhat in the "racism isn't really that big a deal" camp. Racism, in my experience, was just a handful of isolated incidents, easily dismissed as "just ignorant rednecks". A few atavistic remnants of an earlier time which the rest of society had long grown past (the Civil Rights era was something the previous generation had worked out). The more subtle forms of racism, the deeply-ingrained cultural expressions of racism, the sort that manifested more in patterns than individual incidents, went right over my head.

It wasn't until I got out of that bubble and actually started interacting closely with people who were targets, not just hearing but actually listening to them recount their experiences, that I began to understand just how far wrong I was. Just how pervasive and pernicious that kind of racism really was. And eventually I learned the signs, the dog whistles, the coded language and behaviour, that forms the bulk of racist expression in most of society (up until it became more acceptable, in the last few years, to be openly racist).

Obviously I don't see it as well as those who are targets of it, but I like to think I'm a bit more aware of how the world really works now, and what those who are outside the mainstream need to endure. And that's pretty much how it works for everyone. It's harder to see what isn't aimed at you, and understanding it takes empathy for those significantly different from one's self, and a willingness to see through their eyes, hear through their ears.

I'd always seen a lot of anti-LGBTQ sentiment around, the churches I grew up in were rife with it. But it wasn't until I came to terms with being trans myself, and coming out about it (mostly, I still have to stay closeted in some contexts, simply for my own survival and for those who are dependent on me), that I realized just how common, how deep, and how vicious that prejudice could really be. And not being highly visible most of the time, I know I still don't even see the totality of it, compared to my friends and acquaintances who are more open and visible about who they are.

Cue the usual suspects with their snide accusations of "virtue signaling", and sledgehammer-subtle denigration of "wokeness"; as if that's anything but their own form of pathetic and creepy virtue signaling.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2019, 03:41 PM   #226
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,158
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
False equivalency. Saying god does not exist is not the same as saying Christianity doesn't exist.
Right, just like saying that one's perception of one's gender does not conform to objective reality does not deny the existence of that person or of their identity. See the point, now?

Quote:
By comparison, transgenderism is not a belief system based on an unfalsifiable premise; it's a neurological condition which a growing body of physical evidence.
Why do you object to some calling it a mental health disease if you're going to call it a neurological condition? I guess maybe it's a language issue, but I don't see much of a distinction.

Quote:
Now you're just engaging in semantic quibbling to evade the issue.
Could you perhaps make the effort to give me the benefit of the doubt that I actually see an important difference there? Telling you that your perception does not match objective reality does not A) deny your existence B) require you to conform C) change your identity. If you think it does, I think it'd be high time for you to explain why.

Quote:
Except that it does. At best, it says that those people are deluded and need to be cured of their delusion.
Wait a second. Why do you think it says the second part? How do you make that leap? To return to my analogy, I think religious believers are deluded but it clearly doesn't make them non-functional in society, nor does it imply that they should get with the program.

Quote:
And here's the BS I was talking about.
Can you ever call something wrong without using expletives and hyperbole?

Quote:
Transgenderism is physical reality. The perception of one's gender is rooted in one's neurological development, it's not a mental illness or "metaphysical truth".
Sorry, but people who believe they are Napoleon have their beliefs rooted in neurological development as well. Hell, so do religious people. That's not a distinction that helps your case. And that's not even getting into the disagreemeng over the definition of "gender".

Quote:
They why do so many people in those threads refer to it as "mutilation" rather than "corrective surgery"
Hyperbole would be my guess. Unfortunately people often use charged or exaggerated language to describe things they disagree with. And just as I called you on what I consider to be unjustified hyperbole on your part, so do I disagree with their use of the word mutilation, unless it's somehow imposed on someone.

However, my comment about transition as a cure was not offered as a defense of your detractors but rather to show that both you and them are offering a cure, just a different one. The point is that maybe their suggestion, misguided as it may be, may not be borne out of hatred.

Quote:
openly ridicule and deride those who go through the process
Can you describe an example, if not quote it?

Quote:
and attempt to exaggerate the number of transpeople who regret the surgery, or insist that those who express satisfaction are either "mentally ill" or are "brainwashed by the transactivist lobby".
I can only ascribe that to bias on their part. I have no idea the proportion of transitioned people who regret their decision. It's easy to pick individual cases as some sort of a gotcha against the idea, much like some are looking at individual cases of either trans people or people who pretend to be trans people abusing the goodwill of people to abuse women (say, the person who wanted force women to wax his genitals or such nonsense), as some sort of proof that all this is a mistake.

Quote:
I've always been quite open about the fact that I don't think transwomen or transmen are the same, nor should be the same, as biological women and men; and the insistence on forcing them into that box is internalized repression from a culturally-enforced, biological-essentialist strict binary worldview.
I honestly apologise, but I don't understand what this means.

Quote:
More gaslighting.
Are you sure you know what this term means? I have no idea how it could apply to someone simply telling you that you're wrong (in admitedly colourful terms).

Quote:
Hopefully to get someone who is still on the fence to examine their views and try to gain a better understanding of transgenderism, who transgender people are, why they are the way they are, how they're treated by mainstream culture and politics, and maybe how to change the culture to be less dehumanizing and dismissive of them.
That's a great goal, but to be frank with you I don't think your attitude will lead to that.

Quote:
It's very easy to ignore it and dismiss it when you're not the perpetual target of it.
I've already told you why this particular argument is pointless and nonsensical.

Quote:
And there's the other canard, "over-sensitivity".
Why is it that one can accuse others of being under-sensitive, but the reverse is beyond the pale? That's what I was suggesting earlier: you cannot fathom that you could possibly be wrong on any aspect of this topic. It's not helping you make your point.

Quote:
That's privilege speaking, loudly and dismissively.
You missed a beautiful opportunity to bring up the Patriarchy.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward



Last edited by Belz...; 1st November 2019 at 03:44 PM.
Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2019, 07:13 PM   #227
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 3,255
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
I've noted before that quite a few people - almost always white in the US - are seemingly unable to identify racism, even when it comes in obvious forms like Dolt 45's overt white supremacism, or people ranting about weed-smoking black brutesthugs. This is how we get, on one hand, people who insist that "nobody was calling him a racist until he started running for president!", and on the other loudly pointing out his racism when he was pushing birtherism, and for years before that.

I'll freely admit that luchog's likely more attuned to anti-trans attitudes than I am, for a similar reason - it's a simple matter of survival and identifying who could very easily flip out with little to no provocation. Belz, you may wish to consider the same could easily be true for yourself.
SHOW ME THE RACISM! is one of the most frustrating things I've had to deal with with Trumpers in real life. The game seems to be call you "snowflake" for even mentioning racism. "we all need free speech, don't try to stop us" nonsense.
Venom is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2019, 08:32 PM   #228
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,787
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
That's complete BS. I'm not going to name names, against the rules; but those threads are full of people going on about how transgenderism isn't real, that it's just a mental illness, that transwomen are just "blokes in dresses"
Luchog claims that people on the forum are saying that transgender people shouldn't exist. As evidence for this far-reaching claim luchog states that some people have said that transgenderism is a mental illness or that transwomen are just blokes in dresses.

Let P1 = "transgenderism is a mental illness."
Let P2 = "transwomen are just blokes in dresses."
Let C = ""transgender people shouldn't exist."

Clearly C does not follow from either P1 or P2. There are a couple of implicit premises that luchog holds in order to derive C from P1 or P2. These premises are:

P1b = "people with a mental illness shouldn't exist."
P2b = "men who wear dresses shouldn't exist."

P1b is an interesting belief for luchog to hold, given his persistent claims that people who don't share his ideology are just like nazis. Does luchog not know what the nazis did with people with mental illnesses because they also believed in P1b?

P2b is a common belief in genderist cults, adherence to strict gender roles where men who wear dresses should not be allowed to exist. That these sort of regressive beliefs are promoted as progressive is quite interesting.

As usual luchog's arguments are just a big victim-playing show, with a sauce of a persecution complex, for promoting his regressive-genderist (men who wear dresses shouldn't exist) and even outright eugenicist (people with mental illnesses shouldn't exist) beliefs.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2019, 09:34 PM   #229
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,134
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Right, just like saying that one's perception of one's gender does not conform to objective reality does not deny the existence of that person or of their identity. See the point, now?

Oh you've definitely revealed quite a lot, your point is abundantly clear; despite being equally abundantly wrong. Perhaps you should learn what the objective reality actually is, since you seem to have completely missed it. Or should I say persistently avoided seeing it.

Quote:
Why do you object to some calling it a mental health disease if you're going to call it a neurological condition? I guess maybe it's a language issue, but I don't see much of a distinction.

Fortunately, the actual scientists with experience in the relevant fields, as I referenced earlier and you patently ignored, can see the distinction quite clearly. That's why transgenderism is not considered a mental illness by the medical establishment; it's only the anti-trans crowd who still insists on believing it to be one, with the dogmatic faith characteristic of any religious or woo nutter, and attempt to dismiss the validity of the trans identity by denying the established science. Just as you're doing here, while trying to pretend to not be anti-trans.

Quote:
Why is it that one can accuse others of being under-sensitive, but the reverse is beyond the pale? That's what I was suggesting earlier: you cannot fathom that you could possibly be wrong on any aspect of this topic. It's not helping you make your point.

Oh I think I've made my point quite effectively, and others have managed to see and understand it without any difficulty. You're the only one who appears to have trouble with it, as clearly evidenced by your self-important, patronizing denialism, tone-policing, and concern-trolling.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2019, 12:54 AM   #230
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 8,925
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
And I'll co-sign as well - with the added caveat that nearly every time I hear an actual story of a transgendered woman being involved in a sexual assault in a woman's bathroom, she's the victim of the assault rather than the perpetrator. ]In other words, the caterwauling about how transgendered women are just out to molest women/little girls runs strongly against the evidence we have.

As does the idea that the world is full of ordinary men who will use the opportunity to pretend to be transgendered in order to be able to molest women/little girls ...
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2019, 02:00 PM   #231
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,158
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Oh you've definitely revealed quite a lot, your point is abundantly clear; despite being equally abundantly wrong. Perhaps you should learn what the objective reality actually is, since you seem to have completely missed it. Or should I say persistently avoided seeing it.




Fortunately, the actual scientists with experience in the relevant fields, as I referenced earlier and you patently ignored, can see the distinction quite clearly. That's why transgenderism is not considered a mental illness by the medical establishment; it's only the anti-trans crowd who still insists on believing it to be one, with the dogmatic faith characteristic of any religious or woo nutter, and attempt to dismiss the validity of the trans identity by denying the established science. Just as you're doing here, while trying to pretend to not be anti-trans.




Oh I think I've made my point quite effectively, and others have managed to see and understand it without any difficulty. You're the only one who appears to have trouble with it, as clearly evidenced by your self-important, patronizing denialism, tone-policing, and concern-trolling.
Wow, you really are completely incapable of having a civil discussion. I've made a good deal of effort to avoid the discussion descending into this sort of nonsense, but you can't help yourself.

You have not made a single effort to address any of the points I've raised. The problem is that you can't: It's completely ideological for you, which makes you calling it objective reality laughable.

Cheers.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward



Last edited by Belz...; 2nd November 2019 at 02:04 PM.
Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2019, 12:44 AM   #232
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,787
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Wow, you really are completely incapable of having a civil discussion. I've made a good deal of effort to avoid the discussion descending into this sort of nonsense, but you can't help yourself.

You have not made a single effort to address any of the points I've raised. The problem is that you can't: It's completely ideological for you, which makes you calling it objective reality laughable.

Cheers.
It's just cargo cult skepticism/science. A string of buzzwords like "dogmatic faith" or "religious woo" or "tone-policing" without any logical connection, a bit like our very own Sokal. All the while making wild claims about having to assert their right to exist on the forum without ever backing any of it up with evidence, just a lot of dramatic flair and persecution complex without any basis in fact.

The appeals to "the settled science" about transgenderism not being a mental illness because it has a neurological basis are hilarious, almost every mental illness has a known neurological basis (fe schizophrenia - yet that doesn't mean that a schizophrenic who identifies as Napoleon actually is Napoleon, does it?). This peculiar argument for not considering transgenderism a mental illness does make some sense given luchog's belief that people with a mental illness shouldn't exist, but maybe luchog should consider that the problem there is his belief that people with a mental illness shouldn't exist and not that some people would classify transgenderism as a mental illness.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2019, 08:58 AM   #233
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 51,879
The sad part is that some people think they're furthering their case when in fact they're providing exhibits for the opposition.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2019, 12:16 PM   #234
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,158
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
The sad part is that some people think they're furthering their case when in fact they're providing exhibits for the opposition.
I assume you're talking about me and Caveman?

So let me get this straight. You think that me disagreeing with luchog saying that those who say transgenderism is a mental condition means those with that condition shouldn't exist supports the idea? There mere fact of disagreeing with X proves X? You know this is woo-woo level thinking, right?

Or do you mean that Caveman calling luchog's arguments cult-think proves luchog's point? That's no better.

And if that's not what you mean, do clarify.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward



Last edited by Belz...; 3rd November 2019 at 12:17 PM.
Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2019, 12:21 PM   #235
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 51,879
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I assume you're talking about me and Caveman?

So let me get this straight. You think that me disagreeing with luchog saying that those who say transgenderism is a mental condition means those with that condition shouldn't exist supports the idea? There mere fact of disagreeing with X proves X?

You know this is woo-woo level thinking, right?

And if that's not what you mean, do clarify.
Scroll up, read for tone. And I'm not interested in extending the arguments from that thread to this one, I'm just pointing out --as requested by you-- what I meant by toxicity. If you really can't see it then there is nothing anyone can say to convince you, any more than one can explain a color to the colorblind. I see it, others see it, and you cannot badger people into agreeing that it's not there just because you don't see it.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2019, 01:04 PM   #236
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,158
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Scroll up, read for tone. And I'm not interested in extending the arguments from that thread to this one, I'm just pointing out --as requested by you-- what I meant by toxicity. If you really can't see it then there is nothing anyone can say to convince you, any more than one can explain a color to the colorblind. I see it, others see it, and you cannot badger people into agreeing that it's not there just because you don't see it.
This sort of argument always amuses me. If you don't understand, I'm not telling you. If you did understand, of course, I wouldn't need to. It makes no sense. People need explanations specifically when they don't understand. So if you think I'm not understanding something, that's when you should explain. Your post above reads like you only want to discuss these issues with people who already agree with you.

So, would you like to try again?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2019, 01:07 PM   #237
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Scroll up, read for tone. And I'm not interested in extending the arguments from that thread to this one, I'm just pointing out --as requested by you-- what I meant by toxicity. If you really can't see it then there is nothing anyone can say to convince you, any more than one can explain a color to the colorblind. I see it, others see it, and you cannot badger people into agreeing that it's not there just because you don't see it.
This is a forum that started as a place for reasoned, logical, evidence based discussions.

Care to put any logic , reasoning or evidence in your responses? Because that one might as well be an expression of faith, as if an sjw wrote the shahada.
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2019, 01:12 PM   #238
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 51,879
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
This sort of argument always amuses me. If you don't understand, I'm not telling you. If you did understand, of course, I wouldn't need to. It makes no sense. People need explanations specifically when they don't understand. So if you think I'm not understanding something, that's when you should explain. Your post above reads like you only want to discuss these issues with people who already agree with you.

So, would you like to try again?
No, I wouldn't. I only spoke up in the first place because several people were piling on one individual and I thought it would be the right thing to do to reassure that individual that no, they're not the only one seeing a particular behavior.

You are absolutely free to ignore everything I have or will ever say. You are not the person I was talking to. I have no interest in attempting to convince you of anything. I don't think I'm capable of convincing you of anything. It's boring to try further. I'm dropping this now.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2019, 01:41 PM   #239
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,158
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
You are absolutely free to ignore everything I have or will ever say.
Glad to see that you're dedicated to reasoned discussion.

Quote:
You are not the person I was talking to.
You weren't talking to anyone, it seems. You didn't quote another poster, and your post was after Caveman's and my response to luchog. So what are people supposed to think? Or was vagueness part of the idea?

Quote:
I have no interest in attempting to convince you of anything.
Actually, that's another woo-woo style platitude. Of course you have that interest. You wouldn't be debating people if you hadn't.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward



Last edited by Belz...; 3rd November 2019 at 01:42 PM.
Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 07:13 AM   #240
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,134
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Wow, you really are completely incapable of having a civil discussion. I've made a good deal of effort to avoid the discussion descending into this sort of nonsense, but you can't help yourself.

And yet more tone policing. Funny how those who are unwilling to act civilly are the first to shout "Civility!" at their opponents. It's just another tactic to silence the voices of the marginalized. It's truly sad in this day and age people still have to argue for the right to exist as who they are, without being denigrated or dismissed as inferior, mentally ill, or subhuman; or being flatly ignored because they don't take enough care to preserve delicate cisgendered, heterosexual, white sensibilities in the process.

Quote:
You have not made a single effort to address any of the points I've raised. The problem is that you can't: It's completely ideological for you, which makes you calling it objective reality laughable.

I've addressed every single point in the manner it deserved. Your refusal to even acknowledge, let alone familiarize yourself with the evidence presented, does not put the onus for your deliberate ignorance on me. No, much easier to cry "Ideology!" and "Civility!" when the facts are against you.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:06 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.