Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

Covenant's argument was that asking someone to call a transgender person by their chosen he/she label is no different to someone getting surgery to turn themselves into a dragonling and being legally required to henceforth refer to them as "Sharissathax the many-scaled". He then noted that the example is exaggerated but "the point still stands". Well no, clearly the point doesn't actually stand if you had to go that far.

Also "Sharissathax the many-scaled" is doing so to stand out. Whereas a person who asks for the gender pronoun to reflect the gender identity they're going for is doing it so that they don't stand out. The situations are actually completely reversed, not similar. The person mis-gendering them is actually the one trying to draw attention to them: it's no skin off your nose whether you call a transgender he or she, you only do so against their wishes because you wish to create a dissonance between the label and how they dress.

[smjjames]

It should be taken to the gender and sexuality thread though as it's offtopic.

[Max™]

SO HOW BOUT THEM AUSSIES... wait, wrong thread, smjjames you are a bit lenient of a ruler, but that might be for the best.

If it was me, I would rain fire on all who oppose me, in a fair and balanced manner.

Oh, and my pronoun is now Max™, yes, you have to pronounce the ™, if you don't know how then you may call me "Sir Beardly of Beardington" in polite company.

Here, have some hypothetical scenarios to distract from what is either a massive outburst or a joke that I'm not getting.

Also unsure why they used extralegal to refer to the military acting against the president, it would be extralegal if he ordered them to kill congress as I don't think there is anything covering that exact sort of order (hence as it is not covered by legal precedent or regulation, it is extralegal), but I imagine there are regulations prohibiting doing things like cutting the head off the command chain.

Ameripol is never going to last if people keep posting while angry. We just started this thread, let's not rage it into the dirt until at least 1000 pages.

Which posts per page mode.

The only real and legitimate one, of course.

50 then.

[smjjames]

SO HOW BOUT THEM AUSSIES... wait, wrong thread, smjjames you are a bit lenient of a ruler, but that might be for the best.

heh.

Here, have some hypothetical scenarios to distract from what is either a massive outburst or a joke that I'm not getting.

Also unsure why they used extralegal to refer to the military acting against the president, it would be extralegal if he ordered them to kill congress as I don't think there is anything covering that exact sort of order (hence as it is not covered by legal precedent or regulation, it is extralegal), but I imagine there are regulations prohibiting doing things like cutting the head off the command chain.

There IS a chain of succession set up, but it's never had to go past Vice President.

There's actually stuff set up for a nuclear war type event, but I have no idea if there's any anti-coup stuff.

[Folly]

It's going back and forth now...
White House insists they are in charge and America has to do what Trump says. CBP is telling airports to ignore Trump and start reinstating visas.
Fun times.

[Steelmagic]

It's like that scene in Pirates of the Caribbean. "Belay that!" "Belay that belay that!"

[smjjames]

It's going back and forth now...
White House insists they are in charge and America has to do what Trump says. CBP is telling airports to ignore Trump and start reinstating visas.
Fun times.

And now the WH is saying that the DoJ will do an emergency stay on that order. So, yes, it's ping-ponging back and forth.

I also heard that since there are two conflicting jurdicisions on this, it's pretty much guaranteed that it'll head to the SCOTUS at some point. A 4-4 split isn't a desireable outcome here.

I certainly hope that we aren't headed for a constitutional crisis where Trump tries to ignore the law and go ahead with what he wants to do. Though they seem to be enforcing the Washington state Judge's ruling for now and are challenging it through the legal route.

[smjjames]

Are we already getting to see outcome #12?

We have actually already started seeing #!2, practically right from the start. Not in a Constitutional crisis yet though, they're going through the legal route to challenge it. However, the conflicting courts makes things even more confusing.

Nobodys been acting extralegally though as far as I can tell. Just sort of general resistance, since the beureauacracy has ways of resisting without going extralegal.

Also, this effectively means that if it does go to SCOTUS, that the Democrats will force a 4-4 deadlock as long as the tie would force the result of the lower court, ending the ban. At least, if they want to block said ban.

It's entirely possible that one of the conservative Justices goes on the side of the liberals, but seriously though, the Dems can't force SCOTUS to do anything.

[smjjames]

I'm just saying that we shouldn't discount one of them going to either side. Then again, SCOTUS has been deferring tough cases back to lower courts since Scalia died.

[smjjames]

We really need that 9th judge to be a centrist like Garland, not a Scalia clone.......

Theres still challenges in five other states, so, sending it back to the lower courts may still not even solve it.

[Descan]

Mansplaining is typically used by more aggressive feminist sects as a method of keeping men from the conversation. It shouldn't be taken seriously at all! Nor should it be considered part of mainstream feminism or really be allowed to enter feminism period.

Old but: ... Mansplaining isn't that? It's the assumption that happens that a woman doesn't know about something simply because it's not a "girl thing." Like physics, linguistics, comic book geekery, etc. :v Sometimes devolving into explaining the plot/premise of a show to one of the writers on that show. :v

Usually if someone wants to shut a man out of a feminist area, they say "You can't understand because you've not experienced it." Which can be a fair point but fails to take into account the ability for modern humans to communicate ideas to each other despite the impossibility of ever experiencing it. See also: Any fantasy or sci-fi book, the whole "You can experience the universe through a book!" idea.

[smjjames]

Wouldn't a director want to tell the writers his idea or outline of the plot/premise and what's generally going in in the scene anyway?

[Neonivek]

It should be taken to the gender and sexuality thread though as it's offtopic.

Yeah what do you think this is! a political thread where a law was passed about precisely this?

This is the "We hate Trump" thread!

Mansplaining is typically used by more aggressive feminist sects as a method of keeping men from the conversation. It shouldn't be taken seriously at all! Nor should it be considered part of mainstream feminism or really be allowed to enter feminism period.

Old but: ... Mansplaining isn't that? It's the assumption that happens that a woman doesn't know about something simply because it's not a "girl thing." Like physics, linguistics, comic book geekery, etc. :v Sometimes devolving into explaining the plot/premise of a show to one of the writers on that show. :v

Usually if someone wants to shut a man out of a feminist area, they say "You can't understand because you've not experienced it." Which can be a fair point but fails to take into account the ability for modern humans to communicate ideas to each other despite the impossibility of ever experiencing it. See also: Any fantasy or sci-fi book, the whole "You can experience the universe through a book!" idea.

Sure seems to be straight forward and have a very specific set of circumstances doesn't it? Except when you look further and see how it is used. As well your own definition has a incredibly huge flaw doesn't it? It is a thought crime. Meaning that if someone says your mansplaining it means they are "reading your thoughts" and know you are only doing so because they are a woman.

As for "They say", remember that Mansplaining is a label or more pessimistically a insult. If they are trying to shut you out they don't do it through calm discourse... They want to shut you down and make it damn well obvious why. Well not to mention the whole "Thought Crime" aspect, so if you argue against it REMEMBER you are immediately a sexist... and when you are a sexist arguing that you are not only makes you a bigger sexist.

It is like Mansplaining was created in response to that Tool Time episode where Alan is frustrated he cannot teach his wife basic house repair and dumbs down his jargon a ton, until the one woman in the room who actually knows home repair jumps in and makes him look like a total fool because she actually knows her stuff and finds his attitude disrespectful. She is also a beast who can bend bronze pipes with her freeken fingers!

Wouldn't a director want to tell the writers his idea or outline of the plot/premise and what's generally going in in the scene anyway?

A lot of the time, in the course of natural speech, people will just dump their entire knowledge onto it.

A LOT of writers find it interesting or even invaluable to see other people's takes on their own series.

Actually the creators of BatteTech said that the user input they find the most invaluable isn't suggestions or lore dumps... But rather debates between fans. They spoke on length that their writers only have a finite amount of time to actually read and reread the lore of Battletech but fans collectively have infinite time.

[PTTG??]

Are we already getting to see outcome #12?

We have actually already started seeing #!2, practically right from the start. Not in a Constitutional crisis yet though, they're going through the legal route to challenge it. However, the conflicting courts makes things even more confusing.

Nobodys been acting extralegally though as far as I can tell. Just sort of general resistance, since the beureauacracy has ways of resisting without going extralegal.

I have to point out that I hope and wish that #13 or even #14 (Perhaps with the specific concession that his administration relents on social issues) come true. At this point, however, these are so implausible that no reasonable person could expect them.

Rather than address any specific points, I will note that the crowd that claims to be frustrated at liberals for "making a big deal" of identity politics seems to be making an awful big deal about how much they don't care about identity politics.

[Descan]

Wouldn't a director want to tell the writers his idea or outline of the plot/premise and what's generally going in in the scene anyway?

What? I meant like a fan of the show. Where did I say director...?

@Neo: It's straight-forward and limited because that's the way it happens...? And it's no more a thought-crime than any other assumption in a social interaction. But when a guy acts like a condescending dillweed, doesn't even go "Have you heard of X?" and just assumes you haven't, and very few men report that this kind of thing happening to them... That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, or that calling it out is "thought-crime." It means it happens to women only or predominantly, and it happens because they're women.

mansplaining isn't used for "dude comes in and starts talking about something and women yell at the Poor Maligned Man"

it's used for "jackass comes in, assumes He Is The Smart Man, and acts like a condescending prick to the Poor Uninformed Women." :U That's the way I've seen it used when I "look further," I see a dude being a smarmy dick and getting called out on it.

As for shutting people out, the only time I've seen that actually happen is when the person being shut out is, legitimately or not, perceived to not being acting in good faith. "I'm just asking questions! (Like why isn't there a White History month? :V)" and shit like that, where they're either incredibly socially dense in terms of trying to get information or just are not trying to get information but instead derail a conversation or comfortable location (I know "safe space" triggers you nerds but honestly, do you not like to have a place to just go and be with friends without listening to some smarmy cun-...temptible person come along and try to ruin it? That's usually what it's trying to accomplish, a place set aside to allow relaxation. Kicking someone out who's trying to get a reaction "lol it's just a joke/lol u man/lol i troll you" is the least they can expect.)