Print

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

[smjjames]

They're both in the same, well, circle, if you will.

[Neonivek]

They're both in the same, well, circle, if you will.

Indeed but the criticism Trans get from feminism is that they are "Fake women" and tools of the matriarchy to put women down by acting like "Fake women".

It doesn't rub off on the gay community directly except in the way that Trans and homosexuals are in some manners of speaking cousins/siblings.

[wierd]

There is also the latent "Anti-bisexual" rhetoric in the homosexual community, with such trite utterances as "Afraid to commit" and the like.

[Neonivek]

There is also the latent "Anti-bisexual" rhetoric in the homosexual community, with such trite utterances as "Afraid to commit" and the like.

It is not even in the same league as pronounced. It is night and day the differences between that and feminist transphobia.

[wierd]

No, but extant.

[Neonivek]

No, but extant.

True... but even if you were knee deep in the gay community you might not even get a whiff of bi-phobia.

Whereas you can get a whiff of transphobia from feminism from far away.

[wierd]

I dunno. I have encountered it personally, and in idle conversation with some gay people I worked with.

The topic of sexuality came up, and it meandered all over the place. Views were expressed.

Agreed that modern feminisim has a very rigid ideological core, that is based on (what appears to be) fantastical notions about other people's motivations or reasons for existing or engaging in society. (with trans-hatred being one of the consequences, because transsexual people do no fit the mold. Likewise, asexual people with nonbinary agenderedness like myself, do not fit either, and it causes screaming hissyfits when brought into the discussion.)

[PTTG??]

Sooner or later the conversation has to move from free speech to the actual speech being discussed. We've had a century of very clear, convincing arguments against (for instance) nationalism and fascism. Eventually the people who espouse that nonsense are clearly not participating in a good-faith intellectual discussion any more than flat-earthers or anti-vaccers are.

It all reminds me of Achilles and the Tortoise. If one side won't cooperate in rational discussion, extending the courtesy of rational debate is at best unproductive and more likely counter-productive.

How many years of "agreement" does it take before contradictory views are no longer acceptable?

It's actually Pi years times the smallest number of sand grains that is still a heap.

Less cheekily, that answer is not a useful one because the question isn't a useful one either. It is a subjective measure by nature, but that doesn't mean it's unimportant. Indeed, the definition of things like "life" are subjective under close analysis. And like life, we don't need to agree on something like a number of cellular actions per second or something to agree that trees are alive, rocks are dead, that the argument over monarchy and fascism are dead, and that arguments on how to implement democracy are thriving.

[Reelya]

Is Sean Spicer's job now to say the dumbest shit possible to distract voters from the damage the administration is doing? Now he's assuring us that Covfefe is a real thing and that we're just not in the know enough to know what it means.

"oh yes Covfefe is real. Very real. It wasn't a typo". "but then what does it mean?" "If I told you that, I would have to kill you".

[scriver]

...So he's saying Trump leaked covfefefied classified information again?

[martinuzz]

'covfefe' is actually the nuclear launch code.

New law needed. Nuclear launch code should be at least 141 plain text characters long, so it can't be Tweeted

[Gizogin]

I was reading an article not too long ago where I could actually notice the exact moment where my biases kicked in and changed my opinion. It was about a debate in the U.K. I wish I could find the article again, but I guess it's not actually all that relevant to this discussion.

There was a quote by a person involved in the debate that I agreed with the first time I read it, but then I reread the article and found that the person who had said it belongs to a party I don't support, and then I very distinctly reversed my opinion on what that person had said. It's not the first time I've done that, but it was still pretty disheartening to realize that I cared less about what was being said than I did about the affiliation of the person saying it.

The problem is that, even after that realization, I couldn't then go back and separate my bias from my opinion, with the result that I can't even attempt to correct for my biases since I don't know how far they go. In this political climate especially, that makes discourse pretty difficult.

Since "covfefe" was brought up again, I think that's an illustrative example. I didn't care about a typo in a tweet until Sean Spicer tried to explain it away. But if it had been someone else in the same position saying the same thing, would I have thought of it differently? Would I have disregarded a silly typo and an ungraceful attempt to gloss over it if it had been someone from "my side" doing it? I have no idea.

I think it would be an interesting experiment to have each side of a debate argue against their own viewpoint and in favor of the opponent. Give the winner some reward that at least gives them some incentive to put effort in, and empower the referee/moderator to shut down any obvious strawmen or other arguments that do not faithfully represent the side being argued.

[Reelya]

"Coincidence" ... or Conspiracy?




(apologies if this has even been posted before but I'm not about to check the 100's of pages of the last two Ameripol threads)

[Frumple]

... I can say with a degree of certainty that if someone not an actual comedian was trying to spin a bloody typo as something else, they would be a sodding idiot regardless of political affiliation, and it would be made several orders of magnitude worse if their job was something like spicer's. That ain't glossing over, that's gross incompetence at best.

Though, that said, affiliation actually can matter, and at times rather significantly. If two folks, one a white supremacist and the other a procyon enthusiast, are both talking about raccoons you are quite likely observing a very, very different conversation even if the actual words are flat out identical, ferex. Least stateside that's something you kinda' have to consider pretty often, as the conservative side of our political spectrum in particular is quite fond of dog whistling, and its politicians have a nasty habit of associating with people that makes considerations like that example entirely too applicable.

... also spicer didn't start doing that now, heh. Bugger went down that path basically same day. Unless ree just now noticed it, I guess.

[Strife26]

Sooner or later the conversation has to move from free speech to the actual speech being discussed. We've had a century of very clear, convincing arguments against (for instance) nationalism and fascism. Eventually the people who espouse that nonsense are clearly not participating in a good-faith intellectual discussion any more than flat-earthers or anti-vaccers are.

It all reminds me of Achilles and the Tortoise. If one side won't cooperate in rational discussion, extending the courtesy of rational debate is at best unproductive and more likely counter-productive.

How many years of "agreement" does it take before contradictory views are no longer acceptable?

It's actually Pi years times the smallest number of sand grains that is still a heap.

Less cheekily, that answer is not a useful one because the question isn't a useful one either. It is a subjective measure by nature, but that doesn't mean it's unimportant. Indeed, the definition of things like "life" are subjective under close analysis. And like life, we don't need to agree on something like a number of cellular actions per second or something to agree that trees are alive, rocks are dead, that the argument over monarchy and fascism are dead, and that arguments on how to implement democracy are thriving.

So there's some point where a political mainstream is too entrenched to be argued against, and it's also an undefined point? That's a metric that's completely useless.