Print

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

[Frumple]

On another note: I don't really understand why asexual would count as some persecuted sexual orientation, or why I've seen them described as "out and proud". Like, wtf? You're/they're above all that. Maybe I attach less importance to sexual intercourse than most people, but the idea of someone lacking an idea in sex really doesn't seem like a big deal.

It's a pretty big deal for a lot of folks, and can get some fairly notable social approbation dumped on someone to admit they're just not interested in screwin'. There's very much a perception of something wrong with you if you're not interested in sex, or a belief that you just haven't had the right sort of sexual encounter, and so on. I'd probably put it a bit behind atheism in how much social pressure admitting it can bring down on you. It's probably less likely to get you beaten or raped (maybe) than admitting to being part of the more regularly used LGBT acronym, but it can definitely net you some softer persecution.

Lacking interest in drug use has a good more number of outs, actually, from what I've seen, from a social perspective. Far less difficult to avoid confusion or disbelief from folks you're talking to if it's admitted.

[McTraveller]

Well, to be fair, I'm one of those idiots who tries to ride his bike as fast as possible, regardless of not having warmed up at all.  It is only in the mid 40s F here today, not too bad but definitely cool.  Mostly it's just that I keep hacking up the layer of phlegm that must have built up all winter, because I actually breathed hard enough to knock some of it loose.

[Harry Baldman]

Right. Part of stamping that out is making it harder to claim that there's a liberal age of darkness in the first place. When people who have already convinced themselves they're marginalized and oppressed read "we should make advocating for XYZ illegal", they don't shut up; they compress that into a sound byte and use it to "prove" how they must be right since the liebruhls want to shut them down, by their own admission. They would not still exist if they had not mastered the requisite rhetoric for that.

This is an unproductive strategy at best and a counterproductive one at worst in a world where tankies exist. Unproductive because, like with tankies, you'll always have people gleefully saying wacky totalitarian shit even if you do manage to make even thinking of enforcing hate speech regulations into a thoughtcrime. Counterproductive because you might end up doing the legwork of "free speech activists" no matter what your original intentions were by engaging them and shouting at their targets, giving them further ammo to work with. And no matter what, fundamentally absurd because you're policing the free speech of people wondering if they shouldn't police the free speech of people gibbering on ceaselessly about having their free speech policed. It is ultimately a pointless struggle for a worthless bit of token sanitization to appease people who really don't care at all. The entire debate is an eternal and disappointingly effective trap to draw in useful idiots, in short, and it is for this reason that it is the herpes of online discourse.

[Lord Shonus]

Right. Part of stamping that out is making it harder to claim that there's a liberal age of darkness in the first place. When people who have already convinced themselves they're marginalized and oppressed read "we should make advocating for XYZ illegal", they don't shut up; they compress that into a sound byte and use it to "prove" how they must be right since the liebruhls want to shut them down, by their own admission. They would not still exist if they had not mastered the requisite rhetoric for that.

This is an unproductive strategy at best and a counterproductive one at worst in a world where tankies exist. Unproductive because, like with tankies, you'll always have people gleefully saying wacky totalitarian shit even if you do manage to make even thinking of enforcing hate speech regulations into a thoughtcrime. Counterproductive because you might end up doing the legwork of "free speech activists" no matter what your original intentions were by engaging them and shouting at their targets, giving them further ammo to work with. And no matter what, fundamentally absurd because you're policing the free speech of people wondering if they shouldn't police the free speech of people gibbering on ceaselessly about having their free speech policed. It is ultimately a pointless struggle for a worthless bit of token sanitization to appease people who really don't care at all. The entire debate is an eternal and disappointingly effective trap to draw in useful idiots, in short, and it is for this reason that it is the herpes of online discourse.

I haven't seen the term used on this forum before, and want to make sure I understand what you are saying here. "Tankies" refers to the "Worship the Great Stalin, for he would have led us to utopia and was always right!" crowd, correct?

[GiglameshDespair]

But to segue this:

It is AMAZING how, once people end up in a situation where they have no reasonable choice but to rely on somebody helping them in the bathroom, they suddenly get over their irrational fears of having the other gender in the bathroom with them. (Is an adult care giver, and wipes ladies' bottoms every day.)

I mean... yeah, most people are going to prefer allowing the other gender in the bathroom to shitting themselves. Lesser evils and all that.

[Harry Baldman]

I haven't seen the term used on this forum before, and want to make sure I understand what you are saying here. "Tankies" refers to the "Worship the Great Stalin, for he would have led us to utopia and was always right!" crowd, correct?

Yep, originally referring to people supporting Soviet intervention (which involved rather a lot of tanks, I hear) in Hungary, I believe. Pro-Soviet communists, basically. DPRK apologists too.

[Lord Shonus]

Just checking. Sometimes you get the same terms meaning different things in different places, and "tankie" isn't quite as obviously specific as "wheraboo".


In that case, your statement makes a lot of sense.

[bloop_bleep]

Gonna chip in and say that I don't support the censoring of hate speech, not because of it itself, but because of what it might lead to. Even if the most obvious extremist propaganda was banned from being spread, it would still set a precedent for the banning of progressively less and less controversial content. Already we are seeing TERFs and other radical liberal groups advocating for certain statements that actually are not hate speech or propaganda, but rather a logical statement of personal opinions, to be banned on the grounds that it offends them personally. We can more or less agree that such content should not be banned, as it would actually infringe free speech.

If we had a perfect, incorruptible arbiter of whether something is a bad influence on society and should be banned, then of course we should follow its suggestions. Unfortunately, we don't have such a thing, and the people that have its authority in our current world happen to be Senators and Congressmen (as well as business owners), which tend not to make perfect, incorruptible decisions every time. Thus I think that it's safest to prevent unfortunate outcomes from happening by simply disencouraging any kind of banning at all. Rather, like wierd was saying, we should teach society to reject extremism on its own, through widespread facilitation of education and critical thinking. All the hate in this country has manifested itself as tribalism, separating the country into many groups that serve only to confirm their own members' beliefs while breeding contempt for the other groups. This is rather amplified by social media, which allows people instant access to information suited specifically to themselves and their beliefs. Their are many other ways to solve this problem than to just ban specific content; that would most likely not succeed in its goal, because it simply generates more contempt between the factions, instead of just dispelling them.

Just checking. Sometimes you get the same terms meaning different things in different places, and "tankie" isn't quite as obviously specific as "wheraboo".


In that case, your statement makes a lot of sense.

Um... what is a "wheraboo"?  I haven't heard that term anywhere before.

[Lord Shonus]

Um... what is a "wheraboo"?  I haven't heard that term anywhere before.

"Wehraboo" is a term for people who are really into the Third Reich. They range from underinformed "Nazi tanks were amazing! The only way they could lose was being massively outnumbered!" folks that just watched too many horrible History Channel specials to "Saint Hitler was protecting us from the evil JewSoviet hordes" holocaust deniers.

[TamerVirus]

So... Wehrmacht + Weeaboo?

[Lord Shonus]

Pretty sure that is the etymology. I didn't invent the term.

[hector13]

The fuck is this, guys. Discourse regarding censorship and toilets and nobody’s gone off the rails to get banned?

I am disappoint.

[Dunamisdeos]

I called someone a dildo-snorking weeaboo once in an argument about vampire diaries. All of us sometimes regret the terminology we invent.

Anyway I wouldn't want hector to be disappointed so I recommend that we immediately censor all trans toilets from their right to free-range hate speech. And ban their guns. Discuss.

[Egan_BW]

I called someone a dildo-snorking weeaboo once in an argument about vampire diaries.

Aw man I want to steal that now. Can never come up with satisfying insults.

Anyway I wouldn't want hector to be disappointed so I recommend that we immediately censor all trans toilets from their right to free-range hate speech. And ban their guns. Discuss.

If'in ye ask me I'm again'it.

[redwallzyl]

Jeez, when I saw Dwarfy so doggedly arguing from a sane viewpoint I actually backed out of the thread to see if there was a "new" button next to the mod log. Phew.

Anyway, to skirt safely around the fringes of this argument, in my experience unisex loos - with a shared bathroom area containing the sinks, even - tend to work quite well, but then I suppose the main place I've seen those is in music venues where everyone is supposed to share a common interest and be excellent to each other, plus there will generally be a security guard not far away.
Still, the question here is avoiding feelings of discomfort, not physical danger (mostly?), and as far as I've seen it goes quite well. Segregated loos involve a whole different mindset where the sight of a member of the opposite sex comes as an unpleasant shock.

Urinals are a useless and inefficient waste of resources and should be phased out across the board regardless of attempts at inclusivity - and no, I don't go out of my way to avoid using them.

On another note: I don't really understand why asexual would count as some persecuted sexual orientation, or why I've seen them described as "out and proud". Like, wtf? You're/they're above all that. Maybe I attach less importance to sexual intercourse than most people, but the idea of someone lacking an idea in sex really doesn't seem like a big deal. And I'm not even a tolerant person like most of y'all! Lacking an interest in alcohol/drug use is far more damning.
Um, I might have had more to say here, but it's getting on and I need to finish my coffee and start panicking if I'm to make lunch, (hopefully) exercise and eat breakfast quickly enough to make it to work on time.

I have absolutely no interest in alcohol and drugs. Fight me.