• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Issues around language and offense, with reference to transgenderism.

xjx388 said:
All I can say is that I totally disagree with you. As I said before, this is a skeptic board first and foremost and that should be the overarching context. No matter the subject, most people here, I presume, are interested in a skeptical discussion which will necessarily involves a discussion of scientific and academic points. If we are just going to point fingers at each other for every perceived offense, then I submit that a skeptical discussion is well-nigh impossible.
Click to expand...

If someone wants a rational, skeptical discussion, I submit that using emotionally charged language is the wrong way to get it. If one wants emotional responses, however, using offensive or emotionally charged language is the way to go.
 
luchog said:
No. If this was a scientific discussion, it would be in the science and medicine forum. This is and always has been about the social issues involved with transgender bathroom access, and society's treatment of transpeople in general. Science has been brought in a few times to clarify or evade the points being made, but it's not the actual topic of the thread.
Click to expand...

I think that's actually what I said if you read my whole post.

I just think it's odd that you say "no" as if you are going to contradict me and then say essentially the same thing I was saying.

No big deal, just an observation.
 
wareyin said:
Are you really going to go with 'just because many people tell me a word is offensive, that doesn't make it offensive. I need proof'?
Click to expand...

Well, gee, since we're on a skeptics' forum, ostensibly, I think asking for good arguments and evidence might be, you know, exactly the sort of thing we need to do.

But you just go on preaching, instead.

xjx388 said:
Not only that: they claim its offensive while stating that they were not personally offended nor offering any evidence of anyone anywhere actually being offended. This whole side track is just ridiculous.
Click to expand...

It may theoretically offend someone, somewhere, at some point in time. Therefore we shouldn't discuss it because it might invalidate someone's experiences. Discussing the issues and facts is less important than cuddling hypothetical people and virtue signaling.
 
Argumemnon said:
Well, gee, since we're on a skeptics' forum, ostensibly, I think asking for good arguments and evidence might be, you know, exactly the sort of thing we need to do.

But you just go on preaching, instead.



It may theoretically offend someone, somewhere, at some point in time. Therefore we shouldn't discuss it because it might invalidate someone's experiences. Discussing the issues and facts is less important than cuddling hypothetical people and virtue signaling.
Click to expand...

Lots of people finding something offensive is evidence that it's offensive. This plain fact notwithstanding, even after all the other arguments you received, I held your hand and gave you dictionary definitions that call it offensive, mental health professionals who say it's problematic, as well as evidence that a significant portion of the US finds it offensive. It's rather telling that this was ignored.
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
If someone wants a rational, skeptical discussion, I submit that using emotionally charged language is the wrong way to get it.
Click to expand...

And who gets to decide what's emotionally charged and in what context? Who gets to decide what's allowed to be said in a particular thread?
 
Argumemnon said:
Are you saying that you don't want to talk about it? Because that was the conditional in my sentence. Perhaps you'd be less confused if you read carefully.
Click to expand...
Would there be any point in my talking about it? I've been talking about it all thread, and I've utterly failed to get through to you so far.
 
wareyin said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

Of course you won't. You've avoided making any kind of actual claim, and moved the goalpost more often than I can count. Have fun with that.

arthwollipot said:
Would there be any point in my talking about it? I've been talking about it all thread, and I've utterly failed to get through to you so far.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that your appeals to emotion have failed.
 
AdamSK said:
Oh, good! Can we stop trying to pin the "bigot" label on Argumemnon now and consider addressing his points?
Click to expand...

I've been addressing his points. Sadly, as he has demonstrated again, his point is to use offensive language while pretending that it's not offensive. That may not be bigoted, it may just be an attempt to get a rise out of people by using bigoted tactics, but the difference is moot.
 
AdamSK said:
You can't just proclaim it's not a problem when many others have said it's a problem.
Click to expand...

Huh, that's a point that keeps sailing over your head when it comes to problematic language.

Or is the rational response to demand a definition for "many"?
 
wareyin said:
I've been addressing his points. Sadly, as he has demonstrated again, his point is to use offensive language while pretending that it's not offensive.
Click to expand...

No, that's not and was never his point. That is what he has been addressing because he was accused of marginalizing and insulting trans people and of being bigoted - but that is very much the distraction. Not the point.
 
AdamSK said:
No, that's not and was never his point. That is what he has been addressing because he was accused of marginalizing and insulting trans people and of being bigoted - but that is very much the distraction. Not the point.
Click to expand...

Body of work, my friend, body of work.
 
wareyin said:
Body of work, my friend, body of work.
Click to expand...

So more accusations against Argumemnon rather than a constructive post to address his points.

Like I said, some people just seem to prefer the vilification to constructive conversation.
 
AdamSK said:
So more accusations against Argumemnon rather than a constructive post to address his points.

Like I said, some people just seem to prefer the vilification to constructive conversation.
Click to expand...

And some people just seem to prefer to use offensive language while pretending that it's not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom