Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

[Thermal]

Sorry, but mere words are not violence.

But the argument you presented from the lone sentence in the OP article is that they can be, as in they can be a form of violence. That's taking a little linguistic license, but in context, it pretty clearly means being on the intimidation/verbal assault spectrum, and not "just like your opinion man".

Surely we can agree to that? Not pretending that it equates to physical attack and the self defense justifications. Just that it will come across as a more damaging assault on one's person than calling them a poopy head?

 

[varwoche]

If my misgendered, you mean missexed (identified as the wrong sex) then yes, of course. I've actually seen this happen in real life.

Either way.

I'm perplexed why you repeatedly offer up your sensibilities, as if pertinent to society at large. Do you care about the feelings of the humiliated adolescents you've observed?

 

[d4m10n]

Well, they might identify as a US citizen after going trough legal immigration, but by your standards others can keep calling them 'that wog' because they feel only white people deserve to be US citizens. And well, since they never say it to their face it's all fine right?

This is an instructively misguided analogy.

"That wog" is generally insulting (though it's much more common in Australian English than American English) but "that woman" or "she/her" isn't insulting at all. If people are upset about being mispronouned, it isn't because pronouns are analogous to racial slurs.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[Hercules56]

But the argument you presented from the lone sentence in the OP article is that they can be, as in they can be a form of violence. That's taking a little linguistic license, but in context, it pretty clearly means being on the intimidation/verbal assault spectrum, and not "just like your opinion man".

Surely we can agree to that? Not pretending that it equates to physical attack and the self defense justifications. Just that it will come across as a more damaging assault on one's person than calling them a poopy head?

As I already stated before, I was mistaken. Words are never violence. Ever.

Words can can be an illegal threat of violence, but not violence itself.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Care about other people in absolutely trivial ways that cost you nothing.
"Make me."

Some people need to really count all the steps that lead to THAT being a core part of not just their personality, but their identity.

 

[Shalamar]

So it seems that the arguments are:

- Words cannot hurt
- pronouns are transing our children
- Misgendering is freeze peach
- if you tell me you're a different gender than I think you are, that's oppression
- accepting someones pronouns is a sign of subservience


I've decided that a number of people in this thread will be assigned the pronouns: Bigot/Snowflake. No one can tell me otherwise, because then you would be oppressing my free speech to make me subservient to you, so just grow a thicker skin you snowflake bigots, because words cannot hurt because it's not violence.

 

[d4m10n]

I'm perplexed why you repeatedly offer up your sensibilities, as if pertinent to society at large. Do you care about the feelings of the humiliated adolescents you've observed?

Of course I do, but I don't think it makes sense to claim that calling a cisgender female "he/him" is insulting in the same way as calling a non-binary female "she/her." In the former case, you are missexing someone, but in the latter case you are merely using pronouns in the traditional way, that is, referring to sex rather than gender.



Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[JoeMorgue]

So it seems that the arguments are:

- Words cannot hurt
- pronouns are transing our children
- Misgendering is freeze peach
- if you tell me you're a different gender than I think you are, that's oppression
- accepting someones pronouns is a sign of subservience


I've decided that a number of people in this thread will be assigned the pronouns: Bigot/Snowflake. No one can tell me otherwise, because then you would be oppressing my free speech to make me subservient to you, so just grow a thicker skin you snowflake bigots, because words cannot hurt because it's not violence.

*Fans the Paradox of Tolerance, who is flat on his back* Yeah he's gonna be out for a while.

 

[Upchurch]

All violence is physical in nature.

No matter how many times you make the claim, it's still not true.

Well, let's put the "E" in ISF: https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/ending-violence-against-women/faqs/types-of-violence

 

[JoeMorgue]

This like is me going "You can't be a Christian because I don't think God exists."

 

[Thermal]

Sorry, but mere words are not violence.

Perhaps we can lay this to rest by simply defining assault? I refer to the definition provided by Merriam Webster:

a violent physical or verbal attack

So words can indeed by both violent and an assault, if one speaks the English language, done and done.

So the question is, does repeatedly calling a man a woman rise to that level? I don't think it takes a lot of imagination to see that this can easily be the case.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault

 

[Elaedith]

This like is me going "You can't be a Christian because I don't think God exists."

No, it's like saying 'you aren't allowed to say that you don't think God exists because that means I can't be a Christian'.

 

[Hercules56]

No matter how many times you make the claim, it's still not true.

Sorry, folks dont get to arbitrarily redefine long established terms and concepts like "violence" in order to help their new political agenda of the week.

Well I guess they can try, but the rest of the world can laugh in their face.

 

[Shalamar]

*Fans the Paradox of Tolerance, who is flat on his back* Yeah he's gonna be out for a while.

"You're being intolerant of my intolerance! YOU are the true intolerant one!"

Ship sailed a while ago. Just waiting for the personal attacks now.

 

[d4m10n]

Care about other people in absolutely trivial ways that cost you nothing.

It costs you nothing to avoid pointing out that faith healers and psychic mediums and afterlife mongerers are bilking their customers and parishioners by providing false hope. It makes their respective fan bases happy to not have to confront such unpleasantness. Why speak up for things you consider true if it's going to cause offense to those heavily invested in untruth?

 

[JoeMorgue]

To break down to bare bones, brass tacks as best as I can describe it there's a difference between:

"I disagree that you are a woman" and
"I disagree, reject, or simply refuse to even acknowledge that you do identify as a woman even if I disagree with it."

Like you can disagree with people and still be tolerant. It's not the exact same thing once you get off the internet and touch grass.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It costs you nothing to avoid pointing out that faith healers and psychic mediums and afterlife mongerers are bilking their customers and parishioners by providing false hope.

Yeah because that's the same thing.

No I frankly don't care to hear why you think differently at this point.

 

[Ziggurat]

No matter how many times you make the claim, it's still not true.

True according to whom? A UN panel?

I don't accept them as authoritative.

Definitional debates are generally the worst ones to have because language is malleable. But traditionally "violence" has meant something physical. Extending it to nonphysical acts is a way to portray those acts as being equally serious, and some nonphysical acts can indeed be as damaging as some physical violence. But the problem is that there's no good dividing line between what counts as violence and what doesn't count as violence if you aren't limiting it to physical acts. It all becomes entirely subjective. I consider that a bug, but some people consider it a feature.

 

[Upchurch]

Sorry, folks dont get to arbitrarily redefine long established terms and concepts like "violence" in order to help their new political agenda of the week.

Well I guess they can try, but the rest of the world can laugh in their face.

Denying the existence of some of the domestic violence against women is a bold stance. Will you also be laughing in the face of abused women, along with the rest of the world?

 

[Hercules56]

Denying the existence of some of the domestic violence against women is a bold stance. Will you also be laughing in the face of abused women, along with the rest of the world?

No I dont laugh at any victims of violence.

All perpetrators of violence should be charged and put in prison.