Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[jhunter1163]

Just to reiterate what others have said, there is a difference between inference, implication, assumption and plain putting words in someone's mouth. For instance, when I referred to "traditional societies" people attacked me for being Eurocentric or for making universal claims for all traditional societies. When I said that eating healthily and cheaply were not mutually exclusive or that vegans don't require supplements or expensive, exotic imported foods to survive and posted articles to support my positions, people accused me of either not having the lived experience or having the lived experience from a privileged point of view and expecting everyone else to be able to do the same thing. Mr. Samsa, despite explicitly stating his position numerous time, was judged by the erroneous conclusions others had made about his statements rather than his actual statements.

An example:

B: I like bunnies.
A: Are you saying dogs are unholy monstrosities? Don't do that!
B: No! I said no such thing! I just like bunnies because I think they are cute.
A: Stop bunnysplaining and check your bunny privilege. If you continue you will be banned.
C: **** you, read the ******* 101!
B: But I don't hate dogs!
A: The implications of your post were clear, and many forum members were triggered. You need to step back, apologise, shut up and learn like Token Bunny Lover did.
etc...

A+ in a nutshell. You win ten bonus internets for the use of the word "bunnysplaining".

 

[ApostateltsopA]

Myriad,

You are right, fire is a big topic and there are some benifits to it, many actually, but lets roll this down to a simpler example. Person A has suffered 3rd degree burns on thier hand from touching fire. Person B has read that fire causes trauma to exposed skin. Person C is pretty sure you can hold fire without consequence and wants to grab some.

This is closer to someone defending the idea of racism or classism or what have you. Do you still think person B will be a better advocate for don't touch that?

Do you believe that a rational appeal alone is stronger than a rational appeal backed with an emotional appeal when it comes to convincing someone of something?

Finally, do you see how you had to frame the burn victim into an extreme position to contest them? Wanting to ban all fire everywhere..

Is that what the discussions on A+ forums (and the disagreements expressed elsewhere) are about, individuals giving other individuals advice on specific actions? Because most of the discussion I've read has been about universals, such as "Guys, don't do that" and "All men are potential rapists" and "Use of standard pronouns by anyone when discussing any subject marginalizes alternatively-gendered people."

"Guys don't do that" is specific to pick up lines in elevators, and generally confined spaces.

Shrodinger's rapist is a request to be conscious of the implications of your actions and in some cases presence.

The pronouns are an effort to raise awareness of gender as not binary, and generally pull the He out of everything because patriarchy.

The second comes closest to a universal, except that it should read, the rapist value of all men begins at unknown.

Given that, I think I was justified in positing a position that is universal and guaranteed to be controversial as an example. "Let's all be careful with fire" would hardly be comparable in controversy, while "C, don't grab that fire" would be comparable in neither generality or controversy.

I understand your feeling, my intent was to show experience as valuable for existence claims, and other claims where a limited sample set is all you need. A good case in point was made by an asthmatic who knew that asthma flare ups can last for days. Modern medicine just realized this because an asthmatic was finally believed by the doctor who did some research to confirm.

Alternately, the claim some white people are racist, can be met with only a few data points. The claim all white people are racist is unprovable, and silly. Degree of claim matters and experience will take you only so far. However in a conversation where 1 party has experience and the other doesn't then the claims of the first should carry more weight.

However, let's go with your example instead. C wants to grab some fire. A has been burned before by fire, and B has read about the dangers of fire. Both A and B therefore advise C not to grab the fire.

Do you really think A and B's victim-blaming mentality would be tolerated at the A+ forum? A is the one who was injured. Her right to put her hand where she wants to was not respected. Her admonition to C, tragically, smacks of self-hatred due to gaslighting by the propaganda of the pyroistic culture of victim-blaming promoted by the likes of B. B should therefore be banned immediately, and A given a chance to reread the 101 material, understand that she is part of the problem, apologize, and then change her tune. Of course, if her initial reaction is to claim that her intentions were only to protect C's health and safety, three or four people should shout "Intent is not ******* magic!" at her and then ban her for a week, after which she can get to all the reading and apologizing, if the thread hasn't been closed by then.

Hyperbole much?
To have a victim, you need to have a person acting on C with fire. C would be burning themselves. That's not victimhood.

And yes, that previous paragraph is only a slight exaggeration of the general perception of how discourse works at A+. For a reference point, consider the analogous example of advising people not to walk alone in dark places at night (about as controversial, in the real world, as "don't grab fire"), and how that's been handled there.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Keep in mind, I've been visiting the forum several times a week for over five months. However I do agree that is how the A+ forum is perceived here, at least by those in this thread. I think the perception is actually probably skewed worse than that. My perception is rather different.

Then again I'm odd in both places since I also participate here.

Back to SR, do you really think that is an attempt to vilify men?

 

[Mashuna]

Intent is important. It doesn't excuse misbehavior though. If I stretch and bump you, I will apologize. I had no intent to hit you, but you still got hit. Do you think people who yell at the people they bump into to watch where they are going are not being >expletive deleted<s?

How about if you stretch and don't bump me, then a stranger runs up to you and yells at you to apologise to me and everyone else because you could have bumped me, or if I was a different shape you would have bumped me?

 

[Quinn]

As I said, the words on the forum are the ones I went with. However my understanding of the term wank, one that is reinforced but not proven, with a quick online search (and comments here in thread) is that wanking is something male. Yes I see we can call anyone a wanker, probably even inanimate stuff, but the term, as I understand it, is male.

The issue isn't that it's "male," but that it was claimed to be even remotely sexual, which it painfully, blaringly obviously was not.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

As I said, the words on the forum are the ones I went with. However my understanding of the term wank, one that is reinforced but not proven, with a quick online search (and comments here in thread) is that wanking is something male. Yes I see we can call anyone a wanker, probably even inanimate stuff, but the term, as I understand it, is male.

It should be easy to correct your understanding. Google "she had a wank", in quotes. I would post specific links, but they're generally a little on the crude side.

So yes, the word can be used on anyone, but it has gendered connotations, nasty ones.

Please explain the difference in connotation between calling a man a wanker and calling a woman a wanker. Also the difference between saying a man had a wank and a woman had a wank.

The thing is, this is an example of the selective application of the A+ philosophy. If experience really is so important, then why are you, an American (?), arguing about the use, application, meaning and implication of a British word? I'm British. I've used and heard that word for most of my life. Why are you erasing my experience?

 

[Foolmewunz]

The issue isn't that it's "male," but that it was claimed to be even remotely sexual, which it painfully, blaringly obviously was not.

Tom Lehrer generally has a quote for all purposes....

"When correctly viewed
Anything is lewd."

The user's intent isn't important. "Intent isn't magic", after all. What's important is what a 301 level member of the Illumi-Notty inner sanctum DECIDES that users intent was and then if the user doesn't agree with said ridiculous interpretation, why ban 'em of course.

All because some twitchy victim only knows dirty limericks and has not seen the hundreds of thousands of them written for school children and in vanilla humor books that I can recall reading five decades ago.

A limerick packs laughs astronomical
Into a space that is quite economical
Bur the good ones I've seen
So seldom are clean
And the clean ones are just never comical.

 

[jimbob]

Just beware the straw vulcan and spock fallacy. Emotions are crucial in our day to day decision making. That's not to say we should be ruled by emotions or forgo reason. Of course not. But we would be adrift in indecision if it were not for our emotions.

The Straw Vulcan, Julia Galef Skepticon 4

Indeed - without emotions we have no values, so there is no point in deciding on any particular course of action because all are neutral.

 

[squealpiggy]

I guess none of the geniuses at A+ watched The Love Boat when they were kids*, or are big fans of cruises. I assumed you slip was entirely Freudian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Sun_Princess

As I said at the time by mistaking Sun Countess as Sun Princess RP actually gave her a heraldic promotion!

"Guys don't do that" is specific to pick up lines in elevators, and generally confined spaces.

Shrodinger's rapist is a request to be conscious of the implications of your actions and in some cases presence.

The second comes closest to a universal, except that it should read, the rapist value of all men begins at unknown.

So doe the baby-murdering value of all women begin at "unknown"? Does the street-robbery value of all black people begin at "unknown"? Schrodinger's rapist (and with it the "all men are potential rapists" meme) makes an assumption that would never be extended to apply to other situations in which the negative outcome is unknown. The trouble with Schrodinger's rapist is not that it is necessarily untrue that the rapist potential of any male is "unknown". This is of course superficially true in the same way that the genocide potential of any head of state is also "unknown". But it elevates the perception of risk unrealistically and implies that the odds of the poor hapless stranger being a rapist is 50-50.

It's offensive because it creates unrealistic suspicion in an individual without having a real basis. A much better way of conveying the message that anyone you meet could be a potential rapist (or murderer, or street robber, or ambulance-chaser, but those considerably other dangers are inexplicably ignored) is to tell people to be aware of their surroundings at all times, try to avoid secluded areas and walk with a friend wherever practicable.

But to make such a suggestion is to run the risk of being accused of victim-blaming.

The pronouns are an effort to raise awareness of gender as not binary, and generally pull the He out of everything because patriarchy.

"Gender" is binary though. Even the minuscule percentage of people who are trans tend to identify as one or the other gender. True there exist some individuals who do not identify as either gender and for whom the typical gendered pronouns do not apply. But assuming that anyone you may meet or address would be one of this vanishingly tiny minority would be as ridiculous as, say, assuming that every man you meet is a rapi... ah.

I understand your feeling, my intent was to show experience as valuable for existence claims, and other claims where a limited sample set is all you need. A good case in point was made by an asthmatic who knew that asthma flare ups can last for days. Modern medicine just realized this because an asthmatic was finally believed by the doctor who did some research to confirm.

By this rationale people who claim to be suffering from Morgellons are in the right and all of medical research is wrong. The people who claim that the government is harassing them using radio waves do not have schizophrenia and the doctors should be prescribing private investigators and lawyers.

Back to SR, do you really think that is an attempt to vilify men?

SR could be expressed in a way that does not implicitly accuse all men, regardless of innocence. However as I mentioned above any attempt to express this in terms of looking after yourself for your own safety is met with accusations of victim blaming.

 

[Myriad]

I understand your feeling, my intent was to show experience as valuable for existence claims, and other claims where a limited sample set is all you need. A good case in point was made by an asthmatic who knew that asthma flare ups can last for days. Modern medicine just realized this because an asthmatic was finally believed by the doctor who did some research to confirm.

Alternately, the claim some white people are racist, can be met with only a few data points. The claim all white people are racist is unprovable, and silly. Degree of claim matters and experience will take you only so far. However in a conversation where 1 party has experience and the other doesn't then the claims of the first should carry more weight.

You start out with a reasonable intent ("to show experience as valuable for existence claims and [certain] other claims..."), but by the last sentence you're back to an absurd universal.

Joe has had a heart attack, and Sam is a cardiologist who has never had a heart attack. They're talking about the possibility that Joe might have a more severe heart attack in the future -- causes, consequences, prevention. Should Joe's claims carry more weight?

Now suppose they're talking about how it feels to have a heart attack. There's an instance where Joe's experience should carry more weight, correct? Joe says that he felt certain symptoms hours before his heart attack and would know well in advance if another attack were imminent. Sam says a second heart attack could occur without such warning, because studies show that warning symptoms can vary from one event to another in the same patient. Again, should Joe's claims carry more weight?

Hyperbole much?
To have a victim, you need to have a person acting on C with fire. C would be burning themselves. That's not victimhood.

Someone lit the fire. Several others tolerated its presence for some period of time before C came in contact with it. Innumerable others contributed to the culture of idealizing warm glowing things that caused C to attempt to grasp it.

When asked to stop trying to pyrosplain, you doubled down instead. You are contributing to the problem. Good thing this isn't the A+ forum; you'd be gone.

Back to SR, do you really think that is an attempt to vilify men

In a way. It's an attempt to have conversations like the one described in the discussion below (a slightly different topic, but the same problem) over and over.

I think the problem is asubtle one of wording. The law usually talks about being too drunk to have the capacity for consent. My interpretation of this (which seems to fit with legal cases I have read about) is that the person has to be pretty far gone, and not quite know what is going on around them. It doesn't seem to apply when the person has only drunk enough to have lowered inhibitions and maybe poorer judgment than if they were in a sober state.

Now in both situations, the the person could be described as "drunk". So when someone says "if they are drunk, they can't consent..." it is ambiguous whether they are referring to only the first situation, or to the second situation also. People have differing definitions of "drunk", so I always use the phrase "too drunk to consent" to prevent miscommunication.

I agree, except that the problem with the wording is far from subtle. The pattern repeats often enough to make it appear that the unclarity is deliberate. The conversation plays out something like this (except over the course of a hundred posts, instead of four):

A: "Never ever ever have sex with a drunk person, it makes you a rapist."

B: "What? My current gf likes to have two or three drinks and have sex with me. That doesn't make me a rapist."

C (to B): "Stop trying to confuse the issue. Clearly A is talking about situations where one person is far too drunk to consent and there is no established relationship for prior consent to exist. These situations are common and are a real problem, which you're trying to minimize using strawman scenarios."

D (to B, simultaneously): "Yes it does. Rapist!"

What makes it appear deliberate is that A and C will never, ever, attempt to correct or contradict D.

The continuation of that scenario is that if B responds to, or even refers to, D to defend against the slander, C will insist that no one has called him a rapist and accuse him of trying to misrepresent the argument. If B ignores D and tries to respond only to C, then D, E, and F will argue that the opinions of a self-admitted rapist are irrelevant, while C quietly withdraws. Another argument won, another victory against the patriarchy!

Schroedinger's Rapist is, likewise, a game in which people supporting the concept pretend to win arguments, by vacillating at will between "No one is calling you a potential rapist, you're nefariously distorting what we're saying," and "Yes you are a potential rapist, admit it." It is an automatic win because there is no acceptable way to respond to both contradictory arguments simultaneously.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[zooterkin]

As I said at the time by mistaking Sun Countess as Sun Princess RP actually gave her a heraldic promotion!

Not to mention that in the same thread one of the mods then referred to RP as "Recursive Profit", and no-one picked them up on it.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

Well, you certainly can't say never, given that I linked to 3 examples earlier in the thread.

Yes I still can as I was referring to hearing it in everyday speech in my part of the Country, as. believe it or not, the "internet " is not the same place as "London". Also, whatever Urban dic says, doesn't actually make it true elsewhere? Have you read some of the other entries? they are often made up for fun, anyone can edit and make up an entry , it's worse than Wikipedia.
Another entry is a twitter post. Purleasse?
Americanised slang (ie non gendered.sexualised use of the term is bound to creep in online, as the irritating "my bad" has for "my fault" and countless others who want to feel trendy. Even for a rant from those "socialist Youth" tossers (check Urban Slang for reference if unclear)you linked to, viva le revolution and all that, I mean, like, that's soo ...gay.
Or not.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Yes I still can as I was referring to hearing it in everyday speech in my part of the Country, as. believe it or not, the "internet " is not the same place as "London". Also, whatever Urban dic says, doesn't actually make it true elsewhere? Have you read some of the other entries? they are often made up for fun, anyone can edit and make up an entry , it's worse than Wikipedia.
Another entry is a twitter post. Purleasse?
Americanised slang (ie non gendered.sexualised use of the term is bound to creep in online, as the irritating "my bad" has for "my fault" and countless others who want to feel trendy. Even for a rant from those "socialist Youth" tossers (check Urban Slang for reference if unclear)you linked to, viva le revolution and all that, I mean, like, that's soo ...gay.
Or not.

I'm not sure that rant is as coherent as you intended it to be. But, fine, if you want to contend that the word "wanker" is never used to describe a woman in the UK, based on the evidence that it might not have happened within your earshot, then knock yourself out. I will defer to your experience.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Indeed - without emotions we have no values, so there is no point in deciding on any particular course of action because all are neutral.

As I said, emotions are real and everything real needs to be part of rational assessments. They are, almost by definition, irrational, and I assert useless as "intellectual tools" and we should never by enslaved by them.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

I would say rarely or even never, as a Londoner. Maybe it's different in other parts of the UK, or even London.

I'm not sure that rant is as coherent as you intended it to be. But, fine, if you want to contend that the word "wanker" is never used to describe a woman in the UK, based on the evidence that it might not have happened within your earshot, then knock yourself out. I will defer to your experience.

Do refer to what I actually said as your answer is not as coherent as you intended it to be .

 

[Mr. Scott]

Not to mention that in the same thread one of the mods then referred to RP as "Recursive Profit", and no-one picked them up on it.

Speaking from my non-Vulcan side, the mods here feel to me like Swiss Guards^WP. The ones at A+ like Maleficent^WP.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'd just like to freehand a post about "safe spaces" and the hyperpolitical correctness of A+ within the context of the lymerick thread.

Personally I like stereotypically based humor as long as it is done in jest and mirth and not malice. It's even more humorous when all parties involved enjoy it as such an play off each other because they like or even love and care about the rest of the group in which the humor is being shared. Here's an example that sounds like the setup for a bad joke - a Jewish woman, an Asian man, an obese redneck lesbian, a flaming gay man and a Mexican little person are on a sound stage... I'm sure heads at A+ would explode at such a premise, but that's a typical evenings show on Chelsea Lately. And it's funny as hell!

Chelsea mocks her Jewishness, and everyone elses "non-normativeness" and every other one of her round table members do the same. It's clear though that everyone who appears on camera or who works behind it cares about their coworkers and wouldn't say anything to hurt them - except to get a joke - but the person on the receiving end of the ostensibly "hurtful" zinger understands it's all about the humor and returns in kind.

Last week Aisha Tyler appeared in Talking Dead and made several what would be considered (I hope) on A+ racist statements. They weren't however, because they were made in jest and in an ultimately positive connotation and not due to malice. Of course, I'm sure A+ers would claim a black woman couldn't be racist, but she herself admitted that at least one of her humorous utterances was so.

I simply don't want to live in a world where diverse people can all laugh at a stereotypically racial, ethnic, gender or morphic (I don't know what other word to use for dwarfism) characteristic cannot be used for comedic effect if all parties involved do so for a shared laugh amongst people who sincerely mean no malice and do care about each other.

 

[theprestige]

The second comes closest to a universal, except that it should read, the rapist value of all men begins at unknown.

And the "bitches be crazy" value of all women begins at unknown. But how is this a productive starting point for relationshops?

 

[luchog]

I don't mind your emphasis, but your analysis is off. It's not because something was once used some way at some time. That is silly. It's because something reinforces the problematic aspects of the dominant culture.

I hear this claim a lot, but see nothing to support it. How does it do so?

And, incidentally, that is exactly what happened in several of the examples linked to earlier.

It's the same idea as removing things like, "In the name of holy god why are you doing that?!" Such a phrase reinforces the religious, read christian, aspect of the dominant culture.

Again, how? What is the mechanism, how does the reinforcement work?

Now if you don't realize the male, racist, gender binary... dashist aspects of our cultures you will see fighting them as silly, but they are documented in sociology

If they are so well-documented, then you won't mind providing links or references to sources for replicated, peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate such.

In any case, you are wrong yet again. No one here is denying the existence of such aspects; we simply do not see them being anywhere near as pervasive and pernicious in contemporary Western culture as you and the APlusser insist they are. And we will continue to see such assertions as mere assertions until sufficient evidence is provided. So far, what little evidence has been provided is of highly questionable quality, demonstrating a clear bias and lack of rational, scientific examination.

and if you accept that A+ wants less of those things then using language to reduce their impact, and make their effects conscious makes sense.

This is to ignore all reliable evidence that language follows culture, it does not create it.

No, not woo at all. No one is claiming to recognize anyone's thoughts, but they can recognize problematic aspects of the culture, and language that reinforces them. That degree in psychology helps quite a lot actually. It's not about personal flaws, but societal ones.

Except that is exactly what is happening. Intent is ascribed, supposed societal flaws are applied to individuals, and people are castigated and verbally abused for their ostensible perpetuation of it.

The last bit here is pure hyperbole. You are projecting your bias and not looking at events as they occur, you are also expecting strangers to be treated identically as friends, which is absurd. (If you prefer you may read this as my view of the same events is substantially different from yours.)

No, I am describing what I view to be the case, after attempted rational examination; supported by similar attempts at rational examination by others.

And yet again, you are wrong in your continued ascribing of intent. No one is expecting strangers to be treated identically to friends. No one sane does that. What we are expecting is for both strangers and friends to be treated rationally for the purposes of debating issues. It's clear from their repeated statements to that effect that the APlussers are not interested in doing so.

Why do you think something has to have intent to be sexist or racist or what have you?

Because without intent, it cannot be. It's just that simple. Without the intent to be dashist, any perceived dashist language is, at worst, an unfortunate linguistic holdover.

If I start calling people by a word that begins with N am I not being racist? Even if I don't know what it means or the connotation behind it?

If you have no clue as to the meaning of the word, and have no intent to be racist, then no, you are likely not racist. The principle of charity applies, and the outcome will go in one of two directions:
1) You will be informed that the word contains a clear and well-established racist connotation in contemporary culture, and is actively used as a racist pejorative; in which case you will stop using it out of charity and a wish to not be seen as a racist.
2) You will be informed that the word contains a clear and well-established racist connotation in contemporary culture, and is actively used as a racist pejorative; but you will continue to use it, at which point it is safe to assume that you are either a racist, or a complete nutjob.

But this is not what the A+ crowd is doing. Far from it. They are manufacturing intent. For all their "Intent is not magic" nonsense, that is exactly what they are doing. Manufacturing and ascribing intent on the flimsiest of pretexts. Calling it "subconscious" is disingenuous at best.

And worse, they are giving themselves a free pass to use dashist language when attacking others. Not the same dashist language, but just as dashist, and just as hurtful as anything they claim to be upset by. Indeed, in some cases even moreso. Their refusal to acknowledge this, and their continued defense of such language, amply illustrates their own elitism and intellectual dishonesty.

The accusations of "subconscious" sexism in such ridiculous examples as the limerick debacle shows just how malleable and self-serving their language regarding intent really is.

What if I hold doors for women only? I may be trying to be nice or have been taught chivalry, but am I not reinforcing the idea that women need to be sheltered and protected?

Chivalric codes are a bad example, as they have always been intentionally sexist; have a religious origin. Regardless, whether you think women have to be sheltered and protected from the big bad evil world, or you consider that women have to be sheltered and protected from the big bad dashist world, you are still applying the same demeaning view of women. Insisting that they're so fragile that they cannot handle being exposed to the occasional sexist remark without being irreparably damaged is just as patronizing and oppressive as any religion-based coddling. Worse, in fact, since it's inherently hypocritical. Either women are equally strong and capable, and able to handle the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or they're delicate flowers who need to be protected from the contumleys of a vicious world. You can't have it both ways; and attempting to do so is the hypocrisy at the core of the Third-Wave Feminism embraced by SJWs.

What if I think that gay and lesbian are choices that people have made to be contentious and I oppose letting them get married, because I think they are lying? Am I not still a bigot?

You are conflating several different issues here. One is scientific evidence, the other is personal value systems. The question of nature vs. choice with regard to homosexuality is irrelevant to the question of equal rights re: marriage. The real problem here is that SJWs do no more to differentiate those two issues than do religious bigots.

Intent is important. It doesn't excuse misbehavior though.

Intent is paramount. If there is no ill-will, there is no "misbehaviour"; there is only an unfortunate accident proceeding from ignorance. Only if one starts attacking others for the accident, instead of recognizing it as such, making any necessary apologies, and moving on, is there any misbehaviour. But that is precisely what the APlussers are doing, they are refusing to acknowledge the existence of accidents, instead ascribing them to "subconscious" intents. (Incidentally, there is a gross inconsistency I failed to note in my previous reply. An act cannot be both "subconsious" and "unintentional", because the former inherently requires an intent. To claim something is "subconscious" and "unintentional" is oxymoronic, and yet another example of the intellectual laziness of the APlussers.)

It is perception that is not magic. Literally anything can be perceived as belonging whatever dashist label the self-described victim wants to see it as, if one twists one's perceptions enough. For example, millions of religious people perceive the actions of atheists to remove religion from government as an attempt to erase them, to devalue and even destroy them. Many of them have ancestors or relations who were brutally tortured and murdered for their faith. Some have even been personally oppressed in their lifetimes. How are their perceptions any less valid than yours? What is the statute of limitations on oppression?

Perception is useless unless backed by evidence. Not personal anecdotes, but rational, verifiable evidence. That is not to say that all such claims should be dismissed out of hand. Quite the contrary, they should be evaluated critically, and charitably; and any reasonable person would want to avoid causing unnecessary discomfort to others. The problem is, there are too many people, particularly among SJWs, who take things to irrational extremes; while insisting that charity only works one way. That every slightest bit of their own discomfort should be accomodated, however ridiculous the circumstance; while they owe nothing of the sort to anyone else, even true victims of oppression, if said victims do not hold the same party line.

Let me put this another way. When evaluating claims, theories, or assertions, the first thing that a skeptic asks is not "Does it fit my worldview?". It is not even "Does it fit the established scientific consensus?" The first thing a skeptic asks is "Is it internally consistent?" Because if it is not at least internally consistent, then there is no point in pursuing it further. And that is the problem, amply demonstrated over and over by the APlussers. They are simply not internally consistent. They are irrational, elitist, and hypocritical. That is why they can attack outsiders, scream about "Schroedinger's Rapists" and "erasing" and "privilege", while simultaneously attacking rape victims and deaf individuals for daring to have differing opinions on how they should react to their traumas and disabilities, for refusing to be destroyed or defined by them.

That is the core of SJW's problem with language, and their attempts to redefine everything and create an idiosyncratic vocabulary. All of their post-modernist language games are nothing more than an, at best, intellectually lazy attempt to evade acknowledgement of and responsibility for their own internal inconsistency and self-congratulatory mental masturbation. They are the worst sort of pseudo-intellectuals.

 

[luchog]

"Gender" is binary though. Even the minuscule percentage of people who are trans tend to identify as one or the other gender. True there exist some individuals who do not identify as either gender and for whom the typical gendered pronouns do not apply.

You're just trying to erase me with your binary-privileged gendersplaining

Seriouly, though, as a trans-person with experience in the trans community, I would dispute this.

Gender, like sexuality, exists as a spectrum rather than a binary; and many non-Western cultures maintain a non-binary view of gender. The fact that most trans-people appear to identify with a binary view is less a support for that view, and more an artifact of a culture that has enforced such a view. In fact, therapy for trans-people very often enforces not only a binary view of gender, but in many cases (particularly for transsexuals seeking SRS) enforces cultural stereotypes of gender and gender roles. Even in the GLBT community, many of the old guard still maintain a binary view.

This is something that is slowly changing, as trans-people are becoming less the redheaded stepchildren of the community, and more accepted. Many have adopted the term "genderqueer" to describe themselves, to avoid the binary view inherent in the "MtF/FtM" designation.

It is unfortunate that the English language does not have a good gender-neutral pronoun; but so far all attempts to create one have been too clumsy or self-serving to catch on widely.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Do refer to what I actually said as your answer is not as coherent as you intended it to be .

...

I've rarely if ever heard "wanker" applied to a woman here in the UK.