Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
UnrepentantSinner said:
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.
Click to expand...
It would certainly eliminate the majority of Jewish humour, since self-deprecation is a fundamental part of it.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
...
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy
Do refer to what I actually said as your answer is not as coherent as you intended it to be .
...

Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy
I've rarely if ever heard "wanker" applied to a woman here in the UK.
Click to expand...

Yes. HEARD - ie in real life or even on the TV/radio . That remains my experience. As for finding Uk based examples on the Internet, it's not my fault your examples were so unconvincing. They don't confirm that is "not uncommon" in every day speech either.

You missed out the bit
Maybe it's different in other parts of the UK, or even London.
Click to expand...

which is hardly:

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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
While I don't mind anyone expressing an opinion about how something might be perceived as sexist, thoughtless, insensitive and/or offensive, the idea that something is per se sexist even if there was no ill intent is repugnant.
Just focus on civility and equitable treatment of posters. You'll do fine, otherwise it's just a matter of who is in the in-crowd that gets to decide when someone is being unconsciously offensive. It's a fools errand.
Click to expand...

ApostateltsopA said:
Why do you think something has to have intent to be sexist or racist or what have you?
Click to expand...
Please re-read the highlighted text.

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? 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? 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?

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?
Click to expand...
Look, it's really not that difficult. Be civil. You have the capacity to reason. A wild animal will snarl and snap at others who bump into them. We don't need to do that. We don't need to play "gotcha" politics. Just be civil and for god's sake grow a thicker skin. Offense is everywhere for those looking for it. I'm obese, I don't get pissed off over every fat joke or insensitive statement. Life is to damn short. If I think someone is being malicious or gratuitous then I'll say something otherwise I'll likely laugh. The human condition is funny. It should be enjoyed and not made humorless. Life is better when you take the chip off of your shoulder and have some charity for others. Don't assume the worst of others.
 
luchog said:
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.
Click to expand...

Excellent :)

That's exactly the type of input I was looking for when I was trying to reconcile the whole genderqueer idea with what I'd been hearing from transsexuals for years...."I was born in the wrong body."

It seemed the two concepts were at odds with one another, nature vs nurture, if you will.

While I'm here..dashist. Is that the same thing as -ist ?
 
luchog said:
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.
Click to expand...

It doesn't surprise me that it does. However you have a biased sample. Somebody who is trans and experienced with the trans community is likely to encounter a greater proportion of trans people than somebody who has no contact with that community. On encountering somebody who identifies as genderqueer then a charitable individual would adopt whatever pronouns make that individual feel the most comfortable, but using the binary Romance-language system for the rest of society at large is unlikely to get you into any trouble.

That's the way I see it.

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.
Click to expand...

Maybe we should push to make the world's lingua franca German!

I have to say that you are quickly becoming my favourite poster on JREF. Educational without being didactic and informative without being preachy.
 
squealpiggy said:
It doesn't surprise me that it does. However you have a biased sample. Somebody who is trans and experienced with the trans community is likely to encounter a greater proportion of trans people than somebody who has no contact with that community. On encountering somebody who identifies as genderqueer then a charitable individual would adopt whatever pronouns make that individual feel the most comfortable, but using the binary Romance-language system for the rest of society at large is unlikely to get you into any trouble.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure where you got that I said otherwise. I don't even know that many trans-folk who get all that haired out about pronoun trouble. A few of the more radical SJWs perhaps. For most, it's only a problem if people insist on using the wrong pronoun after being politely corrected.
 
People have responded to this point already, but I thought I'd chime in too since it's a case where I get to apply my "lived experience," which apparently trumps all other input...

ApostateltsopA said:
Why do you think something has to have intent to be sexist or racist or what have you? 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?
Click to expand...


Funny you should mention it, but there was a time when I literally did that very thing.

[I should preface this by noting that I am a white guy (person of whiteness?), since my avatar has occasionally led people to assume otherwise.]

I was about 8 years old, and I heard one of my friends at school use a word that I had never heard before. As far as I could tell, it was a synonym for "dummy," since my friend was using it in that way. And since it was a novel and kinda silly-sounding word, I started using it the same way, indiscriminately letting it replace "dummy" or "lame-brain" or "jive turkey" or whatever other generic term of disparagement I may have used at the time. That went on for probably about a week before I said it in front of my parents, who asked me why I said it and what I thought it meant, and then explained to me what it actually meant and why I shouldn't use it. And once I understood that it was really a not-nice name for a black person, I thought "Oh, that's dumb," and stopped saying it.

Would you honestly suggest, with a straight face, that the behavior of my 8-year-old self in that episode was racist? Because if so, then either you are using a definition of "racist" that's so far removed from the common understanding as to be useless, or even worse, you're erasing my lived experience!!!
 
This thread continues to astound me at times, as does luchog. Just 10 minutes ago I attempted to summarize this fascinating brouhaha to an old friend. She immediately shot down the Apos pov, which I adopted for my presentation. I just sent her a link to his video, which she promised to watch. But I also sent a link to luchog's reply to Apos. It so adroitly articulates my own thoughts, many made effable far beyond my own ability to do so. And it really gets to the heart of so many issues in play itt.

Might I inquire if you have genetic roots with the Ashkenazim, lucdog? I ask as a long time goy Judeophile looking for yet another example of how they so often stand out. Not at all meant to ignore the relative stats.

@Apostate: I think we will eventually get to discussing your video and position on this seminal incident. But for now I for one would ask you to put all other issues aside and concentrate on a detailed response to luchog's reply. It so totally encapsulates so many of the issues I have with your defense of the A+ forum that I'll be happy to wait for you to present links from my posts there that would iyo justify my banning until later.

And consider this: I'd quite willing to go back to A+ and present my reasons why my ban was irrational and unwarranted, but I can't. That is the BIG difference with what you try and equate with dogpiling here and at A+. There the threat to silence any dissent from the majority view is ever present and often applied. Here there is no such threat. Your apparent failure to comprehend just how much difference that makes, especially when combined with the aggressiveness any dissenters receive there, makes me wonder if you have some agenda I fail to see. But put any answers for me aside, please, and give them to luchog. I think that could go a long way toward bringing to rest questions many here have.
 
Stout said:
Excellent :)

That's exactly the type of input I was looking for when I was trying to reconcile the whole genderqueer idea with what I'd been hearing from transsexuals for years...."I was born in the wrong body."
Click to expand...

In many aboriginal societies not poisoned by the Abrahamic religions, more than two genders are recognized and accepted (typically three).

The BugisWP people of Indonesia recognize five genders, and they have names for them.

Perempuan (heterosexual female)
Laki-laki (heterosexual male)
Calabai (Physically male but taking on the heterosexual female role)
Calalai (Physically female but taking on the heterosexual male role)
Bissu (Embodying all aspects of genders)

For more, read or google Gender in Bugis societyWP.
 
Mr. Scott said:
In many aboriginal societies not poisoned by the Abrahamic religions, more than two genders are recognized and accepted (typically three).

The BugisWP people of Indonesia recognize five genders, and they have names for them.

Perempuan (heterosexual female)
Laki-laki (heterosexual male)
Calabai (Physically male but taking on the heterosexual female role)
Calalai (Physically female but taking on the heterosexual male role)
Bissu (Embodying all aspects of genders)

For more, read or google Gender in Bugis societyWP.
Click to expand...

Interesting, and still to this day in a Muslim country.

I used to travel to Thailand frequently ( until, in 2010 they upped their SCUBA prices, couple that with increased accommodation prices and I can get a way better deal in the Caribbean ) where there's a significant "ladyboy" culture. Out of the hundreds of fellow tourists I talked to about this, as the topic always came up, not one appeared to have a problem with the idea.

Dunno if they kept that attitude when they went back home but outside of the few casual jokes made at the expense of single guys, nobody appeared adverse to the scene. Maybe it was novelty, maybe it's because most other travelers I talked to were European where, I hear, they're a little more open to this sort of thing than we are in the colonies.
 
Mr. Scott said:
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.
Click to expand...

Could you define the term "intellectual tool?"
 
recursive prophet said:
Might I inquire if you have genetic roots with the Ashkenazim, lucdog? I ask as a long time goy Judeophile looking for yet another example of how they so often stand out. Not at all meant to ignore the relative stats.
Click to expand...
Yes, I do have some Ashkenazi heritage, though it's on my father's side, so I'm not Halachically Jewish. :) Specifically, descended from Ashkenazim who settled in the Ukraine, so while not being threatened by Hitler's Final Solution, were repeatedly victimized by the Czar's pogroms. I've also had a number of friends who were Ashkenazim, a few who were Sephardim, and even had a co-worker for about a year who was... either of the Cochin or Bene Israel, I forget which. However, I was raised a Christian, originally Pentecostal, but eventually non-denominational, and still consider myself one (the admission of which probably cost me any more TLA nominations ;) ).

Wait, this is about that whole "argumentative Jews" thing isn't it. :D
 
Last edited:
luchog said:
It's just that simple. Without the intent to be dashist, any perceived dashist language is, at worst, an unfortunate linguistic holdover.
Click to expand...

Would you acknowledge the possibility of unintentional harm or marginalization?

luchog said:
Intent is paramount. If there is no ill-will, there is no "misbehaviour"; there is only an unfortunate accident proceeding from ignorance.
Click to expand...

But that accident can still cause real harm.

luchog said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I think the disagreement is likely to be on when and kind of apologies are necessary, and what moving on means.

luchog said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you think "Aplussers" and "SJWs" are useful categories for discussion? I wonder about the internal consistency of condemning identity politics and then proceeding to discuss groups in such a manner.
 
qwints said:
Would you acknowledge the possibility of unintentional harm or marginalization?

But that accident can still cause real harm.
Click to expand...
Accidents can certainly be harmful. In some cases, they are tragic. But what they are not, is evidence of a "Culture of Rape/Sexism/Racism/Etc". A culture requires far more than an occasional accident, or a small minority openly displaying such attitudes; let alone an un-demonstrated and highly subjective "subconsious" intent.

Do you think "Aplussers" and "SJWs" are useful categories for discussion? I wonder about the internal consistency of condemning identity politics and then proceeding to discuss groups in such a manner.
Click to expand...

Unlike "racial" or "sexual" identity, which are based on imperfect and often specious generalizations; these are definitely useful categories, as they are self-selected groups based around a particular socio-political ideology.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom