TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123456712 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 338

Thread: Cancel culture cancelled the thread on cancel culture

  1. #26
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Thats not what the thread was about and your attempting to twist it. It wasnt about where there is a clear perpetrator and where a clear evil act has occurred. Its about when a person makes false claims purposefully to destroy a person. Your attempting to push the thread onto what it was never about as that is a different discussion and as dia said "one that we have discussed to death and not one that we need a thread about".

    This is where we have the problem of automatic assumption of guilt. Dia's case is one where an actual crime occurred. Thats not what the thread was about.

    Sulphur and frog, take your toxic attitide and leave. I refuse to engage with you. In the OP I said to leave out the personal attacks and just discuss the topic. Your clearly not capable of that.

    Secondly I started the thread to create discussion and put in my opinion. Opinion not fact. If you have a different opinion on the topic - awesome fantastic. Discuss. Thats the point of creating threads to discuss topics. Debate. Not getting personal. Its not going in with a "everyone who disagrees with me has a clear bias! Life is hard" attutude. I'd said all I wanted to say on it, but then people got personal. It was one where I said hey all, this is the topic, heres my oppinion on it. What do you think? Discuss. Thats it.

    The point was to create a topic and see where discussion went on cancel culture. It is a shame that its meaning got twisted with toxicity into a different topic where there is a sea of emotion from horrible things that have happened to them. This thread isnt about that. It never was.

    Stay on topic. Or go make a separate thread.
    Last edited by icemann; 7th Jul 2020 at 00:38.

  2. #27
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    So don't engage with me. I'm sorry, but no one's falling for your transparently disingenuous bullshit, and you can hide behind the cover of 'personal insult' as much as you like, it doesn't do anything for your argument.

    So: can you answer the questions Starker put forward before you start to whinge about how everyone's huwting yow feewings? Can you answer what NV said about your previous thread? Or are you still going to pretend that you had a point?
    Last edited by Sulphur; 7th Jul 2020 at 00:43.

  3. #28
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Happy to. Stay tuned. Will respond later with that.

  4. #29
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Hey, guys! Let's do exactly what we did yesterday! We'll get all emotionally invested, and start condescending at each other. Some people will air their disgust, others will declare it a waste of time, and demand its closure, others still will insist it go on forever and ever more for the sake of CONTINUOUS DIALOGUE!

    Listen, I can understand that we live in a time of stark political strife, and we're all suddenly finding out that some of the people we've known for years have secretly been kinda weird assholes all this time, and you never had the chance to realized it until now. I get it. It's shocking. Hell, my entire life has become an episode of the Twilight Zone, as if I woke up from a coma, only to discover that everyone around me has become a caricature 60's klan redneck who starts dropping n-bombs like they're beatboxing that David Allen Coe song the moment 3 white guys congregate together in a room. It's odd discovering that the world you thought you knew has been nothing but a thin veneer of forced civility draped atop a seething maelstrom of fuck.

    So yeah, I can totally understand why we've all turned into such uptight assholes over the last few years, that every suspicious turn of phrase or off color quip can be construed as a casual way to excuse some of the heinous shit we've seen perpetuated since we had the gall to elect a black dude as president.

    ...not that anyone will ever admit to that, but we all know it to be true.

    But that doesn't excuse it. Quit being so goddamn catty, people. Jesus. Ice. Learn to adapt to the various points of a conversation, and evolve your argument. Sulp. Turn down the self-righteousness a notch or two. Subjeff. You're a total cunt for doing this to me.

  5. #30
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    It's reeeeeally simple. If you want to discuss something fairly, you better believe you need to have a fair opening argument. If you're going to broadcast your level of ignorance and/or obnoxiousness right from the off, what exactly do you think you're going to get? Is everyone really just being randomly pissy for no reason or because they haven't hugged their dogs enough? (PSA: probably don't hug your dog too much.)
    Last edited by Sulphur; 7th Jul 2020 at 01:27.

  6. #31
    Member
    Registered: Jul 2005
    Location: Bulgaria

  7. #32
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Okay, go on then. Prove that there is a rise of false claims as you say there is. Show your data so that everyone can evaluate whether what you're claiming is in fact true and that there is a significant problem worth discussing, instead of a vanishingly rare and drummed up occurrence in the face of a much bigger problem of violence against women.
    Firstly. False claims was only part of what the thread was about, and it goes both ways against both sexes. The other half was past actions, and whether that defines who someone is for life, or if people can change.

    Examples of the thread topic.

    * Cliff Richard got publicly aired and named over child sex claims which were later revealed to be complete bullshit - Article - https://www.theguardian.com/music/20...ns-legal-costs
    * James Gunn getting taken down as director on Guardians of the Galaxy 2 due to tweets done 10 years earlier - Article regarding it - https://deadline.com/2019/05/james-g...ws-1202610248/
    * Joe Vargas (aka Angry Joe) recently had online claims about sexual misconduct posted. As soon as he publicly declared that he was getting his lawyers involved, the online post (with the claim) was deleted and the person disappeared into the ether. Link to video on the subject on the OP.
    * John Jarratt (aka main character in the "Wolf Creek" movies) - Falsely accused of rape. Later proven innocent. Life destroyed regardless - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCUb_j7FNQU
    * Rebel Wilson sued the Woman's Day magazine, after it went on a campaign to destroy her over a heap of bullshit, that was later proven to be false - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-...s/8936850?nw=0
    Last edited by icemann; 7th Jul 2020 at 02:02.

  8. #33
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    These are just anecdotal examples of very disparate things from over a number of years. Once again, where is your proof that there has been a significant rise of false claims, that this has been due to "cancel culture", and that they in fact constitute a serious problem worth talking about? Either show your work or stop throwing around accusations that you can't prove.

    But okay, let's look at your examples.

    The first example is journalists of BBC rushing to land what they thought was a "scoop", or, more accurately, a juicy celebrity scandal and ignoring good journalistic practices in the process. So why then are you not bemoaning yellow journalism and the rise of paparazzo culture in the BBC/UK?
    Gunn was fired not because some woke misguided "cancel culture", but because of alt-right trolls successfully lobbying Disney, who's very concerned about their image as a family entertainment provider. And, in fact, Disney has rehired him meanwhile. Why are you not bemoaning corporate PR politics and the rise of alt-right troll culture, then?
    As far as I can tell, a person deleting a post, most likely after receiving lots of unwelcome attention from Mr Angry's fans, is not an admission of guilt or proof that they were making it up. And the situation seems quite the opposite -- instead of Mr Angry's life being destroyed, he not only has the financial means and the platform to fully and completely defend himself against any such accusation, true or not, in addition to that a huge number of his fans and unrelated alt-right reactionaries immediately took his side and rose up to defend him and/or to attack the accuser. So why then are you not bemoaning blind parasocial relationships and the rise of misogynist reactionaries bullying women who dare to speak out about the mistreatment of women.
    The fourth one is just a repeat of the first example of a publication not following good journalistic practices, as far as I can tell, and also settled in court in favour of the person.

    All of these people, far from having their lives destroyed, are shown to be winning and winning quite big. So what exactly is the issue here? That they have legal and financial means available to them, not to mention an overwhelming support from their fans to squash any claim of misconduct against them, whether the claim justified or not?

    Okay, it seems you added a fifth one about John Jarratt while I was reading your articles and typing. So, where is the proof that the woman had knowingly made a false claim? A criminal court does not judge a person's innocence, after all. It only determines whether it can be proven that they committed a crime.
    Last edited by Starker; 7th Jul 2020 at 10:02.

  9. #34
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    See know Sulphur, SD has just gone into some detail about the JK Rowling issue that is interesting. I happen to agree with SD about "treating" children with gender issues in a way that can permanently affect their physiology and I can tell you that this is a big talking point in the medical world right now, natch, because doctors don't want to harm people who are just going though a difficult time because of puberty.

    And Aja has provided an interesting counterpoint.

    dethtoll's contribution... I'll leave you to decide.

    It seem's it is possible to have a normal discussion (dethtoll aside) after all. I'm now interested to see SD's response to Aja. I'm undecided on this matter (I've said about JK Rowling's posting before) because I know I've not read enough about it and my opinion at the moment isn't fully informed.

  10. #35
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Either show your work or stop throwing around accusations that you can't prove.
    No. I created a topic for discussion. I've stated my opinion on the topic, which is designed around others discussing it if they so wish to. It was never based around myself wanting to be the sole focus of it all. If others don't want to discuss it then we'll just let it be. I said all I wanted to in the first post of the original thread. The rest is for everyone else. If you look at the original thread, I wasn't even posting in it, beyond the first post and a quick response to the 1st reply. Was more just sitting back and reading responses to be more educated on the issue, and to see the general opinion forum wide on the topic.

    It is kinda amusing that a thread on cancel culture got cancelled by those demanding it's immediate closure, much like what happened in that video that Subjeff posted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    A criminal court does not judge a person's innocence, after all. It only determines whether it can be proven that they committed a crime.
    I'm not a lawyer, but your logic is flawed there. The point of going to court is prove ones innocence. If found guilty, your guilty of the crime. If found innocent, you are innocent until proven otherwise. A very black and white issue that one. You can have an opinion as you say that "A criminal court does not judge a person's innocence", but that is very subjective. And you are not going to get a consensus of everyone agreeing with you on that.

    Otherwise one could say "A criminal court does not judge a person's guilt, after all. It only determines whether they have enough evidence that proves that they did not commit the crime."
    Last edited by icemann; 7th Jul 2020 at 03:20.

  11. #36
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    No. I created a topic for discussion. I've stated my opinion on the topic, which is designed around others discussing it if they so wish to. It was never based around myself wanting to be the sole focus of it all. If others don't want to discuss it then we'll just let it be. I said all I wanted to in the first post of the original thread.
    Your thread literally has the words 'Rise of the False Claims' in it. You're going to need to provide some evidence that out of the many, many, many cases out there, there's been a statistical increase in false claims rather than them being a tiny portion of the bigger malestrom. If you assert that and fail to back it up, then shift the onus on to other people to do your work for you, why should anyone give you any credibility?

    If your plan was to actually make this a conversation, then start by answering Starker's questions up there.


    @SubjEff: I am not a trans person, so I'm not going to be able to answer the JKR thing in a real, qualified capacity. But her position definitely reeks of a transphobic mindset dressed up in strawmanning: viz., deleting a post praising Stephen King after he declared that trans women are women.
    Last edited by Sulphur; 7th Jul 2020 at 03:27.

  12. #37
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Switzerland
    Let me get this straight, icemann: if someone was raped but for whatever reason there isn't enough evidence (or, as happens in a majority of cases, the evidence isn't processed or it's contaminated, and the police fuck things up), they should just shut the fuck up? Because in practice that is exactly what you're saying. You're putting all the responsibility on the victim of a rape to make sure there's enough actionable evidence, because if there isn't and the courts render a verdict of Not Guilty, the way you're presenting it the victim of the rape is actually the wrongdoer, because they've harrassed an innocent (according to the court) person.

    Seriously, don't you see how fucked up that is?

    P.S.: And that's not even addressing the many, many cases where courts let rapists go with a slap on the wrist, because supposedly they've learnt their lesson and you wouldn't want to ruin their lives. Funnily enough, this seems to be especially the case with better-off, white perpetrators.

  13. #38
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    It is kinda amusing that a thread on cancel culture got cancelled by those demanding it's immediate closure, much like what happened in that video that Subjeff posted.
    That's not what happened, though. It was shut down by Renz, because the thread was a garbage fire, not in small part thanks to your framing the issue. Don't pretend like you're innocent in this.

    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    I'm not a lawyer, but your logic is flawed there. The point of going to court is prove ones innocence. If found guilty, your guilty of the crime. If found innocent, you are innocent until proven otherwise. A very black and white issue that one. You can have an opinion as you say that "A criminal court does not judge a person's innocence", but that is very subjective. And you are not going to get a consensus of everyone agreeing with you on that.

    Otherwise one could say "A criminal court does not judge a person's guilt, after all. It only determines whether they have enough evidence that proves that they did not commit the crime."
    No, this is literally the logic the courts run on in most of the world. If there is not sufficient evidence to prove the person's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the verdict is not "innocent", it is, in fact, "not guilty" (as far as the criminal law is concerned). And that itself does not prove the accusation false.

  14. #39
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    But he hasn't done that Thirith.

    These are the places your mind has gone, there's are the straw men you have found in your own psyche.

  15. #40
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Switzerland
    Also, icemann, you're doing that thing again that you've done before: people address the points you're making, criticising your premise, and you ignore 9/10 of what they write and pounce on the one thing that you think is incorrect in their statement. Starker's addressed your examples and made a clear case why they don't say what you think they say, but you dismiss these out of hand and instead go off on a tangent about guilt and innocence that doesn't even tally with the facts (as Starker wrote, courts don't establish verdicts of "innocent"). Why should we, why should anyone, come away with the impression that you're doing this in good faith?

  16. #41
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Switzerland
    SubJeff: icemann's been talking about 'false claims'. He lists examples of people being found not guilty by the courts. He says that because the courts found these people not guilty, they are innocent. He's been talking about the innocent being the true victims here and those accusing them as evil, vicious slanderers. Either he is saying that those who accused these people are engaging in false claims themselves and should therefore STFU or he is making entirely unconnected statements for the heck of it. Which is it?

  17. #42
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Quote Originally Posted by Sulphur View Post

    @SubjEff: I am not a trans person, so I'm not going to be able to answer the JKR thing in a real, qualified capacity.
    I reject this notion that you have to be in a group to be able to discuss issues related to it. It's nonsense. Exclusionary nonsense.

    You don't have to be black to understand racism against black people.

    Please stop perpetuating this.

    But her position definitely reeks of a transphobic mindset dressed up in strawmanning: viz., deleting a post praising Stephen King after he declared that trans women are women.
    She disagrees with him it seems. That doesn't make her transphobic, does it? I don't think trans women are women, I think they are trans women. I don't think they should be discriminated against, but I do think they need special consideration as their situation is unique. I understand that there are cis women who are concerned about trans women encroaching on their safe spaces, and that's a reasonable concern sometimes, isn't it?

  18. #43
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Quote Originally Posted by Thirith View Post
    SubJeff: icemann's been talking about 'false claims'. He lists examples of people being found not guilty by the courts. He says that because the courts found these people not guilty, they are innocent.
    This is the law, isn't it?

    Innocent until proven guilty. Or don't you believe that?

  19. #44
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Switzerland
    Quote Originally Posted by SubJeff View Post
    This is the law, isn't it?

    Innocent until proven guilty. Or don't you believe that?
    Tell me when you're interested in more than just sophistry.

  20. #45
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    Quote Originally Posted by SubJeff View Post
    I reject this notion that you have to be in a group to be able to discuss issues related to it. It's nonsense. Exclusionary nonsense.

    You don't have to be black to understand racism against black people.

    Please stop perpetuating this.
    You do have to talk to a black person to actually know their point of view. And if someone's going to deny a trans person's point of view, I would rather hear from those trans people first than the likes of you or me. It's simple logic, yes? You seem to think that you can make a judgement call about a situation without actually getting input from all parties, which is not only a sign of not seeing the forest for the trees, it's a phenomenal kind of narcissism.

    She disagrees with him it seems. That doesn't make her transphobic, does it? I don't think trans women are women, I think they are trans women. I don't think they should be discriminated against, but I do think they need special consideration as their situation is unique. I understand that there are cis women who are concerned about trans women encroaching on their safe spaces, and that's a reasonable concern sometimes, isn't it?
    The word here is 'encroaching'. You have to contextualise what's going on here. None of this is isolated. It began with her not understanding that trans people menstruate, and making fun of it, and the backlash that followed. She then attempted to make a reasoned entreaty, but towards the end of that spiel doubled down on fearmongering instead by implying that men can dress up as trans people and endanger cis-women in the loo - what part of assuming that every trans person is a potential threat doesn't look like transphobia? And remember, this came up from her not understanding half of the problem to begin with. It's a patent lack of credibility not helped by the fact that she says she wants to side with trans people and in the same breath says they can't identify with the biological sex. You can't have it both ways.

    It's after all that that the Stephen King tweet happened. I don't know if she's transphobic or not, but all signs seem to point to yes. And yes, I still want a trans person to talk about this instead of you or me batting words around like self-entitled fuckwits assuming we know everything.
    Last edited by Sulphur; 7th Jul 2020 at 05:23.

  21. #46
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Quote Originally Posted by Thirith View Post
    Tell me when you're interested in more than just sophistry.
    Classic sidestep. Answer the question. You're accusing iceman of thinking a person found not guilty is innocent like that's a bad thing.

    You said:

    He says that because the courts found these people not guilty, they are innocent.
    Do you not believe that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sulphur View Post
    You do have to talk to a black person to actually know their point of view.
    Yes, but one doesn't need to talk to a black person to be able to tell if something is racist or not. You may need to have it explained to you because you don't understand the history or the references, but you don't need a black person to do that, and if you have that information you don't need to be black to process it.

    And if someone's going to deny a trans person's point of view, I would rather hear from those trans people first than the likes of you or me. It's simple logic, yes?
    I'd like to hear the point of view of trans people, yes, or course.

    You seem to think that you can make a judgement call about a situation without actually getting input from all parties
    Not at all. I think you make a judgement after you've got the that input. I just don't think it needs to a trans/black/gay/whatever person who makes that judgement.

    May I remind you that you stated that:

    I am not a trans person, so I'm not going to be able to answer the JKR thing in a real, qualified capacity.
    which directly, specifically and unequivocally expresses the opinion that only trans people can understand this.

    Imagine someone said this about white straight people - you wouldn't understand, you need to be a straight white person to get it. I think some people's heads would explode.

    It began with her not understanding that trans people menstruate
    I don't think that happened. I think she had issue with the description, and I think she was wrong.

    what part of assuming that every trans person is a potential threat doesn't look like transphobia?
    I don't think that's the case though. I think she's talking about trans people who still have penises, but identify as women (which is fine of course, but I shouldn't need to say that) and are attracted to women. You must see the concern here, right?

    It's things like this that are the pinnacle of this issue.

  22. #47
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: The Land of Make Believe
    Quote Originally Posted by june gloom View Post
    "i have nothing but sympathy and compassion for transgender people" "IF U HAV DIK U NOT WOMAN" bro like why you so obsessed with peoples' genitals bro do you hear yourself bro you prefaced your entire post with a bald-faced lie bro why would you lie like that bro
    I'm sure I don't need to draw you a diagram, but people with dicks do an incredible amount of damage to people without dicks every single day. If you can't even acknowledge the danger dicks pose to vulnerable people, then I don't see how rational debate is possible.

  23. #48
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    Quote Originally Posted by SubJeff View Post
    Yes, but one doesn't need to talk to a black person to be able to tell if something is racist or not. You may need to have it explained to you because you don't understand the history or the references, but you don't need a black person to do that, and if you have that information you don't need to be black to process it.
    So you're saying that after me posting, a person who skipped through the tweets and gave you a summary because you had also only touched upon a few things about it, you know all the information now required to process this properly?

    I'd like to hear the point of view of trans people, yes, or course. Not at all. I think you make a judgement after you've got the that input. I just don't think it needs to a trans/black/gay/whatever person who makes that judgement.
    So where's the input, then? I'm seeing a lot of people talk about JKR, but we don't have anyone quoting an actual trans person.

    which directly, specifically and unequivocally expresses the opinion that only trans people can understand on this.
    This was in response to your statement here:
    I'm undecided on this matter (I've said about JK Rowling's posting before) because I know I've not read enough about it and my opinion at the moment isn't fully informed.
    If you're not fully informed, and I'm not fully informed, and we're both going to swat words around about the topic without anyone from the community giving their take on it, do you really think we're qualified to make a judgement on it?

    Imagine someone said this about white straight people - you wouldn't understand, you need to be a straight white person to get it. I think some people's heads would explode.
    This is improbable because I challenge you to show me a world where we don't have the opinions and perspectives of straight white people barrelling through 24/7.

    I don't think that happened. I think she had issue with the description, and I think she was wrong.
    It was a direct reaction to a flyer on 'people who menstruate' - which she goes on to make fun of by implying there must be a better word for it.

    I don't think that's the case though. I think she's talking about trans people who still have penises, but identify as women (which is fine of course, but I shouldn't need to say that) and are attracted to women. You must see the concern here, right?

    It's things like this that are the pinnacle of this issue.
    And I'm not saying it's not a possibility, if a really low one (your link is of a convicted criminal perpetuating this in jail though? Is that the only anecdotal evidence available?). Rape is a possibility regardless of gender or restroom labelling. So what is the solution? Discriminate and not allow trans people with penises to enter the women's restrooms and let them be discriminated by men instead? And if we use her logic that men always perpetuate sexual violence, then are we saying it's okay to increase the possibility of trans people being raped by relegating them to the men's side? (Let's be clear though, this is an assumption that she only means trans people with penises. It may or may not be true.)
    Last edited by Sulphur; 7th Jul 2020 at 06:18.

  24. #49
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: The Land of Make Believe
    Quote Originally Posted by Aja View Post
    I’m not the best person to explain this because the issue is complex and I’m still learning about it, but I’ll give it a shot. There are a couple problems with the argument that trans women shouldn’t be allowed in women’s spaces.

    First, to assume that what she’s saying is true means you also have to assume, at a high level, that the distinction between men and women is something that can be objectively quantified. Yes, there's genitalia and chromosomes, but they don't explain the depression and dysphoria some people feel when their assigned gender doesn’t match what they know they actually are and the relief and the sense of wholeness that comes from adopting their true gender. To reduce the argument to, “Declaring you’re a women to gain access to female-only spaces is unacceptable” is to say that I, a person who has no idea what your lived experience is actually like, knows better than you about yourself. It invalidates what is clearly a very real and traumatic experience and ignores the actual reason people transition.

    Second, statistically trans people are overwhelmingly more likely to be abused than abusers. So if your argument is the safety of women's-only spaces, you’re going to have to start banning lesbians or even straight women who are strong enough to overpower their peers. What's the excuse if they're just as much of a danger? Besides, a deranged person can already go into whatever bathroom or shelter they want to commit assault, so we wouldn’t really be solving that problem, even if did exist. It's like the people insisting that gay men shouldn't adopt because they're more likely to be pedophiles.

    In the end, what it boils down to is plain and simple bigotry masquerading as an appeal to logic. Go on any TERF or so-called gender critical forum and what you'll see is mainly just people being grossed out by trans people and coming up with reasons to justify their discomfort, and that is exactly what JK Rowling did.
    On your first point, it's not about invalidating how trans people feel. It's not really even about genuine trans people. It's about the practical danger penises pose to people without penises. It's unfortunate that we have to balance the fee-fees of trans people against the increased risk of sexual violence against women, but I make no apology for coming down on the side of the latter.

    On the second point, it's correct that transwomen are statistically more likely to be the victims of abuse. This is largely because transwomen are over-represented in sex work, and sex workers in general are at a hugely increased risk of sexual violence.

    Your concluding paragraph, well, I don't see what you see, and I've looked really, really hard. I think it's easier if people pretend their opponents are all grossed out bigots, because that saves them having to rationally justify allowing potential rapists into women's changing rooms and refuges.

  25. #50
    Taking the Death Toll
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Location: they/them mayhem
    Quote Originally Posted by SD View Post
    I'm sure I don't need to draw you a diagram, but people with dicks do an incredible amount of damage to people without dicks every single day. If you can't even acknowledge the danger dicks pose to vulnerable people, then I don't see how rational debate is possible.
    correction: cis men do an incredible amount of damage to afabs and trans women every single day

    your entire position rests on gender essentialism and is therefore horseshit

Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123456712 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •