TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst ... 345678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 176 to 200 of 338

Thread: Cancel culture cancelled the thread on cancel culture

  1. #176
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    It's not double standards to have different rules for different people if there's a reason for it raph. It happens all the time, everywhere.

    What's the definition of rape? Is there a double standard there?

    In English law a woman cannot rape another woman or a man. Omg. Double standard? Pfffft

  2. #177
    You're dodging the issue.

    Let's see, By your admission, you consider that trans women are not women, but men, and cannot use women's facilities. I'm gonna go on a limb here, but by extension, this means that you consider that trans men are not men, but women... yet you also say that they are free to use the men's facilities.

    If you're "protecting women" by preventing "men" (in fact, trans women) from entering women facilities, why would you let other "women" (in fact trans men) go to male facilities, where they're, as per your argument, at risk?

    You're not being consistent. Either everyone goes is their AGAB facilities, or they can go to the one they identify with. You can't have both.

  3. #178
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Quote Originally Posted by raph View Post
    You're dodging the issue.

    Let's see, By your admission, you consider that trans women are not women, but men,
    Have I said that? I apologise if I have, but I don't remember that nor mean that. I think trans women are trans women.

    I also don't, by extension or any other means, think trans men are women. I think they are trans men.

    As to why I'd let trans men use male facilities - because they are unlikely to offend anyone when getting undressed and are not going to make cis men feel uncomfortable, that's why.

    I can't believe I have to explain this.

  4. #179
    Taking the Death Toll
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Location: they/them mayhem
    Quote Originally Posted by raph View Post
    You can't have both.
    you can if you believe in some gender essentialist nonsense about how only penis owners can commit rape, which ignores the fact that AFABs can be predators and abusers too

  5. #180
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    That's a leap.

    Anyone can commit sexual assault.

    The law in many countries, including the one I live in, defines rape as requiring a penis. That's only relevent to me as an example of how penis owners are already treated differently to non penis owners. Fwiw I disagree with the definition as I think non penis owners who force certain sexual acts on whoever are still rapists.

  6. #181
    FWIW, SubJeff, I'm not trying to antagonize you, I'm really trying to get to the bottom of your argument.

  7. #182
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Sulphur View Post
    Everyone who addressed your points shot them down with facts you provided yourself and your only rejoinder to that is 'woe is me'. This is not only hilarious, it's also very sad.
    Firstly it is quite amusing that you used that choice of words, considering one of your earlier posts that you later edited, with the original text being "Oh did I hurt your feelings" plus other stuff. That's the clear personal attack stuff I was mentioning earlier. There's no need for it. If you can't debate your opinion without getting personal then don't speak.

    Dismissing evidence posted, does not prove anything. All it = is them not agreeing with it. I could show you exhibit A, and you could say "Well that's false and irrelevant". But that does not make it so. That's just your opinion that it is. If I don't agree with that, then who is right and who is wrong? No'one is right or wrong it's all just opinions. However if you have clear evidence beyond a forum post that it is wrong then fair call. I've not seen any instances of that in this whole thread, just opinions. And you could say well starker, frog, you and thirith all agree. Well that's firstly needing 3 others vs 1 to "prove" an argument, and secondly it doesn't really prove anything beyond that you have opinions. Just as I have mine. That's what posting on forums is all about. To discuss opinions, debate, disagree, agree.

    "Dislike or disagree with an opinion because of the opinion, not who is expressing it." - Wise words

    For example, I quoted the channel 9 news comments about Jarrat's career likely not recovering. Frog then responded:

    Quote Originally Posted by froghawk View Post
    Jarrett's will probably bounce back, just like countless others (Cee-lo, Louis CK, etc. - and both of them even admitted their guilt).
    An opinion. He's not John Jarrat, he doesn't know his situation or how it's affected him. Opinion. Just as I can use it as an example of a false claim. The man was accused of a crime which he did not commit, therefore to me that is a false claim. If that's not to you then whatever floats your boat. I'm leaving out the later vitriol in frog's post following that line. We all have opinions and the right to speak them. I'll always defend my opinions and you have the right to as well, but the second you take on a "Your wrong and you should put up or shutup and stop posting" style response then you've already failed. And that is the only thing that is sad here.

  8. #183
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    icemann, I'm not going to mince words here. You're simply bad at this. You've got a remarkably ignorant set of views, you keep contradicting yourself because of a poor thought process, and your argument style consists of ignoring everything you can't agree with or don't have a contradictory response to. Even the salient criticisms given to you minus ad homs, you've randomly selected something you had an issue with, and failed at that too. You're a very basic reactionary-type person deeply entrenched in old-fashioned bigoted views. I don't think you're a terrible person, but ipso facto from all of the above, you are either wilfully ignorant, influenced by bigots, or some combination of these. My theory is that you're also probably just stupid.

    The upshot of this is you are a phenomenal waste of time conversing with until you someday actually learn to self-reflect. Consider your credibility at the minus end of the spectrum.

  9. #184
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2004
    Location: Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by june gloom View Post
    threads like this make me really glad i'm not cishet, imagine living in the world SD and subjeff and icemann do
    We do not claim them

  10. #185
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Sulphur View Post
    icemann, I'm not going to mince words here. You're simply bad at this. You've got a remarkably ignorant set of views, you keep contradicting yourself because of a poor thought process, and your argument style consists of ignoring everything you can't agree with or don't have a contradictory response to. Even the salient criticisms given to you minus ad homs, you've randomly selected something you had an issue with, and failed at that too. You're a very basic reactionary-type person deeply entrenched in old-fashioned bigoted views. I don't think you're a terrible person, but ipso facto from all of the above, you are either wilfully ignorant, influenced by bigots, or some combination of these. My theory is that you're also probably just stupid.

    The upshot of this is you are a phenomenal waste of time conversing with until you someday actually learn to self-reflect. Consider your credibility at the minus end of the spectrum.
    And you can't have a disagreement with anyone without personally attacking them, when you should be debating the topic, which shows a clear deficiency in character. Not one single word in the above post was about the topic at all. 100% about the attack.

    To use a Jeshibu line - "Think back to all the arguments / debates you've ever had, and tell me how many times in your mind that you lost? I'll bet that number is zero in your head". Answer that one to yourself and see what you honestly come up with. My bet is that your convinced that you've never lost one, and intellectually superior to everyone.

  11. #186
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Quote Originally Posted by raph View Post
    FWIW, SubJeff, I'm not trying to antagonize you, I'm really trying to get to the bottom of your argument.
    I didn't think you were.

    I'm really trying to explain what believe the issues are.

  12. #187
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    icemann: consider this the last time I'm going to say anything in response to you on social issues: I know which arguments I've lost and learned from, and exactly none of them are from you.

    I wish you a long and educational journey on your road to eventual self-awareness.

  13. #188
    Speaking about self reflection... The way celebs approach the affair afterwards is also important. For example, Aziz Ansari's special has a big portion dedicated to the whole affair. He was clearly affected by it, and learned from it. The special is actually pretty moving at times

    Contrast it with Louis CK. His own post-scandal special mentions "the thing" and he has a whole shtick about it... but at no point does he actually apologize for anything, and his behavior was admittedly way shadier that whatever Aziz did. It's a good special, fuck he's a great comedian in general, but I'll be damned if it doesn't make it very difficult to defend him. You could argue that it's what his whole persona is about, but that's not an excuse. What he did was not okay, and his refusal to acknowledge this is a big problem.

    I'm cool with Aziz's response, not with Louis's. It's not necessarily "cancel him forever" worthy, but I wouldn't let him get away with just a basic apology, either. He should be held accountable until he demonstrates that he understand why that's happening, at least.
    Last edited by raph; 8th Jul 2020 at 08:12. Reason: Rephrased a sentence because I brainfarted and said the opposite of what I meant

  14. #189
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Berghem Haven
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    And you can't have a disagreement with anyone without personally attacking them, when you should be debating the topic, which shows a clear deficiency in character. Not one single word in the above post was about the topic at all. 100% about the attack.
    It's the way he interacts with everybody, fake skeptism and futile/childish rationalism (IT'S A FALLACY, A FALLACY!!11111) with a deep anger below.
    And everytime he calls out for a moderator (divine) intervention.

    The constant, obsessive occurrence of this behaviour is simply astonishing :|

    And everytime he comically "points out" how totally wrong is his contender. An extreme personality kept in balance thanks to rationalism only.
    LOL
    Last edited by lowenz; 8th Jul 2020 at 08:20.

  15. #190
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Got links to those?

    I've never found Aziz that funny tbh.

  16. #191
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    So I explained why I think trans men using a male changing room is different to trans women using a female changing room raph.

    Any opinion on that?

  17. #192
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2004
    Location: Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    And you can't have a disagreement with anyone without personally attacking them, when you should be debating the topic, which shows a clear deficiency in character. Not one single word in the above post was about the topic at all. 100% about the attack.

    To use a Jeshibu line - "Think back to all the arguments / debates you've ever had, and tell me how many times in your mind that you lost? I'll bet that number is zero in your head". Answer that one to yourself and see what you honestly come up with. My bet is that your convinced that you've never lost one, and intellectually superior to everyone.
    You've learned nothing. You've just adapted something that challenged you once into a cudgel to use on others, while still ignoring when people point out flaws in your arguments that you can't immediately think of a rebuttal to.

  18. #193
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    Quote Originally Posted by SD View Post
    This is an actual thing which is occurring.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8579146.html

    Now just remember - you're a bigot and a transphobe if you oppose putting people like Karen White into women's prisons with the most vulnerable women in our entire society. Because if Karen White says she's a woman, despite being a rapist in possession of a penis, who are we to argue?
    This is not an example that supports your argument.

    He was put in prison for attacking a neighbor with a knife. As a man, he had previously raped two women, who didn't come forward until later. Her transition started while in prison. Even if her motive for transitioning is genuine, she's a rapist and NOBODY here is going to support putting a rapist in with the female prison population on the basis of trans rights.

  19. #194
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Oh, no one supported it?

    Did it happen by magic then, or is it all a dream?

    Seems like someone did support it, doesn't it? Yes. And someone with authority enough to discount any fears about this. A panel perhaps? A panel of Uberwoke people such as yourself?

    That's what it looks like to me, but please enlighten us with further information or theories you have in this.

    Maybe someone, ha ha ha, was just playing a little joke?

    NOBODY supported this thing that really happened and which required support?

    You can't make this up. Just can't.

  20. #195
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    OK, who supports putting her into the female prison population?

    Surely you have to understand the clear and obvious difference between mixing a convicted rapist with female prisoners and letting a trans woman use the ladies room.

  21. #196
    Quote Originally Posted by SubJeff View Post
    Got links to those?

    I've never found Aziz that funny tbh.
    Aziz's "Right Now" is on Netflix. Yeah, I didn't get hooked by Master of None tbh. But the special is different. There are actually bits without jokes at times where he gets pretty introspective. I thought it was pretty good, but obviously YMMV.

    Louis CK's is an exclusive on his website.

    edit
    Quote Originally Posted by SubJeff View Post
    So I explained why I think trans men using a male changing room is different to trans women using a female changing room raph.

    Any opinion on that?
    Yeah, it hasn't changed much. I still think it's a blatant double standard, and your justification for it is pretty shoddy.

    First, it still focuses on genitals, which is an issue in itself, as if GRS was the culmination of transition. This isn't necessarily the case.

    Second, it doesn't hold. On one hand, you can bet a pre-op trans man probably won't be flashing his vulva, just like a pre-op trans woman wouldn't be flashing her penis, among other things precisely because just getting there, for a transgender individual, is an enormous step that probably took months of confidence building to get to. They're not going to jeopardize that. I wouldn't, in any case.

    On the other hand... Why do you assume that men wouldn't get uncomfortable, or worse, predatory, IF they saw something? You are actually basing your argument of banning trans women from women facilities on the premise that men can be a threat to women, so why would seeing a trans man's female genitals suddenly be OK for men? And these men are in a safe space that they control, adding to the potential threat to tg individuals.

    Leaving restrooms for a sec, this not an hypothetical, being targeted by men because he was trans is exactly what happened to Brandon Teena.

    I'm sorry, but it doesn't compute.

    Now, leaving what you said specifically, allow me to generalize further. Another thing that makes me extremely uncomfortable in this argument is that it also seems to grossly assume, for the purpose of generating extra discomfort, that trans women are just men in drag. While passing can be a challenge, especially when beginning transition, transitioning older, or both (and it causes its share of issues), I can assure you that you probably crossed path with trans women (and men) many times, and were none the wiser. Imagine if someone was lucky to transition early and develop into a full-blown woman... then just because she has a penis you'd force her to share facilities with men? She does not belong there, no more than the man I posted before belongs in the women's.

    The entire premise is specious.
    Last edited by raph; 8th Jul 2020 at 09:43.

  22. #197
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Switzerland
    icemann: Discussion and debate requires engaging with what people are saying. It requires listening and responding. You've consistently shown, in this thread and others, that you do that every now and then, when you haven't got anything better to do and when you like what people are saying, or when you think you've got some gotcha! response. The rest of the time you are happy to ignore what pretty much most of what is being said. You've even been quite clear about this yourself. You are the last person to tell anyone what discussion and debate should be.

  23. #198
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    Quote Originally Posted by SubJeff View Post
    As to why I'd let trans men use male facilities - because they are unlikely to offend anyone when getting undressed and are not going to make cis men feel uncomfortable, that's why.

    I can't believe I have to explain this.
    You've made it clear that your objection is baser than protecting women from sexual predators. You fear that some poor woman might glimpse a dick if she glances the wrong way at the wrong time. That is not a valid reason to restrict the rights of trans people to live normally. If anyone feels uncomfortable around someone because of their physical appearance, whether it's because they're obese, black, trans, covered with tats and piercings, or whatever else - that's their hangup to get over. If a cis woman feels uncomfortable using a changing room or toilet because a trans woman is in there, she can simply wait. Or better yet, just follow normal changing room etiquette and don't go staring at other people's naked bodies.

  24. #199
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    I'm still waiting for proof that false claims have become a significant issue with more women coming forward to tell their stories as part of #metoo or even what a news publication not properly vetting and corroborating their sources has to do with cancel culture.

  25. #200
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    You fear that some poor woman might glimpse a dick if she glances the wrong way at the wrong time.
    Why do male and female changing rooms even exist? Huuur.

    What ultra-liberal extremist poppycock is this?

    If anyone feels uncomfortable around someone because of their physical appearance, whether it's because they're obese, black, trans, covered with tats and piercings, or whatever else - that's their hangup to get over.
    You think this is the same as seeing someone's genitals? Wow.

    If a cis woman feels uncomfortable using a changing room or toilet because a trans woman is in there, she can simply wait. Or better yet, just follow normal changing room etiquette and don't go staring at other people's naked bodies.
    Ah, so it's cis-women who have to wait outside the women's changing room if they feel uncomfortable being in the same room as a naked cocks whilst they get undressed. I see. Is this the same for women with underage children? They should wait outside until the cocks are all gone then?

    SD was saying that he thinks women's safe spaces are under attack because of this entire issue.

    Thank you for showing us that it really is true.

    You've jumped the shark. Hard.

    Sulphur, Starker, Thirith, Aja - you all support this idea?

Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst ... 345678910111213 ... 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
  •