Split Thread Issues around language and offense, with reference to transgenderism.

[Agatha]

This thread seems to have veered quite substantially away from the subject of transgendered people and bathrooms. The thread will be closed until such time as a moderator has time to clean it up, split it into other threads and generally return it to the state we'd like to see. Please do not start other threads to discuss the matters in this thread until the thread is reopened. Thank you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[Agatha]

I have reopened this thread after splitting it, and I would request that all participants take specific points about the "bathroom bills" and guidance to the appropriate thread here, while continuing to discuss the language and offence issues arising therefrom in this thread. As always, please remain civil and polite when posting, and address the arguments rather than attack the arguers. Thank you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[Belz...]

It's what you've been saying, but as I provided a lot more than a foot stomp and declaration, what you've been saying is obviously false.

So now you are saying that simply stamping your foot and insisting something isn't what it plainly is very convincing? Or did you lose track of the conversation again?

No. "Pretend" and "lie" are not the same thing

Enlighten us. How can one pretend to do something and not engage in wilful misdirection i.e. lying?

I don't refuse to eat my brussel sprouts, I just don't eat my brussel sprouts. Silly.

Yes, there's a diference between not eating and refusing to eat. There actually is. Can't you see it?

Still, the whole 'not recognizing' that which you want to pretend doesn't exist or ignore is strikingly similar to the freemen of the land mindset.

I have no idea what you're refering to.

I would say that scenario is not going to occur, and even thinking that it would betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the issue that you "don't recognise"(sic).

You're dodging again. You are using any and all means to avoid giving a straight answer to any question or point.

As to your "sic", you do understand that America doesn't have a monopoly on spelling, right?

 

[AdamSK]

Enlighten us. How can one pretend to do something and not engage in wilful misdirection i.e. lying?

The difference is the intent to deceive. If the other person is in on the falsehood - if you don't mean for them to think what you are saying is true - then you are pretending but not lying.

The actor does not mean you to believe he is Hamlet - he is pretending, not lying.

 

[wareyin]

So now you are saying that simply stamping your foot and insisting something isn't what it plainly is very convincing? Or did you lose track of the conversation again?

No. Your unusual language usage is tripping you up again.

Enlighten us. How can one pretend to do something and not engage in wilful misdirection i.e. lying?

An example: A small child is playing with a toy car, pretending to make it drive around. Is that child lying?

Yes, there's a diference between not eating and refusing to eat. There actually is. Can't you see it?

Not when your mother put those brussel sprouts on your plate and tells you you need to eat them. In case that's too confusing, "many people" have informed you that your choice of phrase was offensive, and that was corroborated by links to a dictionary definition, public opinion study, and advice from mental health professionals. You ignore all that to "not recognise" (sic) that your choice of phrase was offensive.

I have no idea what you're refering to.

"Freemen-on-the-land" are a loose group of individuals with the belief that they are bound by statute laws only if they consent to those laws. You believe that you are bound by social understandings and definitions of words only if you "recognise" those definitions and common understandings.

You're dodging again. You are using any and all means to avoid giving a straight answer to any question or point.

No. Your question is so hyperbolic that it demonstrates a failure to understand the issue. There is no straight answer to such a question.

As to your "sic", you do understand that America doesn't have a monopoly on spelling, right?

Tell that to my spell-checker.

 

[Belz...]

No. Your unusual language usage is tripping you up again.

No, I think you lost track of the conversation. Let me help you:

Sorry, simply stamping your foot and insisting something isn't what it plainly is is not very convincing.

That's what I've been saying about your own claim since the beginning. Nice to see us agree about one thing.

It's what you've been saying, but as I provided a lot more than a foot stomp and declaration, what you've been saying is obviously false.

So you are now disagreeing with your first quote above. Perhaps, again, if you spend less time disagreeing with me and more time discussing with me, you'd put your foot in your mouth less often.

An example: A small child is playing with a toy car, pretending to make it drive around. Is that child lying?

It depends if he intends others to believe that he's really driving a real car.

In case that's too confusing, "many people" have informed you that your choice of phrase was offensive

But they have not demonstrated it. Your public opinion study said that 21.4% of the public finds the term offensive. That means that 88.6% do not, and the story even says that the term is the prefered one (35.4%). Regardless, this isn't a popularity contest, but a question of context and reasonable standard. We're not breaking the news to anguished parents, here. We're having a discussion about transgenderism in a thread on a forum on the internet. It is not reasonable to get offended at the sight of that term here.

And in addition to not being offensive, I don't care if some people find it offensive. It's accurate, just like it would be with albinism.

"Freemen-on-the-land" are a loose group of individuals with the belief that they are bound by statute laws only if they consent to those laws.

Ah, yes. That rings a bell, now. They're idiots.

You believe that you are bound by social understandings and definitions of words only if you "recognise" those definitions and common understandings.

No.

No. Your question is so hyperbolic that it demonstrates a failure to understand the issue. There is no straight answer to such a question.

You never give a straight answer. I guess you have the same opinion about every question in this thread.

Tell that to my spell-checker.

You should get your spellchecker in a conversation with dictionary.com and the British. The spelling was correct, and maybe you shouldn't rely on a machine to spell check.

 

[wareyin]

No, I think you lost track of the conversation. Let me help you:



So you are now disagreeing with your first quote above. Perhaps, again, if you spend less time disagreeing with me and more time discussing with me, you'd put your foot in your mouth less often.

Again, your non-standard use of language is tripping you up. You provided a declaration and foot-stamp. I provided dictionary definition, mental health professional advisory, and public survey, as well as a declaration, and several people in this thread agreeing with me. Yes, only a declaration and foot-stomp isn't convincing, no, I did not only provide that. Clear yet?

It depends if he intends others to believe that he's really driving a real car.

Now you realize that they aren't the same.

But they have not demonstrated it. Your public opinion study said that 21.4% of the public finds the term offensive. That means that 88.6% do not, and the story even says that the term is the prefered one (35.4%). Regardless, this isn't a popularity contest, but a question of context and reasonable standard. We're not breaking the news to anguished parents, here. We're having a discussion about transgenderism in a thread on a forum on the internet. It is not reasonable to get offended at the sight of that term here.

You don't recognize standard use of math, either? 88.6% + 21.4% = 110%
In addition, the fact that more than 1 in 5 will get offended by the term means it is not reasonable to declare that the term is not offensive.

And in addition to not being offensive, I don't care if some people find it offensive. It's accurate, just like it would be with albinism.

Insisting on using something that you know is offensive, while claiming you don't care if it is offensive, seems quite insincere. Usually, when there are several alternatives, insisting on picking the one that angers the most people is a sign that one does care about it being offensive. And you know that it's offensive because "many people" have told you that it is, in addition to dictionary definition, etc.

Ah, yes. That rings a bell, now. They're idiots.

I agree.

No.

Then please explain why "many people" telling you that something is offensive, dictionary definition, etc, still result in you refusing to recognize the common understanding and definition of terms?

You never give a straight answer. I guess you have the same opinion about every question in this thread.

No. I been giving straight answers and simple explanations this whole time, for those who don't refuse to "recognise" answers they don't like. In this case, the question (if honest) betrays a lack of understanding of the situation. As I, and others, have been walking through explanations in baby steps this whole time, there is either an intent to not understand on your part, or there is a profound inability to grasp this concept.

You should get your spellchecker in a conversation with dictionary.com and the British. The spelling was correct, and maybe you shouldn't rely on a machine to spell check.

This is 2016. The spellchecker is built in to the browsers, and it doesn't like your spelling.

 

[Belz...]

Again, your non-standard use of language is tripping you up.

It has nothing to do with a non-standard use of language. I provided the exchange, in which you got confused about the conversation.

Now you realize that they aren't the same.

Only under a certain sense, which isn't the one you were using, as I've shown in my last post. Again, you're disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.

You don't recognize standard use of math, either?

78.6%, my bad. Worse thing is, I re-checked it before hitting "submit".

In addition, the fact that more than 1 in 5 will get offended by the term means it is not reasonable to declare that the term is not offensive.

Oh, really? Why not, especially given my point about context? How do you determine when it's reasonable?

Insisting on using something that you know is offensive

Here's your continued mistake, again. You're simply incapable or unwilling to learn.

while claiming you don't care if it is offensive, seems quite insincere.

Why? I don't think it's offensive, and don't care if it is. There's nothing contradictory or insincere about that unless you are looking for it. Of course, since you're also looking for offense, that isn't surprising.

insisting on picking the one that angers the most people

Unsupported assertion.

is a sign that one does care about it being offensive.

Here you are lying again. You are adamant that I _want_ to offend, and you are completely unable or unwilling to consider any other possibility.

And you know that it's offensive because "many people" have told you that it is, in addition to dictionary definition, etc.

No. People making claims does not amount to knowledge.

Then please explain why "many people" telling you that something is offensive, dictionary definition, etc, still result in you refusing to recognize the common understanding and definition of terms?

Because they're wrong.

This is 2016. The spellchecker is built in to the browsers

Mine's deactivated exactly because it gives wrong tips.

and it doesn't like your spelling.

Tell it to go **** itself and see how it spellchecks that.

 

[wareyin]

It has nothing to do with a non-standard use of language. I provided the exchange, in which you got confused about the conversation.

No. The confusion remains yours.

Only under a certain sense, which isn't the one you were using, as I've shown in my last post. Again, you're disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.

On the contrary, they are not the same in most senses. They are not the same in the sense that I am using. Your non-standard language usage is still causing you comprehension issues.

78.6%, my bad. Worse thing is, I re-checked it before hitting "submit".

An admission of error? What a surprising, but welcome development. Hopefully it can continue.

Oh, really? Why not, especially given my point about context? How do you determine when it's reasonable?

See, when discussing social aspects in social settings, the community determines when things are reasonable. In this case, you are arguing that it is reasonable against the claims of a significant portion of the community.

Here's your continued mistake, again. You're simply incapable or unwilling to learn.

At this point, any pretense that you do not know that the term is offensive would be a bald faced lie. There is no possibility that, this far into this conversation, you do not realize that it is an offensive term.

Why? I don't think it's offensive, and don't care if it is. There's nothing contradictory or insincere about that unless you are looking for it. Of course, since you're also looking for offense, that isn't surprising.

The insincerity lies in your insistence on using a term that you know is offensive, while claiming you don't care if it's offensive.

Unsupported assertion.

Wait, you haven't been insisting on using the term that has received the most complaints? Which other term has angered more?

Here you are lying again. You are adamant that I _want_ to offend, and you are completely unable or unwilling to consider any other possibility.

What other possibility is there? You know the term is offensive, yet you insist on using it.

No. People making claims does not amount to knowledge.

Yes. "People making claims" about what words signify is exactly how contemporary use of language works.

Because they're wrong.

Maybe according to your idiosyncratic way of understanding language, but not to everybody else.

Mine's deactivated exactly because it gives wrong tips.



Tell it to go **** itself and see how it spellchecks that.

You may want to reactivate it, to avoid more things like "adamang".

 

[Belz...]

No. The confusion remains yours.

For someone who keeps complaining that I "know" something because I've been told, you're very resistant to accepting things that have been demonstrated to you.

On the contrary, they are not the same in most senses.

Exactly.

An admission of error? What a surprising, but welcome development.

That alone should inform you that I'm not "pretending" anything.

In this case, you are arguing that it is reasonable against the claims of a significant portion of the community.

Oh, now it's "a significant portion"? How much is significant?

At this point, any pretense that you do not know that the term is offensive would be a bald faced lie.

Stop projecting.

The insincerity lies in your insistence on using a term that you know is offensive, while claiming you don't care if it's offensive.

No, the insincerity lies in your insistence that telling me that someone finds it offensive means that it's offensive and that, therefore, I know that it's offensive. None of that follows.

Wait, you haven't been insisting on using the term that has received the most complaints?

It's also the most-supported term, by your own link.

What other possibility is there?

I've already answered this several times but you refuse to accept it.

You may want to reactivate it, to avoid more things like "adamang".

Oh, burn! I make typos, and someone noticed. I feel so wounded and hurt and ashamed. Meanwhile, you tried to be snarky by correcting my use of English and you ended up looking like a fool. Let's just say I won't lose much sleep over a typo.

 

[wareyin]

For someone who keeps complaining that I "know" something because I've been told, you're very resistant to accepting things that have been demonstrated to you.

The only thing you have demonstrated is that you do not understand that "a declaration and a foot-stamp is not convincing" only applies when that is all you have offered. And that is all you have offered, while I offered much more.

Exactly.

Now you appear to have lost track of your own point. You claimed they were the same. I showed they were not the same. You claimed they were different only in one sense (and that I wasn't using that one sense). I claimed that they were different in most senses (i.e. not the same), and that I was using one of the senses they were different in. You then crow "Exactly" as though that proves your point that they are the same is correct?

That alone should inform you that I'm not "pretending" anything.

No. An admission of error on one thing does not preclude a pretense on another.

Oh, now it's "a significant portion"? How much is significant?

Back to asking for definitions of common words? Does that technique usually win you debate points or something?

Stop projecting.

It is not a projection. There is no way for you to argue for this long about an offensive word and remain unaware that it is offensive.

No, the insincerity lies in your insistence that telling me that someone finds it offensive means that it's offensive and that, therefore, I know that it's offensive. None of that follows.

How, exactly, do you think we (as a society) determine whether or not things are offensive? If a significant portion of us think something is offensive, it is. That "many people" (not just "someone") tell you something is offensive, and back that up with a dictionary definition, public survey, and mental health professional recommendation means it's offensive. Because you have the information that it is offensive means you know it is offensive. Because you know it's offensive but insist on it's usage anyway, a declaration that you don't care if it is offensive seems insincere.

It's also the most-supported term, by your own link.

Which term suggested or used in this thread (or the one this was spun from) was as poorly received as the one you insist on using?

I've already answered this several times but you refuse to accept it.

If you do not want to offend, you would pick a term that did not offend.

Oh, burn! I make typos, and someone noticed. I feel so wounded and hurt and ashamed. Meanwhile, you tried to be snarky by correcting my use of English and you ended up looking like a fool. Let's just say I won't lose much sleep over a typo.

How do I look like a fool? Because your spelling was not correct, so I wrote (sic) next to it, with no other comment? Or because I suggested that spellchecker would help catch typos? It's not like I made fun of you in either case, so I don't get your snark here.

 

[Belz...]

The only thing you have demonstrated is that you do not understand that "a declaration and a foot-stamp is not convincing" only applies when that is all you have offered.

Oh, it quite applies to you as well.

Now you appear to have lost track of your own point.

No, I quite remember that my point is that your usage of the word makes it equivalent.

No. An admission of error on one thing does not preclude a pretense on another.

There's that word again.

Back to asking for definitions of common words?

It's common but what one sees as significant may not be for another, which is why I want to know what you consider significant. I'm not asking you for a definition, but about your perspective.

How, exactly, do you think we (as a society) determine whether or not things are offensive?

Certainly not by asking the minority.

That "many people" (not just "someone") tell you something is offensive, and back that up with a dictionary definition, public survey, and mental health professional recommendation means it's offensive.

Again, context is important, something you've ignored since the beginning. In fact you avoid addressing it altogether, instead pretending (ha!) that our context here is anything but academic.

Because you have the information that it is offensive means you know it is offensive.

Non sequitur.

If you do not want to offend, you would pick a term that did not offend.

I said I didn't care. In this care "don't want" doesn't mean "wants to avoid".

How do I look like a fool? Because your spelling was not correct, so I wrote (sic) next to it, with no other comment?

My spelling was correct. That's how you looked like a fool. Making mistakes is fine, but making one while trying to look high and mighty while correcting someone is embarassing.

 

[TomB]

I still think you are both right depending on context.

I'm not even sure which terms you are fighting about anymore, though.

I'm sure that Argumemnon recognizes that <insert term> is offensive in a certain context. But he believes he used it in a scientific context where it would be appropriate.

In short, you are arguing over the wrong thing. It's not the word, but the context that you should be debating.

 

[wareyin]

Oh, it quite applies to you as well.

If I held $5 and you held a $0.01 piece, saying $0.01 is not very much applies to you. If I provide a wealth of support and you provide none, saying a lack of support isn't convincing applies to you. Clear yet?

No, I quite remember that my point is that your usage of the word makes it equivalent.

No, your non-standard usage of language makes you not realize that they are different.

There's that word again.



It's common but what one sees as significant may not be for another, which is why I want to know what you consider significant. I'm not asking you for a definition, but about your perspective.

Well, in this thread, how many posters have told you that in this context, your usage was offensive, inappropriate, or wrong?

Certainly not by asking the minority.

Are you certain about that?

Again, context is important, something you've ignored since the beginning. In fact you avoid addressing it altogether, instead pretending (ha!) that our context here is anything but academic.

In what way is our social issues discussion academic?

Non sequitur.

I don't think you know what that means if you can apply it here.

I said I didn't care. In this care "don't want" doesn't mean "wants to avoid".



My spelling was correct. That's how you looked like a fool. Making mistakes is fine, but making one while trying to look high and mighty while correcting someone is embarassing.

I neither corrected you, nor attempted to look high and mighty. I pointed out that I left the spelling as you wrote it, which is not correct in my country.

 

[ZirconBlue]

I have reopened this thread after splitting it, and I would request that all participants take specific points about the "bathroom bills" and guidance to the appropriate thread here, while continuing to discuss the language and offence issues arising therefrom in this thread. As always, please remain civil and polite when posting, and address the arguments rather than attack the arguers. Thank you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

No, thank you.

 

[AdamSK]

Yes - thank you, Agatha. *unsub*

 

[Belz...]

If I held $5 and you held a $0.01 piece, saying $0.01 is not very much applies to you. If I provide a wealth of support and you provide none, saying a lack of support isn't convincing applies to you. Clear yet?

I've already explained why your link is irrelevant to the discussion.

No, your non-standard usage of language makes you not realize that they are different.

You're only pretending to not understand what I'm saying.

Well, in this thread, how many posters have told you that in this context, your usage was offensive, inappropriate, or wrong?

Anecdotal.

Are you certain about that?

78.6% of the population find it not offensive.

In what way is our social issues discussion academic?

Because it's nothing but a discussion about the issue.

I don't think you know what that means if you can apply it here.

Your conclusion does not follow from the premises.

I neither corrected you, nor attempted to look high and mighty. I pointed out that I left the spelling as you wrote it, which is not correct in my country.

And now you're pretending that you didn't add "sic" as a jab about my spelling.

 

[wareyin]

I've already explained why your link is irrelevant to the discussion.

Oh, dear, you are really going to claim that dictionary description, in addition to popular usage, in addition to mental health professional recommendations are irrelevant to the discussion of colloquial usage of words? Honestly, I thought better of your debating skills. Would you care to try again?

You're only pretending to not understand what I'm saying.

No, I think I quite understand what you are saying. You are saying that you can't tell the difference between pretending to not understand plain English, and lying about what the words you used meant. I think you can.

Anecdotal.

No, that would be a survey.

78.6% of the population find it not offensive.

What was the percentage of the population that found the "n" word offensive before society deemed it offensive? Because, as I'm sure you can see, minorities are often subject to offensive terminology, and we kind of require the majority to recognize such before they stop using it. Waiting until everyone, or even 51% of people will admit that something is offensive, pretty much leads to offensive language being standard and accepted use.

Because it's nothing but a discussion about the issue.

This does not equate to an Academic discussion. Do you have a better explanation?

Your conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Yeah, let me try to break it down a little more for anyone who is being intentionally obtuse:

If you have the information that 2+2+4, you can't really claim that you didn't know that 2+2=4
If you have the information that Justin Trudeau is Prime Minister of Canada, you can't really claim that you don't know that Justin Trudeau is Prime Minister of Canada.
If you have the information that "defect" is an offensive term, you can't really claim that you didn't know that "defect" is an offensive term.

And now you're pretending that you didn't add "sic" as a jab about my spelling.

Oh dear. To compound your idiosyncratic understanding of language, you're going to claim that (sic) is a jab about spelling? Well, to lay that to rest let me show you what it actually means:
Sic :used in brackets after a copied or quoted word that appears odd or erroneous to show that the word is quoted exactly as it stands in the original, as in a story must hold a child's interest and “enrich his [ sic ] life.”.
Your spelling was odd, so I did nothing but put quotes around it and write(sic). If I wanted to jab you, I would have written something that could, in some form or fashion, be interpreted as an offense or attack, rather than merely pointing out that it was your spelling, not mine.


Honestly, we have had our differences, but this is veering into the personal. Can we start over?

 

[Belz...]

]If you have the information that 2+2+4, you can't really claim that you didn't know that 2+2=4

If you have the information that 2+2=5, you can't really claim that you didn't know that 2+2=5.

Honestly, we have had our differences, but this is veering into the personal.

No **** it's veering into the personal. Maybe you should've thought about that before launching the thread into this crap-fest. I answered a question about it being a "defect" and everybody lost their **** because they thought it was offensive. If you were able to look past the offense you saw and simply address whether or not it _is_ a defect, this thread-split wouldn't have occured, and we'd be done by now.

Can we start over?

Sure: Transgenderism probably harmless genetic defect. No big deal. Get over it. Not reasonably offensive. If offended, I don't care.

 

[wareyin]

If you have the information that 2+2=5, you can't really claim that you didn't know that 2+2=5.

Why, then, in the face of all evidence, are you so adamant that 2+2=5? You are wrong, let it go.

No **** it's veering into the personal. Maybe you should've thought about that before launching the thread into this crap-fest. I answered a question about it being a "defect" and everybody lost their **** because they thought it was offensive. If you were able to look past the offense you saw and simply address whether or not it _is_ a defect, this thread-split wouldn't have occured, and we'd be done by now.

I can see you just don't get it, and at this point I'm despairing of the possibility that you ever will. If I answered a question in the affirmative about black people being some form of "n" word, I would not be able to pretend that it was everyone else's fault that they took offense to that. Similarly, you can't pretend that offense at referring to Transgender people as "defect" is the fault of those that read your words.

Sure: Transgenderism probably harmless genetic defect. No big deal. Get over it. Not reasonably offensive. If offended, I don't care.

Well, if by "start over", you thought I meant "double down on the offense", then you sure did.