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

[Belz...]

Precisely.

But even if offense was meant towards me, I really don't care.

 

[wareyin]

Yes, it was a typo. Glad to see that it didn't confuse you too much.



I disagree that it's offensive, thus I'm not adamant about using an offensive term. It's really simple, but I might have given you too much credit.

It is quite simple: the offensive term is one you are adamant about using. The term you are adamant about using is offensive. Your are adamant about using an offensive terms. All three statements mean the same thing, and all three are true regardless of any pretense of "refusing to recognize" standard usage.

"Refusing to recognize" a tyrannical standard usage of a term sounds a little bit like freemen of the land type thinking, anyway.

I never said that you claimed that.

Good, then we agree that there are other terms that you can choose that aren't insulting. One can't help but wonder why you refuse.

 

[AdamSK]

It is quite simple: the offensive term is one you are adamant about using. The term you are adamant about using is offensive. Your are adamant about using an offensive terms. All three statements mean the same thing, and all three are true regardless of any pretense of "refusing to recognize" standard usage.

No, they really don't mean the same thing. The third statement implies that the offense is part of Argumemnon's intent. The first two statements do not imply that - they properly separate out his intent, which is to use a term, with your claim, which is that the term is offensive.

Good, then we agree that there are other terms that you can choose that aren't insulting.

No. You are not the only person declaring terms offensive on this thread.

 

[quadraginta]

Again, you are ASSUMING that they are offensive.

And now I notice you are clearly accusing me of being a troll. I would advise you against it.

Precisely.

But even if offense was meant towards me, I really don't care.

If you really don't care then why the stern admonition against it?

 

[Belz...]

It is quite simple: the offensive term is one you are adamant about using.

It's not offensive.

The term you are adamant about using is offensive.

It's not.

Your are adamant about using an offensive terms.

I am not.

All three statements mean the same thing, and all three are true regardless of any pretense of "refusing to recognize" standard usage.

So now I'm lying, again?

"Refusing to recognize" a tyrannical standard usage of a term sounds a little bit like freemen of the land type thinking, anyway.

Tyrannical? What in the name of Ivan Drago's training routine are you babbling about?

Good, then we agree that there are other terms that you can choose that aren't insulting.

Such as?

 

[Belz...]

If you really don't care then why the stern admonition against it?

Because it's against the MA, and may result in infractions.

I don't care about the offense. I do care, however, about whether it's true. It isn't, so I care about that. I also tend to care about rules, hence my advice.

 

[Belz...]

No, they really don't mean the same thing. The third statement implies that the offense is part of Argumemnon's intent. The first two statements do not imply that - they properly separate out his intent, which is to use a term, with your claim, which is that the term is offensive.

In social justice land, that's all one and the same. Look at the GAP advert thread for an example.

 

[wareyin]

It's not offensive.



It's not.



I am not.

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

So now I'm lying, again?

Your claim, not mine, but it is a possible description.

Tyrannical? What in the name of Ivan Drago's training routine are you babbling about?

Sorry, I was having fun with the idea that someone can "refuse to recognize" definitions. Even without "tyrannical", it's rather a pompous phrase.

Such as?

Anomaly?

 

[wareyin]

No, they really don't mean the same thing. The third statement implies that the offense is part of Argumemnon's intent. The first two statements do not imply that - they properly separate out his intent, which is to use a term, with your claim, which is that the term is offensive.

It think it's a good bet that insisting on using offensive terms implies an intent to cause offense.

No. You are not the only person declaring terms offensive on this thread.

Did I miss someone else making that claim, then,

 

[AdamSK]

Anomaly?

Cool. Argumemnon, why don't you reiterate your last substantive point and substitute the term "anomaly"? This will apparently not offend anyone.

 

[AdamSK]

It think it's a good bet that insisting on using offensive terms implies an intent to cause offense.

This is fundamentally inconsistent with your earlier position. This conversation has very little value.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Your claim, not mine

Now _that_ is a lie. You said I pretend to refuse to recognise. That is an accusation of lying.

Sorry, I was having fun with the idea that someone can "refuse to recognize" definitions. Even without "tyrannical", it's rather a pompous phrase.

Your words, not mine. I don't refuse to recognise it. I just don't recognise it.

Anomaly?

Ah, yes, you did bring that one up earlier. I can agree to use that, since it doesn't change the meaning, but as I indicated earlier I'm sure someone will be along to say that it treats transgender people as anomalous and is marginalising and offensive.

What would you say if that scenario occurs? Should I refrain from using it? In that case we need a backup word, one that cannot possibly be offensive. I suggest "cake".

 

[wareyin]

This is fundamentally inconsistent with your earlier position.

No, it isn't.

This conversation has very little value.

Thanks for continuing it, then?

 

[Belz...]

Cool. Argumemnon, why don't you reiterate your last substantive point and substitute the term "anomaly"? This will apparently not offend anyone.

It will be my pleasure.

But for the record, I never said that they are a problem, I said they have a problem. People who are near-sighted also have a problem. It's not wrong to say this.

So being transgender is like a defect of a an anomalous faculty?

In a way. It doesn't de-value the person, but it sure isn't a fully-functioning configuration.

Strike of Craig's post by me.

 

[quadraginta]

Because it's against the MA,

As represented in this instance I believe there may be room for disagreement about that.

Especially since there is no mention of trolling in the MA. In point of fact, the term does not occur anywhere in the MA at all.

There is, however, a reference to it in the MA FAQ which consists of;

Q. How and when should I use the Report Feature?

...

For instance we often get reports of "trolling", and leaving aside specific definitions of trolling, trolling is not a breach of the Membership Agreement but some behaviour, often associated with trolling, is, so you may wish to report someone for say spamming the Forum rather than trolling.

and may result in infractions.

Or may not.

I don't care about the offense.

If it wasn't intended to be offensive then there is no offense. We have that on good authority.

I do care, however, about whether it's true. It isn't, so I care about that.

Why. If it isn't true then why should you care?

I also tend to care about rules, hence my advice.

Which may well be irrelevant at best, and utterly wrong at worst.

Perhaps you are not the proper arbiter for such decisions.

 

[xjx388]

So is it acceptable to say that being transgender is a result of an anomaly in the person's development? That such an anomaly would not be something anyone would choose to have and that such an anomaly is a hardship for the individual with the anomaly?

'Cause that is the exact same *********** thing that Argumemnon and Ziggurat were saying in meaning and intent before the Tone Police jumped all over it.

 

[Belz...]

Especially since there is no mention of trolling in the MA. In point of fact, the term does not occur anywhere in the MA at all.

No but accusing someone of being a troll is a rule 0 violation.

If it wasn't intended to be offensive then there is no offense.

And even if it were intended, there might be any offense, either. But I did mean the intended offense, if any.

Why. If it isn't true then why should you care?

Because I don't like to be falsely accused of something, even when I'm accused of doing something right that I didn't do. I'm surprised that you didn't think of that. If it were true, why would it be insulting or bothersome?

Perhaps you are not the proper arbiter for such decisions.

I gave advice, not a mod box.

It really does seem like the lot of you are disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.

 

[quadraginta]

No but accusing someone of being a troll is a rule 0 violation.

<snip>

"... might be ..."

 

[wareyin]

No but accusing someone of being a troll is a rule 0 violation.

It's a good thing that I didn't accuse you of being a troll, and that we've already established that you didn't think my dispassionate description of your actions was a rule violation:

Maybe not in terms of rules violations but it sure doesn't fool anyone.

 

[wareyin]

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.

Now _that_ is a lie. You said I pretend to refuse to recognise. That is an accusation of lying.

No. "Pretend" and "lie" are not the same thing outside of the Argumemnon dictionary (maybe it would help if you shared a copy so the rest of us could follow your terms?). I accused you of pretending, not lying.

Your words, not mine. I don't refuse to recognise it. I just don't recognise it.

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

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.

Ah, yes, you did bring that one up earlier. I can agree to use that, since it doesn't change the meaning, but as I indicated earlier I'm sure someone will be along to say that it treats transgender people as anomalous and is marginalising and offensive.

What would you say if that scenario occurs? Should I refrain from using it? In that case we need a backup word, one that cannot possibly be offensive. I suggest "cake".

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).