I have recently started asking individuals what they understand by cis-gendered, most of them well-educated. Almost none was acquainted with the term. Perhaps I should come out and admit I'm one of them.
Because they might support him in spite of his musings on disinfectant, not because of them.
The thing is, a lot of what Trump is saying about Covid-19 (it'll all blow over, it's going to go away, we need to get back to work, ...) is what most people would dearly love to be true. I wish he was right that it's blown out of all proportion, and that we can go back to business as usual and not kill hundreds of thousands of our neighbours.
He's wrong, but I wish he was right.
Many people don't have the ability to form their own opinion, so they latch on to an opinion that sounds good to them - sort of like "350 million quid extra for the NHS".
On a couple of occasions I have done much the same (that is, tried to learn something) by asking about the experience of transgender, and specifically what it means to have a gender apart from the body. Most people were very helpful in trying to get me to understand this (I've come to the conclusion that most of the Ship would label me "agender" as a result, and I'm okay with that). A few were not so helpful--indeed, accused me of trying to start something simply because I asked.
quetzalcoatl: I thought the free speech argument today is mainly a right wing complaint.
You are probably right, but it gives me little comfort to find the field deserted by others. It is as if the writings of George Orwell, and in that I include a number of his essays, had never existed.
Or it's the case that free speech isn't under any serious threat in the west
Yours certainly isn't.
Whose do you think is?
Anyone who disagrees with the zeitgeist on issues such as gender or sexuality for a start.
Except they're not are they? They may not be given a platform where the gatekeeper for that platform chooses not to, but there are thousands of homophobes and transphobes out there not being prosecuted for their views.
There are thousands of people out there who have not been told what transgender people find offensive and do not move in places where they will encounter them. Being ignorant of what is offensive is not the same as being deliberately offensive, something the liberal-minded need to be reminded of.
At some point, ignorance is not a good defence. It is not excusable in this day and age to not be aware of what women and black people might find offensive, why is it of trans?
For starters such things vary between cultures. Calling someone "coloured" in the UK makes you look ancient and clueless at best and racist at worst. In South Africa (if I've understood correctly) it remains the accepted term for certain mixed heritage populations. The use of certain vulgar terms for female anatomy vary substantially in how severely they are regarded, and whether they're considered misogynistic or merely rude, including by many women. I would consider it a matter of courtesy to try and be aware of such things, and to accept with good grace if one makes a mistake and is corrected, but demanding that everyone keep track of evolving attitudes to language without error is asking a bit much.
A simple "It is what we say in South Africa" should be sufficient to clear that up.
I have recently started asking individuals what they understand by cis-gendered, most of them well-educated. Almost none was acquainted with the term. Perhaps I should come out and admit I'm one of them.
If one doesn't know what cis-gender means, it is likely because one is cis-gendered. And they do not know because they are not confronted with being cis-gendered by merely existing.
On a couple of occasions I have done much the same (that is, tried to learn something) by asking about the experience of transgender, and specifically what it means to have a gender apart from the body. Most people were very helpful in trying to get me to understand this (I've come to the conclusion that most of the Ship would label me "agender" as a result, and I'm okay with that). A few were not so helpful--indeed, accused me of trying to start something simply because I asked.
But how am I to learn if I may not ask?
It's hard because a favoured tactic of the anti-trans crowd, and the far right in general, is to play the "just asking questions" game - either to find holes to pick and deny people's experience or to keep badgering with questions to derail an existing conversation and provoke somebody into getting annoyed so they can play "injured innocent". Given the relatively small number of trans folk and the large number of far right trolls it's easy to see that folk could get a little edgy about being questioned by someone they don't know very well. Might be that you need to speak to trans people you already know and have a level of trust with (assuming that wasn't what you were already doing), or seek out somewhere a trans individual is doing an AMA or where there is a thread where people are willing to answer questions.
I have recently started asking individuals what they understand by cis-gendered, most of them well-educated. Almost none was acquainted with the term. Perhaps I should come out and admit I'm one of them.
I'm no expert, but I understand it to mean that your gender identity, your sense of whether you are male or female, conforms with that which is recorded on your birth certificate and/or is consistent with what is expected for someone with your arrangement of primary and secondary sexual characteristics. I am cis-gendered because my birth certificate records me as male and my sense of self seems to match that.
I have recently started asking individuals what they understand by cis-gendered, most of them well-educated. Almost none was acquainted with the term. Perhaps I should come out and admit I'm one of them.
If one doesn't know what cis-gender means, it is likely because one is cis-gendered. And they do not know because they are not confronted with being cis-gendered by merely existing.
Not exactly. It's more that cisgendered is simply a new term for an existing condition. If you explain what it means then I suspect the vast majority will recognise the condition.
Now it may be that many of them do not really understand what it feels like to be anything other than cisgendered, but that is another matter. Frankly, I don't understand what it's like to be anyone but me.
On a couple of occasions I have done much the same (that is, tried to learn something) by asking about the experience of transgender, and specifically what it means to have a gender apart from the body. Most people were very helpful in trying to get me to understand this (I've come to the conclusion that most of the Ship would label me "agender" as a result, and I'm okay with that). A few were not so helpful--indeed, accused me of trying to start something simply because I asked.
But how am I to learn if I may not ask?
It is often not in asking, but how the asking is done. If one is curious, there are online resources to begin to learn. In that way, the questions can be more relevant and intelligent. I know a tiny bit about the tribulations of running a kosher kitchen because it came up in conversation with a Jewish friend. I would have never bluntly asked, it would seem intrusive.
But some people are going to feel like their existence is being questioned, no matter the approach. And I get that.
The only point I was trying to make is that the vast majority of the population hasn't the slightest idea what the gender identity debate is all about, never mind having the acceptable language to discuss it.
By the way, isn't it time the NAACP changed its title?
In another context, I was present when a Ghanaian lady in her own country was berated by an African-American as an "ignorant nigger".
All this stuff about what words should be used in these sorts of contexts is less about sensitivity than who controls the agenda, the claim to speak for............
The only point I was trying to make is that the vast majority of the population hasn't the slightest idea what the gender identity debate is all about, never mind having the acceptable language to discuss it.
By the way, isn't it time the NAACP changed its title?
In another context, I was present when a Ghanaian lady in her own country was berated by an African-American as an "ignorant nigger".
All this stuff about what words should be used in these sorts of contexts is less about sensitivity than who controls the agenda, the claim to speak for............
Being forced to pay attention to what victims of oppression think and surrendering some control of the agenda to them is no bad thing, even if you're right.
The only point I was trying to make is that the vast majority of the population hasn't the slightest idea what the gender identity debate is all about, never mind having the acceptable language to discuss it.
Because they do not have to, it doesn't mean they shouldn't try.
By the way, isn't it time the NAACP changed its title?
They do not out of respect for the history of the organisation from when that was the respectful term for black people and because they are not only for black people, their goal is to eliminate all race-based prejudice. Their advocacy also extends into LGBT+ rights.
All this stuff about what words should be used in these sorts of contexts is less about sensitivity than who controls the agenda, the claim to speak for............
Not so much. The dominant group (AKA straight, white males) have controlled the agenda. The fight is to be on the agenda as well.
quetzalcoatl: I thought the free speech argument today is mainly a right wing complaint.
You are probably right, but it gives me little comfort to find the field deserted by others. It is as if the writings of George Orwell, and in that I include a number of his essays, had never existed.
Or it's the case that free speech isn't under any serious threat in the west
Yours certainly isn't.
Whose do you think is?
Anyone who disagrees with the zeitgeist on issues such as gender or sexuality for a start.
Except they're not are they? They may not be given a platform where the gatekeeper for that platform chooses not to, but there are thousands of homophobes and transphobes out there not being prosecuted for their views.
There are thousands of people out there who have not been told what transgender people find offensive and do not move in places where they will encounter them. Being ignorant of what is offensive is not the same as being deliberately offensive, something the liberal-minded need to be reminded of.
At some point, ignorance is not a good defence. It is not excusable in this day and age to not be aware of what women and black people might find offensive, why is it of trans?
It is not acceptable to those who live in a liberal bubble to assume that all of us do.
quetzalcoatl: I thought the free speech argument today is mainly a right wing complaint.
You are probably right, but it gives me little comfort to find the field deserted by others. It is as if the writings of George Orwell, and in that I include a number of his essays, had never existed.
Or it's the case that free speech isn't under any serious threat in the west
Yours certainly isn't.
Whose do you think is?
Anyone who disagrees with the zeitgeist on issues such as gender or sexuality for a start.
Except they're not are they? They may not be given a platform where the gatekeeper for that platform chooses not to, but there are thousands of homophobes and transphobes out there not being prosecuted for their views.
There are thousands of people out there who have not been told what transgender people find offensive and do not move in places where they will encounter them. Being ignorant of what is offensive is not the same as being deliberately offensive, something the liberal-minded need to be reminded of.
At some point, ignorance is not a good defence. It is not excusable in this day and age to not be aware of what women and black people might find offensive, why is it of trans?
It is not acceptable to those who live in a liberal bubble to assume that all of us do.
How is having respect for others a "liberal bubble"?
quetzalcoatl: I thought the free speech argument today is mainly a right wing complaint.
You are probably right, but it gives me little comfort to find the field deserted by others. It is as if the writings of George Orwell, and in that I include a number of his essays, had never existed.
Or it's the case that free speech isn't under any serious threat in the west
Yours certainly isn't.
Whose do you think is?
Anyone who disagrees with the zeitgeist on issues such as gender or sexuality for a start.
Except they're not are they? They may not be given a platform where the gatekeeper for that platform chooses not to, but there are thousands of homophobes and transphobes out there not being prosecuted for their views.
There are thousands of people out there who have not been told what transgender people find offensive and do not move in places where they will encounter them. Being ignorant of what is offensive is not the same as being deliberately offensive, something the liberal-minded need to be reminded of.
At some point, ignorance is not a good defence. It is not excusable in this day and age to not be aware of what women and black people might find offensive, why is it of trans?
It is not acceptable to those who live in a liberal bubble to assume that all of us do.
It's a sad indictment of wider society if being polite to and about people is now seen as evidence of a "liberal bubble".
It is not possible for someone to last forever on the Ship who does nothing but spew repugnant opinions and, when challenged, howl "You're oppressing me! I refuse to give you any explanation, data or logic to support my position!" Such a person will wind up challenged, then in Hell, and certainly under hostly/Adminly discipline sooner or later. You won't have to endure them long.
Brazening it out seems to work in the case of a couple of posters -- I assume for some deeply historical reasons I don't understand.
Equally, there a number of posters who indulge in almost constant sea-lioning, while never providing evidence of their own other than assertions to the contrary.
OK, this conversation about a liberal bubble is part of what I am objecting to, as I suspect are others. As someone who is vaguely aware of trans issues, having been around a young person transitioning 15 years ago and having come across other young people with gender issues, I guess I've just been labelled as being in the liberal bubble.
But this whole exchange below, of which I removed the first few remarks in the hope of clarification (this started with @Kwesi referring to George Orwell on free speech, which via various one liners, became @Marvin the Martian's comment about the zeigeist on gender or sexuality):
Anyone who disagrees with the zeitgeist on issues such as gender or sexuality for a start.
Except they're not are they? They may not be given a platform where the gatekeeper for that platform chooses not to, but there are thousands of homophobes and transphobes out there not being prosecuted for their views.
There are thousands of people out there who have not been told what transgender people find offensive and do not move in places where they will encounter them. Being ignorant of what is offensive is not the same as being deliberately offensive, something the liberal-minded need to be reminded of.
At some point, ignorance is not a good defence. It is not excusable in this day and age to not be aware of what women and black people might find offensive, why is it of trans?
It is not acceptable to those who live in a liberal bubble to assume that all of us do.
It's a sad indictment of wider society if being polite to and about people is now seen as evidence of a "liberal bubble".
If someone does not know anything about trans people because they haven't knowingly come across anyone who is trans, then why should they know something automatically? Why dismiss them out of hand for ignorance? These are exemplars on both sides of accusatory sweeping generalisations which are unhelpful in a debate (as were the one liners that I snipped). They don't move anyone on, just entrench positions.
quetzalcoatl: I thought the free speech argument today is mainly a right wing complaint.
You are probably right, but it gives me little comfort to find the field deserted by others. It is as if the writings of George Orwell, and in that I include a number of his essays, had never existed.
Or it's the case that free speech isn't under any serious threat in the west
Yours certainly isn't.
Whose do you think is?
Anyone who disagrees with the zeitgeist on issues such as gender or sexuality for a start.
Except they're not are they? They may not be given a platform where the gatekeeper for that platform chooses not to, but there are thousands of homophobes and transphobes out there not being prosecuted for their views.
There are thousands of people out there who have not been told what transgender people find offensive and do not move in places where they will encounter them. Being ignorant of what is offensive is not the same as being deliberately offensive, something the liberal-minded need to be reminded of.
At some point, ignorance is not a good defence. It is not excusable in this day and age to not be aware of what women and black people might find offensive, why is it of trans?
It is not acceptable to those who live in a liberal bubble to assume that all of us do.
It's a sad indictment of wider society if being polite to and about people is now seen as evidence of a "liberal bubble".
See the debate about cis-gendered above on this page.
But people who would hate to be impolite do not know the correct terms and inadvertently say the wrong thing.
It's hard because a favoured tactic of the anti-trans crowd, and the far right in general, is to play the "just asking questions" game - either to find holes to pick and deny people's experience or to keep badgering with questions to derail an existing conversation and provoke somebody into getting annoyed so they can play "injured innocent".
It's a favoured tactic of the anti-trans crowd in the countries in which we live to post in English.
That is, the reason the anti-trans crowd is playing the 'just asking questions' game is that asking questions is what innocent people do. Indeed, if it succeeds in making innocent people asking questions look guilty and thereby deters innocent peoplthfrom asking questions that will count as a success for the tactic.
OK, this conversation about a liberal bubble is part of what I am objecting to, as I suspect are others. As someone who is vaguely aware of trans issues, having been around a young person transitioning 15 years ago and having come across other young people with gender issues, I guess I've just been labelled as being in the liberal bubble.
But this whole exchange below, of which I removed the first few remarks in the hope of clarification (this started with @Kwesi referring to George Orwell on free speech, which via various one liners, became @Marvin the Martian's comment about the zeigeist on gender or sexuality):
Anyone who disagrees with the zeitgeist on issues such as gender or sexuality for a start.
Except they're not are they? They may not be given a platform where the gatekeeper for that platform chooses not to, but there are thousands of homophobes and transphobes out there not being prosecuted for their views.
There are thousands of people out there who have not been told what transgender people find offensive and do not move in places where they will encounter them. Being ignorant of what is offensive is not the same as being deliberately offensive, something the liberal-minded need to be reminded of.
At some point, ignorance is not a good defence. It is not excusable in this day and age to not be aware of what women and black people might find offensive, why is it of trans?
It is not acceptable to those who live in a liberal bubble to assume that all of us do.
It's a sad indictment of wider society if being polite to and about people is now seen as evidence of a "liberal bubble".
If someone does not know anything about trans people because they haven't knowingly come across anyone who is trans, then why should they know something automatically? Why dismiss them out of hand for ignorance? These are exemplars on both sides of accusatory sweeping generalisations which are unhelpful in a debate (as were the one liners that I snipped). They don't move anyone on, just entrench positions.
You quoted that single line and ignored the broader point I made earlier, that if someone makes an inadvertent error, it's pointed out and they apologise then that should be, and generally is, the end of it.
It's hard because a favoured tactic of the anti-trans crowd, and the far right in general, is to play the "just asking questions" game - either to find holes to pick and deny people's experience or to keep badgering with questions to derail an existing conversation and provoke somebody into getting annoyed so they can play "injured innocent".
It's a favoured tactic of the anti-trans crowd in the countries in which we live to post in English.
That is, the reason the anti-trans crowd is playing the 'just asking questions' game is that asking questions is what innocent people do. Indeed, if it succeeds in making innocent people asking questions look guilty and thereby deters innocent peoplthfrom asking questions that will count as a success for the tactic.
Sure, which is why I made suggestions for how one might seek answers while avoiding putting people on edge. The other thing is that it's not the job of random trans individuals to educate people. It's generous and helpful if they choose to, but your desire to know doesn't override their right not to be asked personal questions.
quetzalcoatl: I thought the free speech argument today is mainly a right wing complaint.
You are probably right, but it gives me little comfort to find the field deserted by others. It is as if the writings of George Orwell, and in that I include a number of his essays, had never existed.
Or it's the case that free speech isn't under any serious threat in the west
Yours certainly isn't.
Whose do you think is?
Anyone who disagrees with the zeitgeist on issues such as gender or sexuality for a start.
I've included as the last bit of this section, the first bit I quoted above.
quetzalcoatl: I thought the free speech argument today is mainly a right wing complaint.
You are probably right, but it gives me little comfort to find the field deserted by others. It is as if the writings of George Orwell, and in that I include a number of his essays, had never existed.
Or it's the case that free speech isn't under any serious threat in the west
Yours certainly isn't.
Whose do you think is?
Anyone who disagrees with the zeitgeist on issues such as gender or sexuality for a start.
Except they're not are they? They may not be given a platform where the gatekeeper for that platform chooses not to, but there are thousands of homophobes and transphobes out there not being prosecuted for their views.
There are thousands of people out there who have not been told what transgender people find offensive and do not move in places where they will encounter them. Being ignorant of what is offensive is not the same as being deliberately offensive, something the liberal-minded need to be reminded of.
The reaction of someone who is inadvertently offensive and finds out would be horror tinged with embarrassment followed by fulsome apologies. If that is what happens then I don't think you're going to get large numbers of people calling for their head. Thing is, people opining on trans issues on twitter generally know exactly what they're saying and how offensive they're being.
@Arethosemyfeet I did see you'd said that earlier, but that comment was not a part of that humongous nested quote that everyone was quoting repeatedly a few posts back.
My point, which seems to have got lost, is that the humongous nested quote included a number of posts that made accusations of being in a liberal bubble, being rude, or stating that ignorance was inexcusable. None of which is conducive to debate.
While the most recent Gallup poll shows an approval rating of 49%, FiveThirtyEight, which uses a cumulative graph of all current pulls shows Trump is at 43%
Of particular note is looking at the presidential polls and how many of them are moving to Biden. For instance, at the beginning of April, Trump was 12 points ahead of Biden, by the end of the month Biden was 1 point ahead. That's a 13 percent loss for Trump!
That certainly suggests Trump's popularity rating is slumping--and bad.
I grew up in a context where I met no BAME people, and this has largely been true of the whole of my life. I live in a community of over 10,000 inhabitants, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the total number of BAME residents is barely into three figures.
I like to think that I am consciously not racist. But within myself I am conscious of a hesitancy in relating to the very small number of BAME people I meet because I know it is likely that they go or have experienced prejudice here or elsewhere, and that there are possibly things I might do or say without realising it which are or are perceived as being racist.
Much has been written about the experience of racism over the last 40 years, so I’ve got quite a bit of information to go on in trying to avoid giving offence, but I still find myself uncertain about navigating it socially. For me the experience of gay and lesbian people falls into a similar category.
By contrast the experience of people who are transsexual is IMHO much less in the public eye, and even more a marginalised issue. I know the parents of one primary transsexual person, and am reasonably well acquainted with another family where their now-adult child is working through issues of gender dysphoria.
I am very conscious of wanting to be friendly and empathic, but also areas that I have all sorts of questions in my own head. But it seems to be one if those areas in life where open non-heated discussion is extraordinarily difficult IRL and aboard the Ship.
@Arethosemyfeet, I may have misread you but on several occasions you seem to be saying that all Tory voters want to deport the Windrush generation. They don't.
As for the issue about asking questions, doesn't it depend on how they're asked? Yes, they can be hostile and destructive. But, asked kindly and with humility, I can't think of a better way of learning about something.
You quoted that single line and ignored the broader point I made earlier, that if someone makes an inadvertent error, it's pointed out and they apologise then that should be, and generally is, the end of it.
This is true - but it sometimes takes a fair bit of explanation / discussion to make the person understand that they have made an error. Sometimes "pointing it out" leads to "wait, what? I don't understand..." and requires a fair amount of back-and-forth before everyone's on the same page.
@Arethosemyfeet, I may have misread you but on several occasions you seem to be saying that all Tory voters want to deport the Windrush generation. They don't.
As for the issue about asking questions, doesn't it depend on how they're asked? Yes, they can be hostile and destructive. But, asked kindly and with humility, I can't think of a better way of learning about something.
I cannot answer for Arethosemyfeet, but there is a difference between saying the Tories fucked the Windrush generation and meaning every single Tory member.
I grew up in a context where I met no BAME people, and this has largely been true of the whole of my life. I live in a community of over 10,000 inhabitants, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the total number of BAME residents is barely into three figures.
I like to think that I am consciously not racist. But within myself I am conscious of a hesitancy in relating to the very small number of BAME people I meet because I know it is likely that they go or have experienced prejudice here or elsewhere, and that there are possibly things I might do or say without realising it which are or are perceived as being racist.
Much has been written about the experience of racism over the last 40 years, so I’ve got quite a bit of information to go on in trying to avoid giving offence, but I still find myself uncertain about navigating it socially. For me the experience of gay and lesbian people falls into a similar category.
By contrast the experience of people who are transsexual is IMHO much less in the public eye, and even more a marginalised issue. I know the parents of one primary transsexual person, and am reasonably well acquainted with another family where their now-adult child is working through issues of gender dysphoria.
I am very conscious of wanting to be friendly and empathic, but also areas that I have all sorts of questions in my own head. But it seems to be one if those areas in life where open non-heated discussion is extraordinarily difficult IRL and aboard the Ship.
Not being around POC/BAME is often used as an excuse for misspeaking. The problem is, that a lot of the misspeak is based on treating a group as less than/other than. Nigger brown is one example. Is there a Honky White or Peckerwood Pink in the colour palette?
Not being around POC/BAME is often used as an excuse for misspeaking. The problem is, that a lot of the misspeak is based on treating a group as less than/other than. Nigger brown is one example. Is there a Honky White or Peckerwood Pink in the colour palette?
Why did you quote someone who speaks plainly about his conscious struggle to say things that people of color will hear as respectful and then go straight to the n-word? He's trying to be a decent human being and you're talking about people who are furthest from such a thing.
I can remember as a small child in the 1960s using the “Eeny meeny miny mo…” choosing rhyme my sister and I had innocently picked up at school and being very firmly told by my mother “We don’t use that word (nigger), it’s very rude.”
Nigger (or more commonly wog), yid, paki, chink, paddy or mick, frog and wop were all fairly common currency in the school playgrounds of my childhood and youth, but none of that terminology would ever, I knew, have been permitted at home.
My actual exposure, however, to black, Pakistani (or other South Asian), Chinese, Irish, French or Italian people was next to none.
Looking back it seems to me that there was a relentless tribal othering of people or groups who we knew existed, but of which many of us had little or no experience.
None of the adults I knew did anything of the sort.
ISTM that somewhere in this discussion of Tories/Republicans* and party organization vs. individuals, there must be a joke about identity politics. On second thought, I'm too intimidated by the possible backlash to come up with one myself, so never mind.
* In the interest of full disclosure: I'm currently still officially registered as a Republican.
MarvintheMartian The whole point of human rights is that everyone has them. So if freedom of speech is to be considered a human right (which I think it is) then that has to apply to everyone, whatever I personally may think of their views.
Mousethief. From this it does not follow that they must be allowed the use of any and every pulpit. Just because person X has a right under the law to spew bullshit Y doesn't mean group Z has to let them use their facilities, or funds, or good name.
I am very disturbed by the degree of intolerance being expressed in these posts, as exemplified in Mousethief's reaction to Marvin's conventional defence of the right to freedom of speech. If the right exists, there has to be opportunity exercise it.
From which it does not in any way follow that any group Z is under obligation to provide them a platform. This does not refute my position in the least. What else you got?
I think you had better have a word with Mousethief because he never wants the challenged words to be expressed in the first place. I would be interested to learn where you stand on platform denial etc..
Don't fucking try to put words in my mouth. This is inaccurate and a personal attack. Stop.
What issues of national pride were at stake in the Brexit debate, not counting ones(eg. will we have more money to spend on health-care?) that also related to economics?
"This is our country. We need to keep Muslims and those goddam P*kis out."
But at the same time I'm always a bit aware, maybe too aware, that I'm outside the group. And, it does come across I'm afraid that there is a group. I'm sure there isn't, but it's not what it often looks like from the outside.
FWIW, I have a similar experience, but with regard to theology and Kerygmania discussions. As you say, it is mostly easier to read than to contribute, but in my case because my ideas are so unfamiliar and unusual that they pretty much always get challenged more than I've got time for.
My contributions to Kerygmania by and large get ignored. There was a Styx thread years ago on the old ship about how non-Anglicans pretty much get ignored on Kerygmania. It rather relates to the present thread. But if nobody wants to talk about what I want to talk about, am I being censored? It may be frustrating but it's a perversion of words to call it censorship.
MarvintheMartian The whole point of human rights is that everyone has them. So if freedom of speech is to be considered a human right (which I think it is) then that has to apply to everyone, whatever I personally may think of their views.
Mousethief. From this it does not follow that they must be allowed the use of any and every pulpit. Just because person X has a right under the law to spew bullshit Y doesn't mean group Z has to let them use their facilities, or funds, or good name.
I am very disturbed by the degree of intolerance being expressed in these posts, as exemplified in Mousethief's reaction to Marvin's conventional defence of the right to freedom of speech. If the right exists, there has to be opportunity exercise it.
From which it does not in any way follow that any group Z is under obligation to provide them a platform. This does not refute my position in the least. What else you got?
Wheelchair users have a right to go to the theatre. It does not in any way follow that any theatre is under obligation to provide them with step-free access.
Homosexual couples have a right to buy wedding cakes. It does not in any way follow that any cake shop is under obligation to sell them one.
Black people have the right to an education. It does not in any way follow that any school is under obligation to educate them.
And personally, I’d say the right to free speech is far more fundamental than the rights to go to the theatre, buy cakes or even get an education.
There are thousands of people out there who have not been told what transgender people find offensive and do not move in places where they will encounter them. Being ignorant of what is offensive is not the same as being deliberately offensive, something the liberal-minded need to be reminded of.
Sure. But the ones who are told what they are saying/doing is offensive, and then double down on it and say "you're being too sensitive" or "you're playing the victim card"—I have no time for those people. And there's been a fair bit of that displayed right here on the ship.
Not being around POC/BAME is often used as an excuse for misspeaking. The problem is, that a lot of the misspeak is based on treating a group as less than/other than. Nigger brown is one example. Is there a Honky White or Peckerwood Pink in the colour palette?
Why did you quote someone who speaks plainly about his conscious struggle to say things that people of color will hear as respectful and then go straight to the n-word? He's trying to be a decent human being and you're talking about people who are furthest from such a thing.
Not the furthest thing. Using words like that, the existence of golliwogs, etc. are not only by people who hate. They are examples of how decent people say and do things that are essentially racist. Most don't even think about it and that is part of the problem.
MarvintheMartian The whole point of human rights is that everyone has them. So if freedom of speech is to be considered a human right (which I think it is) then that has to apply to everyone, whatever I personally may think of their views.
Mousethief. From this it does not follow that they must be allowed the use of any and every pulpit. Just because person X has a right under the law to spew bullshit Y doesn't mean group Z has to let them use their facilities, or funds, or good name.
I am very disturbed by the degree of intolerance being expressed in these posts, as exemplified in Mousethief's reaction to Marvin's conventional defence of the right to freedom of speech. If the right exists, there has to be opportunity exercise it.
From which it does not in any way follow that any group Z is under obligation to provide them a platform. This does not refute my position in the least. What else you got?
Wheelchair users have a right to go to the theatre. It does not in any way follow that any theatre is under obligation to provide them with step-free access.
Homosexual couples have a right to buy wedding cakes. It does not in any way follow that any cake shop is under obligation to sell them one.
Black people have the right to an education. It does not in any way follow that any school is under obligation to educate them.
And personally, I’d say the right to free speech is far more fundamental than the rights to go to the theatre, buy cakes or even get an education.
Quite inapt comparisons. If wheelchair users have a right to go to the theatre, then theatres have an obligation to provide them access.
For this to be an apt comparison, my position would have to be that every person has a right to every platform. From which it of course follows that every platform has an obligation to give them a bully pulpit. But that was not my position or my argument. Nor is speech the same thing as overcoming barriers to prejudice and disability. These are examples chosen for emotional value and not because they relate to my point. A wheelchair user has a right to access, but doesn't have a right to demand their letter to the editor get published. I'm flabbergasted that you can't see the difference between the two cases. One is a basic need to live out one's life, get around, get educated, buy provisions. Getting into the newspaper, or banging the podium at a student association, isn't a basic need to one's life.
MarvintheMartian The whole point of human rights is that everyone has them. So if freedom of speech is to be considered a human right (which I think it is) then that has to apply to everyone, whatever I personally may think of their views.
Mousethief. From this it does not follow that they must be allowed the use of any and every pulpit. Just because person X has a right under the law to spew bullshit Y doesn't mean group Z has to let them use their facilities, or funds, or good name.
I am very disturbed by the degree of intolerance being expressed in these posts, as exemplified in Mousethief's reaction to Marvin's conventional defence of the right to freedom of speech. If the right exists, there has to be opportunity exercise it.
From which it does not in any way follow that any group Z is under obligation to provide them a platform. This does not refute my position in the least. What else you got?
Wheelchair users have a right to go to the theatre. It does not in any way follow that any theatre is under obligation to provide them with step-free access.
Homosexual couples have a right to buy wedding cakes. It does not in any way follow that any cake shop is under obligation to sell them one.
Black people have the right to an education. It does not in any way follow that any school is under obligation to educate them.
A right without access is not a right at all. It is essentially denying people the rightw you pretend to give them.
But at the same time I'm always a bit aware, maybe too aware, that I'm outside the group. And, it does come across I'm afraid that there is a group. I'm sure there isn't, but it's not what it often looks like from the outside.
FWIW, I have a similar experience, but with regard to theology and Kerygmania discussions. As you say, it is mostly easier to read than to contribute, but in my case because my ideas are so unfamiliar and unusual that they pretty much always get challenged more than I've got time for.
My contributions to Kerygmania by and large get ignored. There was a Styx thread years ago on the old ship about how non-Anglicans pretty much get ignored on Kerygmania. It rather relates to the present thread. But if nobody wants to talk about what I want to talk about, am I being censored? It may be frustrating but it's a perversion of words to call it censorship.
I'm a bit startled by this last. I've never noticed you being ignored--at least, any more than I get ignored (and that's basically whenever I haven't posted something provocative (as in, rude or leading to dirty jokes, but there you go)). May I suggest that perhaps folks are just so stunned by your genius that their mouths fall open and they fail to answer, since you have provided the reply to end all replies? (Hey, it's what I tell myself when the echoes are ringing too loudly and I feel ignored. )
Seriously, it's hard to gauge "being ignored." A failure to respond to your posts could be anything from awestruck wonder to downright disbelief. Most of the time I don't get a reply either, and I think that's common for people posting non-provocative stuff anywhere outside of All Saints. (Lewdness and/or misery will always get you a reply, heh.)
Comments
It is indeed a fine one.
The thing is, a lot of what Trump is saying about Covid-19 (it'll all blow over, it's going to go away, we need to get back to work, ...) is what most people would dearly love to be true. I wish he was right that it's blown out of all proportion, and that we can go back to business as usual and not kill hundreds of thousands of our neighbours.
He's wrong, but I wish he was right.
Many people don't have the ability to form their own opinion, so they latch on to an opinion that sounds good to them - sort of like "350 million quid extra for the NHS".
But how am I to learn if I may not ask?
It's hard because a favoured tactic of the anti-trans crowd, and the far right in general, is to play the "just asking questions" game - either to find holes to pick and deny people's experience or to keep badgering with questions to derail an existing conversation and provoke somebody into getting annoyed so they can play "injured innocent". Given the relatively small number of trans folk and the large number of far right trolls it's easy to see that folk could get a little edgy about being questioned by someone they don't know very well. Might be that you need to speak to trans people you already know and have a level of trust with (assuming that wasn't what you were already doing), or seek out somewhere a trans individual is doing an AMA or where there is a thread where people are willing to answer questions.
I'm no expert, but I understand it to mean that your gender identity, your sense of whether you are male or female, conforms with that which is recorded on your birth certificate and/or is consistent with what is expected for someone with your arrangement of primary and secondary sexual characteristics. I am cis-gendered because my birth certificate records me as male and my sense of self seems to match that.
Not exactly. It's more that cisgendered is simply a new term for an existing condition. If you explain what it means then I suspect the vast majority will recognise the condition.
Now it may be that many of them do not really understand what it feels like to be anything other than cisgendered, but that is another matter. Frankly, I don't understand what it's like to be anyone but me.
But some people are going to feel like their existence is being questioned, no matter the approach. And I get that.
By the way, isn't it time the NAACP changed its title?
In another context, I was present when a Ghanaian lady in her own country was berated by an African-American as an "ignorant nigger".
All this stuff about what words should be used in these sorts of contexts is less about sensitivity than who controls the agenda, the claim to speak for............
Being forced to pay attention to what victims of oppression think and surrendering some control of the agenda to them is no bad thing, even if you're right.
It is not acceptable to those who live in a liberal bubble to assume that all of us do.
It's a sad indictment of wider society if being polite to and about people is now seen as evidence of a "liberal bubble".
Brazening it out seems to work in the case of a couple of posters -- I assume for some deeply historical reasons I don't understand.
Equally, there a number of posters who indulge in almost constant sea-lioning, while never providing evidence of their own other than assertions to the contrary.
But this whole exchange below, of which I removed the first few remarks in the hope of clarification (this started with @Kwesi referring to George Orwell on free speech, which via various one liners, became @Marvin the Martian's comment about the zeigeist on gender or sexuality):
If someone does not know anything about trans people because they haven't knowingly come across anyone who is trans, then why should they know something automatically? Why dismiss them out of hand for ignorance? These are exemplars on both sides of accusatory sweeping generalisations which are unhelpful in a debate (as were the one liners that I snipped). They don't move anyone on, just entrench positions.
See the debate about cis-gendered above on this page.
But people who would hate to be impolite do not know the correct terms and inadvertently say the wrong thing.
That is, the reason the anti-trans crowd is playing the 'just asking questions' game is that asking questions is what innocent people do. Indeed, if it succeeds in making innocent people asking questions look guilty and thereby deters innocent peoplthfrom asking questions that will count as a success for the tactic.
You quoted that single line and ignored the broader point I made earlier, that if someone makes an inadvertent error, it's pointed out and they apologise then that should be, and generally is, the end of it.
Sure, which is why I made suggestions for how one might seek answers while avoiding putting people on edge. The other thing is that it's not the job of random trans individuals to educate people. It's generous and helpful if they choose to, but your desire to know doesn't override their right not to be asked personal questions.
I've included as the last bit of this section, the first bit I quoted above.
Does this help? @Curiosity killed
My point, which seems to have got lost, is that the humongous nested quote included a number of posts that made accusations of being in a liberal bubble, being rude, or stating that ignorance was inexcusable. None of which is conducive to debate.
While the most recent Gallup poll shows an approval rating of 49%, FiveThirtyEight, which uses a cumulative graph of all current pulls shows Trump is at 43%
Of particular note is looking at the presidential polls and how many of them are moving to Biden. For instance, at the beginning of April, Trump was 12 points ahead of Biden, by the end of the month Biden was 1 point ahead. That's a 13 percent loss for Trump!
That certainly suggests Trump's popularity rating is slumping--and bad.
I like to think that I am consciously not racist. But within myself I am conscious of a hesitancy in relating to the very small number of BAME people I meet because I know it is likely that they go or have experienced prejudice here or elsewhere, and that there are possibly things I might do or say without realising it which are or are perceived as being racist.
Much has been written about the experience of racism over the last 40 years, so I’ve got quite a bit of information to go on in trying to avoid giving offence, but I still find myself uncertain about navigating it socially. For me the experience of gay and lesbian people falls into a similar category.
By contrast the experience of people who are transsexual is IMHO much less in the public eye, and even more a marginalised issue. I know the parents of one primary transsexual person, and am reasonably well acquainted with another family where their now-adult child is working through issues of gender dysphoria.
I am very conscious of wanting to be friendly and empathic, but also areas that I have all sorts of questions in my own head. But it seems to be one if those areas in life where open non-heated discussion is extraordinarily difficult IRL and aboard the Ship.
As for the issue about asking questions, doesn't it depend on how they're asked? Yes, they can be hostile and destructive. But, asked kindly and with humility, I can't think of a better way of learning about something.
This is true - but it sometimes takes a fair bit of explanation / discussion to make the person understand that they have made an error. Sometimes "pointing it out" leads to "wait, what? I don't understand..." and requires a fair amount of back-and-forth before everyone's on the same page.
Why did you quote someone who speaks plainly about his conscious struggle to say things that people of color will hear as respectful and then go straight to the n-word? He's trying to be a decent human being and you're talking about people who are furthest from such a thing.
I think it's highly problematic to disallow all generalization.
Nigger (or more commonly wog), yid, paki, chink, paddy or mick, frog and wop were all fairly common currency in the school playgrounds of my childhood and youth, but none of that terminology would ever, I knew, have been permitted at home.
My actual exposure, however, to black, Pakistani (or other South Asian), Chinese, Irish, French or Italian people was next to none.
Looking back it seems to me that there was a relentless tribal othering of people or groups who we knew existed, but of which many of us had little or no experience.
None of the adults I knew did anything of the sort.
* In the interest of full disclosure: I'm currently still officially registered as a Republican.
From which it does not in any way follow that any group Z is under obligation to provide them a platform. This does not refute my position in the least. What else you got?
Don't fucking try to put words in my mouth. This is inaccurate and a personal attack. Stop.
"This is our country. We need to keep Muslims and those goddam P*kis out."
My contributions to Kerygmania by and large get ignored. There was a Styx thread years ago on the old ship about how non-Anglicans pretty much get ignored on Kerygmania. It rather relates to the present thread. But if nobody wants to talk about what I want to talk about, am I being censored? It may be frustrating but it's a perversion of words to call it censorship.
Wheelchair users have a right to go to the theatre. It does not in any way follow that any theatre is under obligation to provide them with step-free access.
Homosexual couples have a right to buy wedding cakes. It does not in any way follow that any cake shop is under obligation to sell them one.
Black people have the right to an education. It does not in any way follow that any school is under obligation to educate them.
And personally, I’d say the right to free speech is far more fundamental than the rights to go to the theatre, buy cakes or even get an education.
Sure. But the ones who are told what they are saying/doing is offensive, and then double down on it and say "you're being too sensitive" or "you're playing the victim card"—I have no time for those people. And there's been a fair bit of that displayed right here on the ship.
It's a sad indictment of conservatives if being polite and considerate of others is called "liberal".
Quite inapt comparisons. If wheelchair users have a right to go to the theatre, then theatres have an obligation to provide them access.
For this to be an apt comparison, my position would have to be that every person has a right to every platform. From which it of course follows that every platform has an obligation to give them a bully pulpit. But that was not my position or my argument. Nor is speech the same thing as overcoming barriers to prejudice and disability. These are examples chosen for emotional value and not because they relate to my point. A wheelchair user has a right to access, but doesn't have a right to demand their letter to the editor get published. I'm flabbergasted that you can't see the difference between the two cases. One is a basic need to live out one's life, get around, get educated, buy provisions. Getting into the newspaper, or banging the podium at a student association, isn't a basic need to one's life.
Without education, the right to free speech is severely limited.
I'm a bit startled by this last. I've never noticed you being ignored--at least, any more than I get ignored (and that's basically whenever I haven't posted something provocative (as in, rude or leading to dirty jokes, but there you go)). May I suggest that perhaps folks are just so stunned by your genius that their mouths fall open and they fail to answer, since you have provided the reply to end all replies? (Hey, it's what I tell myself when the echoes are ringing too loudly and I feel ignored.
Seriously, it's hard to gauge "being ignored." A failure to respond to your posts could be anything from awestruck wonder to downright disbelief. Most of the time I don't get a reply either, and I think that's common for people posting non-provocative stuff anywhere outside of All Saints. (Lewdness and/or misery will always get you a reply, heh.)