People make them, they just tend to be ignored. Much like when I gave factual evidence of the harm of deadnaming. It has been, pretty much universally, ignored, and we keep getting this incredibly poor analogies like "if Gorbles could bench press the moon" as a consequence.
This is the benefit of a written thread, you see. It's easier to keep track of the moving goalposts than in a spoken argument.
I acknowledged deadnaming as something that should be disrespected numerous pages ago. Has any poster in this thread spoken in defense of it?
~~~
So far, supportive reasoning given for "what properties of misgendering someone makes it worse worse than other arbitrary sources of offense --> WHY is this more damaging" has been nothing.
If you think "because Gorbles can bench press the moon" is poor, maybe you shouldn't be using the logical equivalent of "because Gorbles can bench press the moon" repeatedly.
So, just curious, what would your take be if the blind man had said "you know what that is actually offensive, I would like an apology"
Also fine.
"sorry, but saying 'come see you' can't be offensive for you if you agree it wouldn't be offensive for this other sighted person. to say otherwise would be self-inconsistent and if you can't even provide a consistent standard for why I should care about your feelings, I'm going to go on not caring"
It'd be odd to explain that out of the blue, unless the blind person asked.
It would mildly break social etiquette to simply refuse to apologize, but only mildly. It's a common phrase typically mentioned thoughtlessly with multiple interpretations of meaning, so a request for an apology would be a little strange but reasonable in context. Refusing would similarly be strange.
Now, what standards might be in play in this context? As I mentioned earlier, there must be some reason that this action would be broadly considered more offensive than stating "X is best girl". Why, if this reason exists, is it so hard to get anybody to state it?
Note: I do consider this example, mis-gendering and "X is best girl" to be different BTW. From my viewpoint there are meaningful differences that can be identified. But I'm not asking for my own standards. I want to see what reasoning others are using before moving forward.
Yeah, this is just idiotic frankly. Reality is what it is whether anyone can make an argument about it or not.
It is extremely rare to get conclusions consistent with reality from reasoning with no basis in reality. It can happen arbitrarily, but then you still need a way that demonstrates the conclusion is correct, and that way won't be the fallacious reasoning.
Pointing out a fallacy is only considered a refutation of an argument if the person doing the pointing out has nothing else to say or counter said argument with. And even then, it's only considered a refutation by the person pointing out the fallacy
It is obvious those posts are bigoted because wag naggle darg norf.
Actually, unlike you I can support such an assertion: you are making a claim that a person's opinion should matter more or less based on factors over which they have no control, irrespective of the reality of their claims or whether their reasoning makes sense.
Repeating oneself doesn't make one any more correct
Sound advice, practicing it would be useful too.
Like I explained to TheMeInTeam, I'm under no obligation to response to someone interjecting with their own framing of a problem. It typically involves moving the goalposts so we end up debating something differently
As if this hasn't been done numerous times since page 1. Where are those links btw? Is it the wikipedia stuff on page 3?
But nah, you're just more interested in reflecting peoples' words back at them, while ignoring the actual salient references in the rest of their posts.
More (ironic!) ad hominem. It doesn't look like you actually contend that ad hominem adds anything to the discussion though?
It's almost like they're defending this somehow unimpeachable right to be assholish to people, who coincidently just so happen to be marginalised groups in society.
There might be a suspicion that the frequency of the victim card play indicates marked cards, but an alternative explanation is that most of the deck is comprised of victim cards.
The irony is again noted though. Acting like what one purports to hate isn't an endearing tactic, nor does it appear to be one that's yielded desirable results for the actor(s).
