Shooting at San Diego Synagogue

[Manfred Belheim]

I'm not sure Manfred has ever publicly identified an injustice he thinks is worth fighting here... I'm sure he has them, and it might do some good for him to air them out once in a while. Being only against things gives odd impressions of oneself.

So you want me to name an injustice I think is worth fighting... but to do it in a way that isn't being against something. Well, at least you're consistent.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

choosing to understate the vile actions of neo-nazis is enabling more violence and allowing it to grow and escalate.

Well of course it is. Arguing that something labelled as "violence" isn't actually violence, is just another act of violence that enables more violent violence. How could it be otherwise. This makes total sense and was a point well worth making. Well done.

What does choosing to lie about things that people said enable just out of interest? I mean to me it looks like it might encourage violence. But I gues actual violence isn't deserving of the label "violence" if it's to an end you agree with. Or something.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I find constantly arguing over sex to be degenerate, not the entire demographics behind the sexualities involved.

You implied it was a fad and used the incredibly charged word "degenerate", so don't give us this bullcrap, you know what you were saying and you know that it aligns with transphobic rhetoric.

Are you LGB? Are you trans? If not, why the hell do you think you have any sort of insight into what it's like or if it's even real? It's no different than some fundamentalist yelling about the perils of the dreaded homosexual scourge that seems to be omnipresent in their fevered minds.

 

[El_Machinae]

You implied it was a fad and used the incredibly charged word "degenerate", so don't give us this bullcrap, you know what you were saying and you know that it aligns with transphobic rhetoric.

He was saying that he thought it was when he was young. The paragraphs are not clear, but there are two subgroups being discussed.

I was able to parse his paragraphs while understanding that he was talking about different subgroups. That is why I tackled the idea that there were people involved that deserved protections that were separate from the people who trigger any repulsion from their deviancy. And, in fact, how the people who triggered repulsion were the first people to take the front lines in correcting the systemic Injustice

 

[Lexicus]

Well, huge surprise that the guy who got huffy about correct use of the word 'violence' actually just turned out to be a heteronormative dummy who thinks the whole LGBTQ movement is a stupid fad. I mean seriously, I am shocked. There was no way to see that one coming.

I was able to parse his paragraphs while understanding that he was talking about different subgroups. That is why I tackled the idea that there were people involved that deserved protections that were separate from the people who trigger any repulsion from their deviancy. And, in fact, how the people who triggered repulsion were the first people to take the front lines in correcting the systemic Injustice

I submit that the real deviants are people who get themselves worked up about what consenting adults do with their genitals.

 

[rah]

I don't care what consenting adults do in private but as I get older sometimes I prefer that they keep it that way. regardless of their preference.
Get off my lawn.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

LGBT people have existed throughout history, in different cultures and religions.

Calling it a "fad" betrays ashens ignorance.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes. Not understanding the world when you're young is kind of expected. Seriously, read the post being able to delineate in time and between groups under discussion

I submit that the real deviants are people who get themselves worked up about what consenting adults do with their genitals.

People overly concerned with historical binary gender norms are a problem. But to describe them by using the word 'deviant' is just misusing another word.

Is there a value to destroying discussion with bong-hitting koans?

 

[Lexicus]

It's only destructive of discussion if your thinking is on rails, man.

 

[Farm Boy]

Seriously, read the post being able to delineate in time and between groups under discussion

Gork and Mork are more of magic mushroom type people.

 

[Senethro]

I think you're giving the guy unwarranted credit El_M. The second paragraph reads as a doubling down tbh.

 

[Synobun]

Yes. Not understanding the world when you're young is kind of expected. Seriously, read the post being able to delineate in time and between groups under discussion

Since you asked, sure, let's do that! I'll bold the chronological segments so that those not able to delineate in time can follow along, and we can see what conclusion we reach!

When I was younger I thought much of this lgbt crap was just an overblown fad. That it was all a bunch of loud-mouthed degenerates on the internet having at each other over worthless sexual interests.
I knew people were weird about what they liked. I thought, fine, whatever works for them it's not my problem. Not like I have to deal with sex all the time.
Then I went to Orlando for a bit when I started high school, seeing the immediate contradiction of the old school stance on abstinence that kids never cared about and the suddenly forced lgbt activism.

What did I learn? That it is, in fact, an overblown fad being encouraged across the nation. Previous to being exposed to what was happening across, uh, 'white' America, I simply could not imagine that anyone cared so much about how special their sexual interests are on such a scale. It's one thing to work hard to end open discrimination, it's quite another to act as if putting sexual deviants on a pedestal is somehow virtuous, which is exceedingly common these days.

Hmm, no, doesn't seem like he changed his perspective from when he was younger at all... In fact, seems like he outright says his suspicions were confirmed, that it is all a fad filled with degeneracy and deviancy.

Let's do a bonus round!

It's simply not a topic I see enough sanity and genuine benefactors in for me to lend it much of any legitimacy especially considering I don't expect reasonable people to instantly make their sexuality known to me.
It does not help that obvious things such as violence are suddenly conveniently imagined to happen to masses of a social minority, as poorly thought out as that may be. Or that this was forced into a topic pertaining a small shooting in a synagogue.

Conveniently imagined to happen.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Yes. Not understanding the world when you're young is kind of expected. Seriously, read the post being able to delineate in time and between groups under discussion

Dude has said he thinks the violence suffered by LGBT people is "conveniently imagined to happen..." what sort of bs is this? Regardless of race, religion, class or nationality, LGBT are subjected to types of abuse that just doesn't happen to heterosexual cisgendered people but this wonderful human being thinks it's made up, so no i won't give him any benefit of the doubt, that went away as soon as he started doubling down

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Well, you can understand how being ineligible for service is a disadvantage when it comes to earning an income, obviously. If other people in your town can get a job that you cannot, then you're disadvantaged.

But between 2016 and 2018, the policy changed under which people could be discharged from service. In other words, fired. The separation policy is a little opaque to me, but I'm a Canadian far away.

There is an easily Googled infographic available from the Department of Defense. You will easily be able to find it to show your friends
https://www.defense.gov/explore/sto...icy-on-military-service-by-transgender-perso/

If you get let go from a job, you can either include that employment on your resume if you're willing to discuss with the new employer why you were let go. Or, you can not include that line on your resume. In a transphobic Society, it's rough having your resume choices Limited after your previous employer decided to fire you without cause

It seems like a small thing, but it's also a backward step designed to placate a segment of the base that the rest of the base doesn't mind

What you linked doesn't appear to be discriminatory. Could you explain how it is? I could be convinced that what is practiced is inconsistent with the information, but per the link someone would only be fired if unwilling/unable to serve under biological sex. You could identify as anything otherwise.

Alternatively, they could simply do away with the different standards for men and women so that biological sex is an irrelevant consideration.

I'd kind of hope people would say "This is systemic discrimination against transfolk and that is bad and injust." as a first reaction, instead of "grr arrrgh the leftists are misusing words again"

Words don't mean what your arguments appear to think they mean, considering the logical conclusion of your assertions about violence earlier.

violent words precede violent actions. inciting hatred and targeting vulnerably oppressed people with rhetoric calling for their removal from society IS violence. by your logic you can kill someone without it actually being violence?

Pointing out the flaws in someone else's logic is not the same thing as claiming it's my logic or position. So no.

Also, inciting hatred and targeting people in general is disreputable behavior and the people who do it are scum. Doesn't matter if they're part of the majority population or not. Trash comes in all colors, shapes, and sizes.

 

[El_Machinae]

Hmm, no, doesn't seem like he changed his perspective from when he was younger at all... In fact, seems like he outright says his suspicions were confirmed, that it is all a fad filled with degeneracy and deviancy.

You're not parsing 'degeneracy'. And it's not the same as deviancy. Degeneracy was clarified to mean "obsession with discussing sex". Now, I've assumed that he means sex involving nonbinary roles, but that's an argument that can be teased out. For example, I've been invited to straight wedding since I was a small child, and nobody thought that it was 'celebrating sexuality'. This is because of social bias, and that can be pointed out. But we also live in a world where a sex-tape can go viral. There's rampant degeneracy out there.

There are an incredible number of sexual deviants. And there are people will unhealthy sexual desires (i.e., look at the success of misogynistic porn) And yeah, the deviants take a lot of the limelight. And we support them. Now, I don't support them because I am actually in awe of their deviance. I'm supporting them because they're the frontline of an entire community of historically oppressed people*. They fought the harder battles that we're only pretending to fight now. If you can see that someone can see deviants, but isn't aware of the non-deviants, then the trick is to point out the non-deviants. I did this by (twice) mentioning that I know transgendered people that are not (in any reasonable way) 'deviants'.

Conveniently imagined to happen.

Yup. No disagreement with your disagreement. It's why I prefer to go after what I think people mean, instead of not applying the principle of charity.

*A community, again, where I got a tax deduction for passing out a book that says "God ordered their murder in the Olden Days". That's oppression.

 

[El_Machinae]

What you linked doesn't appear to be discriminatory. Could you explain how it is? I could be convinced that what is practiced is inconsistent with the information, but per the link someone would only be fired if unwilling/unable to serve under biological sex. You could identify as anything otherwise.

Yes. It's coded under "it's impractical to do otherwise". I know that. And I know that's why it doesn't get the political pushback. Efficiency. Expediency. You'll also see that it's a changing of the rules, in a way that disadvantages people.

But "you get fired if you don't act like your biological sex" is in the same category of "everyone is equally free to marry people of the opposite biological sex". I understand that it's hard. And I understand that it's expedient. And that's why there's an entire of cohort that's not willing to push back on a victory achieved by the bigots.

 

[Synobun]

You're not parsing 'degeneracy'. And it's not the same as deviancy. Degeneracy was clarified to mean "obsession with discussing sex". Now, I've assumed that he means sex involving nonbinary roles, but that's an argument that can be teased out. For example, I've been invited to straight wedding since I was a small child, and nobody thought that it was 'celebrating sexuality'. This is because of social bias, and that can be pointed out. But we also live in a world where a sex-tape can go viral. There's rampant degeneracy out there.

There are an incredible number of sexual deviants. And there are people will unhealthy sexual desires (i.e., look at the success of misogynistic porn) And yeah, the deviants take a lot of the limelight. And we support them. Now, I don't support them because I am actually in awe of their deviance. I'm supporting them because they're the frontline of an entire community of historically oppressed people*. They fought the harder battles that we're only pretending to fight now. If you can see that someone can see deviants, but isn't aware of the non-deviants, then the trick is to point out the non-deviants. I did this by (twice) mentioning that I know transgendered people that are not (in any reasonable way) 'deviants'.

This clarification changes nothing about his intended meaning. There's nothing degenerate and deviant about not being straight, even if you make a point of basing your identity around that fact (because hey, the people who think you're degenerate and deviant may just want to kill you for it).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yes. It's coded under "it's impractical to do otherwise". I know that. And I know that's why it doesn't get the political pushback. Efficiency. Expediency. You'll also see that it's a changing of the rules, in a way that disadvantages people.

But "you get fired if you don't act like your biological sex" is in the same category of "everyone is equally free to marry people of the opposite biological sex". I understand that it's hard. And I understand that it's expedient. And that's why there's an entire of cohort that's not willing to push back on a victory achieved by the bigots.

Then what does it mean to "serve under biological sex" as opposed to identifying as a particular gender?

The only thing that comes to mind is that the army has different standards and physical requirements for accepting men vs women, but I've never been in the military. I might be missing other things where "serving under biological sex" actually means something and if I am I'd like to know that.

If I'm not, the most obvious solution is to have one set of standards that apply to everyone. Presumably, these are the standards necessary to do the job.

This clarification changes nothing about his intended meaning. There's nothing degenerate and deviant about not being straight, even if you make a point of basing your identity around that fact (because hey, the people who think you're degenerate and deviant may just want to kill you for it).

From what I see the only degenerate thing is the media focus/sensationalism of it and maybe certain laws. Aside from news stories where someone gets arrested over misgendering or another flips out excessively over being called the wrong pronoun, trans people act like people generally act, with all the variations typical between individuals.

It's when you get crap on the news like a Canadian guy getting in trouble for "domestic violence" for refusing to call his daughter by a male pronoun where it starts getting degenerate. That or countries where parents don't get a legal say in whether their young children are given access to hormonal drugs. THAT stuff is degenerate.

 

[Senethro]

Words don't mean what your arguments appear to think they mean, considering the logical conclusion of your assertions about violence earlier.

Your reading comprehension isn't quite as good as you think and you even half-acknowledge that you've read me wrong. Most everyone else seems to have got it so I'm just going to let it stand. Apologies.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Your reading comprehension isn't quite as good as you think and you even half-acknowledge that you've read me wrong. Most everyone else seems to have got it so I'm just going to let it stand. Apologies.

If there's a mistake in my reasoning it would be more useful to point out specifically where it is. It'd be a much stronger defense (and more polite) than talking about reading comprehension lol.