It's never what you say, but how you say it. Or at least, generally it is. Unless what you say is self-evidently offensive to just about anybody.Pluvia said:
The whole problem with everything you wrote is two fold. Firstly you're not trans, so you don't get treated like dirt on a daily basis for just being who you are. Second a good parallel this: For a long time in the united states people said they didn't have a stance on racism, accepted that it was wrong, or more often than not supported it. The problem there is that this allowed the really hateful racists to basically lynch people left and right with no push back what so ever. Because when good people do nothing; evil wins by default.runic knight said:
I see a running theme throughout your posts... You seem to be under the (common I'll grant you) impression that violence is a direct thing. That only actively hitting or insulting someone counts as violence... And that's simply not the case.runic knight said:
Such depth of conversation and argument. I never would have thought someone would have gone with the "I'm right" argument.PaulH said:
[sub/]oh sweet tap dancing jesus[/sub]runic knight said:
Except that his politics are about all there is to talk about with this guy. Like, the bulk of his work is political and then there are these tweets. Sure he may like geeky things but that's totally different than writing about them, or making a video exploring/discussing them. Why do we need to wait to see his content to judge? Why doesn't he have something for us to judge him by already? People keep bringing up Movie Bob as a comparison to this guy, but at least Bob had his own youtube series before he began creating content for the Escapist. What exactally did this dude do to show that he would be a good content creator for this site? Shit...she who must not be named has a stronger record with creating content about geeky media than this guy. Like really, what has he done? To quote another posterCecilo said:
chiggerwood said:
Given that you didn't bother to look up the word and only assume what it means, I'd say 'depth' is the least of your concerns.runic knight said:
Also, because they're wrong? Provably wrong? More than enough times given ample time spent showing they are wrong ... and yet they persisted to denigrate trans people seeking their equal right to fairest representation of free speech that he would afford so dearly for himself. Something he advocated was his personal mission.
1st. Personal experience doesn't change arguments, and the appeal to personal experience (or lack there of) is an emotional one, not a rational one. My arguments would be of the same validity if I was a trans, a straight man, a gay woman, a biological talking dog or the son of the secret clone of hitler. Furthermore, you know nothing of what I have gone through in my life, and nothing I have gone through in my life would relate one way or another to the discussion being had anyways.KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
I'll be honest, I hold no respect whatsoever for the concept of "microaggression. The very idea seems flawed as any argument can be made with regards to that, and in any direction. Hell, I have seen Christians unironically using it to describe the steady decrease of their legal excess in classrooms, public displays or courts. It always is used to apply individual actions towards a larger group either party is associated with. Even your examples demonstrate this, as though it is part of an overall social scale that must be balanced. Does fit with the previous post's point though. Sadly, that is not a good thing for the argument.dragonswarrior said:
Exactly, dude.PaulH said:
That is fine. But holding a belief that is "being a dick" is not the same as the examples being tossed at me. It isn't prejudice in its own right unless he is treating trans people different for being trans, and for all the dislike of his opinion on transfolk I haven't seen him suggesting or promoting the treatment of them as different from other people (hell, this argument started because of a comment where he says he will call someone the same as other genders). It isn't intense dislike displayed in those posts, as nothing there suggests he dislikes transfolk as people so much as the concept of transpeople because of his gender binary. And he sure as hell hasn't been shown to be promoting violence, encouraging suicide or anything like that.Vault101 said:
Ok, this had me laughing.LostGryphon said:
Alright, you made your point on what I don't know about you, it's a fair point, I'll give you that.runic knight said:
I was going to say angle of penetration! You have to work the angles to get the most stimulation.LostGryphon said:
He is, as you put it, a fuckwit, I never protested that. And he is wrong, never protested that one either. In fact, I think I said he was as such on both accounts before. You know, I have to ask, have you been following along with the entire point of this argument or just reacting to the latest posts? Because I get the impression it is the second one.PaulH said:
I think it's quite easy to not alienate your audience based on political opinions.Ncrdrg said:
Well my argument wasn't really that he shouldn't have the right, it was that he should have the common decency to not berate other people just because he disagrees with their lifestyle. But that was me responding to a later post with out taking into account previous lines in the argument. I may have gotten a bit too irritated with you and said essentially things I didn't intend, or more likely made a point that back up the points of people who want to violate his right to free speech.runic knight said:
I readily agree the guy seems to be an ass and is quite wrong about trans people. That said, I think he is ignorant, not malicious and as such the protest of him on the site because of his ignorance without even seeing what he would be doing here seems premature to me. All the more so when the use of his tweets have been pointed to to the point of near absurdity in what they are responsible for.KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
