Worst of Social Justice

[Sigmaleph]

I really, really, really hate that phrase "I'm not here to educate you".  Just reminds me of the more rabid SJWs out there.  And yes, yes you are here to educate us despite a vast ocean of knowledge we can swim through.  Why?  Because that's what humans do.  Educate one another.

Ironbite-and that's fine by me.

People can choose to educate one another. It's pretty fucking tiresome for people to demand that you answer questions that might be personal, or close to something you care about, or that you are frustrated for having had to answer a million times before. People are always allowed to tap out and say "No, I don't want to explain this to you today. Talk to someone else or look it up yourself"

It's always nice to have someone more experienced to explain things to you. It's useful. It's helpful. And it's entirely voluntary.

[guizonde]

I really, really, really hate that phrase "I'm not here to educate you".  Just reminds me of the more rabid SJWs out there.  And yes, yes you are here to educate us despite a vast ocean of knowledge we can swim through.  Why?  Because that's what humans do.  Educate one another.

Ironbite-and that's fine by me.

And you know what, I wouldn't mind it if guizonode (or however it is spelled) was like, "hey, I looked into this for 30 minutes and couldn't find anything." At least there would be an honest effort put forth. But, on to address your point, you're absolutely wrong. Nobody is entitled to a conversation or information session with anyone. That is why law firms charge money instead of working as a public service.

aw, come on. now, you're doing on purpose. i did look into the subject matter. and will continue to do so, because even if i'm not concerned, it's a social issue and i might as well be informed. but i find data useless without personal input. that's why i was asking for your opinion, not that you explain to me the fifty plus years of the development of trans-issues.

you know what? getting annoyed (both you and me) is not worth it. i'm dropping the subject, and the questions. once again, i apologize for bothering you.

[Art Vandelay]

I really, really, really hate that phrase "I'm not here to educate you".  Just reminds me of the more rabid SJWs out there.  And yes, yes you are here to educate us despite a vast ocean of knowledge we can swim through.  Why?  Because that's what humans do.  Educate one another.

Ironbite-and that's fine by me.

I wouldn't say people are obligated to educate each other, but I will say that flying off the handle over something you think is offensive, then pulling the "it's not my job to educate you" when they try to understand why is just childish.

[The_Queen]

I really, really, really hate that phrase "I'm not here to educate you".  Just reminds me of the more rabid SJWs out there.  And yes, yes you are here to educate us despite a vast ocean of knowledge we can swim through.  Why?  Because that's what humans do.  Educate one another.

Ironbite-and that's fine by me.

I wouldn't say people are obligated to educate each other, but I will say that flying off the handle over something you think is offensive, then pulling the "it's not my job to educate you" when they try to understand why is just childish.

That is a bit is a bit of a mischaracterization, as is Dakota's. I said that there is no dispositive biological basis for our concept of gender. Guizonode (or however it's spelled) asserted chromosomes while stating that Laura Jane Grace deserved to be here because she could have been more polite, while condescendingly saying that " famous and notorious people are just regular people, so sometimes they can be wrong or say things the wrong way." As though I don't realize this. So, I decided to look into this message, because the tone of the initial image was very much "don't tell me that I'm a biological male ad fucking nausea" and it made my bullshit detector go off. Sure enough, a simple investigation into twitter confirmed my suspicion that this guy was a troll trying to start shit with Laura, who in classic punk fashion told him to shove it up his ass. Why nobody else could do this research is not a topic I'll delve into. Nonetheless, Guizonode (or however it's spelled) asserted chromosomes as a biological basis and to support my initial proposition, I replied with a short list of chromosomal variations that undermine his proposed theory.

After that, Guizonode (or however it's spelled). asked where transsexuality comes from. This is a proposition I neither initiated nor claimed to have specialized knowledge of (remember, I just pointed out that any biological basis in gender is correlative and not dispositive). At that point, I think it's fully justified to tell him to look on google scholar instead of doing his homework for him. Heck, I just put in a simple search and found L.A. Worrell, Medical Master’s Thesis, Sexual Differentiation of the Brain Related to Gender Identity: Beyond Hormones (2010).

[The_Queen]

Again, inapposite. There is a bit of a distinction between polishing words and spelling and doing in-depth research. If you recall, during the episode when Kefka left because people mocked her spelling, I was the lone dissent saying essentially that I did not care how butchered the spelling was insofar as it conveyed her idea. Yeah, she could've right clicked and spell checked, but as long as the idea was conveyed, spelling didn't bother me. Whether I type it as Guizonode or Guiznode or Guizonde (looked that one up for you), he still knows I'm referring to him, and thus the spelling difference makes no difference. I meant no disrespect by the misspelling, but he decided to interpret it in that manner, as did you.

Now, actually doing research is not the same as a polished/unpolished post. In essence, whether the post is polished is a matter of grammar, syntax, and spelling. In contrast, the research itself is a matter of substance that supports or undermines an idea.

[Damen]

I've really been trying to stay out of this, but I have to agree with Miles here. It doesn't strike me as on the level when all that is required to get a user's name right is to scroll down, highlight, copy and paste.

[mellenORL]

I meant no disrespect by the misspelling

.

You were being contemptuous and snarky, over and over again, with that little Guizonode schtick. And you've lost my respect for thinking anyone here is going to believe your denial. Yes, you are intelligent, Queen, but you did a rude thing because you were not in a good mood. And just now, you showed your contempt for us all.

[The_Queen]

This is really funny that people think a misspelling of a name that is not common in English, or according to Google anywhere, is disrespectful. Most other names are English-based, shortened, or easy to remember. For example, if I had to write out the full names of Sigmalaeph, Ravynoushunter, or Cerim Treascure, I couldn't do it. Hence why I call them Sigma, Ravy, and Cerim, respectively. Upon being told that my misspelling was interpreted as disrespect, I thought, "that's silly to take a misspelling of an unusual name that way," and didn't think much else. In fact, I read his name, but forget it by the next time I had to post.. Next time I had to bring it up in conversation, I tried my best to remember, and wrote out each time--instead of copy and pasting-- "guizonode (or however it's spelled)."

You don't have to believe it, but I have no trouble speaking my mind. I also do not lie. If I wanted to take a dig at someone, misspelling a name is the last thing I would do.

Also, it is an outright lie to say that it was about punks and hierarchy, in particular after my last post pointed out that he state Laura Jane Grace belonged here because "um, famous and notorious people are just regular people, so sometimes they can be wrong or say things the wrong way. i'm with the quote's sentiment, but not the way the message is written. one offhand, one ad hominem, and one returning the question does not make for good argumentation, objectively" (emphasis added). His point boiled down to she belongs in WSJ because she didn't handle a transphobic troll in the most professional and responsible way possible. This is what most people seem to conveniently ignore, instead choosing to argue polity or spelling.

But it's obvious that this is getting no where, so people can respond and argue, but absent a direct question rule invocation, I'm done with this.

[Art Vandelay]

This is really funny that people think a misspelling of a name that is not common in English, or according to Google anywhere, is disrespectful. Most other names are English-based, shortened, or easy to remember. For example, if I had to write out the full names of Sigmalaeph, Ravynoushunter, or Cerim Treascure, I couldn't do it. Hence why I call them Sigma, Ravy, and Cerim, respectively. Upon being told that my misspelling was interpreted as disrespect, I thought, "that's silly to take a misspelling of an unusual name that way," and didn't think much else. In fact, I read his name, but forget it by the next time I had to post.. Next time I had to bring it up in conversation, I tried my best to remember, and wrote out each time--instead of copy and pasting-- "guizonode (or however it's spelled)."

Oh please. Don't try to pretend you weren't taking a dig at him asking you to spell his name correctly. If you expect anyone to believe writing (or more likely, copy-pasting, considering your "error" was never misspelled) "guizonode (or however it's spelled)" every single time was a genuine mistake on your part, well, see Mellen's last post.

Also, it is an outright lie to say that it was about punks and hierarchy, in particular after my last post pointed out that he state Laura Jane Grace belonged here because "um, famous and notorious people are just regular people, so sometimes they can be wrong or say things the wrong way. i'm with the quote's sentiment, but not the way the message is written. one offhand, one ad hominem, and one returning the question does not make for good argumentation, objectively" (emphasis added). His point boiled down to she belongs in WSJ because she didn't handle a transphobic troll in the most professional and responsible way possible. This is what most people seem to conveniently ignore, instead choosing to argue polity or spelling.

I can't speak for Guizonde (hey, look at that, got it right on my first try), but I believe that point wasn't about Grace's Twitter quote, but rather a response to this.

Do you even know who that is? She's like the modern queen of punk rock. I was lucky enough to attend one of her shows and get one of her guitar picks. Putting anything from her in this thread speaks more about yourself than it does her.

Really now, you pull the "she's some minor celebrity that I like, therefore she can't be wrong" and you're surprised and butthurt by the result? That just says it all, really.

[guizonde]

three, that's where we have a problem. i did not dismiss the message. i disagreed with its form. disagreement is not dismissal. everything was coherent, and i understood it. all i disagreed with was the cavalier attitude to courtesy. i have on different subjects in the past. the joke about you respecting her as the queen of punk rock was that traditionally punks are anarchs, thus have no hierarchy. it was a poorly timed joke, but that's why it was in blue. i said that nobody is infallible (which is true, for instance santana believes that metatron will save the earth). so what? it's not dismissal. and yeah, i have a problem with badly constructed arguments. that does not mean that the post was warranted here.

the thing that stings however, is that it's not a double standard aimed at transexuals. that's my baseline standard for everyone. i always criticize the form if it's immature or vulgar and that vulgarity takes away from the message.

art, you're half-right. there was a joke in blue, but the form of the quote was why i wrote that. however, i also clearly stated that "punks and hierarchy" was a joke. and see above: that quote says i'm not dismissive of the message, and i'm not for the post being here.
also, i'd like to think some people here can vouch for my habit of agreeing with a message's sentiment but not for its form. hell, i've done it to spuki a couple of times when she's having a justified angry moment.

[Ultimate Paragon]

[mellenORL]

Lol.

[ironbite]

Good.

[Ghoti]

"I like to wear dresses some days and pants other days" ≠ "I'm genderfluid". Quit giving gender stereotypes the same weight as actual gender.


This reminds me of something my youth pastor said about gay sex when I was still forced to go to church. He had quite a bit to say about "the gays" and how they were universally sexual deviants and how weird and gross and wrong they were and how alien it was for him to hear people talking about wanting to have sex with anyone except their spouses. When your "activism" reminds people of their fundamentalist upbringing, something's gone terribly wrong.


WHY ARE WE STILL FIGHTING ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE, BY DEFINITION, NEITHER REAL NOR CANON.



I threw up in my mouth a little bit when I saw this the first time, and then I threw up a little more after I saw it again so I could post it here.


This is how abusers think. Nobody wakes up in the morning and decides to erode their loved ones' sense of of safety and self-worth, they think "if you just did what I asked, I wouldn't have to get so mad. It's not really my fault, I have anger problems and you know that, so you're at fault for provoking me." This is literally abusive lines of thinking presented as ~*relatable mental health things*~ (no neurotypicals allowed!) and it's fucking terrifying.

EDIT to avoid double posting:

Yikes.

[guizonde]

hey ghoti, care to walk me through your post?

first one. i'm a cisthet male. i like wearing skirts, robes, and (neutral) dresses. i'm genderfluid now?

second one. uh, i thought being ace was different from being sex-repulsed. i hate urolagnia, i'm sooooo ace.

third, you nailed it.

fourth. freebleeding gone foul bachelor frog?

"maybe if you didn't weren't flammable i wouldn't feel the urge to set you on fire". victim-blaming. i think we already covered that mental illness was not a "get out of jail free" card to be horrible to others, didn't we?

sixth. i don't understand, help me out will you? first one says that lgbt spaces are not an orgy waiting to happen and that's good news? the second calls out the first for being "assimilationist" (?) and seems to adopt the position that an lgbt space can in fact be a den of sin?... the more i read it the less it makes sense. are sjw's actually calling each other out on their tolerance? what.