Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

An Interesting Read

Zaradi
Posts: 14,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 9:13:00 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
While browsing Reddit like the scum of the earth I am, I happened across this article and gave it a read.

http://moreradicalwithage.com...

Thoughts? I feel that even if you disagree with the authors points that it's still an interesting read.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 3:55:09 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
First, there is nothing wrong with Reddit. It's a fun way to waste time. But now that we have that out of the way... lol

I agree to the extent that gender is an outward expression, but the idea of coming up with different labels for each point on the "gender spectrum" isn't something I'm comfortable with. Labels make me uncomfortable because where they exist, they tend to divide people, by the act of subcategorization. There's irony in that; people want to be unique, but also fit in, and these are mutually exclusive.

Gender is also a binary spectrum; in the sense that the baseline for what "counts" for a gender exists between "male" and "female." There's all kinds of complexity between that, but those are the genders, and the spectrum is binary. The article kind of implies that (by saying there's not a "y" axis, as stated by point 2), so it's a binary continuum, and gender is, unsurprisingly, binary.... it's just not binary in the sense that "you are only entirely male or female." So, while gender isn't "only" binary (i.e. "you are either X, or Y"), the "spectrum" is itself binary.

I also don't like the suggestion of female oppression and I don't think that realizing anything said in the article is going to make the experiences of transexual people less hard than they currently are; in the alternative, I think these frivolous subcategories are more likely to exacerbate the problems they currently face.

The basic point is pretty simple to grasp: people seek simplicity, and more complexity (like, the postmodern impulse) turns people off. So, the more discrete and unique our "categories" (e.g. "pangender" or "agender" or "demiboy" or "demigirl" or "aliagender" etc.) the more likely people are to at once discount the particular difficulties suffered by those who don't fit the "generally male" or "generally female" norm, and reject those people on the basis of their deviation from the norm. This is because, unsurprisingly, in addition to seeking simplicity, people seek continuity with the norms and institutions to which they are accustomed.

If people actually wanted to do good for those who don't fit the gender "norm," what they would be doing is emphasizing higher levels of categorization, to show similarity rather than differences. (This is the big point of what I'm getting at, and although it's pretty simple, it's also complex in the sense that it rebukes the entire modality of thought that the person who wrote the article linked in the OP must have subscribed to, in writing the OP.)

The reason is because the *goal* of discussions on this subject is, or at least should be, to move society in the direction of greater social acceptance, not greater social division. Subcategorization, as the article undertakes, is an act of division. Grouping, which is what the article should have done, is the act of finding similarities between unlike groups based on higher levels of categorization.

So, even though "pangender" or "agender" or "demiboy" or "demigirl" or "aliagender" people may be whatever... they are also "people" and seeing them as "people" only, or at least first, is the dividing line between tolerance and rejection. If people see others as people first, regardless of how different they may be, then it is easier to afford them the same status, rights, protections and social status as anyone else. But, if people see others as "pangendered" or "agendered" or "demiboys" or "demigirls" or "aliagendered" first, then the natural instinct that people are *going* to have is to reject the social construct with which they are unaccustomed.

This is ultimately why I am acutely critical of the schools of thought that induce people to write articles like the one you linked too. They *mean* well; division and reinforcement of social exclusion is the diametric opposite of their goal... but it is the *sole* effect of articles like this, which encourage non-traditionally gendered people to be seen not as people, per se, but as members of a very discrete and particular group.
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 3:56:35 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
But I agree, despite the issues, that it's an interesting read. It's interesting not because it's right, but because it really showcases the weakness and inefficacy of postmodern thought.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 10:51:29 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 3:55:09 PM, YYW wrote:
First, there is nothing wrong with Reddit. It's a fun way to waste time. But now that we have that out of the way... lol

I agree to the extent that gender is an outward expression, but the idea of coming up with different labels for each point on the "gender spectrum" isn't something I'm comfortable with. Labels make me uncomfortable because where they exist, they tend to divide people, by the act of subcategorization. There's irony in that; people want to be unique, but also fit in, and these are mutually exclusive.

Gender is also a binary spectrum; in the sense that the baseline for what "counts" for a gender exists between "male" and "female." There's all kinds of complexity between that, but those are the genders, and the spectrum is binary. The article kind of implies that (by saying there's not a "y" axis, as stated by point 2), so it's a binary continuum, and gender is, unsurprisingly, binary.... it's just not binary in the sense that "you are only entirely male or female." So, while gender isn't "only" binary (i.e. "you are either X, or Y"), the "spectrum" is itself binary.

When we say that something is binary, we're saying that only two values are possible (binary logic, for example, is set apart from fuzzy logic in rejecting the idea of "degrees" of truth) . When we say that something is a spectrum, we're saying that many (if not infinite) values are possible along the continuum. A binary spectrum makes no sense. I think the correct term would be a "one dimensional spectrum".
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 10:54:55 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/11/2016 10:51:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/10/2016 3:55:09 PM, YYW wrote:
First, there is nothing wrong with Reddit. It's a fun way to waste time. But now that we have that out of the way... lol

I agree to the extent that gender is an outward expression, but the idea of coming up with different labels for each point on the "gender spectrum" isn't something I'm comfortable with. Labels make me uncomfortable because where they exist, they tend to divide people, by the act of subcategorization. There's irony in that; people want to be unique, but also fit in, and these are mutually exclusive.

Gender is also a binary spectrum; in the sense that the baseline for what "counts" for a gender exists between "male" and "female." There's all kinds of complexity between that, but those are the genders, and the spectrum is binary. The article kind of implies that (by saying there's not a "y" axis, as stated by point 2), so it's a binary continuum, and gender is, unsurprisingly, binary.... it's just not binary in the sense that "you are only entirely male or female." So, while gender isn't "only" binary (i.e. "you are either X, or Y"), the "spectrum" is itself binary.

When we say that something is binary, we're saying that only two values are possible (binary logic, for example, is set apart from fuzzy logic in rejecting the idea of "degrees" of truth) . When we say that something is a spectrum, we're saying that many (if not infinite) values are possible along the continuum. A binary spectrum makes no sense. I think the correct term would be a "one dimensional spectrum".

Binary means there are two values; it says nothing about the space between them.

A real "spectrum" might have multiple values at different ends, sides, or no poles at all.

You don't understand what the word "binary" or "spectrum" means.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 10:57:34 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/11/2016 10:54:55 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/11/2016 10:51:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/10/2016 3:55:09 PM, YYW wrote:
First, there is nothing wrong with Reddit. It's a fun way to waste time. But now that we have that out of the way... lol

I agree to the extent that gender is an outward expression, but the idea of coming up with different labels for each point on the "gender spectrum" isn't something I'm comfortable with. Labels make me uncomfortable because where they exist, they tend to divide people, by the act of subcategorization. There's irony in that; people want to be unique, but also fit in, and these are mutually exclusive.

Gender is also a binary spectrum; in the sense that the baseline for what "counts" for a gender exists between "male" and "female." There's all kinds of complexity between that, but those are the genders, and the spectrum is binary. The article kind of implies that (by saying there's not a "y" axis, as stated by point 2), so it's a binary continuum, and gender is, unsurprisingly, binary.... it's just not binary in the sense that "you are only entirely male or female." So, while gender isn't "only" binary (i.e. "you are either X, or Y"), the "spectrum" is itself binary.

When we say that something is binary, we're saying that only two values are possible (binary logic, for example, is set apart from fuzzy logic in rejecting the idea of "degrees" of truth) . When we say that something is a spectrum, we're saying that many (if not infinite) values are possible along the continuum. A binary spectrum makes no sense. I think the correct term would be a "one dimensional spectrum".

Binary means there are two values; it says nothing about the space between them.

A real "spectrum" might have multiple values at different ends, sides, or no poles at all.

You don't understand what the word "binary" or "spectrum" means.

Binary means there are two values, and only two values. Thus, it has something to say about the space between them, namely that such space does not exist.
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 11:04:35 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/11/2016 10:57:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/11/2016 10:54:55 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/11/2016 10:51:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/10/2016 3:55:09 PM, YYW wrote:
First, there is nothing wrong with Reddit. It's a fun way to waste time. But now that we have that out of the way... lol

I agree to the extent that gender is an outward expression, but the idea of coming up with different labels for each point on the "gender spectrum" isn't something I'm comfortable with. Labels make me uncomfortable because where they exist, they tend to divide people, by the act of subcategorization. There's irony in that; people want to be unique, but also fit in, and these are mutually exclusive.

Gender is also a binary spectrum; in the sense that the baseline for what "counts" for a gender exists between "male" and "female." There's all kinds of complexity between that, but those are the genders, and the spectrum is binary. The article kind of implies that (by saying there's not a "y" axis, as stated by point 2), so it's a binary continuum, and gender is, unsurprisingly, binary.... it's just not binary in the sense that "you are only entirely male or female." So, while gender isn't "only" binary (i.e. "you are either X, or Y"), the "spectrum" is itself binary.

When we say that something is binary, we're saying that only two values are possible (binary logic, for example, is set apart from fuzzy logic in rejecting the idea of "degrees" of truth) . When we say that something is a spectrum, we're saying that many (if not infinite) values are possible along the continuum. A binary spectrum makes no sense. I think the correct term would be a "one dimensional spectrum".

Binary means there are two values; it says nothing about the space between them.

A real "spectrum" might have multiple values at different ends, sides, or no poles at all.

You don't understand what the word "binary" or "spectrum" means.

Binary means there are two values, and only two values. Thus, it has something to say about the space between them, namely that such space does not exist.

This is stupid. Open a dictionary, Dylan. Binary means "consisting of, or relating to two values" NOT "consisting only of two values."

Disclaimer: I don't mean this to sound as condescending as it's going to sound... although I know this is the issue so I'm going to say it anyway.

The issue here is that you don't understand the logical difference between necessity and sufficiency, which has more to do with your intellectual ability than anything else.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 11:45:16 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/11/2016 11:04:35 PM, YYW wrote:

This is stupid. Open a dictionary, Dylan. Binary means "consisting of, or relating to two values" NOT "consisting only of two values."

Disclaimer: I don't mean this to sound as condescending as it's going to sound... although I know this is the issue so I'm going to say it anyway.

The issue here is that you don't understand the logical difference between necessity and sufficiency, which has more to do with your intellectual ability than anything else.

lol oh semantic arguments are fun, especially when people aren't very good at them.

Your interpretation implies that 'binary' also describes things with multiple parts --- as in, a code with the digits 0,1 and 2 would also be binary by that account, since you're saying that having 2 parts is sufficient but not necessary for that description. Besides not making any logical or etymological sense, this interpretation would obviate words like ternary and quaternary since 'binary' already covers what they describe. So Dylan is correct .... a spectrum has a multitude of values, and so the term 'binary spectrum' is an oxymoron.

It's easy to understand what you meant, especially seeing as you distinguished 'binary' from 'binary spectrum' but it's also obvious you misused the word... bipolar or diametric would be more appropriate terms for what you were attempting to describe.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 12:04:49 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/11/2016 11:04:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/11/2016 10:57:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/11/2016 10:54:55 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/11/2016 10:51:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/10/2016 3:55:09 PM, YYW wrote:
First, there is nothing wrong with Reddit. It's a fun way to waste time. But now that we have that out of the way... lol

I agree to the extent that gender is an outward expression, but the idea of coming up with different labels for each point on the "gender spectrum" isn't something I'm comfortable with. Labels make me uncomfortable because where they exist, they tend to divide people, by the act of subcategorization. There's irony in that; people want to be unique, but also fit in, and these are mutually exclusive.

Gender is also a binary spectrum; in the sense that the baseline for what "counts" for a gender exists between "male" and "female." There's all kinds of complexity between that, but those are the genders, and the spectrum is binary. The article kind of implies that (by saying there's not a "y" axis, as stated by point 2), so it's a binary continuum, and gender is, unsurprisingly, binary.... it's just not binary in the sense that "you are only entirely male or female." So, while gender isn't "only" binary (i.e. "you are either X, or Y"), the "spectrum" is itself binary.

When we say that something is binary, we're saying that only two values are possible (binary logic, for example, is set apart from fuzzy logic in rejecting the idea of "degrees" of truth) . When we say that something is a spectrum, we're saying that many (if not infinite) values are possible along the continuum. A binary spectrum makes no sense. I think the correct term would be a "one dimensional spectrum".

Binary means there are two values; it says nothing about the space between them.

A real "spectrum" might have multiple values at different ends, sides, or no poles at all.

You don't understand what the word "binary" or "spectrum" means.

Binary means there are two values, and only two values. Thus, it has something to say about the space between them, namely that such space does not exist.

This is stupid. Open a dictionary, Dylan. Binary means "consisting of, or relating to two values" NOT "consisting only of two values."

Disclaimer: I don't mean this to sound as condescending as it's going to sound... although I know this is the issue so I'm going to say it anyway.

The issue here is that you don't understand the logical difference between necessity and sufficiency, which has more to do with your intellectual ability than anything else.

Even if your usage of binary is technically correct (which it's not), no one uses it that way when referring to gender. When people say "gender is binary" they mean that there is no middle ground between "male" and "female".

"Classification within this gender binary, by definition, excludes individuals who are born with non-binary reproductive organs and those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, genderqueer or third gender...Genderqueer (GQ), also termed non-binary, is a catch-all category for gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine."
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 12:32:33 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/11/2016 11:45:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/11/2016 11:04:35 PM, YYW wrote:

This is stupid. Open a dictionary, Dylan. Binary means "consisting of, or relating to two values" NOT "consisting only of two values."

Disclaimer: I don't mean this to sound as condescending as it's going to sound... although I know this is the issue so I'm going to say it anyway.

The issue here is that you don't understand the logical difference between necessity and sufficiency, which has more to do with your intellectual ability than anything else.

lol oh semantic arguments are fun, especially when people aren't very good at them.

Your interpretation implies that 'binary' also describes things with multiple parts --- as in, a code with the digits 0,1 and 2 would also be binary by that account, since you're saying that having 2 parts is sufficient but not necessary for that description. Besides not making any logical or etymological sense, this interpretation would obviate words like ternary and quaternary since 'binary' already covers what they describe. So Dylan is correct .... a spectrum has a multitude of values, and so the term 'binary spectrum' is an oxymoron.

It's easy to understand what you meant, especially seeing as you distinguished 'binary' from 'binary spectrum' but it's also obvious you misused the word... bipolar or diametric would be more appropriate terms for what you were attempting to describe.

lol

You are so obviously wrong.
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 12:33:09 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 12:04:49 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/11/2016 11:04:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/11/2016 10:57:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/11/2016 10:54:55 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/11/2016 10:51:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/10/2016 3:55:09 PM, YYW wrote:
First, there is nothing wrong with Reddit. It's a fun way to waste time. But now that we have that out of the way... lol

I agree to the extent that gender is an outward expression, but the idea of coming up with different labels for each point on the "gender spectrum" isn't something I'm comfortable with. Labels make me uncomfortable because where they exist, they tend to divide people, by the act of subcategorization. There's irony in that; people want to be unique, but also fit in, and these are mutually exclusive.

Gender is also a binary spectrum; in the sense that the baseline for what "counts" for a gender exists between "male" and "female." There's all kinds of complexity between that, but those are the genders, and the spectrum is binary. The article kind of implies that (by saying there's not a "y" axis, as stated by point 2), so it's a binary continuum, and gender is, unsurprisingly, binary.... it's just not binary in the sense that "you are only entirely male or female." So, while gender isn't "only" binary (i.e. "you are either X, or Y"), the "spectrum" is itself binary.

When we say that something is binary, we're saying that only two values are possible (binary logic, for example, is set apart from fuzzy logic in rejecting the idea of "degrees" of truth) . When we say that something is a spectrum, we're saying that many (if not infinite) values are possible along the continuum. A binary spectrum makes no sense. I think the correct term would be a "one dimensional spectrum".

Binary means there are two values; it says nothing about the space between them.

A real "spectrum" might have multiple values at different ends, sides, or no poles at all.

You don't understand what the word "binary" or "spectrum" means.

Binary means there are two values, and only two values. Thus, it has something to say about the space between them, namely that such space does not exist.

This is stupid. Open a dictionary, Dylan. Binary means "consisting of, or relating to two values" NOT "consisting only of two values."

Disclaimer: I don't mean this to sound as condescending as it's going to sound... although I know this is the issue so I'm going to say it anyway.

The issue here is that you don't understand the logical difference between necessity and sufficiency, which has more to do with your intellectual ability than anything else.

Even if your usage of binary is technically correct (which it's not), no one uses it that way when referring to gender. When people say "gender is binary" they mean that there is no middle ground between "male" and "female".

"Classification within this gender binary, by definition, excludes individuals who are born with non-binary reproductive organs and those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, genderqueer or third gender...Genderqueer (GQ), also termed non-binary, is a catch-all category for gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine."

You should learn to read better.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 12:35:44 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 12:32:33 AM, YYW wrote:
At 1/11/2016 11:45:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/11/2016 11:04:35 PM, YYW wrote:

This is stupid. Open a dictionary, Dylan. Binary means "consisting of, or relating to two values" NOT "consisting only of two values."

Disclaimer: I don't mean this to sound as condescending as it's going to sound... although I know this is the issue so I'm going to say it anyway.

The issue here is that you don't understand the logical difference between necessity and sufficiency, which has more to do with your intellectual ability than anything else.

lol oh semantic arguments are fun, especially when people aren't very good at them.

Your interpretation implies that 'binary' also describes things with multiple parts --- as in, a code with the digits 0,1 and 2 would also be binary by that account, since you're saying that having 2 parts is sufficient but not necessary for that description. Besides not making any logical or etymological sense, this interpretation would obviate words like ternary and quaternary since 'binary' already covers what they describe. So Dylan is correct .... a spectrum has a multitude of values, and so the term 'binary spectrum' is an oxymoron.

It's easy to understand what you meant, especially seeing as you distinguished 'binary' from 'binary spectrum' but it's also obvious you misused the word... bipolar or diametric would be more appropriate terms for what you were attempting to describe.

lol

You are so obviously wrong.

lol no substantive rebuttal? This is a rather tired and ineffective defense mechanism ... but I understand why you depend on it, and I take it as a mark of concession.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 3:05:30 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 12:35:44 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/12/2016 12:32:33 AM, YYW wrote:
At 1/11/2016 11:45:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/11/2016 11:04:35 PM, YYW wrote:

This is stupid. Open a dictionary, Dylan. Binary means "consisting of, or relating to two values" NOT "consisting only of two values."

Disclaimer: I don't mean this to sound as condescending as it's going to sound... although I know this is the issue so I'm going to say it anyway.

The issue here is that you don't understand the logical difference between necessity and sufficiency, which has more to do with your intellectual ability than anything else.

lol oh semantic arguments are fun, especially when people aren't very good at them.

Your interpretation implies that 'binary' also describes things with multiple parts --- as in, a code with the digits 0,1 and 2 would also be binary by that account, since you're saying that having 2 parts is sufficient but not necessary for that description. Besides not making any logical or etymological sense, this interpretation would obviate words like ternary and quaternary since 'binary' already covers what they describe. So Dylan is correct .... a spectrum has a multitude of values, and so the term 'binary spectrum' is an oxymoron.

It's easy to understand what you meant, especially seeing as you distinguished 'binary' from 'binary spectrum' but it's also obvious you misused the word... bipolar or diametric would be more appropriate terms for what you were attempting to describe.

lol

You are so obviously wrong.

lol no substantive rebuttal? This is a rather tired and ineffective defense mechanism ... but I understand why you depend on it, and I take it as a mark of concession.

I've pretty much learned that when you think you're right, no matter how glaringly wrong you are, you aren't going to listen to me... so I don't bother, because it's not worth my time.

You're smarter than Dylan, but equally stubborn.

Like, the sheer tone of your response is enough to put me on notice that we could open up Websters and read the definition, and you'd disagree with the book.... and I've got better things to do.

So, think you've won or whatever... you're going to be wrong whether you understand that you're wrong or not

lol
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 3:31:48 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 3:05:30 AM, YYW wrote:

I've pretty much learned that when you think you're right, no matter how glaringly wrong you are, you aren't going to listen to me... so I don't bother, because it's not worth my time.

You're smarter than Dylan, but equally stubborn.

Like, the sheer tone of your response is enough to put me on notice that we could open up Websters and read the definition, and you'd disagree with the book.... and I've got better things to do.

So, think you've won or whatever... you're going to be wrong whether you understand that you're wrong or not

lol

I'm going to overlook the blatant hypocrisy of this entire response for a moment, because I know you're actually provably wrong in this argument and I want to see the part of your psyche that's so averse to losing to kneel down in humility.

You: Dylan. Binary means "consisting of, or relating to two values" NOT "consisting only of two values."
Implication: Binary can refer to something consisting of more than two values

You: The issue here is that you don't understand the logical difference between necessity and sufficiency
Implication: having only 2 values is sufficient but not necessary for description as binary

Consequence:
A code consisting of the digits 0,1, and 2 can be binary .... in fact, any set with more than 2 components can be referred to as binary.

You can either dispute that the implications follow, that the consequence follows from the implications, or that the consequence is sufficiently absurd to invalidate your interpretation of the term 'binary'. Those are your only options, and each is just flatly impossible..... but I at least want to see you try.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 3:52:47 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
You guys should close your subpar dictionaries, kiss, and make up.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 4:18:45 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 3:52:47 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
You guys should close your subpar dictionaries, kiss, and make up.

00ike has had a crush on me for a long time. I wonder if he's cute.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 9:22:03 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 3:52:47 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
You guys should close your subpar dictionaries, kiss, and make up.

I mean, YYW is incorrect, but the whole discussion is rather petty.

But, I didn't get that the article was necessarily gung-ho about everyone adopting their own labels. More so, I thought the article critiqued the point of labels altogether. Case-in-point, "Call yourself whatever you like, and express that identity however you like, but don"t expect anyone else to care, let alone to afford you special political privileges on the basis of it."
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 9:38:26 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Queer theory is intestine and even conceptually useful, but the normies really fvcked this one up by trying to act like the socially constructed nature of gender means anyone can be anything, somehow.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 9:39:00 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 9:38:26 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Queer theory is interesting and even conceptually useful, but the normies really fvcked this one up by trying to act like the socially constructed nature of gender means anyone can be anything, somehow.

Fxd
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 2:29:56 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 9:22:03 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/12/2016 3:52:47 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
You guys should close your subpar dictionaries, kiss, and make up.

I mean, YYW is incorrect, but the whole discussion is rather petty.

Nope.

But, I didn't get that the article was necessarily gung-ho about everyone adopting their own labels. More so, I thought the article critiqued the point of labels altogether. Case-in-point, "Call yourself whatever you like, and express that identity however you like, but don"t expect anyone else to care, let alone to afford you special political privileges on the basis of it."
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 5:27:00 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 2:31:02 PM, YYW wrote:
The semantics in this thread are hilarious. Dylan, 00ike, and bsh1 are collectively wrong.

This kind of post is just insulting and lacks any substance. If you want to demonstrate that you are not wrong, perhaps you could say something substantive.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 5:50:30 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 9:22:03 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/12/2016 3:52:47 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
You guys should close your subpar dictionaries, kiss, and make up.

I mean, YYW is incorrect, but the whole discussion is rather petty.

Semantics are always petty.

But, I didn't get that the article was necessarily gung-ho about everyone adopting their own labels. More so, I thought the article critiqued the point of labels altogether. Case-in-point, "Call yourself whatever you like, and express that identity however you like, but don"t expect anyone else to care, let alone to afford you special political privileges on the basis of it."

Yeah, that's what I got out of it as well. Which is true. The amount of acronyms is just idiotic at this point, and it's an excuse for people to feel like a special snowflake. Honestly, it reminds me of the theological debates that tore the nascent church apart, like the centuries-long conflict over Arianism, which one historian summed up as a 'quarrel over a dipthong.' If Western society as a whole ever seriously invests in examining the differences between 'velocigender' and 'ectogender', then progressivism has entered its own little dark age.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 6:12:12 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
"There is an increasing amount of research that illustrates that the evidence for dividing humans into the two distinct categories of men and women is problematic and a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, Judith Lorber explains the problem of failing to question dividing people into these two groups "even though they often find more significant within-group differences than between-group differences."

"The existence of transgender individuals is an indication that binary sex is refutable. A person can exhibit both traits that were rendered exclusive to "girl" or "boy"."

https://en.wikipedia.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 6:36:25 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 5:50:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/12/2016 9:22:03 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/12/2016 3:52:47 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
You guys should close your subpar dictionaries, kiss, and make up.

I mean, YYW is incorrect, but the whole discussion is rather petty.

Semantics are always petty.


I take issue with this usage of "petty". What dictionary are you associated with?
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 8:25:27 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 5:50:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/12/2016 9:22:03 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/12/2016 3:52:47 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
You guys should close your subpar dictionaries, kiss, and make up.

I mean, YYW is incorrect, but the whole discussion is rather petty.

Semantics are always petty.

Hence my lack of a response.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 9:57:27 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 5:50:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/12/2016 9:22:03 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/12/2016 3:52:47 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
You guys should close your subpar dictionaries, kiss, and make up.

I mean, YYW is incorrect, but the whole discussion is rather petty.

Semantics are always petty.

But, I didn't get that the article was necessarily gung-ho about everyone adopting their own labels. More so, I thought the article critiqued the point of labels altogether. Case-in-point, "Call yourself whatever you like, and express that identity however you like, but don"t expect anyone else to care, let alone to afford you special political privileges on the basis of it."

Yeah, that's what I got out of it as well. Which is true. The amount of acronyms is just idiotic at this point, and it's an excuse for people to feel like a special snowflake. Honestly, it reminds me of the theological debates that tore the nascent church apart, like the centuries-long conflict over Arianism, which one historian summed up as a 'quarrel over a dipthong.' If Western society as a whole ever seriously invests in examining the differences between 'velocigender' and 'ectogender', then progressivism has entered its own little dark age.

I agree. TN05 created a thread some time ago where we discussed it. I think, if I recall rightly, that I said LGBTIQAP is about as far as I'd go, acronym-wise. But really, I think that the atmosphere of an us-vs.-them, which is what the acronym effectively creates, is often detrimental, though it can be usefully descriptive.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 3:50:49 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 6:36:25 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:50:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/12/2016 9:22:03 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/12/2016 3:52:47 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
You guys should close your subpar dictionaries, kiss, and make up.

I mean, YYW is incorrect, but the whole discussion is rather petty.

Semantics are always petty.


I take issue with this usage of "petty". What dictionary are you associated with?

Only the best, darling.

https://ahdictionary.com...
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 3:53:17 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/13/2016 3:50:49 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/12/2016 6:36:25 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:50:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/12/2016 9:22:03 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 1/12/2016 3:52:47 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
You guys should close your subpar dictionaries, kiss, and make up.

I mean, YYW is incorrect, but the whole discussion is rather petty.

Semantics are always petty.


I take issue with this usage of "petty". What dictionary are you associated with?

Only the best, darling.

https://ahdictionary.com...

I knew you were going to respond to that and end it with ", darling".
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King