• Chelsea Manning allowed to have hormone therapy
    222 replies, posted
here's an idea awpersarebad is a transphobe and has issues
[QUOTE=Kardia;47153170]I'm sorry for making you people feel bad, but I still think it's just an opinion that Awper held that got them banned. Not hate-speech. Calling Chelsea a "thing" shows a visceral hatred, but the hatred is not related to transgenderism. It's due to another reason. This was brilliantly prophetic. Here Awper implied that Chelsea is a terrible person due to something other than gender identity. This statement is clear and shows Awper has a level of hatred towards Chelsea for some reason, but not due to transphobia. There we have it. Awper's declaration of reasoning. I understand that it's disputable, maybe Awper is lying, but Awper is innocent until proven guilty. Awper considers transgenderism a disorder. Is that hate-speech? Or is it an opinion? Should they be banned for this belief?[/QUOTE] Why are you defending him so vehemently? Im trying to think of a reason and I've come to two 1. You're transphobic too 2. You are an idiot and do not seem to understand how to read his posts. He can debate all he wants, but there is no debate. There is no 'differeing values'. You can believe what the you want and you can say 'wow he is a gross guy who wants to be a girl!!!' but thats not how it works. Thats the great thing about science. It doesnt matter what you say, believe, or think. Science is a fact, and your debate wont change it. Now stop trying to defend a transphobe for ignorant reasons.
[QUOTE=zerothefallen;47153297]Why are you defending him so vehemently? Im trying to think of a reason and I've come to two 1. You're transphobic too 2. You are an idiot and do not seem to understand how to read his posts.[/QUOTE] Define transphobic and I'll give you an answer. [QUOTE=zerothefallen;47153297]He can debate all he wants, but there is no debate. There is no 'differeing values'. You can believe what the you want and you can say 'wow he is a gross guy who wants to be a girl!!!' but thats not how it works. Thats the great thing about science. It doesnt matter what you say, believe, or think. Science is a fact, and your debate wont change it.[/QUOTE] Don't be ridiculous. People argue within the scientific realm all the time. Transgenderism was considered one way before and is considered another way now and it will probably be considered differently in the future and people's debates and research will fuel these developments. Your idea of science as an unchanging thing is disgusting. [EDIT] And above, when I say science, I mean scientific knowledge.
[QUOTE=Kardia;47152599]I always get sad when I see people removed from discussions simply for having opposing views to the majority. Regardless of their views.[/QUOTE] xkcd explains it better than i can [IMG]http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png[/IMG] there are other platforms for one's views than an obscure gaming forum made by an hl2 mod developer, so getting all internet-libertarian about shit like this is just a waste of time. if i decide to go on stormfront and subsequently post articles from rationalwiki and the huffington post then i should expect to be harassed if not banned and i have no right to complain about it
Threads like this turn into "Share our opinions or go to hell", basically Which is a bit sad when this place used to be pretty good for intelligent discussions
[QUOTE=Kardia;47153170]I'm sorry for making you people feel bad, but I still think it's just an opinion that Awper held that got them banned. Not hate-speech. Calling Chelsea a "thing" shows a visceral hatred, but the hatred is not related to transgenderism. It's due to another reason. This was brilliantly prophetic. Here Awper implied that Chelsea is a terrible person due to something other than gender identity. This statement is clear and shows Awper has a level of hatred towards Chelsea for some reason, but not due to transphobia. There we have it. Awper's declaration of reasoning. I understand that it's disputable, maybe Awper is lying, but Awper is innocent until proven guilty. Awper considers transgenderism a disorder. Is that hate-speech? Or is it an opinion? Should they be banned for this belief?[/QUOTE] yes someone who refuses to use the correct pronouns regarding a transgender person & then compares transgenderism to schizophrenia and then starts harping on about PC warriors should be banned [editline]17th February 2015[/editline] an opinion isn't some magical mystical thing that is utterly free from criticism or consequence and it's not a talisman against getting banned on an internet forum
[QUOTE=joes33431;47153607]xkcd explains it better than i can [IMG]http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] I agree with this. Awper was shoved out the door, and FP should be free to do shove anyone out. I respect FP's freedom to moderate their own site. But respect doesn't mean unquestioning submission. [QUOTE=joes33431;47153607]there are other platforms for one's views than an obscure gaming forum made by an hl2 mod developer, so getting all internet-libertarian about shit like this is just a waste of time.[/QUOTE] I'm not being an internet-libertarian. The internet doesn't need a libertarian, it's already free as fuck. But facepunch? Not so much. I'm just expressing my views on the ban policy and how it's implemented. Is that a bannable offence? It would be hilarious if it was. [QUOTE=joes33431;47153607]if i decide to go on stormfront and subsequently post articles from rationalwiki and the huffington post then i should expect to be harassed if not banned and i have no right to complain about it[/QUOTE] I think you have the right to communicate whatever you're capable of communicating as long it itself is not illegal. But I get your drift. You have no right to bring legal action.
The thing is no one wants to respect someone who utterly refuses to respect the discussion, and the people in the discussion
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;47153639]an opinion isn't some magical mystical thing that is utterly free from criticism or consequence and it's not a talisman against getting banned on an internet forum[/QUOTE] I'm not saying they should be immune to bans. I'm saying that their words aren't actually as hateful as popularly believed. [QUOTE=Lachz0r;47153639]yes someone who refuses to use the correct pronouns regarding a transgender person & then compares transgenderism to schizophrenia and then starts harping on about PC warriors should be banned[/QUOTE] Well I don't think so. But if that's the policy most people want, then that's the policy that should be in place. I am one of the people though. [editline]16th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47153733]The thing is no one wants to respect someone who utterly refuses to respect the discussion, and the people in the discussion[/QUOTE] Yeah, that's a good point. Awper didn't try hard enough to express their views in a tasteful manner. They should have been more cautious of most people's views here.
[QUOTE=Kardia;47153757]I'm not saying they should be immune to bans. I'm saying that their words aren't actually as hateful as popularly believed. Well I don't think so. But if that's the policy most people want, then that's the policy that should be in place. I am one of the people though.[/QUOTE] There's a difference in what he was saying, and what people who don't get banned say. The main difference is spitefulness. He was being spiteful in a manner that was purely disrespectful and disregarding of both medical fact, and peoples feelings. He was readily making statements that he didn't leave any leeway with in a manner that wasn't open to discussion, but was one making a clear attempt to disparage the people this discussion itself revolves around.
'Calling Chelsea a "thing" shows a visceral hatred' i dunno man visceral hatred sounds pretty brutal? unless you mean he's not transphoic? he literally compares it to schizophrenia & refuses to use someones proper pronounds
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47153786]There's a difference in what he was saying, and what people who don't get banned say. The main difference is spitefulness. He was being spiteful in a manner that was purely disrespectful and disregarding of both medical fact, and peoples feelings. He was readily making statements that he didn't leave any leeway with in a manner that wasn't open to discussion, but was one making a clear attempt to disparage the people this discussion itself revolves around.[/QUOTE] It was spiteful. But I think the spite was due to Chelsea's intelligence related behavior in the military, not related to the gender topic. Respecting people's opinions is one thing, but respecting it to the point where communication get's distorted or self censored is a problem for me. I'm okay with the disrespect as long as the goal was to communicate something, like an opinion, and not to simply hurt people's feelings. Disregarding medical fact is something Awper can expect criticism for, and rightly so. Especially without backing anything up. Saying his goal was to hurt people seems ludicrous to me. [editline]16th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Lachz0r;47153792]'Calling Chelsea a "thing" shows a visceral hatred' i dunno man visceral hatred sounds pretty brutal? unless you mean he's not transphoic? he literally compares it to schizophrenia & refuses to use someones proper pronounds[/QUOTE] I think saying "thing" was an insult to Manning's humanity, not gender identity. But the usage of "he" on multiple occasions was transphobic. Awper was transphobic. But I don't think he hated transgender people.
[QUOTE=Jebus;47153637]Threads like this turn into "Share our opinions or go to hell", basically Which is a bit sad when this place used to be pretty good for intelligent discussions[/QUOTE] There's only so much intelligent discussion you can get when the opposing opinion is "gas the minorities".
[QUOTE=Kardia;47154010]It was spiteful. But I think the spite was due to Chelsea's intelligence related behavior in the military, not related to the gender topic. Respecting people's opinions is one thing, but respecting it to the point where communication get's distorted or self censored is a problem for me. I'm okay with the disrespect as long as the goal was to communicate something, like an opinion, and not to simply hurt people's feelings. Disregarding medical fact is something Awper can expect criticism for, and rightly so. Especially without backing anything up. Saying his goal was to hurt people seems ludicrous to me. [editline]16th February 2015[/editline] I think saying "thing" was an insult to Manning's humanity, not gender identity. But the usage of "he" on multiple occasions was transphobic. Awper was transphobic. But I don't think he hated transgender people.[/QUOTE] Being transphobic and 'hating trans people' kinda go hand in hand. When [url=http://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2015/02/16/ohio-murder-may-mark-sixth-killing-trans-woman-us-2015-0]half a dozen trans women have been murdered[/url] because of views [U]exactly like[/U] Awper's, there's a need to show that said views are unacceptable.
[QUOTE=Prismatex;47154235]Being transphobic and 'hating trans people' kinda go hand in hand. When [url=http://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2015/02/16/ohio-murder-may-mark-sixth-killing-trans-woman-us-2015-0]half a dozen trans women have been murdered[/url] because of views [U]exactly like[/U] Awper's, there's a need to show that said views are unacceptable.[/QUOTE] I disagree. Tell me if you can, what exactly are Awper's views? Because I can easily imagine him condoning the death of Manning, because of the intelligence leaks, not Chelsea's gender identify.
[QUOTE=Kardia;47154315]I disagree. Tell me if you can, what exactly are Awper's views? Because I can easily imagine him condoning the death of Manning, because of the intelligence leaks, not Chelsea's gender identify.[/QUOTE] Calling her a thing. Saying that she suffers from a mental disorder akin to schizophrenia. Saying that society 'coddles' trans people. Misgendering her multiple times.
[QUOTE=Kardia;47154315]I disagree. Tell me if you can, what exactly are Awper's views? Because I can easily imagine him condoning the death of Manning, because of the intelligence leaks, not Chelsea's gender identify.[/QUOTE] So if I said something horribly racist about one person who did one bad thing, you'd assume my views are narrow and that hatred is limited to one person, or would you assume i'm a horrible racist? Generally saying horribly racist things means you're a horrible racist and there's no leap to make there.
[QUOTE=Prismatex;47154322]Calling her a thing. Saying that she suffers from a mental disorder akin to schizophrenia. Saying that society 'coddles' trans people. Misgendering her multiple times.[/QUOTE] The "thing" thing (*chuckles*) is because of Chelsea's military action's I believe. When Awper was questioned on their use of the word "thing", the response was: [QUOTE=AwpersAreBad;47152268]He'd be less than a human being even if he didn't think he was a woman.[/QUOTE] This shows Awpers disregard for gender when calling Manning a "thing." Of course, you can say Awper is untrustworthy and has a hidden agenda. I disagree about the agenda, but it's an understandable accusation. The mental disorder thing, is just an opinion I believe, though a controversial one in the world of modern medicine. It's an opinion that someone would hold, when they do not view gender in a strictly scientific way... but instead subjectively, unrestricted by scientific knowledge and labels. Awper does not agree with the scientific consensus. This does not mean he hates people. Saying society coddles trans people is an odd one. Awper said: [QUOTE=AwpersAreBad;47152318]I'm an asshole because I see a society feeding into destructive delusions.[/QUOTE] He considers transgenderism a disorder that should be averted, he thinks society's embracement of the "disorder" is harmful... he didn't state any reasons as to why this might be the case, but I hardly see how this means he hates transgender people. Misgendering is not hatred. I think it's due to the opinions Awper has on the subject of gender.
His tone throughout the whole conversation wasn't exactly one open to discussion, he was insulting a group and a particular person. He considers transgerism a "destructive delusion". That's a pretty loaded and spiteful statement. Misgendering is proof of lack of respect and intent to disrepsect which is the same as hating.
[QUOTE=Kardia;47153410] Don't be ridiculous. People argue within the scientific realm all the time. Transgenderism was considered one way before and is considered another way now and it will probably be considered differently in the future and people's debates and research will fuel these developments.[/QUOTE] We have a fairly good idea of how things currently work right now. Theories about evolution or germs are considered differently to when they were first proposed. They are still generally true however, much like the recent work on gender identity disorder. While there is no evidence for non-binary genders, there is ample scientific evidence supporting the view that gender identity disorder is not only real, but something that affects a considerable number of people and can be actually treated by doctors with things such as hormones and surgery.
[QUOTE=Kardia;47154010]It was spiteful. But I think the spite was due to Chelsea's intelligence related behavior in the military, not related to the gender topic. Respecting people's opinions is one thing, but respecting it to the point where communication get's distorted or self censored is a problem for me. I'm okay with the disrespect as long as the goal was to communicate something, like an opinion, and not to simply hurt people's feelings. Disregarding medical fact is something Awper can expect criticism for, and rightly so. Especially without backing anything up. Saying his goal was to hurt people seems ludicrous to me. [editline]16th February 2015[/editline] I think saying "thing" was an insult to Manning's humanity, not gender identity. But the usage of "he" on multiple occasions was transphobic. Awper was transphobic. But I don't think he hated transgender people.[/QUOTE] yo dawg you're trying to rationalize the actions of a transphobe; someone who holds an irrational position by default.
[QUOTE=Kardia;47154458]The "thing" thing (*chuckles*) is because of Chelsea's military action's I believe. When Awper was questioned on their use of the word "thing", the response was: This shows Awpers disregard for gender when calling Manning a "thing." Of course, you can say Awper is untrustworthy and has a hidden agenda. I disagree about the agenda, but it's an understandable accusation. The mental disorder thing, is just an opinion I believe, though a controversial one in the world of modern medicine. It's an opinion that someone would hold, when they do not view gender in a strictly scientific way... but instead subjectively, unrestricted by scientific knowledge and labels. Awper does not agree with the scientific consensus. This does not mean he hates people. Saying society coddles trans people is an odd one. Awper said: He considers transgenderism a disorder that should be averted, he thinks society's embracement of the "disorder" is harmful... he didn't state any reasons as to why this might be the case, but I hardly see how this means he hates transgender people. Misgendering is not hatred. I think it's due to the opinions Awper has on the subject of gender.[/QUOTE] he's calling it a destructive delusion. and yes, misgendering IS hatred (unless you consider knowingly saying hateful things as not hatred???' [editline]17th February 2015[/editline] it's basically like using a slur over and over despite being told it's an offensive and hateful thing to say
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47154338]So if I said something horribly racist about one person who did one bad thing, you'd assume my views are narrow and that hatred is limited to one person, or would you assume i'm a horrible racist? Generally saying horribly racist things means you're a horrible racist and there's no leap to make there.[/QUOTE] I think the hatred for Manning is narrow, and not due to gender. However, I think the transphobia Awper has is all encompassing. It's not limited to one person. I think the situation is different to your questions basis. A more apt, but weird question would be "[I]If I called Hitler a black person, who committed horrible atrocities and deserved to die, would you assume i'm a horrible racist? Calling for the death of blacks? Or would you assume I'm an idiot who doesn't view race correctly?[/I]" Does labeling Hitler incorrectly mean I have a hatred towards any group of people? Or is it just dumb and ridiculous.
Labeling a person as a different pronoun goes a lot further than that though. So you admit he has transphobia? Then how can you tell where that "narrow" hatred is from? The misgendering is a pretty good example of why the transphobia is as important as the "traitor" thing.
purposefully misgendering a trans* person isn't like calling a white person black it's more akin to a slur
[QUOTE=Kardia;47154458]When Awper was questioned on their use of the word "thing", the response was: [quote]He'd be less than a human being even if he didn't think he was a woman.[/quote] This shows Awpers disregard for gender when calling Manning a "thing." Of course, you can say Awper is untrustworthy and has a hidden agenda. I disagree about the agenda, but it's an understandable accusation. The mental disorder thing, is just an opinion I believe, though a controversial one in the world of modern medicine. It's an opinion that someone would hold, when they do not view gender in a strictly scientific way... but instead subjectively, unrestricted by scientific knowledge and labels. Awper does not agree with the scientific consensus. This does not mean he hates people.[/QUOTE] Note how he says "even if"? That implies that he would think Manning was a "thing" if they weren't trans, but they think they're even more of a "thing" because they are. If he wanted to clarify "I don't think they're a thing because they're trans", he should have said that rather than "they would still be a thing even if they weren't trans".
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47154470]His tone throughout the whole conversation wasn't exactly one open to discussion, he was insulting a group and a particular person. He considers transgerism a "destructive delusion". That's a pretty loaded and spiteful statement. Misgendering is proof of lack of respect and intent to disrepsect which is the same as hating.[/QUOTE] I don't think disrespect is the same as hating, ever. [QUOTE=Deng;47154481]We have a fairly good idea of how things currently work right now. Theories about evolution or germs are considered differently to when they were first proposed. They are still generally true however, much like the recent work on gender identity disorder. While there is no evidence for non-binary genders, there is ample scientific evidence supporting the view that gender identity disorder is not only real, but something that affects a considerable number of people and can be actually treated by doctors with things such as hormones and surgery.[/QUOTE] I agree. [QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;47154511]yo dawg you're trying to rationalize the actions of a transphobe; someone who holds an irrational position by default.[/QUOTE] I'm not going to default anyone to any position just because they are transphobic. [QUOTE=Lachz0r;47154597]he's calling it a destructive delusion.[/QUOTE] So? [QUOTE=Lachz0r;47154597]and yes, misgendering IS hatred (unless you consider knowingly saying hateful things as not hatred???'[/QUOTE] Is it a hateful thing though? Or is it an opinion on gender? I think it's the latter. [QUOTE=Lachz0r;47154597]it's basically like using a slur over and over despite being told it's an offensive and hateful thing to say[/QUOTE] A slur is not hateful to me. They are offensive. But hateful they are not. If however someone was to verbally abuse someone, intentionally, I would consider that a hateful act regardless of words used. Offensive or not.
Words don't have to be used offensively to convey hatred. I could make an eloquent, hate free speech condemning large groups as horrible untermensch, under your reasoning that isn't hateful. The tone and intent matter a lot Under most people's it is though.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47154645]Labeling a person as a different pronoun goes a lot further than that though. So you admit he has transphobia? Then how can you tell where that "narrow" hatred is from? The misgendering is a pretty good example of why the transphobia is as important as the "traitor" thing.[/QUOTE] He is transphobic, he used unpreferred pronouns. I can't tell where the hatred is from though. And either can you. I'm going to assume the best of his character. He's innocent of hateful transphobia until I see proof otherwise.
If you can admit he's transphobic, I think we both know where that hated comes from
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.