• NUS tells LGBT societies to abolish gay men’s reps because ‘they don’t face oppression’
    148 replies, posted
[QUOTE=mooman1080;49986299]My understanding of the world cis is that it stands for "comfortable in skin" in that context I would say you could argue it doesn't fully apply to someone who is gay. [/QUOTE] ok. gonna redefine gay as acronym of "guys are yummy" now [QUOTE=mooman1080;49986299] Regardless I fully believe we're beyond the point of way you say use it and believe it really is just a derogatory term.[/QUOTE] You can say the same thing about straight/"breeder" but nobody actually cries about being called straight. It's incredibly wierd how worked up people get over 'cis'. You know "it's a slur!' started from groups who literally hate transwomen trying play the victim?
I can see what they mean in that "gay men are too much of the face of LGBT", but there's better ways to go about doing this like just launching more awareness campaigns for transgender individuals and explaining sexual orientation in a broader scope, maybe instead giving a few extra seats to people on the other spots that are more marginalized. I don't know I don't run student unions but when they say "gay men don't face oppression", they generally mean within the LGBT community itself and not within greater society. There's likely better options than just doing this but I can see the motivation behind it a bit, but the action itself is kind of inappropriate.
Dan Savage defending conversion therapy proponents from "the mean trans savages on twitter" perfectly encapsulates the kind of intra-LGBT frustrations we have atm.
[QUOTE=mooman1080;49986299]My understanding of the world cis is that it stands for "comfortable in skin" in that context I would say you could argue it doesn't fully apply to someone who is gay. Regardless I fully believe we're beyond the point of way you say use it and believe it really is just a derogatory term.[/QUOTE] I feel fairly comfortable in my own skin, there's been a decline of internalized homophobia as LGBT acceptance rises. Trans don't feel comfortable in their own skin at all, that's the entire thing behind Trans. You need to stop seeing gender theory as a bunch of people on tumblr saying the occasional silly thing and see it as a school of thought with scientific backing behind many of its ideas. Places like TumblrInAction and KotakuInAction poison your mind into building some narrative of an enemy that barely exists. Then as you build up this, you slowly disassociate the extremists from the moderates and in doing so become more extreme yourself. Go talk with a social science or history professor that specializes in gender if you're in college, ask questions and listen to what they have to say. Hell like a majority of the professors in a college will probably say they back a lot of gender theory. Must have some legitimacy and not be a "bogus science" if the very same people who study the statistics, case studies and theory for nearly a decade believe it has some merit. There's hard data from multiple studies backing all social science, it isn't people just doing purely guess work. It's forming a hypothesis, looking at facts, conducting studies and tests, analyzing data, they employ the same scientific method as natural scientists.
[QUOTE=GarbageCan;49992340]I feel fairly comfortable in my own skin, there's been a decline of internalized homophobia as LGBT acceptance rises. Trans don't feel comfortable in their own skin at all, that's the entire thing behind Trans. You need to stop seeing gender theory as a bunch of people on tumblr saying the occasional silly thing and see it as a school of thought with scientific backing behind many of its ideas. Places like TumblrInAction and KotakuInAction poison your mind into building some narrative of an enemy that barely exists. Then as you build up this, you slowly disassociate the extremists from the moderates and in doing so become more extreme yourself. Go talk with a social science or history professor that specializes in gender if you're in college, ask questions and listen to what they have to say. Hell like a majority of the professors in a college will probably say they back a lot of gender theory. Must have some legitimacy and not be a "bogus science" if the very same people who study the statistics, case studies and theory for nearly a decade believe it has some merit. There's hard data from multiple studies backing all social science, it isn't people just doing purely guess work. It's forming a hypothesis, looking at facts, conducting studies and tests, analyzing data, they employ the same scientific method as natural scientists.[/QUOTE] Are you going to be blaming GG for pretty much anything, and everything you can? I just bring it up because you name drop it often enough.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49992594]Are you going to be blaming GG for pretty much anything, and everything you can? I just bring it up because you name drop it often enough.[/QUOTE] huh? he didn't mention gamergate anywhere in that post?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49992633]huh? he didn't mention gamergate anywhere in that post?[/QUOTE] KIA and TIA, how is that not essentially the same thing at this point especially having seen him drop it else where
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49992641]KIA and TIA, how is that not essentially the same thing at this point especially having seen him drop it else where[/QUOTE] KiA and TiA are fucking trashheaps even without the GG affiliation. Nothing more than a weirdly obsessive group of clowns going out of their way to blow up some comments on the Internet that would have made no impact and be seen by approaching zero people otherwise. TiA more than KiA, but they both still suck super hard. Mentioning them and their complete lack of understanding about the social sciences doesn't mean someone is dragging GG into the discussion. Just calling assholes, assholes.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;49992685]KiA and TiA are fucking trashheaps even without the GG affiliation. Nothing more than a weirdly obsessive group of clowns going out of their way to blow up some comments on the Internet that would have made no impact and be seen by approaching zero people otherwise. TiA more than KiA, but they both still suck super hard. Mentioning them and their complete lack of understanding about the social sciences doesn't mean someone is dragging GG into the discussion. Just calling assholes, assholes.[/QUOTE] I don't go to either so I don't know or really care about them as communities but the association was obvious to me. If it wasn't implied, cool, but I feel it was implied.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49992641]KIA and TIA, how is that not essentially the same thing at this point especially having seen him drop it else where[/QUOTE] Ah, I don't really know much about gamergate so I didn't know tumblrinaction was a gamergate thing
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49992641]KIA and TIA, how is that not essentially the same thing at this point especially having seen him drop it else where[/QUOTE] I mean, it's very very clear by looking at the daily KotakuInAction front page and the comments it attracts that they subscribe heavily to reactionary politics. They love Breitbart, Milo, Sommers, etc and have a special "social justice" tag. Not to mention all the mass feminism hate behind it, some transphobia I've seen, hatred of BLM. Hell, they complained about the pettiest thing: a father making a classic Zelda game gender-neutral for his daughter. They take an extremist reactionary stance on anything even moderately promoting diversity, even when said thing has 0 to do with video games. You can deny it all you want, but GamerGate has a lot of reactionary conservative politics in its movement. It's why people like Milo have latched onto it and use it as their manipulated parade. That isn't to say everyone involved in GamerGate is, but I just see it as a trend that picks up a lot of momentum among GamerGate affiliates. I don't care about perusing Ethics in Gaming Journalism or whatever; do what you want in that regard.
[QUOTE=GarbageCan;49992733]I mean, it's very very clear by looking at the daily KotakuInAction front page and the comments it attracts that they subscribe heavily to reactionary politics. They love Breitbart, Milo, Sommers, etc and have a special "social justice" tag. Not to mention all the mass feminism hate behind it, some transphobia I've seen, hatred of BLM. Hell, they complained about the pettiest thing: a father making a classic Zelda game gender-neutral for his daughter. They take an extremist reactionary stance on anything even moderately promoting diversity, even when said thing has 0 to do with video games. You can deny it all you want, but GamerGate has a lot of reactionary conservative politics in its movement. It's why people like Milo have latched onto it and use it as their manipulated parade. That isn't to say everyone involved in GamerGate is, but I just see it as a trend that picks up a lot of momentum among GamerGate affiliates. I don't care about perusing Ethics in Gaming Journalism or whatever; do what you want in that regard.[/QUOTE] I love how someone like Sommers just gets denegrated and devalued because they picked the "wrong" side. I have no love for Milo or breitbart but I can't help but laugh at the handwavey, dismissive nature of it all.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49992816]I love how someone like Sommers just gets denegrated and devalued because they picked the "wrong" side. I have no love for Milo or breitbart but I can't help but laugh at the handwavey, dismissive nature of it all.[/QUOTE] Well I mean, she's a reactionary conservative who believes heavily in traditional gender roles and has absolutely nothing to do with video games at all, but Gamergate has latched onto her because a female "feminist" is a useful rallying banner to their anti-feminist cause; much like how a racist would use an "Acceptable" black person to dissolute any idea they're racist (both for themselves and for others), or how a fraternity would use an "acceptable" gay person who "doesn't act all gay and gross" to justify their homophobia. Using allies within a subject of hatred (seriously, there was black KKK members) isn't anything new. I wouldn't consider her a feminist since the only feminist thought she supports is universal woman's suffrage and we're long past that point already: she disregards everything else about gender theory which is the major body of modern feminism. I mean you can pull "No True Scotsman" or whatever I'm invoking but to use an example supporting homosexual marriage alone doesn't make you a progressive since progressiveness is a massive body of thoughts and ideas all coming together. Anyway, don't see any gaming journalism efforts in support of her, really. I doubt she even cares about video games and is just being an opportunist ala Milo. She's got a doctorate so she's likely a very smart woman in her field but I can find 3 other people with doctorates in related fields who disagree with her ideas of gender theory.
[QUOTE=GarbageCan;49992984]Well I mean, she's a reactionary conservative who believes heavily in traditional gender roles and has absolutely nothing to do with video games at all, but Gamergate has latched onto her because a female "feminist" is a useful rallying banner to their anti-feminist cause; much like how a racist would use an "Acceptable" black person to dissolute any idea they're racist (both for themselves and for others), or how a fraternity would use an "acceptable" gay person who "doesn't act all gay and gross" to justify their homophobia. Using allies within a subject of hatred (seriously, there was black KKK members) isn't anything new. I wouldn't consider her a feminist since the only feminist thought she supports is universal woman's suffrage and we're long past that point already: she disregards everything else about gender theory which is the major body of modern feminism. I mean you can pull "No True Scotsman" or whatever I'm invoking but to use an example supporting homosexual marriage alone doesn't make you a progressive since progressiveness is a massive body of thoughts and ideas all coming together. Anyway, don't see any gaming journalism efforts in support of her, really. I doubt she even cares about video games and is just being an opportunist ala Milo. She's got a doctorate so she's likely a very smart woman in her field but I can find 3 other people with doctorates in related fields who disagree with her ideas of gender theory.[/QUOTE] She's a registered democrat. I like how any woman or minority person who disagrees with your political beliefs is a "accepted" token with internalized evilness. I also like how you imply that if someone isnt a liberal arts college style progressive they are automatically a conservative who believes in traditional gender roles. It's ironic that you seemingly understand that gender exists on a spectrum but when it comes to politics you seem to believe that people can only occupy 1 of two binary categories. There are many different forms of feminism, you cannot arbitrary claim that your version of feminism is the only one (and then disagree when people complain that feminists have an us or them mentality to boot). It is the literal definition of the no true scotsman fallacy.
[QUOTE=GarbageCan;49992984]Well I mean, she's a reactionary conservative who believes heavily in traditional gender roles and has absolutely nothing to do with video games at all, but Gamergate has latched onto her because a female "feminist" is a useful rallying banner to their anti-feminist cause; much like how a racist would use an "Acceptable" black person to dissolute any idea they're racist (both for themselves and for others), or how a fraternity would use an "acceptable" gay person who "doesn't act all gay and gross" to justify their homophobia. Using allies within a subject of hatred (seriously, there was black KKK members) isn't anything new. I wouldn't consider her a feminist since the only feminist thought she supports is universal woman's suffrage and we're long past that point already: she disregards everything else about gender theory which is the major body of modern feminism. I mean you can pull "No True Scotsman" or whatever I'm invoking but to use an example supporting homosexual marriage alone doesn't make you a progressive since progressiveness is a massive body of thoughts and ideas all coming together. Anyway, don't see any gaming journalism efforts in support of her, really. I doubt she even cares about video games and is just being an opportunist ala Milo. She's got a doctorate so she's likely a very smart woman in her field but I can find 3 other people with doctorates in related fields who disagree with her ideas of gender theory.[/QUOTE] Like this is getting wildly off topic, so I'd rather resort to PM's if you want to keep this going, but she's not a "reactionary" by any stretch, and she's not really even a "conservative"(You know you live in a weird time where the only way to be "liberal" is to be an extreme liberal). And again, this is kinda the weirdness GG brought out. People were so happy to go "#NotYourShield" are all sock puppets, and not real people". I studied feminism in college, and maybe it's been 3 years since then, but gender theory wasn't the basis of all thought, or schools of reasoning in feminsim. It was a stance, not [B]the[/B] stance. And I'm 100% for trans rights, and have quite a number of trans friends that I wholly love and support, so don't even dare accuse me of not being for them when I disagree with your notion of modern feminism being so heavily reliant on that gender theory, which, scientific consensus is not fully in yet for. What is "progressiveness"?
[QUOTE=Zyler;49993043]She's a registered democrat. I like how any woman or minority person who disagrees with your political beliefs is a "accepted" token with internalized evilness. I also like how you imply that if someone isnt a liberal arts college style progressive they are automatically a conservative who believes in traditional gender roles. It's ironic that you seemingly understand that gender exists on a spectrum but when it comes to politics you seem to believe that people can only occupy 1 of two binary categories.[/QUOTE] I never said that? I called her a reactionary conservative which, when it comes to some progressive politics, she very much is. I never said she has to be the grandmother of the republican party to only fit within that trope, political beliefs are definitely a spectrum and I like to look into such beliefs a lot in my personal time with research. You can be a registered democrat and still believe in fiscal liberal policy but go against any identity politics whatsoever, much like how a republican can be for homosexual marriage but believe in cutting taxes. I'm going off of what I've found on her and researched on her myself and come on, women and minorities being used to justify hatred of them or any help for them has long been a thing you can't deny that. It's why places like TumblrInAction love the hell out of her; she goes against the feminist agenda and is a woman to boot. You can probably find a black or two who hates blacklivesmatter, doesn't mean all women or minorities share that opinion. It's just they're useful to hate groups as a "See? I'm not sexist/racist/homophobic/etc, I have this person who agrees with me!" [editline]23rd March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49993061]Like this is getting wildly off topic, so I'd rather resort to PM's if you want to keep this going, but she's not a "reactionary" by any stretch, and she's not really even a "conservative"(You know you live in a weird time where the only way to be "liberal" is to be an extreme liberal). And again, this is kinda the weirdness GG brought out. People were so happy to go "#NotYourShield" are all sock puppets, and not real people". I studied feminism in college, and maybe it's been 3 years since then, but gender theory wasn't the basis of all thought, or schools of reasoning in feminsim. It was a stance, not [B]the[/B] stance. And I'm 100% for trans rights, and have quite a number of trans friends that I wholly love and support, so don't even dare accuse me of not being for them when I disagree with your notion of modern feminism being so heavily reliant on that gender theory, which, scientific consensus is not fully in yet for. What is "progressiveness"?[/QUOTE] Never at a point called you personally transphobic, and I doubt you are. Rather not take this any further, I'll leave it for a different thread.
[QUOTE=codenamecueball;49991457]so i am fairly familiar with the NUS and the internal working of a students union and i want to try explain this for folk not really familiar with this. what they're saying is that inside lgbt only representation groups, there shouldn't be a specific rep for cis gay men as inside the gay community as externally, they tend to dominate the narrative of mainstream lgbt politics and discussion, despite many contributions from people of colour and trans folk. it's essentially about giving a leg up for those getting treated a bit worse in lgbt communities (due to their colour or being bi or transphobia) so their voice is, in those circles, heard a little more. it's not about removing silencing lgbt men in the wider community or whatever, it's a few lines from a motion that was passed democratically by delegates at the lgbt conference which asks white cis men to stop dominating the narrative around queer spaces. this is probs a bit of a ramble since i'm tired but that's what i believe the motion to be about and the motivations behind it.[/QUOTE] What does "dominate the narrative" even mean? What are gay white men doing that they're supposed to stop? What is a "space", what is "the narrative" within it, and how is it being "dominated"? How does removing their representation in any way impact this supposed "domination"? Because what this sounds like to me isn't "gay cis white men are dominating the narrative within queer spaces", it sounds like "people are upset that other people are paying attention to gay cis white men". And instead of trying to figure out why that is, or doing something to call attention to whoever they think deserves attention, they've defaulted to shutting cis gay white men up. In my experience, when a group takes out it's frustration on someone who hasn't done anything wrong, it's because they're either too lazy or too inept to solve their problem. [editline]23rd March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=GarbageCan;49993146]I never said that? I called her a reactionary conservative which, when it comes to some progressive politics, she very much is. I never said she has to be the grandmother of the republican party to only fit within that trope, political beliefs are definitely a spectrum and I like to look into such beliefs a lot in my personal time with research. You can be a registered democrat and still believe in fiscal liberal policy but go against any identity politics whatsoever, much like how a republican can be for homosexual marriage but believe in cutting taxes. I'm going off of what I've found on her and researched on her myself and come on, women and minorities being used to justify hatred of them or any help for them has long been a thing you can't deny that. It's why places like TumblrInAction love the hell out of her; she goes against the feminist agenda and is a woman to boot. You can probably find a black or two who hates blacklivesmatter, doesn't mean all women or minorities share that opinion. It's just they're useful to hate groups as a "See? I'm not sexist/racist/homophobic/etc, I have this person who agrees with me!"[/QUOTE] What is it that she's said that's so conservative or reactionary? I hear this line all the time but I never see anyone point out what it is that makes her a conservative. and for what it's worth I don't think it matters whether she's a woman or not. She could be a silicone based crystal being from pluto and her arguments would be just as right or wrong.
[QUOTE=GarbageCan;49993146]I never said that? I called her a reactionary conservative which, when it comes to some progressive politics, she very much is. I never said she has to be the grandmother of the republican party to only fit within that trope, political beliefs are definitely a spectrum and I like to look into such beliefs a lot in my personal time with research. You can be a registered democrat and still believe in fiscal liberal policy but go against any identity politics whatsoever, much like how a republican can be for homosexual marriage but believe in cutting taxes. I'm going off of what I've found on her and researched on her myself and come on, women and minorities being used to justify hatred of them or any help for them has long been a thing you can't deny that. It's why places like TumblrInAction love the hell out of her; she goes against the feminist agenda and is a woman to boot. You can probably find a black or two who hates blacklivesmatter, doesn't mean all women or minorities share that opinion. It's just they're useful to hate groups as a "See? I'm not sexist/racist/homophobic/etc, I have this person who agrees with me!" [editline]23rd March 2016[/editline] Never at a point called you personally transphobic, and I doubt you are. Rather not take this any further, I'll leave it for a different thread.[/QUOTE] You called her conservative, she's not a conservative. You dont get to redesign reality to fit your preconceptions. You really cannot see the binary nature you're putting people into? You don't realize how nasty and cruel it is to call someone a 'token' and make statements about them that aren't true in order to make them look bad? Your way of approaching this conversation was to come in here and make assumptions about people who disagree with you, telling people they read kotakuinaction or whatever. You assume that because someone disagrees with you they hold a set of opinions they do not have. Every single assumption you have made about somebody in this thread has been wrong. Is it not possible that your way of approaching this thread has been incorrect?. I feel as though youve insulted me personally as you've knowingly or not made very sweeping statements about what people are allowed to believe. Can you also not see how claiming that any woman or minority who disagrees with you is a 'token' is also really insulting? You're argument rests on the assumption that women and minorities should not be allowed to hold their own opinions. You might not have intended that specifically, but it's directly implied by your statement. If women or minorites cannot hold opinions other than the ones you hold without being labeled and slandered, how could they possibly hold their own opinions? You say you support women's rights but you dont wish to allow women to hold their own opinions. Moreover you claim that if anyone doesn't agree with your paradoxical opinion, they aren't a real feminist. Can you seriously not understand how someone might take offense to that?
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49993199] and for what it's worth I don't think it matters whether she's a woman or not. She could be a silicone based crystal being from pluto and her arguments would be just as right or wrong.[/QUOTE] How many times does it have to be said that we don't live in a fantasy world where words exist in a vacuum free of all context on who said it, why they said it, the kind of person who said it, how the message is used? It's not so much that her arguments are wrong when I say this as that the message is being appropriated by people with an agenda to deflect any criticism of them being sexist when that isn't how it works. It's pretty clear I'm talking about those people, and not her, when I talk about the relation of her sex to the arguments she makes.
[QUOTE=GarbageCan;49993314]How many times does it have to be said that we don't live in a fantasy world where words exist in a vacuum free of all context on who said it, why they said it, the kind of person who said it, how the message is used? It's not so much that her arguments are wrong when I say this as that the message is being appropriated by people with an agenda to deflect any criticism of them being sexist when that isn't how it works. It's pretty clear I'm talking about those people, and not her, when I talk about the relation of her sex to the arguments she makes.[/QUOTE] If living in your world means that you get to dismiss what a woman says because you arbitrarily label them as 'conservative' then no, I don't want to live in your world. You do realize by labeling somebody as conservative, making wrongful statements about their beliefs and claiming that they aren't a real feminist you are talking about them right? Nevermind you're actually insulting them too.
There's been this blowback and discrimination of gay men in the (mostly radical) lgbt community lately that has been super gross and hateful. I'm convinced that it's rooted in that we're cis men and that's bullshit tbh.
[QUOTE=GarbageCan;49993314]How many times does it have to be said that we don't live in a fantasy world where words exist in a vacuum free of all context on who said it, why they said it, the kind of person who said it, how the message is used? It's not so much that her arguments are wrong when I say this as that the message is being appropriated by people with an agenda to deflect any criticism of them being sexist when that isn't how it works. It's pretty clear I'm talking about those people, and not her, when I talk about the relation of her sex to the arguments she makes.[/QUOTE] If someone tries to make the evidently nonsensical argument that all of their ideas are correct and that they aren't sexist because they agree with a woman, feel free to point that out. Until then, why bother bringing up an argument that no one's made? We could spend all day talking about all the stupid arguments that some people somewhere make. It just seems like a waste of time. [editline]23rd March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Duck M.;49993370]There's been this blowback and discrimination of gay men in the (mostly radical) lgbt community lately that has been super gross and hateful. I'm convinced that it's rooted in that we're cis men and that's bullshit tbh.[/QUOTE] It's the logical conclusion of the whole "progressive stack" mentality. Whoever is perceived to be at the top is seen as oppressing whoever is at the bottom. You get this "crabs in a bucket" situation where everyone drags down whoever is the least worst off and nothing constructive ever happens
I would probably describe her as a Classical Liberal (which for some reason is labelled as a 'Libertarian' in the US) or a Neo-Conservative (given that she works at the American Enterprise Institute).
[QUOTE=GarbageCan;49992340]I feel fairly comfortable in my own skin, there's been a decline of internalized homophobia as LGBT acceptance rises. Trans don't feel comfortable in their own skin at all, that's the entire thing behind Trans. You need to stop seeing gender theory as a bunch of people on tumblr saying the occasional silly thing and see it as a school of thought with scientific backing behind many of its ideas. Places like TumblrInAction and KotakuInAction poison your mind into building some narrative of an enemy that barely exists. Then as you build up this, you slowly disassociate the extremists from the moderates and in doing so become more extreme yourself. Go talk with a social science or history professor that specializes in gender if you're in college, ask questions and listen to what they have to say. Hell like a majority of the professors in a college will probably say they back a lot of gender theory. Must have some legitimacy and not be a "bogus science" if the very same people who study the statistics, case studies and theory for nearly a decade believe it has some merit. There's hard data from multiple studies backing all social science, it isn't people just doing purely guess work. It's forming a hypothesis, looking at facts, conducting studies and tests, analyzing data, they employ the same scientific method as natural scientists.[/QUOTE] While I sort of agree, this school of thought actually DOES exist significantly on tumblr and elsewhere, it's not just cherrypicked by TIA posters that go out of their way to find incriminating things to post. I actively try to distance myself from this sort of stuff on my tumblr as I've been a pretty active user for a few years now but it comes up more often than I would like on my dash. While mooman is wrong about cis being inherently a derogatory term people certainly tend to use it that way.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49993415]While I sort of agree, this school of thought actually DOES exist significantly on tumblr and elsewhere, it's not just cherrypicked by TIA posters that go out of their way to find incriminating things to post. I actively try to distance myself from this sort of stuff on my tumblr as I've been a pretty active user for a few years now but it comes up more often than I would like on my dash. While mooman is wrong about cis being inherently a derogatory term people certainly tend to use it that way.[/QUOTE] What matters isn't the word, what matters is how it's used. Black can be used as an insult, and nigger can be used as a compliment. There is no such thing as an inherently unoffensive or offensive word. I think that's something a lot of progressives don't quite understand.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49993370]There's been this blowback and discrimination of gay men in the (mostly radical) lgbt community lately that has been super gross and hateful. I'm convinced that it's rooted in that we're cis men and that's bullshit tbh.[/QUOTE] Becasue the perception is that advancing/defending LGBT policies appears to have largely paused and groups like HRC have stopped caring, once gay marriage passed? And the rest of the groups are just kind of left out in the cold. [I]Right now[/I] in NC it's very likely to pass into law a statewide bill banning LGBT anti-discrimination policies. But if you look around basically only trans people are saying much about this?
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49993464]What matters isn't the word, what matters is how it's used. Black can be used as an insult, and nigger can be used as a compliment. There is no such thing as an inherently unoffensive or offensive word. I think that's something a lot of progressives don't quite understand.[/QUOTE] Eh I'd have to disagree with this. Lots of words are more offensive than others due to historical context, origin, primary usage, etc. Choosing to use a certain word when there are alternatives shows intent and motivation. The term cis is more of an inevitable conclusion to the term trans and is reasonably empirical in nature. There arent really any alternatives to it to use, and thus the toxicity and vitrol that exists in the LGBT community can get mixed in with people who just want to use it to distinguish cis and trans individuals.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49993464]What matters isn't the word, what matters is how it's used. Black can be used as an insult, and nigger can be used as a compliment. There is no such thing as an inherently unoffensive or offensive word. I think that's something a lot of progressives don't quite understand.[/QUOTE] Uh, who are you to say what black people can and can't get offended by? Yet again, words don't exist in a vacuum, they have decades and history surrounding them in how they were used relative to black people. Try going up to a black person and say "Hey good looking nigger" and see where it gets you. Make sure you pronounce your r as hard as you can, really stress it and let roll off your tongue. I'm sure they'll love it. Meanwhile, tell any normal ass person they're cis in a relevant context and they probably would say, yes, they're cis!
[QUOTE=emly;49993497]Becasue the perception is that advancing/defending LGBT policies appears to have largely paused and groups like HRC have stopped caring, once gay marriage passed? And the rest of the groups are just kind of left out in the cold. [I]Right now[/I] in NC it's very likely to pass into law a statewide bill banning LGBT anti-discrimination policies. But if you look around basically only trans people are saying much about this?[/QUOTE] If it seems like only trans people are talking, shouldn't that justify negative attitudes towards Lesbians and Bisexuals as well? Why stop there? If it seems cis black people aren't speaking out against certain issues, then would that justify negative sentiment against cis black people? Or we could recognize that all people are individuals responsible solely for their own actions and not judge people based off of perceived trends in the societal group we associate them with.
[QUOTE=GarbageCan;49992733]I mean, it's very very clear by looking at the daily KotakuInAction front page and the comments it attracts that they subscribe heavily to reactionary politics. They love Breitbart, Milo, Sommers, etc and have a special "social justice" tag. Not to mention all the mass feminism hate behind it, some transphobia I've seen, hatred of BLM. Hell, they complained about the pettiest thing: a father making a classic Zelda game gender-neutral for his daughter. They take an extremist reactionary stance on anything even moderately promoting diversity, even when said thing has 0 to do with video games. You can deny it all you want, but GamerGate has a lot of reactionary conservative politics in its movement. It's why people like Milo have latched onto it and use it as their manipulated parade. That isn't to say everyone involved in GamerGate is, but I just see it as a trend that picks up a lot of momentum among GamerGate affiliates. I don't care about perusing Ethics in Gaming Journalism or whatever; do what you want in that regard.[/QUOTE] I am going to be blunt. You have clearly shown time and time again that you have no interest in determining the facts involved in that issue. You see a thread about Milo getting his verification removed and you assume everyone's angry because it's Milo, and not because it's Twitter trying to police politics. If you want to try creating another cherry pick collage then feel free to because all I really have to do then is click the ethics tab and post a screenshot.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.