• NUS tells LGBT societies to abolish gay men’s reps because ‘they don’t face oppression’
    148 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49993994]To me this just seems like they're explaining the origin of their generalization, in which it (the origin) is pretty based in reality. I disagree with their fallacious use of generalization in this instance but once again, you're isolating this secondary point and argumentative tactic they're making that is independent of their primary argument as their primary argument itself. The quote you isolated is a means to an end, not the end itself.[/QUOTE] The only reason I didn't bring up the rest of the post is because it seems completely irrelevant. I don't think mooman ever said "gender science is bunk and cis is a made up word", so his argument about how mooman should speak to gender scientists seems kind of pointless. Although if I [I]had[/I] to complain, I'd say it's essentially just an appeal to authority and doesn't actually prove his premise.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49994000]I [I]really[/I] personally don't think so, but neither of us can back it up with statistical evidence that would amount to anything on this front.[/QUOTE] I have anecdotes but I know those are of no value in this discussion.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49993998]GarbageCan pretty much has yes, to my understanding by stating its never a term to get upset by[/QUOTE] Then I'm sad that he isn't responding. That's an issue I'd love to discuss.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49993994]To me this just seems like they're explaining the origin of their generalization, in which it (the origin) is pretty based in reality. I disagree with their fallacious use of generalization in this instance but once again, you're isolating this secondary point and argumentative tactic they're making that is independent of their primary argument as their primary argument itself. The quote you isolated is a means to an end, not the end itself.[/QUOTE] When a whole argument is based on generalizations, there's nothing that can really be done but to point out the generalizations. Whether a word is offensive or not depends on how the word is used and in what context and whether or not the recepient takes offense, there's no getting around that. Whether or not someone has been brainwashed by reddit due to holding a different opinion is absolutely irelevant.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49993994]The quote you isolated is a means to an end, not the end itself.[/QUOTE] Have we seriously just reached an ends justify the means point?
[QUOTE=Zyler;49993970]Thats not the argument, thats the claim being argued for.[/QUOTE] Are we assuming that "the base of the argument" and "the argument" are now functionally identical? As far as I understand, the base of the argument is the claim that is being made and that is being argued for, and perhaps the reality that it's grounded in. [QUOTE] Iregardless or whether or not it's true, it doesn't make the argument logical or rational. [B]I personally don't think "cis" is an insulting term, it can be used as one however. Just like "black" or "boy" isn't intrinsically offensive but can be if used in a specific context. [/B][/QUOTE] Yeah this is a good point and I think one that we (both me and GarbageCan) would both agree with, although I'm hesitant to put words in their mouth. [QUOTE] It's just a bad argument. You don't need to mislabel and insult people in order to make an argument. [/QUOTE] I dont think that's what they were doing or trying to accomplish. They were making an unfair generalization about the sources of mooman's beliefs, but it was hardly an insult and it was even less so a significant part of their argument. [QUOTE] If you're going to argue over the usage of a word, argue over the actual usage of the actual word, not "you disagree with me therefore you hold beliefs that you don't have".[/QUOTE] Agreed. The conclusion of your conditional seems somewhat disconnected however.
[QUOTE=mooman1080;49994037]Have we seriously just reached an ends justify the means point?[/QUOTE] No, he's just pointing out the fallacy fallacy. Just because one part of your argument is wrong doesn't mean that all of it is.
[QUOTE=mooman1080;49994037]Have we seriously just reached an ends justify the means point?[/QUOTE] Um, no? Using the words "ends" and "means" in a sentence does not denote an "ends justify the means" argument.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49994044]Are we assuming that "the base of the argument" and "the argument" are now functionally identical? As far as I understand, the base of the argument is the claim that is being made and that is being argued for, and perhaps the reality that it's grounded in. Yeah this is a good point and I think one that we (both me and GarbageCan) would both agree with, although I'm hesitant to put words in their mouth. I dont think that's what they were doing or trying to accomplish. They were making an unfair generalization about the sources of mooman's beliefs, but it was hardly an insult and it was even less so a significant part of their argument. Agreed. The conclusion of your conditional seems somewhat disconnected however.[/QUOTE] I think you should re-read what GarbageCan said. He very distinctly makes an insulting point in that anyone who visits those sights has a false narrative created for them and buys into said false narrative. The first point of offense is that "You're buying into a narrative, and aren't thinking this through for yourself" The second point of offense is the outright claim "That narrative is a lie, this is the correct narrative" Someone has full reasoning to be offended by the statement.
[QUOTE=Zyler;49994030]When a whole argument is based on generalizations, there's nothing that can really be done but to point out the generalizations. Whether a word is offensive or not depends on how the word is used and in what context and whether or not the recepient takes offense, there's no getting around that. Whether or not someone has been brainwashed by reddit due to holding a different opinion is absolutely irelevant.[/QUOTE] My point is that their entire argument isn't based on generalizations. Their claim that mooman's denotation of cis as a derogatory term is based in their participation in TiA and GG is, but everything else that they've posted? Hardly. [editline]23rd March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49994028]Then I'm sad that he isn't responding. That's an issue I'd love to discuss.[/QUOTE] Yeah haha, its a bit silly to be having an entire argument over the merits of someone's argument when that someone just disappeared from the thread lol. [editline]23rd March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49994015]The only reason I didn't bring up the rest of the post is because it seems completely irrelevant. I don't think mooman ever said "gender science is bunk and cis is a made up word", so his argument about how mooman should speak to gender scientists seems kind of pointless. Although if I [I]had[/I] to complain, I'd say it's essentially just an appeal to authority and doesn't actually prove his premise.[/QUOTE] What I feel as if GarbageCan's grievance with moomans posts were that despite being presented perfectly logical and academically-based reasoning as to why cis is not derogatory, he said "oh ok, but it's still derogatory because I say so". This caused Garbage to assume that the reason he was being so stubborn is because he was one of the TiA reactionary types that are entrenched in their socially conservative views because of anecdotal evidence they've been presented on such outlets. Just my general understanding of events. [editline]23rd March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49994017]I have anecdotes but I know those are of no value in this discussion.[/QUOTE] Yeah, that's the issue with anecdotal evidence. I have plenty on either side of the use but it's impossible to statistically determine which is more prevalent.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49994044]Are we assuming that "the base of the argument" and "the argument" are now functionally identical? As far as I understand, the base of the argument is the claim that is being made and that is being argued for, and perhaps the reality that it's grounded in.[/QUOTE] The contention of a speaker is the point they are attempting to convince the forum of. The argument they make is the logic and argumentative techniques they use to attempt to convince the forum of their contention. The contention of the speaker was "cis can not be used as an offensive statement" as they, as HumanAbys pointed out, stated to mooman that it was not a word to ever get offended over. The argument of the speaker was "the basis from which someone would need to find cis offensive requires that they are given misinformation by a subreddit, and that anyone who disagrees with that is either a denizen of that subreddit or a 'token' women or minority." I and others pointed out the problem with the argument, which was that it first of all involves an implicit assumption that anyone who has a viewpoint on this issue other than GabadgeCan's must be a member of a subreddit or a "token". It also implies that a person cannot have any other opinion other than the narrow definition they defined. Finally, it implies that women and minorities cannot possess their own opinions outside of what GarbadgeCan defines they should have without being derogatively insulted and mislabeled by being called "conservative" and "not a real feminist" and not being allowed to hold a legititmate individual opinion outside of a collective.
[QUOTE=Zyler;49994120]The contention of a speaker is the point they are attempting to convince the forum of. The argument they make is the logic and argumentative techniques they use to attempt to convince the forum of their contention. The contention of the speaker was "cis can not be used as an offensive statement" as they, as HumanAbys pointed out, stated to mooman that it was not a word to ever get offended over. The argument of the speaker was "the basis from which someone would need to find cis offensive requires that they are given misinformation by a subreddit, and that anyone who disagrees with that is either a denizen of that subreddit or a 'token' women or minority." I and others pointed out the problem with the argument, which was that it first of all involves an implicit assumption that anyone who has a viewpoint on this issue other than GabadgeCan's must be a member of a subreddit or a "token". It also implies that a person cannot have any other opinion other than the narrow definition they defined. Finally, it implies that women and minorities cannot possess their own opinions outside of what GarbadgeCan defines they should have without being derogatively insulted and mislabeled.[/QUOTE] But the contention (read: claim) [I]is[/I] part of the argument. Their argument was not "the basis from which someone would need to find cis... women or minority", but rather "Cis is not inherently offensive [B]because[/B] It's a dictionary definition term used in academics, LGBT organizations in understanding transgender issues, and various other institutes." What you construe as the argument is more of an amendment and garnish to the central argument that they're presenting in which they try to determine the source of mooman's beliefs through an admittedly unfair generalization. As far as I see it, this is the reality of the situation. You are absolutely correct that this part of his posts is fallacious but I'm arguing that this does not discredit everything else he brings up, as mooman was, in fact, discrediting everything else GarbageCan brought up because of it.
The most heated arguments are usually the ones based on preconceptions, mistrust, and misinterpretation. All of which are pretty easy to point out, and if everyone sincerely wants to discuss the topic, rectify. Arguments based on legitimate technical and logical disagreements are way more boring :y
Hell even a dummy like me can see on the stereotypes that lesbians are cute, bisexuals are misunderstood, and gays are just regulare blokes who does nasty things. I know there's a ton more to it, but looking at what I've written above off the top of my head, then sure as hell seems to me that male homosexuals' got the bad image here, and a bad image can quickly lead to "yeah sure he's a guy he'll take a punch or five" And come to think of it, why the hell's got whether someone's born with their prefered gender's got to do anything with oppression against women? Dykes are in the same boat as buttpirates, so surely that arguement's shit already.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49994184]But the contention (read: claim) [I]is[/I] part of the argument. Their argument was not "the basis from which someone would need to find cis... women or minority", but rather "Cis is not inherently offensive [B]because[/B] It's a dictionary definition term used in academics, LGBT organizations in understanding transgender issues, and various other institutes." What you construe as the argument is more of an amendment and garnish to the central argument that they're presenting in which they try to determine the source of mooman's beliefs through an admittedly unfair generalization. As far as I see it, this is the reality of the situation. You are absolutely correct that this part of his posts is fallacious but I'm arguing that this does not discredit everything else he brings up, as mooman was, in fact, discrediting everything else GarbageCan brought up because of it.[/QUOTE] The "you're just a dummy" part of the argument is annoying, because it gets in the way of the "any use of a word that doesn't fall within the TRUE definition doesn't count as a TRUE usage of the word" part So language is prescribed? Words can ONLY be used as defined by some undefined authority? Does that mean people don't have the right to be offended if you use "non offensive" words? Doesn't that seem like a huge loophole for justifying toxic behavior?
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49994184]But the contention (read: claim) [I]is[/I] part of the argument. Their argument was not "the basis from which someone would need to find cis... women or minority", but rather "Cis is not inherently offensive [B]because[/B] It's a dictionary definition term used in academics, LGBT organizations in understanding transgender issues, and various other institutes." What you construe as the argument is more of an amendment and garnish to the central argument that they're presenting in which they try to determine the source of mooman's beliefs through an admittedly unfair generalization. As far as I see it, this is the reality of the situation. You are absolutely correct that this part of his posts is fallacious but I'm arguing that this does not discredit everything else he brings up, as mooman was, in fact, discrediting everything else GarbageCan brought up because of it.[/QUOTE] It's the actual argument that I disagree with and was criticising, not the contention, as far as I can tell. That's why I'm making the distinction. If you want to get into the nitty gritty, dictionary definitions are not a good way of defining ostensible reality. First of all, according to the dictionary, "men" and "women" are strict categories and do not exist on a spectrum. The dictionary is not a statement of reality, it's simply a collection of colloquially understood definitions that laymen use in society. The dictionary is often wrong. The actual definition of the word "Faggot" is either a bundle of sticks or a type of sausage depending on which dictionary you read, does that mean "Faggot" can never be an offensive term? Secondly, the use of a term in an academic setting does not describe it's use in every setting. A word can mean one thing in one context (depending on how it's used) and mean something else in another context (once again, depending on how it's used). Whether or not the usage of a word is offensive comes down to the (historical and situational) context of how it's used and whether or not the recipient takes offense. We've gone over this already. Arguing that a word can never be offensive is unfalsifiable as the use and understanding of language is subjective, unless you can demonstrate that there is an objective and ostensible authority on what is or isn't offensive. Like mr.scorpio said, it's [B]very[/B] difficult to tease out a person's argument when they're basically just resorting to making generalisations of anyone who disagrees with them. All you can really do is point out the generalisations because their argument has shifted from "here's what I think and here's the points I'm gonna use to prove it" to "you're dumb and that's why you're wrong".
You guys have a pretty similar argument so I'll try to respond to both. While dictionary definitions aren't infallible they are useful metrics of current usage trends, especially when used in tangent with others to form an aggregate. In the case of the word cisgender the universally accepted definition is both correct and non-derogative by nature, although it can and has been used in a derogatory fashion. I think this is due to the fact that as there are no widely used slurs for cisgender people floating around, people who seek to express hatred for them just use "cis" instead. I have never argued that "a word can never be offensive", I argued that certain words can be almost universally considered as offensive or not based on etc. etc. etc. we had this argument a few pages ago.
Can we just disband the NUS, it's just a platform for absolute nutters at this point.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49994488]You guys have a pretty similar argument so I'll try to respond to both. While dictionary definitions aren't infallible they are useful metrics of current usage trends, especially when used in tangent with others to form an aggregate. In the case of the word cisgender the universally accepted definition is both correct and non-derogative by nature, although it can and has been used in a derogatory fashion. I think this is due to the fact that as there are no widely used slurs for cisgender people floating around, people who seek to express hatred for them just use "cis" instead. I have never argued that "a word can never be offensive", I argued that certain words can be almost universally considered as offensive or not based on etc. etc. etc. we had this argument a few pages ago.[/QUOTE] You've got a good point, let my star rating imply that I agree with you since the agree rating doesn't exist in this subforum.
[QUOTE=Zyler;49995010]You've got a good point, let my star rating imply that I agree with you since the agree rating doesn't exist in this subforum.[/QUOTE] I kinda wish we had old ratings, the only reason I like the start system is it encourages people to participate in conversations if they have controversial opinions as theres no dumb rating to discourage them from doing so SH would be best off with all of its old ratings sans dumbs
[QUOTE=Thlis;49993534]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.[/QUOTE] You posting the ethics tab is actually so meaningless and isn't a counterpoint in any sense of the word. My point is that GamerGate has a largely reactionary movement and I provide proof of it, and your ethics tab doesn't in anyway counter it at all. It's like saying a shop sells shoes, but you counter "Well they also sell gumdrops!". Okay, that doesn't change the fact they sell shoes. And then when I provide examples of the shoes the store sells, you just call it "Cherry picking". Yes, the store may sell things other than shoes, but that doesn't change the fact they sell shoes. And hell, even if I include a pillow among those shoes, you people focus on the pillow I posted instead of the shoes which was the original point of the argument. Posting the ethics tab is deflection of the argument instead of addressing the point itself.
[QUOTE=GarbageCan;49999462]You posting the ethics tab is actually so meaningless and isn't a counterpoint in any sense of the word. My point is that GamerGate has a largely reactionary movement and I provide proof of it, and your ethics tab doesn't in anyway counter it at all. It's like saying a shop sells shoes, but you counter "Well they also sell gumdrops!". Okay, that doesn't change the fact they sell shoes. And then when I provide examples of the shoes the store sells, you just call it "Cherry picking". Yes, the store may sell things other than shoes, but that doesn't change the fact they sell shoes. And hell, even if I include a pillow among those shoes, you people focus on the pillow I posted instead of the shoes which was the original point of the argument. Posting the ethics tab is deflection of the argument instead of addressing the point itself.[/QUOTE] the point is that you can make any group of people look like anything you want by cherry picking examples of their behavior If you're [I]really[/I] intent on proving that the people who browse KiA have a certain political viewpoint, you're going to have to provide something like survey data that demonstrates they have that viewpoint. Otherwise you're just spewing hot air.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49999566]the point is that you can make any group of people look like anything you want by cherry picking examples of their behavior [B]If you're [I]really[/I] intent on proving that the people who browse KiA have a certain political viewpoint, you're going to have to provide something like survey data that demonstrates they have that viewpoint. Otherwise you're just spewing hot air.[/B][/QUOTE] Just like the clickbait journalists banking on easy [I]"feels"[/I] articles. Or to sum it up with one word: [I]hypocrisy[/I].
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49994017]I have anecdotes but I know those are of no value in this discussion.[/QUOTE] see i think in discussions such as these anecdotes do play an important part because personal experiences bring light to why you think what you do. if the majority of your experience with, say, the word 'cis' is it being used in a derogatory way that will totally change your perspective on the word, even if you can't statistically prove anything. it would go some ways to explaining how you have gotten the perspective you have as long as you acknowledge it is anecdotal.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;50004240]see i think in discussions such as these anecdotes do play an important part because personal experiences bring light to why you think what you do. if the majority of your experience with, say, the word 'cis' is it being used in a derogatory way that will totally change your perspective on the word, even if you can't statistically prove anything. it would go some ways to explaining how you have gotten the perspective you have as long as you acknowledge it is anecdotal.[/QUOTE] They're useful for explaining as to why you have the beliefs that you do, as one's experiences has a certain and powerful impact on what they think and why, but they're pretty worthless when it comes to presenting those beliefs as the objective reality of the situation. I have anecdotal evidence of both cis being used in both derogatory and non-derogatory contexts, but as there is no way to discern which is definitely used more often, it's pointless to use my anecdotal evidence as a support to prove my subjective reality as objective.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;50004269]They're useful for explaining as to why you have the beliefs that you do, as one's experiences has a certain and powerful impact on what they think and why, but they're pretty worthless when it comes to presenting those beliefs as the objective reality of the situation. I have anecdotal evidence of both cis being used in both derogatory and non-derogatory contexts, but as there is no way to discern which is definitely used more often, it's pointless to use my anecdotal evidence as a support to prove my subjective reality as objective.[/QUOTE] in situations like these, i don't believe finding an objective reality is possible without the aggregation of many subjective realities. it is too easy to poison surveys and too difficult to examine all usages as would be necessary for statistical fact. the closest you could get would be to get a very wide array of people from a wide selection of communities' personal experiences and see if there are any trends come up. even with that it would be difficult to avoid dishonesty as would in a direct survey. somewhere along the line, though, we have to accept that the only way we could ever get closer to an objective reality is to accept people's subjective views, as the offensiveness of something is not something that can be directly measured, by default being subjective, if that makes any sense. i'm sick right now so i may be a bit rambly
IMO, 'cis' is seen as offensive by a lot of people because most of the time it's used to dismiss the people that fall under it's definition. - Cis people are the oppressors - Cis people don't understand LGBT - Cis people not allowed (like that university example that happened recently) - Cis people etc. It's essentially never used as a positive thing.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50010137]IMO, 'cis' is seen as offensive by a lot of people because most of the time it's used to dismiss the people that fall under it's definition. - Cis people are the oppressors - Cis people don't understand LGBT - Cis people not allowed (like that university example that happened recently) - Cis people etc. It's essentially never used as a positive thing.[/QUOTE] An incredibly small minority of trans people do that. Furthermore how else are you supposed to differentiate trans and cis people in a conversation? [editline]27th March 2016[/editline] And to be fair i doubt a cis person could understand how it feels to be trans.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.