Society/Culture Hypocrisy of The Left - part 3

[Gethelred]

Now you're asking a different question. Has it affected me directly? No. But nor have school shootings and I'm not keen on those either. Do you have to be affected directly by something to criticise it?

I'm asking you two direct (albeit related) questions, really: have they affected you directly, and if they did what would the consequences of being affected be?

In addition, do you think comparing the desire to identify as the moon to the desire to shoot defenceless children and teachers, stealing or purchasing a gun, and then bringing it to school with you in order to kill people is a fair comparison?

Nor does it render the request less ridiculous. By all means, if they want to sit around at home telling themselves they're a moon, good luck to them. But any assumption that everyone else should modify their language in accordance with how moonself identifies, that should not be humoured for one second.

Why?

Can you imagine employing someone and then on their first day they tell HR that they want to be referred to as moonself in all correspondece because that's how they identify? You'd regard it as lunacy. If you started identifying as Napoleon, you'd be institutionalised. But moonself is fine and we should humour these fantasies? No, I don't think so. The rest of society doesn't have to accommodate this rubbish.

Here's my difficulty.

If it's acceptable to be trans - ie, that you are a feminine gendered human in the body of a male, or vice versa - then that reduces gender to the level of subjectivity and gender identity essentially becomes a free for all. I don't see why that's a problem, necessarily; it's no different than learning someone's name, what words to use which apply to them.

That is my question when I ask you why. I want to know why it's rubbish. Is it not ideologically consistent, if a bit weird?

In the end of things, their gender is no more or less valid than mine; not their sex, but their gender. If I don't give a * what they call themselves and I'm desirous of not being rude, why shouldn't I call them an attack helicopter, Napoleon or moonself?

Fundamentally, I see this as the excesses of the progressive left and I think it's a bad idea to lean into issues like this, which are obviously and profoundly unserious. And now we're told the language needs to be modified so moonself feels validated in identifying as a moon. Why on earth (or moon) would/should anyone go along with this nonsense?

The RW and the LW both have their own perverse culture war obsessions. They should be ridiculed on both counts.

I really do not give very much of a * about this stuff. Culture war stuff is a smokescreen.

There's a reason I'm asking you to state the damage being done. I want to know who it's hurting, why it's bad/needs to be lampooned or criticised.

The inconsistency and interminability of others is something you can struggle with or accept. I don't see the point in fighting it; if I did, I'd never stop arguing. I need sleep more than I need that in my life.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I'm asking you two direct (albeit related) questions, really: have they affected you directly, and if they did what would the consequences of being affected be?

In addition, do you think comparing the desire to identify as the moon to the desire to shoot defenceless children and teachers, stealing or purchasing a gun, and then bringing it to school with you in order to kill people is a fair comparison?

I am making the straightforward point that you needn't be directly affected by something to criticise it.

I'm not saying neopronouns and school shootings are equally heinous. That's obvious. I think you'd have to deliberately misinterpret my post to suggest otherwise.

Why?

Because it's pure fantasy. Why should we modify language to accommodate it?

Here's my difficulty.

If it's acceptable to be trans - ie, that you are a feminine gendered human in the body of a male, or vice versa - then that reduces gender to the level of subjectivity and gender identity essentially becomes a free for all. I don't see why that's a problem, necessarily; it's no different than learning someone's name, what words to use which apply to them.

That is my question when I ask you why. I want to know why it's rubbish. Is it not ideologically consistent, if a bit weird?

In the end of things, their gender is no more or less valid than mine; not their sex, but their gender. If I don't give a fu** what they call themselves and I'm desirous of not being rude, why shouldn't I call them an attack helicopter, Napoleon or moonself?

You're conflating gender pronouns such as he/she with patently ludicrous neopronouns such as moonself. These are not the same.

I accept that there is a spectrum of human gender. I accept that someone born biologically male may come to identify as female, or vice versa, and in such cases I'd be willing to make the accommodation on the basis of manners to use their preferred pronouns. I am not, however, willing to humour someone's fantasy that they are a moon.

Of course, they are welcome to identify as a moon if they like. But any request that language be modified generally to accommodate their fantasy that they're not even human beings? No, I'm not going along with that and I don't think society at large should either. We can't just remake everything to construct an alternative reality around a vanishingly small minority. There is still a reality that we can't endlessly subvert in language just because some people want to pretend they're moons or kittens or whatever else is on the menu.

There's a reason I'm asking you to state the damage being done. I want to know who it's hurting, why it's bad/needs to be lampooned or criticised.

The inconsistency and interminability of others is something you can struggle with or accept. I don't see the point in fighting it; if I did, I'd never stop arguing. I need sleep more than I need that in my life.

See above.

It boils down to how far we should be willing to linguistically subvert reality. How far are you willing to participate in absurdities?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Who is requiring you to participate? * me dead.

 

[Carringbush2010]

The RW and the LW both have their own perverse culture war obsessions. They should be ridiculed on both counts.

Thankyou, we could just about end the entire SRP board on this comment alone.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Who is requiring you to participate? fu** me dead.

If there is an expectation that we should humour someone's self ID as a moon, and modify our language accordingly, that's participation.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

If there is an expectation that we should humour someone's self ID as a moon, and modify our language accordingly, that's participation.

Who is being asked to modify their language to accommodate someone's preference to identify as a moon?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Who is being asked to modify their language to accommodate someone's preference to identify as a moon?

A Guide to Neopronouns (Published 2021)

Are you a person, place or thing? We have good news.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Fadge]

Who is being asked to modify their language to accommodate someone's preference to identify as a moon?

It's basically the entire premise of this thread.

Keep up.

 

[Gethelred]

You're conflating gender pronouns such as he/she with patently ludicrous neopronouns such as moonself. These are not the same.

Why?

I accept that there is a spectrum of human gender. I accept that someone born biologically male may come to identify as female, or vice versa, and in such cases I'd be willing to make the accommodation on the basis of manners to use their preferred pronouns. I am not, however, willing to humour someone's fantasy that they are a moon.

Of course, they are welcome to identify as a moon if they like. But any request that language be modified generally to accommodate their fantasy that they're not even human beings? No, I'm not going along with that and I don't think society at large should either. We can't just remake everything to construct an alternative reality around a vanishingly small minority. There is still a reality that we can't endlessly subvert in language just because some people want to pretend they're moons or kittens or whatever else is on the menu.

You're going to get very sick of hearing me ask why if you keep not supplying an answer.

Why should we not allow someone to determine how they are referred? Why does how they're referred to matter?

Make me care about this. I don't understand.

It boils down to how far we should be willing to linguistically subvert reality. How far are you willing to participate in absurdities?

...

I'm genuinely not sure if you're serious.

We're on an AFL forum. Support of an AFL team is an absurdity, albeit one shared by a number of people in a very small country. There are any number of people who would call the contortions of language on the team or AFL boards of this website 'linguistic subversions of reality'.

You made a thread concerning ethical hypocrisy, in which you acknowledge your own hypocrisy in the hopes that others would do the same. Can you see that you are willing to make concessions for the absurdities in life that make sense to you?

Why would you deprive others of the freedom to accept their own absurdities that make sense to them?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

A Guide to Neopronouns (Published 2021)

Are you a person, place or thing? We have good news.

www.nytimes.com

I repeat; who is being asked to participate?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Why?

I've explained that.

You're going to get very sick of hearing me ask why if you keep not supplying an answer.

Why should we not allow someone to determine how they are referred? Why does how they're referred to matter?

Again, I've explained that. The short answer is that someone identifying as a moon or as a cat or as a vampire doesn't correspond to reality.

You may be willing to participate in these absurdities. I am not.

You can ask whatever questions you like but it will fundamentally come back to that.

Make me care about this. I don't understand.

That's not my job.

I've explained my position. I can't "make you care" about anything. Nor do I have any interest in doing that.

I'm genuinely not sure if you're serious.

We're on an AFL forum. Support of an AFL team is an absurdity, albeit one shared by a number of people in a very small country. There are any number of people who would call the contortions of language on the team or AFL boards of this website 'linguistic subversions of reality'.

You made a thread concerning ethical hypocrisy, in which you acknowledge your own hypocrisy in the hopes that others would do the same. Can you see that you are willing to make concessions for the absurdities in life that make sense to you?

Why would you deprive others of the freedom to accept their own absurdities that make sense to them?

As I've said, people can identify however they like. That doesn't confer any obligation on me or you or society at large to lean into that.

If someone wants to identify as a cat and drink milk out of a saucer, they are welcome to do that. But I will not pretend that they are in fact a cat. I will not pretend that reality is somehow otherwise simply to endorse their identification as a cat. I will not participate in that absurdity.

In a court of law, a dissociative identity disorder might be used at sentencing as evidence of mental illness and therefore diminished responsibility. If the defendant thought they were an angel or a vampire, that might indicate they weren't fully equipped of their senses. We don't simply say "the defendant thought he was a vampire and that's the most important thing, let's treat him as such". Of course not. Reality holds sway. And if an individual inhabits some alternative reality where they are not actually human, we draw conclusions about their mental health based on that.

And yet you want me to sign on for validating these delusions? And for society at large to be linguistically reshaped to accommodate them? No, I don't think so.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I repeat; who is being asked to participate?

You're not familiar with people asking to be addressed with neopronouns?

Gethelred is making the case for that on this very page.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

For further discussion about neopronouns, I suggest relocating to this thread.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

I think we're all talked out of a thing none of us have to do. Thanks.

But all these threads are simple outlets for you to all rant, so Ill discuss it wherever the * I want

 

[Gethelred]

I've explained that.

Again, I've explained that. The short answer is that someone identifying as a moon or as a cat or as a vampire doesn't correspond to reality.

You may be willing to participate in these absurdities. I am not.

You've said that you think the person who identifies as a moon or a cat does not correspond to reality. I do not see how that differs from someone who thinks - for example - that just over 10000 years ago God created reality, and littered the earth with fossilized dinosaur bones just to throw in some red herrings.

Do you advocate open mockery of religion?

Some people dedicate their lives to the pursuit of meaningless things. There are humans who train for absolute years trying to run every marathon on the planet, or to be the first person to climb every mountain, or to be the fastest person to complete Super Mario 64 in history. Do you think it's absurd to want to do these things?

Some people live their entire lives dreaming of the possibility of playing Australian Rules football for their club. They wake up and put their bodies through all kinds of punishment to do so; they subject still growing frames and risk injury to try and become faster, stronger, leap higher and practice longer. Do you think that's absurd?

The point is that each of us, all humans, are to some degree absurd. We each have our own little weirdness, and we have to get along with other people.

So, when I ask you why, I want to know why you make an exception for all of those who seek to overcome their limits in ways acceptable to you, but are unwilling for those who do not.

You can ask whatever questions you like but it will fundamentally come back to that.

That's not my job.

I've explained my position. I can't "make you care" about anything. Nor do I have any interest in doing that.

You've explained your position some.

You don't have to make me care, but you could certainly explain how the absurdity of someone wanting to self identify as a moon is such an awful thing that you want to stop it from happening.

I suppose I should ask: you do want to stop it from happening, right? Wouldn't want to put words in your mouth.

As I've said, people can identify however they like. That doesn't confer any obligation on me or you or society at large to lean into that.

So, is your position solely that you don't think we should 'lean in' here?

Seems a little... vague.

If someone wants to identify as a cat and drink milk out of a saucer, they are welcome to do that.

What consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their own homes is up to them.

But I will not pretend that they are in fact a cat. I will not pretend that reality is somehow otherwise simply to endorse their identification as a cat. I will not participate in that absurdity.

... I repeat: do you expect to have to?

In a court of law, a dissociative identity disorder might be used at sentencing as evidence of mental illness and therefore diminished responsibility. If the defendant thought they were an angel or a vampire, that might indicate they weren't fully equipped of their senses. We don't simply say "the defendant thought he was a vampire and that's the most important thing, let's treat him as such". Of course not. Reality holds sway. And if an individual inhabits some alternative reality where they are not actually human, we draw conclusions about their mental health based on that.

Do you truly expect any such cases to truly overrule decades to centuries of continuous precedent because of identity politics?

And yet you want me to sign on for validating these delusions? And for society at large to be linguistically reshaped to accommodate them? No, I don't think so.

No. I want you to give me a reason as to why I shouldn't.

I can think of reasons for, and negligable reasons against. I want something more tangible than 'It's absurd, I shouldn't have to accomodate it'.

You don't have to give it, but at some point - if those opposing it - someone should if they want to get others on board.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You've said that you think the person who identifies as a moon or a cat does not correspond to reality. I do not see how that differs from someone who thinks - for example - that just over 10000 years ago God created reality, and littered the earth with fossilized dinosaur bones just to throw in some red herrings.

Do you advocate open mockery of religion?

I'm absolutely fine with mocking religion. Insofar as the beliefs are ridiculous, they warrant ridicule.

Some people dedicate their lives to the pursuit of meaningless things. There are humans who train for absolute years trying to run every marathon on the planet, or to be the first person to climb every mountain, or to be the fastest person to complete Super Mario 64 in history. Do you think it's absurd to want to do these things?

Some people live their entire lives dreaming of the possibility of playing Australian Rules football for their club. They wake up and put their bodies through all kinds of punishment to do so; they subject still growing frames and risk injury to try and become faster, stronger, leap higher and practice longer. Do you think that's absurd?

The point is that each of us, all humans, are to some degree absurd. We each have our own little weirdness, and we have to get along with other people.

So, when I ask you why, I want to know why you make an exception for all of those who seek to overcome their limits in ways acceptable to you, but are unwilling for those who do not.


You've explained your position some.

You don't have to make me care, but you could certainly explain how the absurdity of someone wanting to self identify as a moon is such an awful thing that you want to stop it from happening.

I suppose I should ask: you do want to stop it from happening, right? Wouldn't want to put words in your mouth.


So, is your position solely that you don't think we should 'lean in' here?

Seems a little... vague.
What consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their own homes is up to them.

... I repeat: do you expect to have to?


Do you truly expect any such cases to truly overrule decades to centuries of continuous precedent because of identity politics?

No. I want you to give me a reason as to why I shouldn't.

I can think of reasons for, and negligable reasons against. I want something more tangible than 'It's absurd, I shouldn't have to accomodate it'.

You don't have to give it, but at some point - if those opposing it - someone should if they want to get others on board.

This is going in too many different directions and is impossible to respond to point by point.

If you want to further discuss my views about neopronouns, beyond what I've already outlined at considerable length, I'll happily do so in the relevant thread. But I suggest making your inquiries more concise, because I'm not interested in tortured analogies.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Some people live their entire lives dreaming of the possibility of playing Australian Rules football for their club. They wake up and put their bodies through all kinds of punishment to do so; they subject still growing frames and risk injury to try and become faster, stronger, leap higher and practice longer. Do you think that's absurd?

This is a poor analogy.

Person believing they're a cat to the point they actually become one = not possible

Person believing they can play footy for their preferred club = possible, and has happened and will possibly happen again.

I'm not sure how you can't grasp this. It's pretty simple.

Maybe your sentiment for liberal / progressive yet unrealistic ideals (at least in this case) is clouding your assessment.

 

[Gethelred]

This is a poor analogy.

Person believing they're a cat to the point they actually become one = not possible

This is a poor example.

A person who believes they are a cat to the point of actually becoming one will not talk to you. They will rub themselves against your leg, hiss at you, purr at you, and miaow loudly when they're hungry. A person who will talk to you about how they identify as a cat does not believe they are physically a cat, because they are not physically a cat.

Person believing they can play footy for their preferred club = possible, and has happened and will possibly happen again.

How is this any different from the woman in the other thread?

She wanted to be treated like a pet, specifically a cat. She found a job in which that happens, a bloke who is (after she introduced him to it) into what she's into.

A person can wants to play football for their club, specifically any club (preferably not Collingwood, but to each their own). They train in order to do it, and that training is in some cases a lot more extreme than fitting into a cat costume and donning some cat ears or contact lenses.

They then vie for the position amongst many others.

In both cases, both people wanted to be what they are, made choices which put them closer to their goals, and achieved their aims. They place their identity into their role, and they're hardly the first to do so.

Maybe your sentiment for liberal / progressive yet unrealistic ideals (at least in this case) is clouding your assessment.

Maybe your inability to see beyond the edge of your nose has caused you to wander into open traffic. Again.

 

[Carringbush2010]

because they are not physically a cat.

Now you're getting it, it starts and ends there. Any extended debate is not even a debate.

How is this any different from the woman in the other thread?

See your post I replied to, your words 'because they're not physically a cat'.

That's the difference, one is possible and one is not.

It's pretty simple.

Maybe your inability to see beyond the edge of your nose has caused you to wander into open traffic. Again.

Umm no, I haven't 'wandered into open traffic' I've explained to you what is possible and what is not.

You keep repeating how this person has got 'closer to her goal' while not conceding the pertinent bit - she can't actually be a cat. No matter how hard she tries. Unless she actually has surgery to change species, which I'm pretty sure at this point in time is not possible.

It's like you're advocating 'that with belief anything is possible' when you (should) know full well it is not.

 

[Gethelred]

Umm no, I haven't 'wandered into open traffic' I've explained to you what is possible and what is not.

You keep repeating how this person has got 'closer to her goal' while not conceding the pertinent bit - she can't actually be a cat. No matter how hard she tries. Unless she actually has surgery to change species, which I'm pretty sure at this point in time is not possible.

It's like you're advocating 'that with belief anything is possible' when you (should) know full well it is not.

Because you're looking at identity as physicality, something which - and I'm surprised I have to say this - literally no-one is claiming except those seeking to lampoon those of nonbinary identites.

Identity is about behaviour.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Because you're looking at identity as physicality, something which - and I'm surprised I have to say this - literally no-one is claiming except those seeking to lampoon those of nonbinary identites.

Identity is about behaviour.

Umm no, one can identify as they please, doesn't make it fact.

Physicality IS part of ones identity, and ones physicality / biology / species / animate or inanimate object cannot be disputed. It's not down to ONLY behaviour, I'm sure you understand this.

 

[Gethelred]

Umm no, one can identify as they please, doesn't make it fact.

Physicality IS part of ones identity, and ones physicality / biology / species / animate or inanimate object cannot be disputed. It's not down to ONLY behaviour, I'm sure you understand this.

... this is stupid. We're talking past each other.

 

[Reynolds Number]

WA the only state to have increased emissions since 2005 as people power fuels surge in solar

If it’s good enough to label Barnaby Joyce and Matt Canavan as climate criminals for protecting coal jobs in NSW and Queensland, why doesn’t WA Labor cop the same treatment?

www.watoday.com.au

I wonder if there is any disappointment in this like there is at Federal government actions.

 

[Milhouse2011]

I don't hate the left. I just don't like how their behavior creates the conditions required for Alt-Right groups to grow.

 

[Father Jack]

I don't hate the left. I just don't like how their behavior creates the conditions required for Alt-Right groups to grow.

this should be in the woke parody/real thread because it's an excellent example