|
what is the point of this thread? what are people trying to argue? I read a bunch of pages and learned like nothing. hot take: you're probably only going to meet a handful of people in your waking life (i.e. not on tumblr) that will correct your 'pronoun' usage and, if they do, you'll find that it's not a big deal to call them what they want to be called. The concept is infinitely more insufferable than the reality. From a standpoint of utility, making those people feel accepted is much more beneficial for both parties than the potential gains of denying their pro-nouns or whatever. God drat this thread is stupid.
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 03:20 |
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:I'm struggling to find the part where rudatron gave attractiveness as a bar to pass. Hyperbole for the purpose of comedy? On these, the something awful dot com comedy forums?! Someone notify the president of this scandal immediately! quote:He's basically just saying that if you're a woman who for some reason goes our of her way to perform the "man" gender, then calling her a man should be the default action of an observer. He's not, though. The specific example given to him as a "masculine cis-woman" and his response was that yes, such a person is a man. And if we combine that with his other states positions if that masculine looking cis-woman asks to be addressed as a woman the correct thing to do is to deny her that and continue to address her as a man. Otherwise he should support addressing people as how they ask to be addressed and not how you personally perceive them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Please don't abbreviate Christian or Christmas as Xtian or Xmas as it erases Christ and devalues the religion and holiday. As a Christian, I find these abbreviations to be offensive. Thanks and God Bless. Thanks for letting me know. As a Christian myself, I know how important our faith is to so many of us. I'll be sure to write out the full words in the future, especially since it costs me nothing more than the marginal extra effort needed to write "Christ" instead of "X." God bless you too, and have a blessed Good Friday! (See? It's not that hard to be nice.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Hyperbole for the purpose of comedy? On these, the something awful dot com comedy forums?! Someone notify the president of this scandal immediately! Usually when something is for the purpose of comedy, it's like, funny. This seems more like hyperbole for the sake of reinforcing a motivated view of someone, sort of like when someone acts like the real problem is all these people asking for xir Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:Usually when something is for the purpose of comedy, it's like, funny. It's pretty funny to me. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I'm amazed that people are seriously demanding a safe space from mean pro-trans people, and also that people stop hurting their feelings by not respecting their beliefs. If you want people to treat other respectfully, with respect and dignity, and you want other members of society to be sensitive and conscious and mindful of the feelings of minorities, then you should probably practice what you preach and reciprocate it If you are fighting for a new sort of social ethics that is more tolerant and accommodating of the thoughts and feelings of other people, including people you disagree with, then you are dooming that fight to failure by doing the exact opposite in your own conduct. If you don't expect for this to work both ways, and you prefer to use insults and domination tactics to shut down debate, if you want to act morally superior and go back to a Law of the Jungle style of interaction where domination and majority strength rules and unpopular ideas can be shouted down....well then i'm sorry but that is only going to hurt your cause in the end. when you are fighting from a position of less power, it's important to maintain a higher ethical standard than your oppressors, or you simply justify their rule by showing that ethics don't matter and might makes right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Yes, we know that you think anyone who isn't a straight white male is a mess, you've made that abundantly clear. Anything new to bring to the table today, or just more of the same old same old? Pththya-lyi posted:Thanks for letting me know. As a Christian myself, I know how important our faith is to so many of us. I'll be sure to write out the full words in the future, especially since it costs me nothing more than the marginal extra effort needed to write "Christ" instead of "X." God bless you too, and have a blessed Good Friday!
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:If you want people to treat other respectfully, with respect and dignity, and you want other members of society to be sensitive and conscious and mindful of the feelings of minorities, then you should probably practice what you preach and reciprocate it "First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You're ignoring that you're completely baseless and wrong in your assertions. You say that people don't own their identities, which is flatly untrue and even just a few seconds of critical thought would reveal that to you. forums user "What What Now" turning in a mathematics test, the question is "is angle b a right angle? show all work to justify your answer" the answer provided is "JUST loving LOOK AT IT YOU IDIOT, CAN'T YOU TELL??" quote:What your probably wanted to say, but couldn't, is that people don't have control over how their identities are perceived by others, which is true. Although what you actually meant behind your inept attempt at intellectual prose is that you believe you have the right to dictate a person's identity to them. If a woman isn't attractive enough for you then she should be considered a man. If a transwoman can't meet those same standards of your personal definition of womanhood then she is a failure who deserves no respect. You, personally, want to control other people's identities, you just won't admit it. That's what all your blathering boils down to. Of course you'll deny it and try to further obfuscate the truth, and you'll fail at it, because the fact of what you believe is plainly evident.  yes......we should be sensitive to the wishes of others to have their own values, ideas, and identities validated....it would be rude to impose your own idea of what or what people are onto them against their wishes
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:If you want people to treat other respectfully, with respect and dignity, and you want other members of society to be sensitive and conscious and mindful of the feelings of minorities, then you should probably practice what you preach and reciprocate it Why? What's the point? People were respectful to you at the start, and you met that respect with derision and insults. Why should trans people have to take unlimited abuse from people like you? Commie NedFlanders posted:forums user "What What Now" turning in a mathematics test, the question is "is angle b a right angle? show all work to justify your answer" Yeah, it sucks, doesn't it? And yet you're so adamant on doing it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." i'm not saying that you should sit down and shut up i absolutely agree that people should speak out and tell the truth as they see it, and engage in struggle and face conflict to fight for what is right however, it has to done in a proper way. You win by demonstrating the truth of your ethical position, not by simply screaming it at people and beating them down for disagreeing with you Dr King insisted that people who call themselves Christians should stand up and fight for what's right, but he didn't tell people to go out there and act a fool because they are right. The most effective and impactful protests in the civil rights era, those which still stir the hearts of people today, were the ones where protesters held the moral high ground by treating their oppressors with more respect and dignity than they deserved. Dr. King knew that the Christian injection to love thy enemy is absolutely crucial to anyone trying to overcome oppressors. When Dr. King was leading sit-in protests and the protesters were sitting there being cussed at, assaulted, degraded, and they held onto the strength of their moral convictions....it stirred the hearts of a conservative nation and today every single school child is taught about those protesters and those images have become iconic. Today, righteous and justified protests against police brutality are ignored because a few undisciplined millennials start cussing and breaking things, which spoils the entire thing for everyone and they lose their moral high ground. there is a certain way to fight for things that is not only more morally righteous, but also more effective at winning of hearts and minds
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:
if you want society to accept you, don't be so drat anti-social
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:That's not being nice, that's indulging their ridiculous insecurity around their thoroughly silly faith. Avoiding making people feel uncomfortable is not the end-all be-all of life. at a certain point, coddling becomes neglectful and abusive tough love isn't always comfortable, but it can be far more kind in the long run
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:i'm not saying that you should sit down and shut up No, most people talk about King in school as a way to say "do nothing, really, the system works, it's all great now." Christianity is a counter-revolutionary fascist cult and always has in. God is the Ur-Dictator who all must obey. If we had purged the white South after the American Civil War we wouldn't have had this problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:i'm not saying that you should sit down and shut up Commie NedFlanders posted:if you want society to accept you, don't be so drat anti-social Martin Luther King Jr. posted:"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Please, tell us more how we have to do things "the right way". The right way, of course, being to not in any way challenge the status quo or actually speak up against abuse and intolerance. It's hilarious you talk about Dr. King, when Dr. King spoke against people like you quite clearly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:No, most people talk about King in school as a way to say "do nothing, really, the system works, it's all great now." oh dear bless your heart
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
sidviscous posted:FWIW, I actually agree that this is how things are - societally you're a woman or a man if people will accept you as a woman or a man, and that your appearance is important in that. In general, I think the trend for people to primarily identify as what they are rather than what they do is terrible for a society larger than a farming village. I don't want to know that you're Joe, son of Jack, who used to be Jane but identifies as a man, is sexually attracted to women, who happens to be a plumber. I want to know that you are Joe the plumber who happens to be the son of Jack, and used to be called Jane until he realised he'd be happier as a man, and is sexually attracted to women. The former is completely useless unless Joe is my personal friend, the latter tells me everything I need to know when I look up Joe on google to have him come over and fix my leaky piping. It's simply not worth bothering with the first more private kind of identity in a society where everyone doesn't know everyone else. People who care about it (either way - both people wanting everyone to make a big deal out of their special snowflake status and people who flip their poo poo over the fact that people privately identify as something unusual) need to get over the fact that modern society is not a stone age tribe anymore. quote:Hilariously, I'm at that weird phase at the moment where I can claim I'm a trans man and people will instantly switch from "you're not really a woman" to "you're not really a man". See above: the best position to take would be "who gives a poo poo about that, sidiviscuous is first and foremost a shitposter on a dead gay kkkomedy forum"
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:17
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:there is a certain way to fight for things that is not only more morally righteous, but also more effective at winning of hearts and minds Unfortunately most of your posting for the last several pages has largely been a tone argument dressed up in the clothing of concern for the social success of the LGBT movement. Which I cannot help but feel is more or less exactly the thing that Dr King was annoyed about. You will understand if I am not especially convinced of the sincerity of your concern.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:If you are fighting for a new sort of social ethics that is more tolerant and accommodating of the thoughts and feelings of other people, including people you disagree with, then you are dooming that fight to failure by doing the exact opposite in your own conduct. No you see, to maintain our brave new world we must be intolerant only (but vehemently) of intolerance itself. It just so happens that intolerance encompasses everything I disagree with. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:oh dear bless your heart There's that paternalism that Dr. King spoke about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Certain posters in this thread do have a nasty habit of putting words in the mouths of others, but for the most part I try to excuse that as the product of years of frustration and even abuse IRL, and focus on how I can help bridge the divide. I agree with OwlFancier, Xommie XedXanders, that the "you'll never win people over with that attitude"-style rhetoric is itself an exhibition of that attitude—it takes no steps to bridge the gap. I think that you are a good person who truly does want to understand this stuff, who feels unilaterally attacked for having the wrong opinions rather than being taught what makes the opinions wrong in a way you can understand. I've tried to help you gain perspective(s) on the matter, but it's hard to identify what the gaps in your knowledge and understanding are from your recent posts. I think you are confused when you hear that people know they are a woman in a man's body and it's obvious and should never be denied, but then also that some people don't "realize" they're a woman until the time a cis woman would be experiencing menopause, and that's a valid confusion. I'm not sure how to address it right now, but we can come back to it. When you're asking people who have been spat on by society to help you understand them, it takes more effort on your part to not come off like "hey, this is inconsistent, I found the contradiction that proves you wrong!" Because within the subcommunity called this thread, it is harder to distinguish someone in the "against trans" role from someone in the "doesn't have sufficient concepts to clearly see the whats and whys" role, without the latter going out of their way to perform the role. "Evil prevails when good men do nothing"
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:Certain posters in this thread do have a nasty habit of putting words in the mouths of others, but for the most part I try to excuse that as the product of years of frustration and even abuse IRL, and focus on how I can help bridge the divide. Most people literally don't know or care about a possible distinction between sex and gender, and everything the average person knows about trans people or any gender identity beyond man/woman can be comprehensively summed up as "they're people who think they were born in the wrong body" in the best case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Please, tell us more how we have to do things "the right way". The right way, of course, being to not in any way challenge the status quo or actually speak up against abuse and intolerance. It's hilarious you talk about Dr. King, when Dr. King spoke against people like you quite clearly. he is speaking out against people who were saying "just wait until a better time". i'm not saying that (once again my words are being entirely ignored and you are purposefully mis-representing my position) I'm saying if you feel compelled to speak up now, then yes do it, if this is your time to fight for your struggle then yes do it. i have never once implied that people should not push against the status quo, i'm merely saying that when fighting that struggle, you need to respect and recognize the people on the other side. I agree with him on that, but i also agree with him where he emphasizes that the way in which you proceed with your struggle matters and it determines how successful it will be Dr. King spoke of the fierce urgency of now as a call to action but it wasn't a call to undisciplined, unrighteous action that sacrifices the values of the moment for the opportunism of victory Dr king said that in order to win the struggle we need a weapon that is not only powerful, but just, and his emphasis on nonviolent and morally righteous protest is evidence of this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:There's that paternalism that Dr. King spoke about. now you are putting words in his mouth he was not speaking against southern sweet shade, he was specifically speaking about the paternalism of comfortable white people calling themselves christians who were telling the black victims in the south to just suffer patiently until the right moment he was calling for people to stand up for what was right, and to do it in a way that is righteous and dignified to maintain the moral ground needed to withstand the resistance of those in power
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:he was calling for people to stand up for this is about as far as a 2016 activist will correctly parse that sentence
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:now you are putting words in his mouth Or, alternatively, criticizing the prevailing idea of what "righteous" is because it does not correlate with "appealing to the delicate sensibilities of the overly polite" and that if a person wishes to fight for a justice they desperately crave, complaining about the fashion in which they do it and using that to justify your lack of support is rather pathetic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:he is speaking out against people who were saying "just wait until a better time". You do realize that most of the perpetrators of the things King was against continued to have political power and enacted new policies to continue their agenda. A kind of reconcilation akin to the end of Reconstruction happened and a similar result happened.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Peaceful protests and respectability politics work, which is why Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't assassinated and racism no long exists today.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Atasnaya Vaflja posted:Peaceful protests and respectability politics don't work, which is why Martin Luther King Jr. accomplished absolutely nothing and black people still have to sit in the back of the bus in 2016
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:That's not being nice, that's indulging their ridiculous insecurity around their thoroughly silly faith. Avoiding making people feel uncomfortable is not the end-all be-all of life. "Avoiding making people feel uncomfortable" is what being nice is all about. While I agree that niceness is not "the end-all be-all of life" I don't think it's harmful to be nice to people who aren't actually hurting anybody. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and all that. (As for whether or not my faith is "thoroughly silly," well, I'll agree to disagree.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
You realize sit ins and things like that weren't considered "peaceful" by a long stretch, right? They were considered riotous and illegal, which is why they had professionals brought in to perform them. The fact of the matter is that the majority will always view the minority speaking out as a disturbance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:he is speaking out against people who were saying "just wait until a better time". No, he isn't. Here, let me requote the relevant portion again, since a whopping two whole sentences seems to have been too difficult for you. quote:who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action; That's you. You're saying you "agree with the goal" but that you don't agree with the way it's being pursued. But the thing is is that you've so far demonstrated that you wont accept any avenue of pursuing what trans people feel is necessary because the very act of asking to be respected is offensive to you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and all that. (As for whether or not my faith is "thoroughly silly," well, I'll agree to disagree.) What if I don't want to require every random joe on the street to be nice to me?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
blowfish posted:What if I don't want to require every random joe on the street to be nice to me? I understand not wanting to force people to be actively nice, but does that mean that you want them to be actively rude to you? If not, then don't be nice or rude to strangers. Then they shouldn't have any reason to be rude or nice to you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
blowfish posted:What if I don't want to require every random joe on the street to be nice to me? No one has ever once said that it should be required.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
The problem with 'make sure other people are comfortable' as a maxim is that is going to, and is, being abused. The most obvious case is what started this thread: comparisons to 'religious entitlement', with an obvious example being Kim Davis. She had a job to do, she didn't want to do it because it made her uncomfortable - well tough poo poo, it's was unreasonable of her to feel uncomfortable. Now we transition over to gender stuff, where the basis of the argument is 'well you should do it just to make people comfortable'. Is that a standard we should apply to the religious case as well? No? Then why are you asking it to be applied here? You need that consistency, and if you're not being consistent, people are going to notice that. People won't follow hypocrites, they won't believe hypocrites. So the arguments should not be 'well just do it to be nice', but whether or not it's reasonable. You don't deserve niceness, that's not something you get, what you get is 'respect'. It's a different standard. Well, with all due respect, the issue isn't just pronouns. The same ideas cover a lot of different areas - what should you expect from other people, what is 'respect' even, what is identity, what is inclusion and what are its limits, etc. I don't know about you, I prefer to be consistent, such that whatever answer I give on this issue, conforms to what I believe to be good answers to those questions. Maybe that's anal retentive, I prefer to see it as logical. But you don't deserve validation for that religious belief, get it? You could get it from others, of the same belief, by their choice, but you can't expect everyone, or society, or the legal system, to validate you. The world does not revolve around you. Now when I said that people are 'self-centered', I didn't want that to be interpreted as 'selfish'. I'm not a believer in homo economicus, that's not how people behave, and thank gently caress for that, because we wouldn't have society at all if people were 100% rational and selfish actors. Or love. But you are a single person, in a specific place and time. You are alone. Empathy is valuable, it's beautiful, but your feelings of empathy are not 100% accurate, they're mental projections of your own feelings onto others. So everything you think and do is going to be in relation to that perspective. So when you say 'well I feel uncomfortable unless other people do that', well what if other people feel more uncomfortable doing that then you feel comfortable? No one else can really know, for sure. So you can't use that as a basis for society. You've got to rely on a coherent set of standards, negotiated upon, and standards that are less able to be abused than 'well I just feel this way' is. So it's not so much a naturalistic argument as a, uh, phenomenological argument? Stinky_Pete posted:In that case it should be trans.*
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
This sure is a lot of words to say "trans people don't deserve basic human respect".
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
The problem with kim davis wasn't that she was uncomfortable it was that she has a legal duty in her official capacity to uphold the law, which she didn't. You're welcome to feel however you want but you ought still to afford people respect and be considerate of them wherever possible, and there is a great deal you can do to help trans people in that regard that is very easy to do, but isn't being done because people simply don't want to do it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Now when I said that people are 'self-centered', I didn't want that to be interpreted as 'selfish'. I'm not a believer in homo economicus, that's not how people behave, and thank gently caress for that, because we wouldn't have society at all if people were 100% rational and selfish actors. Or love. But you are a single person, in a specific place and time. You are alone. Empathy is valuable, it's beautiful, but your feelings of empathy are not 100% accurate, they're mental projections of your own feelings onto others. So everything you think and do is going to be in relation to that perspective. So when you say 'well I feel uncomfortable unless other people do that', well what if other people feel more uncomfortable doing that then you feel comfortable? No one else can really know, for sure. So you can't use that as a basis for society. You've got to rely on a coherent set of standards, negotiated upon, and standards that are less able to be abused than 'well I just feel this way' is. But the individual is not asking for empathy from the society, they ask for sympathy. Empathy implies a personal investment to the situation of others, but sympathy leaves the personal considerations aside and instead just asks for a basic understanding. Even so, an individual asking for anything from a society is not a guarantee that they should receive it; the society and its constituent members must allow that request to be granted. Is it not reasonable to think that "hey, using a pronoun for a nonbinary person so they don't go all sadbrains" is a considerably minor request for a short time? If this isn't a minor request, what is? What can society agree is "a nominal request"? Is it a matter of empathy to think "a pronoun-based nickname is the least that can be done"? Or would this be considered sympathy? To note, the latter does not require personal agreement or wholehearted complicity on the subject, but instead puts the value of society's concept of peace and order ahead of thinking "that's a dumb thing". As for feeling "uncomfortable unless other people do that", the simple answer is to simply put forth the point to the people and remove supposition, which is what a lot of trans folks do: they ask to be referred to by certain pronouns, regardless of what society thinks or says is correct. This directly refutes the notion that "what society says" and places the situation not on society, but in a tête-à-tête. Society's opinion on the self and what's right, good, or even uncomfortable isn't even a factor between two people. In this instance--one between two people--is when everything society imparts in a person emerges through a personal choice: do you be nice? Do you ignore the request? Do you froth at the mouth and gnash teeth? Regardless of the answer, none will know unless you post about it, which goes right to the previous statement: put forth the point to the people and remove the supposition. The world is filled with hypocrisy, and reasonable and logical individuals can still express hypocrisy. It's possible someone here is against this issue IRL but argues for it, and someone arguing against fancy pronouns will show deference in real life because they're nice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 03:20 |
|
|
Atasnaya Vaflja posted:Peaceful protests and respectability politics work, which is why Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't assassinated and racism no long exists today. this is the most retarded statement of the month posted on something awful. grats
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 15:07
|
|
