All Comments

  • Posted by FlukeMan2 11 years, 1 month ago
    I'm a Latter-day Saint so I don't jive too well with the whole homosexual/transgender thing, but thanks to my Mormon upbringing I will stand up for those being harassed (including those who make ungodly choices).

    I pledge to take action to defend people being assaulted in this way. Who's with me?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    You said earlier that "it's most likely the other people who are at fault for not being accepting." That is a very slippery slope. There are certain societal norms that must be followed, to a certain degree, if the society is to function. Accepting anyone and anything because their perspective is just as valid could be dangerous proposition. Yesterday, I killed someone because they really annoyed me and I just couldn't help myself; let's celebrate our diversity! Oh, OK, that was using physical force, so that's a no-no. Fine, how about if I paste Playboy or Playgirl spreads in my office, or wear a swastika, or turn my office into an altar by pasting icons and crosses all over the desk and the walls, just like people do with pictures of their kids or Internet diplomas? I'll just paste Jesus all over. Wouldn't the same people that scream for tolerance and diversity label me as intolerant, racist and fire me? But I forgot - tolerance and diversity works in one direction only.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, I agree completely that changing words and confusing people as to what terms to use is a control strategy. George Orwell showed it best in "1984" where 2 + 2 = whatever the Party wants it to be. The Soviets used that strategy, where yesterday's heroes were tomorrow's villains and vice verse. A good Party member would never question the meaning.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Physically, we're talking about someone over 50. Now, do I and all others really have to care about someone's second childhood problems? Let's look at this from my perspective - I come to work to do a job, get paid, and in the process interact with professional people on a professional level. If someone has personal problems, including myself, I expect them to leave those problems at home. Is that unreasonable? Do I have to play psychologist instead of being an engineer?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    and then, all of a sudden, someone calls me a racist...no-keeping people not knowing what term(s) are acceptable is a strategy. It is intended to be consfusing and club oriented. It is a tactic meant to be controlling. Look at the Ru Paul twitter drama lately...double "tranny" indemnity. Transgenders offending transgenders with their own terms. Enough is enough. My mom always said, "I'll call you late-for-supper if I want to." and she did.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Well, there's nothing that can be done about words changing their meaning over time. Fluctuation in vernacular is a natural and inherent part of language. But even still, George Orwell described it as happening at the command of a government authority. I sincerely doubt he was trying to imply that natural change was a problem.

    But you do bring up a legitimate point about how other people might not always know which terms are considered offensive or not, which is why I personally think it's best not to worry about it too much, and instead judge people by their actions, attitude, and intentions, rather than by the words they happen to choose.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Of course she's not young physically, but she is young mentally. There are certain psychological stages that every woman goes through, regardless of age.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    it was also about constantly changing the meaning of words which can be very confusing and passive aggressive. An example I will give is are you Black? African-American? Negro? A certain tribe? A certain nation? You can call your own group a name but if I say it I am wrong and degrading? How the heck am I know that?! and even if I do-are you not trying to control me by calling me either ignorant for not knowing or racist for using the wrong term? crazy
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    I would never use "it" to refer to a person, as doing so is dehumanizing and degrading. Though many people do consider themselves to be gender neutral, and prefer to be referred to by the pronoun "they." And no, the logical conclusion is not about replacing or eliminating any words, but rather simply about allowing each person to choose the pronouns which they prefer on an individual level. I don't see how allowing a greater range of individual freedom could possibly be called "collectivist." Forcing people to conform to the pronouns YOU think they should have is the real collectivism.

    George Orwell's Newspeak concept was about LIMITING speech, not about changing speech.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    There is no "she".
    He's not a young girl, surgery and drug therapy notwithstanding.

    There's no rational comparison of cause and effect.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    If she transitioned fairly recently, she's most likely just going through her "teenage girl" phase. Every young girl goes through a phase where they like to wear skimpy outfits. When a male-to-female transgender individual transitions, they go through that same stage as well, it just happens a bit later in life (assuming they don't transition in their actual teenage years, of course).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    No, it's not recognized as an illness by psychologists and psychiatrists in positions of power because of the political clout (and possibly personal proclivities) of those people and their cronies in government and media.

    We've gone over this again, and again, Humpty. The human reproductive organs exist to procreate the species. They do not exist for the purpose of pleasure; rather they provide addictive pleasure (on the order of heroin) in order to encourage animals to engage in the reproductive process.

    The bonding of romantic feelings exists to ensure the survival of the offspring until they, in turn, are able to reproduce.

    The imperfection of reproduction (that is, that every sexual encounter doesn't result in offspring) is an effect of evolution in action. If every time she were mounted, a female produced offspring, that would actually be detrimental to the species, particularly in the wild.

    Any sexual attraction or romantic feeling that is not aligned with this evolutionary imperative is, to one degree or another, an illness.

    This is obvious to people who recognize sex as reproduction, and seems impossible to recognize for people who can only think of sex as a means of pleasure.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Samantha Mathis. She was also in "The Super Mario Brothers Movie" and "Broken Arrow".

    I also find her very attractive, physically. Considering that her next project was where she portrayed half of a lesbian pair... not so much mentally (or maybe I should say "philosophically").
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    "Her" who?

    Taking your agenda to its ultimate destination, "Him" and "her" will one day be replaced in the Newspeak dictionary by either "them" or "it". I'm betting on "them", since that fits the collectivist mindset so well... Shades of "Anthem"...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by starguy 11 years, 1 month ago
    And where the cops, when all this was going on?

    Snooping the emails of law-abiding citizens? Taking a doughnut break? Going out on strike for more pay & higher retirement benefits? Where were they?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by sfdi1947 11 years, 1 month ago
    And the political people and planners in cities wonder why nobody wants to live there?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Seriously, I don't want to accuse you of bias, but is there an acceptable explanation for wearing vulgar clothing (there little of it that he or she wears) in a professional organization? Sure, you can say that it's vulgar by "my definition," but it is deficient even in square inches of coverage! If any other person were to dress in that manner, they would have been told to go home. So, if I'm missing her perspective, please explain it to me.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    My point is you're not trying to look at the situation from her perspective, and you're accusing her of "provoking" other people when really it's most likely the other people who are at fault for not being accepting. Seriously, I've seen enough of these cases to know that's almost always how it goes.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Abaco 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    I can relate, Ron.

    I know some may find it offensive but...if a man looks at Sofia Vergara and feels nothing, I feel concern for that man. And, I'm not being sarcastic. I just "don't understand it". But, I respect my gay friends, and appreciate that they respect me and my family.

    I even know some women who will admit that they find Sofia attractive. It must be that the curves and softness has some sort of biological trigger. When I stop liking that you can put me in a pine box...

    The actress who played Dagny Taggart in ASII?...Yep. No complaints here.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by bridgetlynn 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Please cite sources before telling me that I'm wrong. Also, pease logically distinguish it from any other delusion of the mind. Last I checked, schizophrenia has verifiable roots in biology and genetics, but that does not make it any less of a problem, and we aren't the weird ones for not hearing the voices.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    If you have a substantative point to make, please do so. If you find anything that I've said factually incorrect, please correct it. Otherwise, it is unclear to me what are you trying to say.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo