Perhaps, but it seems to me that the accusations of douchiness are based on assumptions about the OP’s beliefs at least as much on what he’s actually saying.
I’m not inside the OP’s head. I can’t tell you what he really believes or doesn’t. There’s plenty about the OP’s words to debate. I just think this thread is a lot more interesting, productive, and fair if we don’t start with the assumption that the OP is arguing in bad faith.
There is no way possible this thread will ever be “interesting” or “productive.”
All you trolls who don’t like the thread have the simple and easy option of not participating.
So Zeke you are a far left alt right person? That’s cool. Now it also highlights the stupidity and inadequacy of trying to map complex human politics onto a single line.
What makes you consider yourself far left?
We don’t? I must have missed that meeting.
And no newsletter was sent. How strange. All the “queers” i know are accepting of trans.
My question: how do you reconcile the statements " words don’t matter; get over it" and" I’m offended by the word cisgender!"
Technically speaking, “pygmy” is a term given to certain ethnicities all over the world who are relatively short on average-
This means that there are tall “pygmyes”, that there are non black “pygmyes” and that the term “pygmy” isn’t really a scientific thing that can be qualified-
Maybe you meant “midget” but feared it would sound politically incorrect?
And, quite frankly, if you want to declare yourself a midget, fight for short people rights, hang around with midgets… fine with me. More power to you. Why would that be a problem for anybody?
He described himself as a prick and told us to fire at him. How is taking him at his word demonizing him?
Clearly the OP has (by his own admission and by his own design) hit a lot of nerves here. And sure enough plenty of people have responded in such a way as to prove his point.
God forbid if you veer one-jot from the accepted dogma.
I disagree with points that he makes and agree with others and I am without doubt left-leaning. I think I could argue the toss on several of their points and ultimately disagree and at the same time still accept that they are basically a good person with the best of intentions. Beliefs are not the same as actions, many religious people hold views that I consider offensive and objectionable and yet I still can accept that they are good people in practice.
I’m far less bothered by what someone thinks than by what they actually do. Judging by the actual actions given as example I think I’d stand a far better chance of fair and equal treatment by the OP than by many of those responding. I also get the impression that on matters that are open to scientific and empirical evidence that they would change their mind, I think that is admirable.
How is “No, you don’t believe that. At all.” taking him at his word?
Well said. Boring, but needed to be said.
Sounds good to me. Glad to hear this.
I don’t think this is generally accurate, except for on the extreme fringe of the left. The patriarchy doesn’t refer to “white males” – it’s a system that tends to advantage men, and infantilize women, at least in many or most scenarios. “The man”? That’s also referring to a system, one that tends to advantage white people at the expense of people of color (and especially black people). The source of all problems? Ridiculous hyperbole.
Black people and other non-white people were absolutely integral for the achievements related to Civil Rights in America, and certainly were essential (and in many cases performed most of the physical labor) in building schools, hospitals, and many other institutions in our society.
It’s as ridiculous to claim that “white males” as a massive group are responsible for this good stuff as it is to blame them for the bad stuff.
It’s not equally obnoxious IMO – there are different dialects of English, and a word that’s a slur in one dialect may not be a slur when pronounced differently in another.
As for your lazy ignoramus, he should be criticized as a lazy ignoramus. If someone calls him a racist because he used a racial slur for no reason whatsoever, then maybe that’s the kind of sharp lesson he needs to actually not be such a lazy ignoramus. Or he can be defensive and play the victim, which is generally the lazy ignoramus’s preferred strategy.
Okay. I see no reason to trust your feelings on the prevalence of transgenderism – why would I? You’ve presented nothing but feelings on it. Trusting the science and experts and actual trans people seems far wiser to me.
As for self-identification of things not related to gender, you can call yourself anything you want, but that’s not the same as self-identification as gender. If you really, truly feel yourself to be a pygmy, that’s fine with me… but I’ve heard from large groups of people, backed by science, that say their gender doesn’t match their biological sex. There’s no such comparable group for pygmies – maybe because that sort of self-identification doesn’t exist. If a big group comes, backed by science, then maybe I’d consider taking it seriously.
Nothing was forced on you, any more than learning that your Y Chromosome is along the H1 line (or whatever). You don’t have to claim this if you don’t want to, but scientists and other professionals are still going to talk about the H1 line of Y Chromosomes whether you like it or not, and that’s okay with me.
I trust the science and trans people – why wouldn’t I? Even if there are a few hangers on who aren’t being honest, what do I lose by taking their word for it? It costs me nothing to treat people how they’d like to be treated, including using the preferred pronouns and names and such.
It’s not intended to be snarky or rude or mocking. Cisgender is a useful term in discussing transgender issues. You don’t like it, and that’s fine, so I won’t use it for you. But I’m not going to stop using the term because one person doesn’t like it, any more than I’d stop using “blonde” because a single blonde person said that the term is offensive to them. I would no longer call them blonde, but unless some great mass of blonde people tells me that “blonde” is now a slur, I’ll continue to use that word.
Somewhere between one and genocide lies what’s actually happening, and somewhere between doing nothing and open violent revolution is the correct response. IMO, BLM and allied organizations are an appropriate response – they don’t vilify all cops, but rather challenges law enforcement to improve their processes and culture and similar.
I just don’t know what you’re talking about, which is why I’m not commenting on this.
This sounds like some mostly-fantasy fringe (and a few real-world idiots), not the left in general. Tons of old white guys are in the left, and they aren’t demonized. You count. And now others are starting to count as well. For some reason, counting others strikes some (some white males, usually) as discounting them – but don’t worry, you aren’t being left behind. You just aren’t being catered to as much any more.
That’s one remark out of all the “flak” he’s getting. And it is certainly consistent with his request to be fired at.
Congratulations?
Yep. The idea of having specific groups requiring extra protection is a good starting point, but at some point - and hopefully soon - that needs to be ended and everyone needs to be treated equally. That means, for example, shops either sell cakes or they don’t, and if they sell custom ones they put on it whatever is ordered, whether that’s a celebration of a gay wedding or a fucking swastika.
Definitely. Hearing or reading “you can’t be racist against white people”, for example, is a daily thing.
True, but irrelevant to how it’s used in the real world. People identify as male, female, non-binary or whatever because that’s what they are, the identification is not the cause. You have that backwards.
I’ll take the views of doctors and scientists on this issue rather than that of random internet people.
That’s just factually false, based on your description. You are, as a matter of scientific fact, cisgender. You have the right to refuse “male”, or “human” as well, and people should pay as much attention to that as refusing “cisgender”.
Yep. Even if BLM wasn’t a front for violent revolutionaries such as antifa, and a cover fro looting and other crimes, it would still be an unnecessary and divisive movement.
Yeah, this is pretty disgusting. Pride succeeded where the likes of BLM can’t by being inclusive - see the ever expanded intitialisms from LGBTQ etc. If they start being divisive, that progress (less progress than has been made with racial rights, it’s still legal to discriminate against gays and trans people) will slow or even reverse. Which would be a disaster for the one main minority that is still subject to legal discrimination.
Balls. You are not even slightly (socially) left wing, and you appear to be an unrepentant transphobe. You may be economically left, but combining that with your centre-right social views just makes you wrong on both counts.
Two questions for the OP:
Why do you feel the need for attention by posting your positions about almost exclusively identity politics?
Do you feel left out or left behind somehow by people of races or sexual identities/orientations different from yours expressing theirselves or being paid attention to in the media?
This isn’t the first time Zeke has made a thread about the failings of the left while also making sure we know he’s liberal.
Some other gems are What Is So Special About the Holocaust and I Don’t Get and Am Sick of Trans-Stuff.
I too am curious about the motivation that drives someone to post a long monotonous harangue and beg strangers for commentary.
This question could be posed to ANY “ask the” thread.
I think this OP needs some interpretation for clarity:
. . . sorry dude. As long as I’ve been alive (~40 years), the left has stood as the party of social change supported by government programs. If you’ve got a problem with the fact that the country is turning its eye towards historically underserved and/or actively oppressed demographics and is concerned with helping them for a hot second, you’re maybe not as left as you think you are.
(Also while there may be one or two philosophical discussions to be had burried in your OP, the combination of points in toto and your simplistic way of expressing them makes those discussions obviously unwelcome)
Why do you object to “cisgendered” but not “heterosexual”? The context and history of both is nearly identical.
It used to be, everyone was simply assumed to be heterosexual, so there was no need for a special word it. Then it became apparent that some people were different, so they got a special word to describe them. Then a word was coined to describe the people that were not homosexual. And that word was constructed by simply taking the opposite of the prefix. Homo -> Hetero.
It used to be, everyone was simply assumed to be cisgendered, so there was no need for a special word for it. Then it became apparent that some people were different, so they got a special word to describe them. Then a word was coined to describe the people that were not transgendered. And that word was constructed by simply taking the opposite of the prefix. Trans -> Cis
Why is it so offensive that people should want a word for “not transgendered”?