Yes, it’s very telling indeed the multiple ways in which you have deliberately minimized many very real attacks on trans people - and, laterally, on others. Perhaps that might explain why so many think you approve of them.
What the fuck are you talking about, you lying piece of fucking shit?
When the fuck did I do that?
Put up or shut up.
I don’t know if this is you confusing me with someone else, or if you are deliberately lying. Either way, it is fucked up.
You did, and thank you. I too have noticed that her previously poisonous attacks on trans folk seem to be lessened; and I agree that if she explicitly renounces some of what she said before, it’ll be a lot easier to engage in fruitful conversation with her. I worry that she’s going to act like it’s all our fault, and that she’s just been kind and civil throughout her tenure here and it’s just us meanies misrepresenting her.
But if she can avoid that short of irresponsible behavior, I’ll be delighted to reconsider her contributions to the board, and society.
I am still waiting for the lying piece of shit @Gyrate to retract his claim that I have, in “multiple ways”, “deliberately minimized many very real attacks on trans people”, given the fact that he will not be able to post a link to me doing any such thing.
Being a lying piece of shit, I expect he will instead slink off only to throw the same accusation (once again unsupported) at an unspecified future point in time. The purpose of this post is to link it in reply to the lying piece of shit @Gyrate the next time he pulls this stunt.
Someone needs to switch to decaf.
There are “put-ups” all over the fucking place on this board, so why don’t you shut up?
But he’s so close to winning everyone to his side!
You seem triggered.
Did the conversation between this post and this post not happen? How’s that wiggle room working out for you? Still wiggling?
Funny how you accuse others of a “If it’s not 100% good it’s bad” approach as you continue to claim “If it’s not 100% bad there’s ‘wiggle room’.”
Weren’t you just quibbling about whether the Reagan administration deliberately ignoring the AIDS epidemic for several years constituted a “genocide”, something it was certainly considered by vulnerable populations at the time?
Any of those fucking links work for you? But please keep pretending that unless we have a signed affidavit from Ronnie saying “Do not take any effective action to deal with the burgeoning AIDS epidemic because I would like all gay people to die” the YEARS of deliberate inaction don’t count as “genocide”. You know - like this:
What’s “insulting to all parties involved” is to decide to pick little semantic arguments about the appropriate term to call mass deaths caused by the aforementioned government inaction. And you know it, because you’ve defined it so narrowly (“Must be exactly like the Holodomor”) to be able to make your pointless argument in the first place.
Because you’re a disingenuous piece of shit who will “pull this stunt” again.
So, you got nothing? It’s all “you didn’t use my special word, that means you approve of everything that was done to gay and trans people”?
Are you so fucking stupid that you think the statements below are equivalent?
What Reagan did was not a genocide
What Reagan did was fine
What Reagan did by ignoring the AIDS epidemic was an evil crime against humanity. The specific crime in question was not “genocide”, though.
Not using the term “genocide” in a context that is very much not a genocide doesn’t minimize every other crime that isn’t genocide.
Sorry about that, Babale and LHOD have to rehash unrelated crap that spans many, many threads. They could go get their own thread or find one more appropriate.
Yours was a good post.
Thanks for that very thoughtful post.
I lived in San Francisco in the early 1980’s, during the AIDS epidemic. All the gay friends I had then died. Deaths seemed endless, every day there were more. Hospitals full of the dying. Maybe it wasn’t “technically” genocide, but if an activity or lack thereof has the same effect as genocide, and those unaffected had the same callous smugness about it as it was happening, then arguing about what we should call it seems like a pointless spectacle of snappiness.
Oh, fuck off. Your purpose here is very clear, troll-To get people so frustrated that they give up on the subject and walk away, giving you your “win”. You are only here to throw sand in the gears.
Holy shit, no, it’s not nitpicking or callous smugness. It’s that genocide is a very specific, and heinous, thing; the specificity is what makes the charge so serious. If we broaden genocide to the point that anything qualifies, then it loses its value as an accusation to make.
This isn’t just my opinion; there is tons of international legal framework underlying this:
Emphasis mine.
https://academic.oup.com/book/57761/chapter-abstract/470835239?redirectedFrom=fulltext
When you strip dolus specialis from the charge of genocide, you render it meaningless.
Ahhh, I disagree with you, so I must be a troll.
It must be comforting to live with such blind moral certainty that no one can possibly genuinely disagree with me.
Why don’t you go put words in your own mouth? You weren’t even mentioned, even though you are well known as a “me, too!!” when it comes to shit like this.
So when you replied to my post in the quote below (my avatar is on the top right of the post), you didn’t mean to speak to me?
Who was this post (that “didn’t even mention me” but replied to my earlier post in Discourse terms) supposed to be directed at?
Genocide defined by Babale,
What a shittastic reading of what transpired.