If there’s no one here to try to paraphrase meaning from the cans of alphabet soup thrown into the air that you call posts, then how would anyone make use of them at all?
And now to address this directly. You are being disingenuous. Again.
You have just lied about something I said. I never at any point “declared that harm to women [is] irrelevant in [my] calculations.” In fact, you accuse me of such, and I pointed out that was wrong. The issue is that trans women are not a threat to cisgender women, which I proved. I don’t accept the “fear of others” as an excuse to discriminate. Your argument that there is harm was and remains bigoted.
You have just argued that sexism, racism, etc are perfectly fine, a position I know you do not hold. You say that discriminating against innate characteristics isn’t wrong. So we can not hire women or black people, right? No that’s racism.
You have indicated in this very post that you think that I’m sexist, and that this is wrong. But, then, if discrimination is okay, then that accusation makes no sense.
There remains one part of your post that I will give you a pass on, as I don’t remember if this was covered in the other threads. But here’s the thing: women’s spaces are not discrimination because agreement was achieved on both sides. Both men and women decided it was better to stay separate.
But there is previous little reason that you can’t have unisex restrooms, as long as you have separate stalls. You can also have changing stalls and shower stalls instead of locker rooms. If privacy is the issue, that makes a lot more sense than what we do now.
Because there’s no reason whatsover for a woman to think she’s more at threat from a man in the restroom/lockerroom than a woman. Women can be predators, too, but often get written off. And, of course, men can pray on other men.
And, in none of these does it matter what genitals the person has, or what they were assigned at birth, either. The thing that is ridiculous is that, unless you’re a creep, you have no way of knowing if a woman is cisgender or trans. There are very “mannish” looking women.
I continue to remind you that the vast majority of feminists are pro-trans. So trying to argue that I am anti-woman because I am also pro-trans won’t ever fly. Trans rights and women’s rights are not in any way incompatible.
Because, well, trans women are women. They face many of the same forms of discrimination as cisgender women. Sure, they also face discrimination for being trans, and there are some issues that are exclusive to trans women.
You are the one who hates women—at least, the subset who you consider a threat due to not being like you.
So again, you have noting. The evidence shows that many others have no problem following what I say.
It is also notable that Quicksilver, who tries to have a middle ground position but ignores how many other anti-intellectuals are not debating in good faith, still noted how unhinged you are.
You just constructed a helluva a strawman BigT. Because what you are arguing against has almost 0 relevance to what DemonTree wrote.
You hide behind the ambiguity created by your poor English skills to claim that you’re being misinterpreted by the people you’re trolling. Of course the people on your side think this is a great idea.
The fact that you claim to work in education makes me fear for the future of this country.
I might as well address this, too. GIGO is not hard to understand. I actually didn’t even know he wasn’t a native speaker until he told us. You admit that other posters can “translate” what he says. So, if we can understand him, and you can’t, that suggests the issue is with you.
It makes no sense if you don’t understand someone to assume they said something bad and attack them for it. Heck, it makes no sense to attack them at all for your lack of understanding.
If you don’t understand someone, ask for clarification. If you think he needs help being more clear, asking questions will help him learn what he needs to do to be more clear, and help him improve his skills.
I do wonder if you had any trouble understanding him before you knew he wasn’t a native English speaker. You really can almost never tell.
Well, thanks for showing to all that you are also an ignorant X100 for not reading what I also told everybody before.
More than once I said that because of my limitations I decided to never teach ESL or grammar; now, History, administration duties, computers and digital graphics. I’m there.
Oh I still thought a lot of their posts were/are ridiculous, but they occasionally demonstrated the capacity to discuss something on the level.
I take the most likely meanings out of his shit posts, which is possible about 80% of the time. The rest are just totally incomprehensible. The game he plays is to then hide behind the ambiguity created by the poor grammar to claim that I’m misinterpreting him. The game you play is to ignore not only the 20% of posts where no two people could possibly draw out the same meaning, but also the fact that he turns his effort at comprehensible English up and down as it suits him. If a thread isn’t going the way that the leftist clique wants, you can be sure GibberishSpewer will show up to bury it in several consecutive posts of garbage so that either people get too frustrated to continue or someone snaps at him and provides a pretext for a mod to close the discussion.
The reasons why he can’t consistently string together solid English are absolutely not my problem. I don’t give a shit about his background (and of course no one here has any way to verify his claims about such) and the burden is not on me to make up for his linguistic shortcomings or the way he manipulates them.
This is also utter nonsense. Do you seriously expect it to convince anybody?
More than once I admitted that my English is a crime against nature, the problem that remains, as others see it, is that Zoster is “a complete and utter loon”. **
** not my quote, but from another poster in this very thread that is not a liberal AFAIK.
I expect people who are not coming into the thread to argue for a partisan position to see things like reading an accusation of antivax from the phrase “you are becoming insulted on the behalf of dishonest anti vaxxers” as the most plausible reason for those words being posted in that order, as opposed to the insistence that this means something else (what else? why use this example if so?) If GIGOBuster had to simply say what he meant, we wouldn’t be going down these paths of technical possible readings of these kinds of posts - but it’s by design.
Nope, others already noted that your attempts here are just the efforts of a loon. A loon that can’t picture how is it that an ESL bumpkin from a Third World country that became a citizen in the 90s can still understand more than a native about how one can be manipulated by the right in the USA.
It is also noticeable that you have more animosity towards someone that tries to show others how that manipulation is done. You only think that then it is more logical to attack the one showing you the evidence rather than the ones that misled you. Clearly, you will forever think that that is a winning idea.
Of course, for a loon, it is.
By what I have seen, I’m not impressed about the level they reached.
That might have made some sense if you’d addressed only this specific post (but then, if you had, I doubt GIGObuster would ever have made it).
You’re ignoring the fact that you drastically misinterpreted multiple other posts by GIGObuster that were clearly saying nothing of the sort. You’re also ignoring the fact that you claimed 20% of their posts are totally incomprehensible and all the rest are unclear; and you’re responding to my statement that that’s nonsense as if you yourself had said something else entirely.
If anybody’s producing deliberately misleading word salad here, it’s you.
Okay, now I really have to ask this: Are you not a native English speaker? Because those words, in that order, do not in any way call you an anti-vaxxer. They say you are getting offended on the behalf of “dishonest anti-vaxxers.”
If someone told me “you are insulted on the behalf of thieves and con men”, they would not be calling me a con man or thief. They would be telling me that the people I am defending are con men and thieves, and that I should not be insulted on their behalf.
I would go so far as to say that it is most likely that the reason GIGO worded it what way was to avoid calling you an anti-vaxxer.
They probably wouldn’t be. Your interpretation in this case is more of a stretch than BigT’s; it’s just that it’s the first such case you’ve brought up in which the language can be bent around to see how you could get there. In all the other cases, there’s no excuse at all.
Stop lying. You haven’t come a quintilian of an iota of a percent towards proving anything of the sort. You’ve simply declared it to be true because you want it to be true, and declared anyone who disagrees with you a bigot. You’ve shown that harm to women (of any kind, not just physical harm) doesn’t matter to you by completely ignoring it in your calculations. It’s just not even a factor for you to bother considering.
And now I’m angry again, and I hate being angry. Why are you so wilfully blind?
No I haven’t. I’ve argued that discriminating in certain cases is not wrong, when there’s a good reason for it, and that this is something we already do in the case of sex. For example in sports, we have separate categories for men and women because men have a huge natural advantage and would otherwise dominate almost every sport. And we have separate prisons for men and women because otherwise the minority of women in prison would be at very great risk of abuse.
Is it okay to purposely hire women or black people? Maybe in some circumstances, as affirmative action. (I’m not a big fan, but in some cases I think it’s justified.)
See above that I don’t think discrimination is okay in general. I don’t know if you’re sexist - probably unconsciously.
That’s news to me. When were we consulted?
…we really do live in different worlds. @BigT, when I’m afraid to walk alone at night, or ride my bike along the isolated canal path, it’s not because I’m afraid of women. Not once has that been something I’m worried about. My own partner couldn’t understand why we had to go home the long way round to walk a female friend home after an evening out at the pub. Men just don’t seem to get it. You don’t have to live your whole fucking life thinking about this stuff. Go look up some statistics on what percentage of sexual and violent crimes are committed by men and then tell me there’s ‘no reason whatsover’ to think men are more of a threat.