Perfect example of what I’m talking about. Deflecting to dictionary definitions instead of recognizing the connotative use of the word slur. It wasn’t just you either.
As if saying to someone “you used an insult against me” and “you used a slur against me” have identical connotations, even if dictionaries don’t highlight that.
However, I don’t play in that debating style pool, so peace out.
Of course you don’t. Because you couldn’t defend it. And yet you can accuse me (and others) of behaving disingenuously.
You just did what several other people did. They said that it was true just because they said it. You’re saying there’s a “connotative use of the word” that you then don’t define or elaborate on, then pretending that everyone agrees.
If you’re not using dictionary definitions, you could at least give some cites for where you’re getting your info. When you look at this thread, there are people accusing others of using “bad” sources. In this case, there were no sources.
Oh, I don’t think it was an algorithmic thing, I’m pretty sure I was reported. IIRC I called some passive aggressive transphobic bitch a worthless piece of shit and a waste of 12 stone of human DNA, or something like that.
I broke the rules of the platform, I knew I was breaking the rules when I did it and frankly, I only got away with it for so long because I didn’t have followers or anything. I think their rules are fair. I’m not a hypocrite, I’m an adult willing to accept the consequences of my actions.
I am a little less fond of the algorithm banning but my friends seem to get their accounts restored fairly quickly if it’s an honest mistake. I think it’s important that a social media platform has strongly enforced standards. I think they should enforce them even harder.
All this snowflake whining and crying is disingenuous, it’s the abusive husband that screams “stop hitting me” as he beats his wife. It’s just another abuse tactic brought to you by the Trumpist party whose published the official slogan “If you hit us, we hit you back 10 times harder.”
Fucking hell, Roo, don’t be so disingenuous. There IS a “connotative use of the word” and if you’ve somehow made it to adulthood while remaining too clueless to know about it that’s really not anyone else’s problem but yours.
If you really ARE that clueless about the connotations basic words have in our society - for example, because you are a 5 year old in the body of a grownup or a space alien who only arrived in the solar system last Tuesday, I recommend Urban Dictionary for understanding the “connotative use of the word”.
Oh will you look at that? The top definition is exactly what everyone who isn’t posting disengenously understood from the start, almost like there really IS a connotative use of the word on which everyone agrees.
Again. Your attempt at insulting me doesn’t make this true. If the shoe was on the other foot, you’d be demanding cites and proof, as you have demanded of me many times.
I posted a cite, here it is again:
Well, yes. Ask a beekeeper. Or just watch a frigging nature documentary, FFS.
Your cite wasn’t there when I was originally replying. And your cite wasn’t in the original discussion, but I did already mention that cite in MY original discussion here.
There is ONE definition in Urban Dictionary that mentions those groups. None of the other definitions do. But if we’re discussing good and bad sources, I would say that Urban Dictionary is a better source for slang or memes than the actual dictionary. That’s why I asked if puzzlegal was using a non-standard definition
Has it? I put it to you that the OP and resulting thread is a good example of a far more troubling trend of left-most progressive ideology.
It’s been a long and winding thread, but my take on it is that with a few exceptions of genuine conservative opinion from posters like @Sam_Stone, mostly this has been another painful display of progressive puritanism. Much of what has been posted is what I recognize as zealotry from progressive posters telling other liberal posters that their views fail the progressive litmus test, followed by accusations of bigotry for daring to challenge certain progressive views.
And even though there are very few progressive position with which I disagree, I find the dogmatism and intolerance expressed by some of my fellow progressives to be troubling because it is so clearly a mirror image of the intolerance and mischaracterization we typically find exercised by the extreme right - which is what the OP’s griping about. As a way of example: I did not imagine that posters like @YWTF, @monstro, could possibly be mistaken for anything but liberal, and often very progressive. Nevertheless, they have been labeled bigots simply because of their failure to agree with a handful of vocal trans-advocates on a very narrow set of trans issues. Posters like @DemonTree is being lumped in with them in a post just a few hours up-thread. While I disagree with this posters about some positions, I just don’t know how she can be reasonably accused of being illiberal or bigoted based on the opinions I’ve seen expressed to date. Even a poster like @ZosterSandstorm, with whom I’ve had disagreements, strikes me at worst, as a typical (be it abrasive) moderate democrat. If we can’t tolerate their views, and resort to calling them bigots, what hope is there for liberalism, let alone retaining (progressive approved!) conservative voices?
I think that if this thread’s “thesis” has proven anything it is that some posters here aren’t satisfied to simply jettison conservatives from the boards, they want to out, shame and drive away those who are not sufficiently progressive.
My husband posted a Monty Python reference in response to “Every little thing she does is magic” and got suspended. He also gets suspended regularly for sharing information about the Christian connection to the KKK. His extended family is evangelical, bigoted, and denies the connection.
I will gladly debate (some) other positions with you, but their positions were both hateful and hurtful. Progressive people can have bad views, and they should be called on those. No one asked them to leave. They did that themselves, because they found the view that transgender people deserved equal rights too horrifying to spend any more time with us.
You’re entitled to your opinion, but at least be honest that they left because of how moderation was being done rather than making up shit like that.
If there is a dictionary definition that doesn’t fit what Puzzlegal said, and a slang definition that does, and you note that puzzlegal is speaking informally and seems confused by you citing dictionary definitions, I think it’s pretty safe to assume that yes, the slang definition is the one she was using.
And while it is ONE definition, that ONE definition also had many, MANY times the updates that the others do.
And my opinion is different than yours. Color me shocked.
I said OP’s thesis. I don’t know what the “thread’s thesis” is.
That disingenuous debating adds nothing to the board has been proven out in this thread.
What do conservatives add to this thread?
Why would it be likely they would add to another one?
90% of con messaging here is whining about that we are not letting them talk enough: to fill in their “rightful half” of the public reality and opinion ignored by our liberalism. And that is a lot of posts of complaint, scads of it. But the other 10% is not the message they are saying that they are trying so desperately hard to deliver. It’s just trolling, disingenuous hacking of the public space for anti-democracy and pro-minority rule. Sealioning about public policies of sadism.
They fall back on “You can’t get into my head, and so you can’t call me a racist or fascist” This is the platform of the right.
Conservatives are not so opaque as they think though.
Likewise.
Last thing I want to do is to relitigate those threads. But even accepting your position that their views were “bad”, I do not agree that they deserved to be labeled “bigots”.
Well, every time I point at the results of the efforts of many conservatives now to the ones that support the demonization of CRT: Firing of school board members, the threatening of the life or livelihoods of teachers and professors, specially minority ones; the erasing of history, etc. I just get the sound of crickets.
The ones defending the Orwellian talking points of conservatives regarding Critical Race Theory showed that they don’t care about those results. As I pointed before in a very meta way, the ones supporting the CRT caricature end up becoming evidence of why there is systemic racism in the US and other parts of the world.
I’ve decided that I both don’t know enough, nor care enough, to have a well informed opinion on the applied socio-political realities of CRT as a K-12 curriculum. And even though I recognized it is being used as a wedge issue by the right, I’m not really interested in responding to people’s various positions on the subject. So from me, you’re more likely to hear crickets. Are you suggesting, using a well coined phrase, that my “silence is violence”? Am I the enemy? Am I a bigot?
I’d be interested to know who in this thread you would label “conservative” and how you came that conclusion?