Packbat wrote:I know, I haven't been paying attention, and I should probably know your gender by this point.
I don't see why I should expect you to know. Male, for what it's worth.
Danke!
(Also, I am forced to admit that you should, in fact, expect me not to know - my recollection for biographical details is nearly as bad as my recollection of names and faces.)
My point is that crayzz consistently (but not always) argues against the argument itself, the words, not the intent or premise behind them. Not because you should argue only the latter, but that if you can't or won't argue both points, I don't care to defend myself. I'm not arguing for his sake, and so continuing to follow his arguments doesn't benefit me. I'm only arguing here because I can learn from the argument itself, and I gain nothing from crayzz's asinine semantical arguments.
I give very few fucks if you guys learn anything at this point in my life. While I have definite indignation about the fact that most people will not, I've come to terms with the nature of people and that I don't expect them to do anything but drive their lives (and the society around them) into the ground with a goddamn smile on their faces. I'm waiting for my death or the extinction of man, and just making the best of the time in between.
So far, I am learning things from this argument, but nothing I feel refutes my original position so I hold to it and continue to utilize it in my debate.
What was your original position? Because as far as I can tell the arguments arrayed against it have been trying to establish that:
1. Habitually using the masculine pronoun leads to harm;
2. The alternatives (i.e. using singular-they, xe, or some other gender-nonspecific pronoun in cases where the referent's gender is not known, and using the referent's preferred gender pronoun otherwise) are not onerous relative to that harm; and therefore
3. You should use one or more of these alternatives.
It seems to me that you have rejected 3, but I am not sure if that more represents a refusal to allow the jump from is to ought between 2 and 3, a rejection of the comparative in 2, or a rejection of the absolute in 1.
So far, I am learning things from this argument, but nothing I feel refutes my original position so I hold to it and continue to utilize it in my debate.
Your original position is "fuck you; I'm right": "The principle is that it's a pointless, stupid, wasteful mentality that the word 'he' or 'she' fucking matters."
"I'm tired of stupid shit being used to put up some worthless shield to try to get idiots to listen to why we all deserve to be equal."
"I also said, if you need me to use a specific pronoun to describe you, despite my acceptance of what you are, to prove my acceptance or soothe your gender issues, that's stupid."
I just want to note that you don't actually accept who they are; you've stated that your refusal to use proper pronouns is based in such.
"The latter is socially unacceptable in pretty much all circumstances, but that's just stupid human gender bias."
"Yeah, I think all that politically correct bullshit is just that."
Among others. You do not defend such assertions; you merely assert them.
I absolutely reject the absolute in 1. I accept that people can be harmed by 1, but only in that they allow it, which does not constitute remotely an issue on my part. The male pronoun isn't a gun, I am not pulling the trigger. No one is being harmed by me. At worst it is like handing a knife to someone who I have reason to believe will stab themselves. I wouldn't constitute that as a problem either. If I knew someone would stab themselves, and I couldn't talk them out of it (such as by the discussion I've consistently suggested I would have with said allegorical party), then I'd absolutely hand them the knife and let them stab away. The only thing that would stop me from doing so is that I might legally be held accountable and thus face punitive measures I'm unwilling to face on behalf of someone who decided to stab themselves.
crayzz wrote:<Some bullshit>
Oh right, the other reason I don't argue with you, because you decided what I think already. You are sure those statements declare specific thoughts (not the ones they do declare, ones you've decided on), which makes you an asshole or an idiot. Then you decide to argue with me using thoughts I never declared... Which is more of a waste of my time.
Hmm... that second thing you quoted is unclear... I don't remember typing that in that way. First, it should be taken as literally as possible. My indignation is with the idea that people believing something is inferior, not that they are inferior due to the thing they are believing (though I disagree with the idea that anyone is 'inferior', something crayzz, of course, assumes (like the asshole he has been) I am doing). I don't think crayzz's inferior because he's an asshole, I think he's an asshole because he's an asshole. I'm unsure why I used 'acting a certain way' because I made clear certain actions are clearly wrong. I was being overly vague and in the process failed my point...
So, in seeing my mistake. I'll clarify (in detail) that point to be: 'My indignation lies with the idea that people are inferior, or with the fact that the belief in something one cannot prove or see is stupid based solely on those factors.'
