South Carolina OKs ban on gender affirming care.

[ImmortalFlame]

Again, your questions are not points. If you have a point to make, then let's hear it.

I've explained my point three times now.

Try. Reading.

 

[icehorse]

I've explained my point three times now.

Try. Reading.

I feel a new thread coming on...

Communication is ALWAYS a two way street. Just because person A says something, doesn't mean person B understands it.

If we assume good faith conversations, then we have to allow for several different reasons that person B doesn't understand what person A said. And of course, among those reasons is that person A wasn't clear.

In other words, I see a lot of times that person A on this forum will say things like "you've been told" or "I've already said that". I think that if we're really trying to communicate with each other we also ought to think, "hmmm, perhaps I was unclear and ought to rephrase that".

 

[Laniakea]

I've explained my point three times now.

Try. Reading.

I guess it wasn't much of a point.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I actually agree with you. It's a term made up by racists who want to see white people as somehow evil, but don't want to be called racists for doing so. Then they try to make us believe that it's somehow ok to hate white people for who they are, while at the same time claim that anyone who would dare say the same thing about any other people--whether based on culture or skin color--is a racist.

Racist white (and black) people are the only ones I've known who actually go on about stuff like that. Nobody else is blanket judging others by skin color or assuming their being negatively judged by it. Out in the real world, where most people live and are just trying to get through the day, judging others by the color of their skin is still the default measurement of racism.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If we assume good faith conversations,

Ahhh, so that's the problem. Because it's obviously not good faith when you explain something repeatedly and they still insist you're making a completely different point to what you're actually making. Especially considering there are plenty of people on this forum who clearly did undertand the point I was making.

It's an honest mistake to misunderstand a point. It's deliberate bad faith to completely misrepresent a point despite it being repeatedly explained to you, at length.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I guess it wasn't much of a point.

I guess you're not much of a reader.

It's okay. Some things just go over people's heads sometimes.

 

[icehorse]

Ahhh, so that's the problem. Because it's obviously not good faith when you explain something repeatedly and they still insist you're making a completely different point to what you're actually making. Especially considering there are plenty of people on this forum who clearly did undertand the point I was making.

It's an honest mistake to misunderstand a point. It's deliberate bad faith to completely misrepresent a point despite it being repeatedly explained to you, at length.

pot, meet kettle.

Now again, I'm willing to go thru your concerns one at a time, you brave enough to do that?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

pot, meet kettle.

Now again, I'm willing to go thru your concerns one at a time, you brave enough to do that?

No, it's not pot meet kettle. All you do is accuse people of being bigots and claim they're making strawmen all while refusing to learn.

 

[Laniakea]

I guess you're not much of a reader.

It's okay. Some things just go over people's heads sometimes.

Or maybe you should just get to the point instead of asking numerous rhetorical questions.

 

[icehorse]

No, it's not pot meet kettle. All you do is accuse people of being bigots and claim they're making strawmen all while refusing to learn.

I'll make the same offer to you. If you have a complaint about me or my posts, I'll discuss them with you - one at a time. Are you brave enough to do that?

(BTW, I can recall saying that some people held misogynistic or homophobic positions, but I do not recall saying someone was a bigot?)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'll make the same offer to you. If you have a complaint about me or my posts, I'll discuss them with you - one at a time. Are you brave enough to do that?

I've tried. Others have tried. Amd tried across multiple threads we have.
"Strawman." That's how you reply to it all.

(BTW, I can recall saying that some people held misogynistic or homophobic positions, but I do not recall saying someone was a bigot?)

This is why I stopped debating with you amd just call out your crap. You act like you know all this stuff, that your opinions should matter and count and for sure you know better than the medical and scientific consensus. But you know what? Bigotry is a generalized, umbrella term that includes misogyny and homophobia. You make it clear that despite your claims you don't know jack.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Or maybe you should just get to the point instead of asking numerous rhetorical questions.

Okay then.

Phrases like "defending [insert race here] culture" are most often used as a cover for advancing ideas that are explicitly not about "defending" anything, but are used to insinuate or mask racist ideas. Like the people who marched under the banner "whites have rights too" in protests against de-segregation. They weren't making an uncontroversial statement about how rights apply to all races, including whites. They were explicitly framing the act of desegregation as an attack on white rights. They were attempting to hide the explicit racism of what they were actually doing (opposing desegregation) by claiming the intent was actually somehow anti-racism against them. It's a fairly common tactic, and only idiots fall for it.

Do you get it?

 

[icehorse]

I've tried. Others have tried. Amd tried across multiple threads we have.
"Strawman." That's how you reply to it all.

This is why I stopped debating with you amd just call out your crap. You act like you know all this stuff, that your opinions should matter and count and for sure you know better than the medical and scientific consensus. But you know what? Bigotry is a generalized, umbrella term that includes misogyny and homophobia. You make it clear that despite your claims you don't know jack.

Nope. Everyone defending GAC is on thin ice, so you all use similar obfuscation tactics.

That's why I'm willing to discuss the libelous claims you're making against me, but only one at a time - to minimize the likely hood that either of us can obfuscate.

But you do not seem brave enough to do that.

So it could look like you're just engaging in libelous accusations and being too cowardly to back them up.

 

[icehorse]

Okay then.

Phrases like "defending [insert race here] culture" are most often used as a cover for advancing ideas that are explicitly not about "defending" anything, but are used to insinuate or mask racist ideas. Like the people who marched under the banner "whites have rights too" in protests against de-segregation. They weren't making an uncontroversial statement about how rights apply to all races, including whites. They were explicitly framing the act of desegregation as an attack on white rights. They were attempting to hide the explicit racism of what they were actually doing (opposing desegregation) by claiming the intent was actually somehow anti-racism against them. It's a fairly common tactic, and only idiots fall for it.

Do you get it?

Not to derail the conversation you're having with the super cluster...

When I say we should defend enlightenment values, that's exactly what I mean, no more and no less. Values are independent of race.

But not all CULTURES support enlightenment values, so conflicts do arise.

 

[fantome profane]

Values are independent of race.

and gender?

 

[icehorse]

and gender?

Well "gender" is a problematic term these days.

That said, the kinds of values I'm talking about include equal rights for both sexes and all personalities.

 

[Laniakea]

Okay then.

Phrases like "defending [insert race here] culture" are most often used as a cover for advancing ideas that are explicitly not about "defending" anything, but are used to insinuate or mask racist ideas. Like the people who marched under the banner "whites have rights too" in protests against de-segregation. They weren't making an uncontroversial statement about how rights apply to all races, including whites. They were explicitly framing the act of desegregation as an attack on white rights. They were attempting to hide the explicit racism of what they were actually doing (opposing desegregation) by claiming the intent was actually somehow anti-racism against them. It's a fairly common tactic, and only idiots fall for it.

Do you get it?

Ok, now let's talk.
My original "phrase" about defending white culture was in response to you saying "Suuuure, and "defending white culture isn't racist". That was post #769. I took that as sarcasm indicating that defending white culture IS racist, in your opinion.
I wanted to know what was wrong with defending white culture (whatever that is, but I'm sure it applies to me since I'm white). Maybe I should have asked why it's ok to attack white culture, and how it would be any more acceptable than if someone were to attack black culture.

 

[fantome profane]

the kinds of values I'm talking about include equal rights for both sexes and all personalities.

I wish I could believe that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Nope. Everyone defending GAC is on thin ice, so you all use similar obfuscation tactics.

That's why I'm willing to discuss the libelous claims you're making against me, but only one at a time - to minimize the likely hood that either of us can obfuscate.

But you do not seem brave enough to do that.

So it could look like you're just engaging in libelous accusations and being too cowardly to back them up.

Whatever, dude. Everyone here has seen your machine gun throwing out of strawman.
You are the one too cowardly to own up to your own actions. "Libel?" Seriously? Using the search feature you have used the tactic at least 50 times injust a few threads to dismiss claims and criticisms made against you.

Everyone defending GAC is on thin ice, so you all use similar obfuscation tactics.

Thin ice? You don't even fact check your own claims. More like your version of teach the controversy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Ok, now let's talk.
My original "phrase" about defending white culture was in response to you saying "Suuuure, and "defending white culture isn't racist". That was post #769. I took that as sarcasm indicating that defending white culture IS racist, in your opinion.
I wanted to know what was wrong with defending white culture (whatever that is, but I'm sure it applies to me since I'm white). Maybe I should have asked why it's ok to attack white culture, and how it would be any more acceptable than if someone were to attack black culture.

What is this white culture? I'm pale white and dying to know.