"Ok, Boomer"

[Agema]

So, I assume that the solution then is to have some form of government body determining which cases get heard.

Aren't they called "law courts"?

Whatever they think is frivolous gets quashed.

I'm sure that is going to work out well.

Law courts, WAD.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

So, I assume that the solution then is to have some form of government body determining which cases get heard.

Aren't they called "law courts"?

Whatever they think is frivolous gets quashed.

I'm sure that is going to work out well.

Law courts, WAD.

Depends if its criminal or civil I think. DPP handles criminal cases like that and there have been times where when presented with the facts of the case they can declare "No cast to answer" or something like that. Civil cases are probably just looked at by a judge, or other legal official and declared frivolous or not.

 

[Terminal Blue]

It's especially fun since this started off on BBQ.

Silentpony didn't bring up barbecue, I did. I used barbecue because I find people are far more able to extend sympathy to trauma symptoms when they're related to military service than when they're related to interpersonal violence or sexual abuse. Obviously, military veterans tend to have different PTSD triggers, and a barbecue was just something that came to mind. I might also have used a car backfiring, or the sight of blood.

In short, you've completely misunderstood what this whole thing was about. It is about trauma. Silentpony's definition of "snowflake" refers very explicitly to trauma symptoms, like people being "triggered" by being reminded of past experiences. That's not just a meme, it's a real thing that happens to people, and it's incredibly debilitating sometimes especially if someone is triggered by something they can't avoid.

For the incident you described to be actually relevant, it would need to be both unreasonable and related to trauma. The idea that someone might have a civil case related to their neighbours barbecue habits is actually not unreasonable at all, even if the individual case doesn't exhibit this. People have successfully sued their neighbours for having loud sex, not because the court agreed sex was bad, but because in that case the frequency and disruption to neighbours lives was so severe that it was having a measurably negative impact on their ability to live.

Secondly, can you point to where this was alleged to have anything to do with trauma?

You gave me 4 different adjectives to work with, and I know nothing at all about the way you think or feel from any of them.

Again, I don't want to sit here and attack you personally, but do you think this could be because of a lack of knowledge or experience?

There's really nothing more complicated or confusing about being bisexual or pansexual than being gay, or about being non-binary compared to being binary trans.

So if me saying I was gay or that I was a transwoman would make you feel like you understood me, then are you sure that's a real understanding or do you think it's a set of stereotypes based on gay people or transwomen you've known or been exposed to in media?

And if so, then isn't the only solution to make myself more visible? Either that or pretend to be gay just to make you more comfortable, which I don't think is a viable solution but okay. The tea has been snatched, hunty! Slay the boots down! Kat kat kat kat kat kow! Etc.

I think that's deliberately combative.

Any assertion of queer identity is going to be appear combative to people who don't like it.

As the slogan goes, get used to it.

 

[tstorm823]

There's really nothing more complicated or confusing about being bisexual or pansexual than being gay, or about being non-binary compared to being binary trans.

So if me saying I was gay or that I was a transwoman would make you feel like you understood me, then are you sure that's a real understanding or do you think it's a set of stereotypes based on gay people or transwomen you've known or been exposed to in media?

It's not more complicated or confusing, it's just actually far less specific. Gay is pretty specific. That's "I want sexual/romantic relationships with the same sex", it gives me that information about how they feel and what they want from others. Not really a stereotype about that. Transwoman requires a bit of deferring towards social understandings of the word woman, but that also applies to the person using the word. It's "you know women? I feel the way they do, and likely prefer to be treated like they are". It's a lot more subjective that gay or straight, sure, but it's one person trying to give others a perspective into their thoughts and feelings and desires.

I don't want you to say you're gay or trans if you aren't, but if someone is one or both of those things, I can adjust my behavior to make our interactions better. I can't do that with any of the ways you describe yourself. How am I supposed to treat a pansexual nonbinary gender-fluid femme? I don't know what sexual content you appreciate or don't, I don't know what other people to compare you to, I don't even know if the same conduct is appreciated day-to-day. I know the answer, treat you the same as anyone else I know nothing about. If I meet a stranger on the street, I don't know who they're attracted to or who they identify with, I can certainly handle sexual and gender-neutral interaction. That's just a lot of identifiers to get to "just treat me like a person".

 

[Satinavian]

How am I supposed to treat a pansexual nonbinary gender-fluid femme?

That is easy.

Pansexual means that the person has sexual attraction to a wide array of targets that don't fit into a neat box. Usually the only reason to ever consider the sexual orientation of someoe is if you consider pursueing a relationship or sex with that person. Pansexual means it is possible that that person is attracted to you.
But for most people there is no reason whatsoever to even care.

nonbinary is superflous with gender fluid.

Gender-fluid is the only hard one. It usually means you have to guess what the person presents as and treat him/her accordingly. And because that can change, you have to actually pay attention.

femme means woman and is simply not used as as seperate gender idendity in multilingual circles. It is sometimes used for especcially feminine women and lesbians. Which is contradictory to both gender fluid and pansexual. It is also considered inappropriate if used for non-lesbians. So just ignore it because the person in front of you is being silly.


There are a lot of words for gender idendities and sexualities, even when ignoring jargon like femme. But it is pretty easy to learn it as most terms are selfexplainatory. It is even easier to treat people accordingly because you can basically ignore all the sexuality-based ones for that.



I mean, i don't even know the sexual orientation of a good portion of my friends and the majority of them sure don't know mine. It just never comes up because. And there really is no need to know.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Gay is pretty specific. That's "I want sexual/romantic relationships with the same sex", it gives me that information about how they feel and what they want from others.

Sure, being gay is more specific, but there's one problem. I'm not gay.

It would probably be easier in some ways if I was, but I don't only want sexual/romantic relationships with the same sex (whatever that means). I want sexual and romantic relationships with people of any sex or gender, and that is what pansexual means, so I am pansexual.

Again, if you'd like me to pretend to be gay, that is theoretically something I could do, but if I do that you will never know me, you will never understand how I feel or what I want from others. The only way to know me and to understand how I feel is to acknowledge the actual truth.

I don't know what sexual content you appreciate or don't,

Do you know that with anyone?

I mean, if I was gay, you still wouldn't have a clue what I was actually into unless you looked up my grindr profile and found the list of adjectives which described what I was looking for. Also, you know, boundaries.

I don't know what other people to compare you to,

Really not something you have to worry about.

I know the answer, treat you the same as anyone else I know nothing about. If I meet a stranger on the street, I don't know who they're attracted to or who they identify with, I can certainly handle sexual and gender-neutral interaction. That's just a lot of identifiers to get to "just treat me like a person".

And if you met me on the street, you would know precisely none of those identifiers. The only reason I brought them was to make a point.

That's why this conversation always comes back to trivial things like what people put on their tumblr blogs, because the reality is that people aren't going up to each other on the street and saying "hi, I'm a demigendered androphilic bear who is spirit-bonded to Sonic the Hedgehog". It's a tired fantasy that's been around the block with just about every marginalized identity possible at this point.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Pansexual means that the person has sexual attraction to a wide array of targets that don't fit into a neat box.

Close enough.

nonbinary is superflous with gender fluid.

It depends on whether genderfluidity is describing identity or expression. It's entirely possible for binary people to have a fluid gender expression.

Honestly, gender-fluidity as a concept actually means very little. When you dig into it, almost everyone is gender-fluid to some degree. I just wheeled it out to trigger the cons.

femme means woman and is simply not used as as seperate gender idendity in multilingual circles. It is sometimes used for especcially feminine women and lesbians. Which is contradictory to both gender fluid and pansexual. It is also considered inappropriate if used for non-lesbians. So just ignore it because the person in front of you is being silly.

Femme in queer culture isn't a gender identity, it's a term describing gender expression. At its base, it means someone with a more feminine expression. This has a slightly different meaning in gay, lesbian and trans culture because of the particular histories, but generally speaking, what defines femme is that it is transgressive in some way, either because of who is doing it or because it's in some way excessive or performative. In short, being femme means celebrating and presenting femininity without the baggage that comes with being a cisgender heterosexual woman.

Honestly, if you actually want to understand who I am from that mess of adjectives I posted, start with femme. It's the thing that is most obvious, and the thing that is most important and constant to me.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Wow, did it really blow up that much? I remember reading the article right after it happened and thinking "oh, that's so harmless this'll be forgotten in a few days." Yet here we are, with media and certain 'boomer-psuedo-sympathising' politicians playing it up as bad as one of those footballers trying to claim foul over their own unconvincing bullshit fall. Guess we gotta stir that hate for the upcoming elections somehow, eh? Not much else to work on when the fruits of the last round of flimsy lies remain blatantly absent.

There is a comforting schadenfreude in knowing something completely harmless really angers bitter assholes out there. It's like ethical trolling. For a personal example, when me and my sis happen to have to spend any time with the male parent and happen to be listening to rap/RnB music, he'll inevitably come out with some troglodyte dribble like "what is this n***** music shit?" (Cos he's that pleasant of course)...so the only logical option for either of us is to turn it up louder and vocalise with it far more energetically. Ethical trolling! The only one losing their integrity is the bitter asshole as the others have their regular enjoyment out of the things they usually enjoy. Though looking back, it could've been topped with an "alright, boomer" before the increase in volume just for the icing on the cake. Alas, hindsight.

 

[tstorm823]

And if you met me on the street, you would know precisely none of those identifiers. The only reason I brought them was to make a point.

That's why this conversation always comes back to trivial things like what people put on their tumblr blogs, because the reality is that people aren't going up to each other on the street and saying "hi, I'm a demigendered androphilic bear who is spirit-bonded to Sonic the Hedgehog". It's a tired fantasy that's been around the block with just about every marginalized identity possible at this point.

I mean, exactly. I understand that you wouldn't be telling me about yourself if it wasn't relevant to the discussion. I don't mean to suggest that I need to know all or any of these things about someone. But if someone is telling me something about themselves, I hope it's not arbitrary, I assume they're trying to guide how I engage with them. Before this thread, the only such interaction I had with you was from referring to you as "he" and you indicating to use "they". That guided me on how to interact with you.

There are, without question, people who volunteer this sort of information proactively. They wouldn't do that if they weren't looking for acknowledgment of their uniqueness. A person just doesn't tell someone something about themselves, especially not their self-identified differences from others, in order to be treated the same as before. That's actually the heart of the old adage "there are no girls on the internet". It's not that people believed there weren't any girls on the internet back in the pre-social media wild west where basically everything was anonymous. It's that if someone went out of their way to tell you on a message board that they are a girl, they weren't saying it as an arbitrary fact, they were trying to be treated as a girl (whether or not they were actually an old pedophile in real life). People express their personal characteristics to elicit different personal treatment.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

It's especially fun since this started off on BBQ.

Silentpony didn't bring up barbecue, I did. I used barbecue because I find people are far more able to extend sympathy to trauma symptoms when they're related to military service than when they're related to interpersonal violence or sexual abuse. Obviously, military veterans tend to have different PTSD triggers, and a barbecue was just something that came to mind. I might also have used a car backfiring, or the sight of blood.

In short, you've completely misunderstood what this whole thing was about. It is about trauma. Silentpony's definition of "snowflake" refers very explicitly to trauma symptoms, like people being "triggered" by being reminded of past experiences. That's not just a meme, it's a real thing that happens to people, and it's incredibly debilitating sometimes especially if someone is triggered by something they can't avoid.

For the incident you described to be actually relevant, it would need to be both unreasonable and related to trauma. The idea that someone might have a civil case related to their neighbours barbecue habits is actually not unreasonable at all, even if the individual case doesn't exhibit this. People have successfully sued their neighbours for having loud sex, not because the court agreed sex was bad, but because in that case the frequency and disruption to neighbours lives was so severe that it was having a measurably negative impact on their ability to live.

Secondly, can you point to where this was alleged to have anything to do with trauma?

That's not how it looked to me. Silentpony was bringing up what they saw as a destructive mentality, where they take a reasonable stance (not taunting a vet with BBQ) and make it unreasonable (banning BBQ because it might trigger or offend someone). And you responded with saying that nobody is ever unreasonable and thus Silentpony can't be right.

However, I remembered a specific case where someone was claiming a physical reaction against BBQs, so they wanted to ban their neighborhood from having BBQs ever. The exact kind of 'snowflake' Silentpony is talking about and who you said didn't exist.

 

[Batou667]

Boomers are going the way of the dodo and the world will straight up be a better place when its all over. Boomers are terrible. They are a blight. They fucked up this world, and this nation, and now that they're dying out they're all pissy millennials don't want to be harassed at work, or want to live on a burning planet and want a living wage.

I notice you didn't address the bit where I pointed out that many Boomers were/are Left leaning, so I wonder if you'll address the observation that many members of the alt-right seem to be Gen X or younger?

I really do think you're making a false correlation between the number of remaining Baby Boomers, and changing societal attitudes.

 

[Batou667]

Modern? Are you sure?

I think it's more that modernity has become very good at snappy, catchy terms to describes things that have long existed to some extent.

The interesting thing is increasingly that one of the main social schisms that has emerged in Western societies is that of age. Chiefly because society has moved in a way that appears to have increasingly worked for the interests of the older generation (more specifically the wealthier end of them, anyway) at the expense of the younger.

Oh, certainly society has always had silent/invisible/disenfranchised groups, but it seems all the more incongruous in this age of effortless participation in global discourse. Not to mention it's a sinister kind of tactic for so-called Liberals to be using.

I think I realised what it is about "OK Boomer" that leaves a bad taste in the mouth. It's the obvious comeback to comments criticising the naivete of youth, "darn kids don't know they're born", and so on. So is it fair game? Perhaps, but it's asymmetric. Everybody started off as a "darn kid" with tunnel vision and precocious ideas of their place in the world, but that's the kind of thing you grow out of in time and with the benefit of experience. Condemning somebody for being of a previous generation? That's a lot more damning, and a lot more final. Nobody expects you to have the grey matter to be able to revise your prehistoric ideas, they just expect you to hurry up and die.

 

[Batou667]

How am I supposed to treat a pansexual?

Hide your cookware.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

How am I supposed to treat a pansexual?

Hide your cookware.

Spoiler: You Get One of These

Totes fitting with the subject matter, mind you.

 

[Saelune]

Then why do you support Trump? He does those things and you support him.

Because a) he doesn't do those things with nearly the frequency or severity you accuse him of, and b) the question of the Trump era is "can a bad person do good things?" It's also probably a bit of Catholicism leaking out, with the hope of redemption for the sinner. Trump is a lot like a Zaccheaus figure.

So you admit Trump does those things?

I will take the lack of rebuttal as an answer.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Boomers are going the way of the dodo and the world will straight up be a better place when its all over. Boomers are terrible. They are a blight. They fucked up this world, and this nation, and now that they're dying out they're all pissy millennials don't want to be harassed at work, or want to live on a burning planet and want a living wage.

I notice you didn't address the bit where I pointed out that many Boomers were/are Left leaning, so I wonder if you'll address the observation that many members of the alt-right seem to be Gen X or younger?

I really do think you're making a false correlation between the number of remaining Baby Boomers, and changing societal attitudes.

Okay so if Baby Boomers are so liberal, explain to me the demographic shift leaning further and further left as both the Boomers die out and Millenials become the primary voting block? Surely if Boomers are an oh so misunderstood not racist/homophobic/transphobic liberal voting block, then they're dying out shouldn't change the political leaning left, or if anything, make it turn right.
Yet that's not what's happening. One generation is dying, another is taking over and the politics are shifting left.

 

[Batou667]

Okay so if Baby Boomers are so liberal, explain to me the demographic shift leaning further and further left as both the Boomers die out and Millenials become the primary voting block?

Like I said, it's a false correlation to draw. The Boomer generation is starting to die, and in *some* senses Western society is becoming more liberal. Doesn't prove that A has caused B, or vice versa, especially when you bear in mind that 1) Not all Boomers supported, or were involved in, this nefarious right-wing capitalist behaviour you mention and b) Not all Gen X/Y/Z/Millennials are enthusiastic supporters of "woke" policy change.

If all we're interested in is finding two graphs that seem to agree with each other, then you could equally claim that the number of Baby Boomers left alive is proportional to the number of White Rhinos left in the wild. Both have been declining alarmingly since the mid-late 20th century. Quick, hook the Boomers up to life support, the rhinos depend on it!

 

[tstorm823]

Okay so if Baby Boomers are so liberal, explain to me the demographic shift leaning further and further left as both the Boomers die out and Millenials become the primary voting block? Surely if Boomers are an oh so misunderstood not racist/homophobic/transphobic liberal voting block, then they're dying out shouldn't change the political leaning left, or if anything, make it turn right.
Yet that's not what's happening. One generation is dying, another is taking over and the politics are shifting left.

The Baby Boomer generation isn't dying out just yet, they're retiring. You know what demographic votes at the highest rate? Still active retirees.

I will take the lack of rebuttal as an answer.

Rebuttal? That Trump sometimes thinks less of people who are different? Why would I rebut that?

 

[Saelune]

Okay so if Baby Boomers are so liberal, explain to me the demographic shift leaning further and further left as both the Boomers die out and Millenials become the primary voting block? Surely if Boomers are an oh so misunderstood not racist/homophobic/transphobic liberal voting block, then they're dying out shouldn't change the political leaning left, or if anything, make it turn right.
Yet that's not what's happening. One generation is dying, another is taking over and the politics are shifting left.

The Baby Boomer generation isn't dying out just yet, they're retiring. You know what demographic votes at the highest rate? Still active retirees.

I will take the lack of rebuttal as an answer.

Rebuttal? That Trump sometimes thinks less of people who are different? Why would I rebut that?

Because it proves our criticisms of Trump and his supporters right.

 

[tstorm823]

Because it proves our criticisms of Trump and his supporters right.

No, it doesn't. Your criticisms absurdly exaggerated 100% of the time, and your effort to tie people into a block that you can hate as a whole is reprehensible.

If I say "Trump has said racist things", that does not prove he and everyone who has ever supported him or associated with him is a hateful racist sexist homophobe who wants to put non-white children into dog cages and kill them. Nothing is ever going to prove your criticisms because your criticisms are nonsense.