Hey don't get mad at us, you're the one who's on the weird pro-naked children rage.Saelune said:
[Politics] Trump, LBGT+ Ally
- Thread starter Trunkage
- Start date
Good faith means reason. It means structured arguments to establish a proposition. For this entire debate when pushed to prove something, your go-to argument is this person supports Trump. Which I will grant you would matter if he was relevant.Saelune said:
But he is not.
The conversation is that Blair White, a conservative Trans YouTuber is against Jessica Yaniv, an alleged child molesting trans activist.
And your position is that we cannot be anti-Yaniv, because that would be pro-White, which as Trump is now part of this, means we are pro-Trump. Which means you'd rather ally with a person wanting an underage topless pool party than ally with someone pro Trump.
Because you cannot imagine agreeing with someone who is pro-Trump on a not-Trump issue, ie if...Matt Damon came out and said he supports Trump and is pro-breathing, you would simply stop breathing, because its literally impossible to agree on something and disagree on another.
My point was Blair White doesn't get a pass for her bigotry just because Yaniv is a horrible person.Silentpony said:
For someone who claims I throw around baseless accusations all the time, you sure do like doing it yourself. Why is it ok when you do it?
You don't "expect" that encountering transphobia, or seeing individual trans people targetted for public bullying and ridicule, would be emotionally exhausting?Shadowstar38 said:
I'm blaming you because you're claiming convictions you clearly don't have. You want to be recognized as a non-bigoted, pro-LGBT person, but you also don't want to do the literal minutes of work required to actually achieve that. In fact, you want us to do the work, not just the work of finding sources for you (literally minutes) but also of making sure you understand those sources and the concepts involved. Your ability to recognize and understand bigotry is not your responsibility, it's ours.
In essence, you're claiming to be a decent person, but you're also shifting the responsibility for you actually being a decent person entirely to our capacity to educate you. That is a good strategy for winning internet arguments, because it's exhausting to deal with, but it doesn't speak well of you to anyone familiar with what you're doing.
But perhaps I'm being too hard on you? Perhaps this is the rare case of sincere and well meaning ignorance on the internet. I guess there's one way to find out..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUOjuiAikrU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnQbgShb6r8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhGx8dI4ads
There sure seems to be a lot of effort going in to not defending someone...Shadowstar38 said:
If someone hasn't done anything bigoted, of course you should see them as non-bigoted. That's the default. What on earth...evilthecat said:
No. I just need the sources. Not an explanation of the concepts. I can recognize bigotry just fine with that alone. Literally dude, what are you on about. Chill.
This is how every conversation works.
person 1: "This person is/did x".
Person 2: "Based on what?"
Person 1: *posts link
Oh look. Big fat juicy context.
I take issue with statements made in these videos. Are you happy now?
There was an equal amount of effort to make her moral values relevant to the conversation when they never were to begin with. Saelune gets all the credit for this one.
It takes about 5 minutes. She's not hiding anything or holding back; she's quite explicit.Shadowstar38 said:
Why would we rely on her for the facts? The facts are available elsewhere. Turning to a known liar with an axe to grind to relay them to you is asking to be misled.
"What on earth...has that got to do with what evilthecat said?"Shadowstar38 said:
This could have been a learning opportunity, not a keeping digging yourself in deeper opportunity.
I would agree but now we live in a world where a man can say into a webcam that he's going to go shoot people because he hates women and people will say "was it motivated by sexism".Shadowstar38 said:
Or they can write online that they're going to go kill a bunch of black people so they can start a race war and then walk into a church full of black people and open fire and people will wonder if it was racially motivated.
Kill a bunch of people while espousing racist ideology? You're probably just disturbed or trolling.
March down the streets with torches chanting "Jews will not replace us"? What Nazis?
Seems denying bigotry is more than just the default for a lot of people.
Um...Saelune? You are aware that that selfsame post has you accusing Silentpony in the same breath that you claim not to be doing so? That paraphrased Hamlet quote has the same effective meaning as "I see I struck a nerve", or more directly "you wouldn't be so defensive if you weren't guilty". When you invoke such a line, it's not surprising that that the person you're talking to takes it to mean you're leveling an accusation at them.Saelune said:
Silentpony wasn't defending Blair White, he was defending himself from what he perceived to be a passive-aggressive implication that he was echoing or otherwise endorsing White's transphobic rhetoric. We also hit a further snag in that while you have interpreted his responses as defending White, Silentpony seems to have been likewise interpreting your responses as a defense of Yaniv. Basically, the both of you are making the same poor assumption about the other, believing that your disagreement is due to the other poster believes that Yaniv/White is being unfairly maligned. In actuality, however, both of you seem to instead be saying that the other subject of discussion (White/Yaniv) is indefensible. Which is to say that you appear to be talking past each other.
I know. I wasn't accusing them, then they freaked out, and it made me reconsider, hence the quote which is used to say 'I wasn't accusing you of anything, but you are denying it so hard that I am now suspicious'.Asita said:
Its like if you say 'Hello' to someone and their first reaction is 'I didn't murder that man!'. Suddenly I think that person might have killed someone.
Respectfully, that's a bit disingenuous. Silentpony had made a post about Yaniv, which included White's claim of being threatened by her. Your response could perhaps aptly be summed up as "yeah, but it's stupid to say that that's because Yaniv is trans". SP interpreted that as a criticism directed at him and you responded with "I specifically tried to use words that didn't blame you"...which is all too easy to interpret as a rules-lawyer technicality, especially on forums like these which have long been infamous for passive-aggression and implying accusations without technically making them.Saelune said:
It is at this point that Silentpony quoted what he felt was directed at him, as it seemed to come out of nowhere and you'd made the criticism when quoting him. So it was all too easy to interpret that as a causal link. And it was here that you basically confirmed his suspicions for him with the Hamlet quote, and the rest is history.
That's far from "Hello" "I didn't murder that man". It's closer to "Wait, was that directed at me?" "I never said your name specifically" "This certainly sounded like it was directed at me" "Oh, then you must be guilty!"
Now, this is not to say that the blame for this communication breakdown is solely on you. As I said, both you and Pony both seem to have been making poor assumptions and talking past each other, but that doesn't mean that you yourself didn't make mistakes in this conversation as well.
It didn't have much to do with what I said either which is why I was questioning it.Thaluikhain said:
Also, this conversation probably could have been far more productive. But it took so many left turns that I'm just generally annoyed.
Bruh. The denial was several leagues beyond obvious in those examples to the point where I'd guess they're a far statistical outlier. I'd expect people(false hope is accurate) to drop that fear when they enter a new conversation with different people.CheetoDust said:
You wouldn't rely on her. You wouldn't rely on any single source of information for anything with 100% trust. I doesn't matter that she has an ax to grind. The person she's reporting on appears to have legitimately done the things she's reporting about, as detailed by less bias sources. The reporter wasn't relevant until the conversation was forced into a direction it was never meant to go at which point my response is "you wanted to make this so important. Okay. Explain yourself".Silvanus said:
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,197
- 4,050
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
To be fair, Silentpony did kinda make it sound like there was a large number of pedophiles in the trans community that White was going after before it became apparent that they were really just talking about going after Yaniv. Or something, this thread has derailed hard.Asita said:
True enough. It was certainly an interpretation of what Pony said that was all too easy to reach. As I said, lot of talking past each other, some poor assumptions. Though you are certainly right that I did neglect to include "poorly expressed points" and "lack of clarification/requests for clarification" in that.Worgen said:
In that case, what does she contribute to the discussion?Shadowstar38 said:
She doesn't bolster the evidence, because she's highly un-credible. Do we want to be reposting extremist nonsense for this reason, when we could be using credible sources?