[Politics] Trump, LBGT+ Ally

Silentpony_v1legacy

Alleged Feather-Rustler
Jun 5, 2013
6,760
0
0
Saelune said:
Silentpony said:
Saelune said:
Hey don't get mad at us, you're the one who's on the weird pro-naked children rage.
You're not even trying to pretend to argue in good faith.
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.
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.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
Silentpony said:
Saelune said:
Silentpony said:
Saelune said:
Hey don't get mad at us, you're the one who's on the weird pro-naked children rage.
You're not even trying to pretend to argue in good faith.
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.
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.

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?
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
Shadowstar38 said:
And yet no one was trying to give her a pass, so no one is even arguing the same thing.
Reminder that this all spiraled to this point because Silentpony incorrectly believed I was accusing them of defending her, so then he proceeded to defend her.

Saelune said:
Silentpony said:
Saelune said:
"The problem here is blaming them for being trans, not blaming them for being just a shitty child predator."
Saelune literally no one, in this entire thread, and I've read through every single post, ever, EVER, blamed anyone for being Trans, or said the problem is that they are trans and that needs to stop.
In fact this has been a very trans-positive thread, where people cannot believe Trump is acting this way, both morally and straight up he doesn't have the power to do this, with an aside into what everyone agrees is a deeply disturbed individual using the trans identity as justification for predatory practices. The only villains here are Trump, and the allegedly predatory Yaniv who to be fair nothing has been proven and there is a chance she is being framed by a conservative trans YouTube make-up blogger. Gotta stand by my convictions on this one and say yes, Jessica Yaniv has not be convicted of anything and she does deserve her day in court to prove her innocence.
Me thinks doth protest too much, cause seriously dude, I wasn't blaming you (reconsidering now), I was blaming people like Blair White.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,480
1,119
118
Country
United Kingdom
Shadowstar38 said:
When people accuse someone of being a bigot, and their whole argument rests on me agreeing with that premise, I don't expect the act of proving it to me emotionally exhausting. But okay, fair enough. Just don't blame me if I don't buy it.
You don't "expect" that encountering transphobia, or seeing individual trans people targetted for public bullying and ridicule, would be emotionally exhausting?

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

Shadowstar38 said:
And my point remains valid, because at no point did anyone defend her.
There sure seems to be a lot of effort going in to not defending someone...
 

Shadowstar38

New member
Jul 20, 2011
2,204
0
0
evilthecat said:
You don't "expect" that encountering transphobia, or seeing individual trans people targetted for public bullying and ridicule, would be emotionally exhausting?

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.
If someone hasn't done anything bigoted, of course you should see them as non-bigoted. That's the default. What on earth...

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.

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.
This is how every conversation works.

person 1: "This person is/did x".

Person 2: "Based on what?"

Person 1: *posts link

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
Oh look. Big fat juicy context.


I take issue with statements made in these videos. Are you happy now?

There sure seems to be a lot of effort going in to not defending someone...
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.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,133
3,591
118
Country
United Kingdom
Shadowstar38 said:
To be determined.
It takes about 5 minutes. She's not hiding anything or holding back; she's quite explicit.

Accept only the facts and don't be swayed but whatever narrative is being pushed.
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.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
15,945
1,531
118
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...
"What on earth...has that got to do with what evilthecat said?"

This could have been a learning opportunity, not a keeping digging yourself in deeper opportunity.
 

CheetoDust_v1legacy

New member
Jun 10, 2017
88
0
0
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...
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".

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.
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
2,971
707
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
Saelune said:
Shadowstar38 said:
And yet no one was trying to give her a pass, so no one is even arguing the same thing.
Reminder that this all spiraled to this point because Silentpony incorrectly believed I was accusing them of defending her, so then he proceeded to defend her.

Saelune said:
Silentpony said:
Saelune said:
"The problem here is blaming them for being trans, not blaming them for being just a shitty child predator."
Saelune literally no one, in this entire thread, and I've read through every single post, ever, EVER, blamed anyone for being Trans, or said the problem is that they are trans and that needs to stop.
In fact this has been a very trans-positive thread, where people cannot believe Trump is acting this way, both morally and straight up he doesn't have the power to do this, with an aside into what everyone agrees is a deeply disturbed individual using the trans identity as justification for predatory practices. The only villains here are Trump, and the allegedly predatory Yaniv who to be fair nothing has been proven and there is a chance she is being framed by a conservative trans YouTube make-up blogger. Gotta stand by my convictions on this one and say yes, Jessica Yaniv has not be convicted of anything and she does deserve her day in court to prove her innocence.
Me thinks doth protest too much, cause seriously dude, I wasn't blaming you (reconsidering now), I was blaming people like Blair White.
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.

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.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
Asita said:
Saelune said:
Shadowstar38 said:
And yet no one was trying to give her a pass, so no one is even arguing the same thing.
Reminder that this all spiraled to this point because Silentpony incorrectly believed I was accusing them of defending her, so then he proceeded to defend her.

Saelune said:
Silentpony said:
Saelune said:
"The problem here is blaming them for being trans, not blaming them for being just a shitty child predator."
Saelune literally no one, in this entire thread, and I've read through every single post, ever, EVER, blamed anyone for being Trans, or said the problem is that they are trans and that needs to stop.
In fact this has been a very trans-positive thread, where people cannot believe Trump is acting this way, both morally and straight up he doesn't have the power to do this, with an aside into what everyone agrees is a deeply disturbed individual using the trans identity as justification for predatory practices. The only villains here are Trump, and the allegedly predatory Yaniv who to be fair nothing has been proven and there is a chance she is being framed by a conservative trans YouTube make-up blogger. Gotta stand by my convictions on this one and say yes, Jessica Yaniv has not be convicted of anything and she does deserve her day in court to prove her innocence.
Me thinks doth protest too much, cause seriously dude, I wasn't blaming you (reconsidering now), I was blaming people like Blair White.
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.

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'.

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.
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
2,971
707
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
Saelune said:
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'.

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.

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.
 

Shadowstar38

New member
Jul 20, 2011
2,204
0
0
Thaluikhain said:
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...
"What on earth...has that got to do with what evilthecat said?"

This could have been a learning opportunity, not a keeping digging yourself in deeper opportunity.
It didn't have much to do with what I said either which is why I was questioning it.

Also, this conversation probably could have been far more productive. But it took so many left turns that I'm just generally annoyed.

CheetoDust said:
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...
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".

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.
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.

Silvanus said:
Shadowstar38 said:
To be determined.
It takes about 5 minutes. She's not hiding anything or holding back; she's quite explicit.

Accept only the facts and don't be swayed but whatever narrative is being pushed.
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.
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".
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
13,176
2,181
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Asita said:
Saelune said:
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'.

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.

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.
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

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
2,971
707
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
Worgen said:
Asita said:
Saelune said:
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'.

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.

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.
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.
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.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,133
3,591
118
Country
United Kingdom
Shadowstar38 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".
In that case, what does she contribute to the discussion?

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?
 

Shadowstar38

New member
Jul 20, 2011
2,204
0
0
Silvanus said:
Shadowstar38 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".
In that case, what does she contribute to the discussion?

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?
Of course not. That would be reckless.