ImmortalDrifter said:
Loonyyy said:
That's not what Fascist means. Authoritarian might be a better word. But again, that's not part of the proposal.
I looked into the term just now and apparently it's still up in the air what fascism really means. I referred to it as that because under my impression fascist meant government imposed and enforced moral values. It may or may not be right. Regardless, I wasn't referring directly to the proposal, but the stigma that appears to surround it. Honestly though, if this was a lapse purely involving the language, you'd think someone would have brought this up sooner.
Authoritarian might be closer to what you meant. Fascist has a specific meaning with respect to a combination of Nationalism and Authoritarianism, and is a system of government. Italy during the second World War was fascist. Nazi Germany was fascist. This, is not. I'd disagree with the characterisation of authoritarian, since they're not actually doing anything apart from trying to introduce a word, but I think we can leave this one here.
I'd like you to prove that. I used gender role to refer to the stereotypes surrounding genders which are a part of society that impact on personal gender identity. So the words appear in close proximity, because the way a person identifies and expresses their gender is related to the roles that society expects of their sex. My point was that to call it sexist is flat out wrong.
The gender-deconstruction position didn't say anything about the sexes needing to be eliminated, or focussing on sex, but rather on the social construct of gender. Hence, you've conflated the two, in an attempt to label the opposition as sexist, which is hardly a classy move. If you can detail how people trying to eliminate the idea of gender are discriminating on the basis of sexual biology, I'll consider it. You play a similar rhetorical game when I address this and attempt to call me out for conflation. Even if you had a point, and I don't think you do, as it stands, you'd still have to address the fallacy in your argument. Tu Quoue.
You ask me to prove my definition of a debateable sociological term?
No. I did not. That's entirely what I did not ask for. I said, and I quote myself now: "If you can detail how people trying to eliminate the idea of gender are discriminating on the basis of sexual biology, I'll consider it."
So: If you want to call them sexist, show how they discriminate based on sex. That's what I want. And sex isn't a debateable sociological term, it's a biological one. Gender is a debateable term, but I'm not calling you on that. I ask, again, how is it sexist? They're against the concept of gender, not against a specific sex.
The aforementioned article the stepped into femanazi territory may have biased my perception too much though. My reasoning comes from the gender deconstruction argument coming from a perceived (but debately present) form of discrimination (against women, but that is again in that specific article).
Fair enough. Although I'd avoid using the term "feminazi". It tends to spark issues, and it's never used in a constructive way.
Calling it sexist was wrong on my part, it involved a lack of understanding of the concept.
Which was pretty much all I meant before, as I mentioned above. I don't really care for whether you're pro-gender deconstruction or anti, I just wouldn't call either side sexist, particularly not for the reasoning that was outlined. Thanks.
My view of the gender deconstruction platform remains the same, though. I don't see this gender constraint that seems to be a problem. It occurs to me that anyone can do anything they want. I honestly don't think gender roles still exist, regardless of the movement. As I said before gender roles as they seem to be described (Women wear dresses, as exampled in this very thread) is lost on me because I grew up with parents who didn't conform to them. I don't see the platform as sexist now, I just see it as vehemently unneccesary.
Fair enough.
Also it's spelled Tu Quoque, but that's unrelated.
Whoops. My spelling is bad enough in English, let alone latin.
If there's already a non-gender specific singular, it's redundant, and someone more familiar with Swedish would be the best to assess that.
And yes, the mire around it is a bit ridiculous. But that's not to do with the word or the policy.
Actually it appears to have a lot to do with the policy. At least if these comments are to be believed. To restate my first point, if this was a problem purely with the language someone would have brought in up long before now right?[/quote]
Not necessarily, things get overlooked. For instance, there's no second person way of addressing a group with a single word. I could say "Hey youse" or "Hey you guys", the first being not a word, the second not being the single word that would complete the syntax.
I think that the problem is that the policy may be fine, but people react to it in extreme ways, which results in the sillyness.
Also, I apologize if any of my arguements are repeats. I'm on zero hours of sleep and I'm now going to bed.
Haha, I did the same thing.
For my last note (today at least) the CoC does not dismiss anyones opinion or exclude people with a certain view point. The intro to this page did not ask them to stay on topic, it asked them to only participate if they held the same viewpoint as the OP. If you tell people they shouldn't do something, and there is not a single consequence for doing said thing then you can bet people are going to do it.
Sure. But my point in that comparison was that saying not to do something is not an invitation to do it. People may choose to take it as one, but they're deliberately making their own interpretation.
Especially when it involves surpressing opinions.
My problem is, they didn't really suppress them though. If people wanted, they could make their own thread for it. They just weren't interested in that discussion in this thread.
If the OP's original request was heeded, this thread would probably be dead by now. But everyone loves to ***** at each other. You and I, we're perfect; Quod erat demonstrandum. You never avoid flame wars by participating hahaha.
Goodnight
I dunno, we've kept it fairly civil. I think we've done pretty well.
