Transphobia

51 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sushisnake 's picture
@Old Man

@Old Man

""leftist wet puppy feeders"? Did he call us that? I must have missed that one. My favourite was being called "a mindless meme cliché generator that can't actually compose a rational thought of [my] own." " and a leftist spam bot."

I would feed a wet puppy, but I'd towel it dry first- especially at this time of the year. Who knew puppy feeding was a left wing pursuit?

Cognostic's picture
Do you guys talk about me

Do you guys talk about me like this when I;m not looking!!!!!

Tin-Man's picture
@Cog

@Cog

Absolutely. *snicker-snicker*

arakish's picture
@Tin-Man

@Tin-Man

I agree he should not be banned. I rather enjoy giving him a thrashing. Or as AU put it, a shredding since he did claim to be atheist.

And yes, I have been finding it funny about how he could or could not be within hearing distance. So far I am stupified to find he ain't found us talking about him here so far.

And I agree on the offensive thing. However, one thing I always remember: Only YOU give anything the power to be offensive to YOU. And I mean YOU to mean everyone, not just you TM. 7734, you already probably knew that, but I feel clarity is always best made beforehand, provided my senile Alzheimer mind can think of it.

@Old Man

"Although sometimes I think we have to react to blatant aggression and ad hominem arguments, especially against those with demonstrated and habitual repugnance for verbal violence, with monumental slap downs."

Besides, who don't like doing a good smack down every once in a blue moon?

Attachment: Oooh. Kitty porn.

Isn't that against the law? Oh... wait... duh...

@Sushi

"a mindless meme cliché generator that can't actually compose a rational thought of [my] own."

At least your mindless memes are better than some others actual rational thoughts...

@general audience

Yes, he may have said some things that could be interpreted as offensive. However, until someone actually posts nothing but offensiveness, they should be allowed to stay. I mean, hell, I have actually made an outright ad hominem attack once. But also apologized for it, chastised myself, and I am still here. I do regret making that ad hominem attack, but TDoggy just exasperated me to the point I could not keep it bottled. Its like the pressure cooker with too much heat applied. Eventually, it is going to explode.

And another thought occurred, I do find it funny TDoggy ain't found us here. Or, he may be ignoring us. I keep expecting him to blow in here like a hurricane and blast the crap out of us. Then that is when the hilarity should start. Then again, he may have left. Got tired of being thrashed.

The only time I have ever found anything to truly be offensive and repugnant is the two times I have had Absolutists tell me, face-to-face, I deserved to have my family killed because I did not raise them to be good Christians. The first one, I did beat almost to death. If it had not been for my two friends, who were Absolutists themselves, I probably would have killed him. Was very ashamed I lost control. The second time was even worse and there is no way I can say how I was able to control myself. Even to this day I find myself asking myself, "How in Hell did you not beat the Hell out of him?" But trust me, I did want to go nuclear... It may have been the fact that there was no one else around to stop me if I had started beating him. Maybe it is I need someone else around to pull me back from the point of no return...

There is very little I find to be so offensive that the person should be banned/beaten. However, the above is. And if someone on these forum boards makes that kind of remark directed at me, I can only hope the mods find him/her first, deletes the message, and banishes them. Otherwise, I would attack that person with such filth and foul that the mods would probably end up banishing us both.

And here is a joke for y'all. Yesterday I got sent a survey for something, I forget what. But I do remember one of the questions:
Q: Are you funny?
A: Looking, maybe. ;-)
And, yes, I did answer that way.

rmfr

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
My solution is simple. Do

My solution is simple. Do what Sapporo said. Specific rules against racism, homophobia, and sexism, makes it so that you must allow transphobia, ageism, ableism, etc; otherwise why the specificity?

Underlying each of these behaviors is discrimination. As such, a single rule against discrimination makes it so that any offense against an outgroup is grounds for expulsion.

When it comes to free speech issues, the line is drawn at intent. I'm all for dialogues and exchange of ideas; I'm also for respecting those ideas no matter how much I dislike the them. That means I disagree with the "thrashing" mentality, or treating people as if they're unreasonable and stupid for having such ideas.

However, even in the political sphere, free speech does not protect against libel, defamation, and fraud. As such I do think the forum should block people whose intent is to offend. Being intentionally offensive is very different from having sincere bad ideas. So again, I draw the line at intent.

Jared Alesi's picture
Well said, I completely agree

Well said, I completely agree.

Tin-Man's picture
@John Re: "As such I do

@John Re: "As such I do think the forum should block people whose intent is to offend."

Well, if that happens, then it's been nice knowing everybody, because I will be one of the first to get tossed out of here. I have absolutely no problems admitting that there have been many times here I have intentionally been as offensive as I possibly could. And I have no doubt there will be other moments to come when I will do my best to be as incredibly offensive as words will allow. But when somebody steps up in here slinging around a bunch of shit just for the obvious purpose of slinging shit and/or causing disruption, then they better be prepared to have their ass handed to them, because I am not a pacifist in any way, shape, or form. I do not believe in laying back and allowing bullies to do whatever they want at will. They will get a taste of their own medicine from me, and if they do not like it, then they are free to leave. And if my being intentionally offensive to somebody like that is something that would get me banned, then - like I said - it's been nice knowing everybody here.

Jared Alesi's picture
I think the difference is

I think the difference is that you're offensive for a reason beyond just offense. You're not just doing it for the sake of pissing people off like some do. I think John meant that people who are offensive for the sake of being offensive and hurting people are the ones that should be banned. You, while wildly offensive, have a purpose when you are.

To qualify, intentionally offensive speech should be protected speech, in my opinion. Legally, people should have the ability to be as rude as they want and cross any imaginary offense lines they wish. However, in the context of this forum, such mundane use of their carnal brains is not only useless, but it also distracts from true debate. Thus, I believe that such outbursts should be banned from the forum, on the grounds that it's almost indistinguishable from trolling.

Sushisnake 's picture
@John

@John

Re: " , a single rule against discrimination makes it so that any offense against an outgroup is grounds for expulsion."

Would that mean we can't discriminate against religious ideas any more? If a white supremacist turned up, would he banned for his ideas and would I be banned for challenging them? We''d both be discriminating against an outgroup, so where do you draw the line? There's a very good reason why anti-discrimination laws are worded carefully and precisely. Or as carefully and precisely as the legislators can make them, anyway.

Re: " When it comes to free speech issues, the line is drawn at intent"

I agree with you in principle, John, but in practice intent is notoriously difficult to prove. It's very easy to say "But it's just my opinion, I didn't mean it offensively", or " I was being ironic." or " Well, some people do think that- I'm just stating the facts". We've all seen and heard some frightful examples of that little work around. Australians were presented with lots of them in the run up to the same sex marriage plebiscite. Deceased cartoonist Bill Leaks was famous here for his use of the dodge to justify his racist stereotype cartoons.

I think we probably need to add "no transphobia" to the rules. If ageism and/or ableism come up, we'll probably need to add them, too, but I don't think we should be automatically expelling members for breaking them. Better to engage them and refute their ideas than shut them out altogether. Shutting them out will just send them off to a racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/ageist/ableist echo chamber. We still need the rules, though: they function as a warning - go there, and you'll be shredded; go too far, and you'll be shown the door.

CyberLN's picture
Is this conversation academic

Is this conversation academic or do you think an inappropriate level of ban-button use is taking place?

Sushisnake 's picture
@Cyber

@Cyber

It's academic from where I'm sitting, Cyber. I regret Myk went, but I get why. I've had no qualms about waving bye bye to others shown the door since I've been here.

Tin-Man's picture
@Cyber

@Cyber

As far as I'm concerned, you and the other mods have done an outstanding job so far. And as I have said before, I do not envy your position, as I know you often have very difficult decisions to make. Interesting thing happened last night that is quite relevant to this thread, and I believe it gives a great example of "crossing the line" during a heated debate.

My wife is a mod on a FaceBook debate site. As such, people have personal photos and such that everybody can see. Last night a theist and atheist started discussing the existence of God. The theist guy had a picture of him and his wife and baby posted. My understanding is that the atheist guy was a regular on the site, and the theist guy was a "visitor".

So, during the debate things started getting a little tense, but both guys are only attacking the ideas and beliefs of the other. No problem so far. However, at some point the regular atheist guy started attacking the theist guy personally, calling him a stupid asshole and a few other things. (To the theist's credit, he did not retaliate in the same manner.) Anyway, it was brought to my wife's attention, and she PM'd the atheist guy and warned him.

Well, a few minutes later, the two guys resume their discussion, but then - for no apparent reason - the atheist guy starts telling the theist, "Yeah, I know you are stupid, because anybody who would marry a woman that ugly must be an idiot." As if that were not bad enough, the atheist guy then starts making even worse remarks such as, "You must have mental issues like your Downs Syndrom wife and kid." Why the HELL would anybody say something like that to another person? My jaw hit the floor.

Suffice it to say, my wife booted the atheist guy out in a most unceremonious manner, and she contacted the theist guy and offered sincere apologies. I really have to give credit to the theist, as he handled the insults to his wife and child waaaaay better than I would have. Personally, I was pissed and wanted to jump in and shred the atheist guy, and it wasn't even my wife and kids he was insulting. (But I digress....)

Anyway, I guess my point is, it is one thing to be offensive and make stupid remarks toward somebody or about an idea/concept. That's all good and well, and can sometimes even be a little entertaining. However, I think we can all agree that launching such an unprovoked personal attack like that on an individual is totally unacceptable under any circumstances, no matter the time or place.

On a side note, my wife has gotten many pats on the back so far for getting rid of that mo-.... ahem...- that, uh, guy.

arakish's picture
@Tin-Man

@Tin-Man

Re: "Well, a few minutes later, the two guys resume their discussion, but then - for no apparent reason - the atheist guy starts telling the theist, "Yeah, I know you are stupid, because anybody who would marry a woman that ugly must be an idiot." As if that were not bad enough, the atheist guy then starts making even worse remarks such as, "You must have mental issues like your Downs Syndrom wife and kid." Why the HELL would anybody say something like that to another person? My jaw hit the floor."

I guess this guy was flip side of the Absolutist priest who said what he said to me about losing my family. You have such monsters in both camps.

Damn Shame.

rmfr

Flamenca's picture
@CyberLN, I think we all

@CyberLN, I think we all agree on how difficult must be moderation, especially when it comes to a regular member, Who suddenly starts to misbehave and ignores warnings. I don't think any of us has complaints about the way you handle tricky situations. With Mykcob4 I wasn't really around when that happened, and though it's true that It was fun to read his outburst for regulars, and I miss the laughs, I'm sure he scared many people away and make people think the stereotype of the bitter angry atheist was really true, when in fact, most of us are the opposite. And I honestly respect your decision.

From all the opinions expressed in the thread so far, I agree on @Sushi's the most: rules must exist, and you'll be crushed by other people if you don't followed and eventually banned if you decide to keep on crossing the lines. But I realized with @Sushi's words that there's a golden opportunity we have with some people to let them know there's a whole new world apart from those hideous chats they usually hang out and we got the chance to let them read sth different from what they are used to.

arakish's picture
@Flamenca and CyberLN (and

@Flamenca and CyberLN (and others)

Yeah, I miss mykcob4 also. He was a bit rough, but he is just like I am. I am an angry and bitter atheist who is actually described better with the term "militant anti-religionist." However, I also do try to keep my anger and bitterness in check. If it had not been for lifelong jobs where I had to write so many reports and as eloquently as possible, I would probably be as bad as he was.

There have been times I allowed my anger and bitterness to overwhelm me. That one time, I was fortunate enough to delete the text of that post immediately after posting it before anyone saw it. At least I think I did. If I had left it, I guarantee CyberLN and/or others would have had no other alternative than to banish me.

I have made at least one, maybe two, ad hominem attacks. But I guess y'all just bit your tongue and allowed it. For that I am grateful. I did apologize in the post, but I just could not keep the exasperation TDoggy caused bottled anymore. And I can imagine some of y'all have been wanting to do the same, but you also proved yourselves the better persons by not doing it. To which I commend all of you.

I also agree that rules MUST exist. And they should be enforced when necessary. I can only imagine how difficult it is to moderate on forum boards such as this one.

Keep up the most difficult work, and thanks for all you do.

rmfr

Flamenca's picture
@Arakish:Yeah, I miss mykcob4

@Arakish:Yeah, I miss mykcob4 also. He was a bit rough, but he is just like I am. I am an angry and bitter atheist who is actually described better with the term "militant anti-religionist."

Well, there's an evident difference between you two: I haven't read from you any "fuck offs" as a way of greeting every single believer (yet). There's anger as a daily routine and justified anger... Precisely "the feminist dilemma" thread is a good example. A bunch of us (myself included) expressed anger for compelling reasons.

arakish's picture
@Flamenca

@Flamenca

Thanks. I never looked at it that way. It kind of does take a while before I hit "fuck off" stage.

I guess it is due to my strong belief in my fourth commandment: You shall respect the right of ALL persons to believe whatsoever they wish to believe; even if contradictory to your beliefs. You may discuss beliefs; however, forcing your beliefs onto others is condemnable.

But yeah, that feminist dilemma thread was exasperating as Sushi put it.

Thanks for that enlightenment.

rmfr

Flamenca's picture
@Arakish, you're very welcome

@Arakish, you're very welcome. And just for the record, although I look like made of porcelain, I'm in fact human hehe, and I get pissed from time to time, just as anyone else. Even in this forum.

P.S. And I'm pretty sure @Mykcob4 is a good person behind the mask.

Glacier's picture
I'm fairly new to this site.

I'm fairly new to this site. Is Islamophobia forbidden too?

Sapporo's picture
@Glacier, there are many

@Glacier, there are many different definitions of "Islamophobia".

If Islamophobia is an irrational fear of Islam, I don't see why AR should police that. If people are being prejudice against individuals, that would be a different consideration entirely.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.