Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Are DCUM Political Topics Changing Your Vote?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
Yes and no. |
Anonymous
Your assumption was incorrect. I was not speaking of my own beliefs. It is objectively true that the left (writ large; I mean to encompass all the left, including leftist totalitarianism) has been spectacularly good at squashing debate through the policing of language. I don’t think this is particularly debatable given the history of totalitarianism regimes. Note that this doesn’t excuse the right. Here is something equally terrible that the right is extremely good at (better than the left): the manipulation and imagery of patriotism to squash debate and resistance. Fascist regimes in modern history have been extremely good at this and there are many examples. It isn’t taking a political position to acknowledge this reality of history, and it is critically important to see patterns. The left is better than the right at controlling and stifling speech and resistance through control of vocabulary and language. The right is better than the left at controlling and stifling speech and resistance through control of patriotism. I do not know what is gained by pretending this isn’t true. You can distinguish between “biological men” and “transgender women” all you like, but that doesn’t change the fact that by doing so, you alter the framework of the discussion, particularly with respect to women’s sports, where biology is the key issue at hand. |
Anonymous
I call it a "belief" based on inner sense and feeling. But far left people don't like to hear that either. So I give up. Biological Sex = sex of an individual based on 100% science. It is absolute truth based on science that humans are either male, female or intersex. Gender Identity = the gender an individual identifies with based on inner sense and feeling, a "belief" in being cis-, trans- ....that may not match the individual's biological sex. There is no absolute truth as it is not based on 100% science. |
Anonymous
PP is intentional with her use of language to denigrate transgender people. |
Anonymous
You cannot have both. You must make a choice. |
Anonymous
The problem here is using the phrase “biological male” is not a denigration - it is a fact. |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
LOL. Wrong. |
Anonymous
|
I’m the PP who pointed out the control of language that has characterized the debate about trans ideology and rights. One reason I pushing on this is that the removal of references to sex (e.g. biology) has suppressed debate and at minimum deeply confused it. This is seen across multiple domains: if, for instance, it is not acceptable to refer to transwomen as “male,” it makes it very challenging to have an accurate discussion of the impact of that different biology on female bodies.
There has been polling, for instance, where it shows that the general population often doesn’t understand what a trans woman is, and believe trans women are biologically female. I have to go offline now for several hours, and I’m sorry I could not dig further, but a quick search came up with this as one example (caveat that I have not had time to examine the provenance). There are other polls showing the same. https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2023/08/07/clarity-matters-how-placating-lobbyists-obscures-public-understanding-of-sex-and-gender/ |
Anonymous
No. Society can not pick and choose which beliefs should and should not be tolerated based on their subjective beliefs. I tolerate that white supremacists and racism exists, always has and always will. Sorry to burst your bubble but I am a realist. BUT "acceptance" is different. I don't accept anyone using those racist beliefs to do harm. Another example...I tolerate the different beliefs on gender identity. I don't accept anyone using those beliefs to do harm. |
Anonymous
Would you take action to fight against white supremacists showing up at school board meetings explaining their beliefs or trying to impose racist policies? Or would you just “tolerate” them? I will not tolerate anti-trans people trying to use hateful language or impose anti-trans policies. |
Anonymous
A man telling women that he defines women according to his beliefs and standards. |
Anonymous
No, of course not. I would not "accept" that....because in that scenario they are expressing that their belief is the absolute truth, which it is not. Same thing with other scenario, I will not "accept" anti-trans people trying to use hateful language or impose anti-trans policies....because in that scenario they are expressing that their belief is the absolute truth, which it is not. However, here's the rub....the same logic should apply in other scenarios such as gender identity beliefs. I tolerate the different beliefs on gender identity. I do not "accept" any one gender identity belief being taught over another...because in that scenario they are expressing that only one belief is the absolute truth, which it is not. |
Anonymous
We should not teach that racism is bad? Or stealing? Because those are just other “beliefs”? 
You’re trying to rationalize making hateful comments, but in the end, you choose the words you use for a reason. Knowing that they are disrespectful and hurtful. There is no getting around that. |
Anonymous
You obviously don't understand that there is a difference between "tolerate" and "accept". And that is not what I said at all. You teach to NOT accept racism. Racism should never be "accepted". Understand? You tolerate it because...it will always exist....albeit wrong and unacceptable. Scenario....you know an old man who lives down the street...he displays confederate flags on his private property and you've heard him rant and make generic racist comments (but not directed at anyone in particular)...what would you do? If you tell me that it should not be tolerated what would you do? Would you go and bang on his door and tell him to stop displaying the confederate flag? Would you vandalize his yard? No. You would tolerate it....you would, however, teach that it is not acceptable. BUT assume the old man leaves his home and goes to the grocery store and uses his cane to hit the POC cashier while using a racist slur. This is where it not acceptable.....and you would have the right to intervene because it's not acceptable and in this scenario you should not tolerate it. Another scenario , there are white supremacist groups living in compounds in many US states and around the world...we tolerate their existence, but we do teach that is not acceptable. What would you do when you say we should not tolerate them? Would you send in the military to obliterate them? Please tell me what exactly you would do. Because no, we don't do that...we tolerate their existence. BUT....if a white supremacist causes harm and violates someone's civil rights....this is where it not acceptable and in this scenario you should not tolerate it. |
Anonymous
Tolerate means take no action. If a neighbor is expressing his beliefs by flying the confederate flag in his yard, as he can legally do, I will also express my beliefs by giving him the middle finger, as I can legally do. I have never said “beliefs” can’t exist or need to be “obliterated”. But the ones that do harm should be challenged and called out. |