Lurker > SKARDAVNELNATE

adjl posted...

Their conduct in the conversation" being to identify themselves as being trans

No... Their conduct being to make an issue out of it. I see no reason they can't identify themselves as being trans and then move on to discuss something else. Maybe it's your view of trans people that they're unable to do that. I think they are quite capable of that because I don't expect being trans to be the whole of their personality the way you seem to.

adjl posted...

"This is my friend Bill, she's really good at soccer."
"She? I'm a guy, dude."

Now I'm questioning how good of a friend they are to mix that up. In the other scenario I figured it was the first conversation I'm having with them and I know nothing else about them.

adjl posted...

Oh hey that response looks just as stupid this way as in the first version.

No argument there.

BoomerKuwanger posted...

I don't know how you de-radicalize people

The problem might be that it's not a radical position to want to be able to ignore people. Like I said before... The opposition has been a moderate stance. I don't believe we've seen an extreme stance in the opposite direction.

adjl posted...

Deliberately ostracizing people for being trans

... is not what I presented in the scenario that you asked for. In the scenario it was only after the other person insisted on it that I would have ended the conversation. They aren't being ostracized for being trans. They're being ostracized for their conduct in the conversation.

adjl posted...

"My name's not Bill. It's Jake."

https://www.dictionary.com/compare-words/proper%20noun-vs-pronoun

adjl posted...

"I can't expect a quality conversation from trans people."

You would think that, if you think trans people can only talk about their pronouns. You asked for a very specific scenario where they make an issue out of that. I do think I can't expect a quality conversation from someone who makes that an issue. I don't think that's all trans people talk about. I do think I can have a quality conversation with a trans person on some different subject. Maybe you're the one with the problem.

Jen0125 posted...

Can you directly answer a question?

In this essay I will answer why I think it's okay for someone to lack regard for other regular people. Other people lack regard for me and I'm okay with that. So I think other people should be okay with it too. That explains why I think it's okay for someone to lack regard for other regular people.

adjl posted...

That you think that's comparable says a lot about you as a person.

Yes, I don't find either especially significant. They just tell me about the level of quality that I can expect from a conversation with them. On the other hand if I were seeking out a conversation on that subject I know who to go to.

Jen0125 posted...

That doesn't answer my question.

I think that does answer the question. I don't mind that you lack regard for me.

adjl posted...

I'd just prefer to categorically avoid talking to somebody

There was a person I attended college with. He would bring up Final Fantasy in every conversation. I avoided talking to him too.

Jen0125 posted...

Why are you okay with someone lacking regard towards other regular people?

I would like everyone who disagrees with me to know that I am indifferent to you. You are just text that appears on a screen. And I sincerely hope that to you I am the same.

adjl posted...

But hey, you seem to think you (or Peterson) have a point. So I ask you: In what situations is deliberately misgendering a trans person so important that it justifies doubling their risk of suicide?

I admit this is a good question. Every time this has been raised before I have been left wondering how 3rd person pronouns come up when engaging in a 1 to 1 conversation. Normally they are only used when the subject is not there to hear how you refer to them.

Some assumptions would have to be made to construct such a scenario. I guess I'm interacting with them in person in some way, or somehow put in a situation where I can't just go about ignoring them.

There's two ways I could see it going from there. For the first one let's say I have already referred to them in a way they don't like because I didn't know. I would rather take myself out of the situation. Whatever reason I had to talk to them is not worth it to pursue further.

The other way I see it going is that the first thing they say to me is that they want me to refer to them in some way. Even then I can find some way to excuse myself. Even if I'm there for a job interview I can respond "I don't think I'll be a fit here" and leave.

It is difficult to construct a situation where I need to deliberately misgender someone since I see ways of not talking to them to begin with. If they continue to insist on it even after I left and follow me despite making my intentions known then I can see a reason to just to emphasize my desire to not talk to them.

adjl posted...

They are, however, both transphobia

I disagree. One is active disdain because they fall into a category. The other is indifference toward them and the category the fall into. This further demonstrates why I think you don't understand what transphobia is. A necessary component is caring that someone is trans.

adjl posted...

regardless of how strongly the person in question wants trans people to be hurt.

No, I think that does make a difference. It requires negative regard. Not just a lack of regard.

adjl posted...

It may not specifically be your goal, but you've accepted its association with your actions and decided whatever good your actions can achieve outweighs whatever harm might be associated with the outcome.

Yes, exactly! This is what I've been saying about Jordan Peterson. He's not showing a negative regard for trans people because of how he feels about them being trans. He's showing a lack of regard of being trans because he values something more.

adjl posted...

that is devaluing that person's life to a degree that cannot be described as anything less than hateful

There is a vast ocean of difference between indifference and hate.

Yellow posted...

the range of Conservative thought towards trans people

I was only discussing Jordan Peterson. Not any group. I don't know if he's conservative. And trying to determine what counts as a conservative position might be political discussion.

Yellow posted...

100% of the time act like he's not that extreme and he's being misrepresented

I see this as more of a social issue than a political one. Society has gone very extreme in one direction. The opposition to this has been a moderate stance. I don't believe we've seen an extreme stance in the opposite direction.

Zareth posted...

As far as I know there's no law requiring you to use a person's preferred pronouns in the US.

My understanding is that Jordan Peterson is a Canadian citizen and that country passed such a law.

ReturnOfFa posted...

Guess dingdong blocked me?

Did you want my attention so badly that you couldn't wait an hour for me to see your posts?

adjl posted...

not as egregiously a transphobic nuggetwanker as somebody who does so because they want all trans people to go away, but they're still a transphobic nuggetwanker.

You may think Jordan Peterson is a nuggetwanker but you have yet to adequately support the transphobic part. Jordan Peterson's stance and the views that inform it are well explored in various interviews and other appearances. Trans people have very little if anything to do with those views. By continuing to call him transphobic you assert that his feelings about trans people are a primary motivation for him. This is factually untrue.

adjl posted...

It doesn't matter how smart or important you think you are, nothing about what you think, say, or do will ever justify doubling somebody's risk of suicide. Nothing.

To support the claim of transphobia it would be necessary to demonstrate that this is the intended outcome. Transphobia is not the result of ones actions. It is an attitude toward a trait a person has. It is found in the cause, not the effect of those actions. You are arguing the result is the same when the cause is well established to be different.

adjl posted...

What if a snake eats a monkey, but the monkey is still alive inside the snake, then the snake disguises itself as a monkey again?

The snakes and the monkey are one being. It was a metaphor for ones actions matching the image of themselves that they present to the outside world. I think you just described one persons dark impulses making it so another person can no longer mask their dark impulses. This sounds like the first Darkman movie.

adjl posted...

And that's transphobic. Full stop. Unless it's Twitter, deliberately deadnaming or misgendering somebody is transphobic

You don't seem to know what transphobia is. Jordan Peterson has gone into detail about why he has taken the stance that he has. Not once did he say that it's because he hates people for being trans. There was an interview with Cathy Newman where he stumped her with how little his answer had to do with trans people.

adjl posted...

and it's only okay in Twitter's case because Twitter isn't a person and deadnaming it is just resisting Musk's absurd insistence on trying to force a new identity on it against whatever will it can be said to have

I just don't see how this is relevant to what we're talking about. I assume you only brought it up to distract me and lead me off on a tangent. Please stick to the subject of Jordan Peterson.

KJ_StErOiDs posted...

Blue vs Black:

I see black and shiny black.

BoomerKuwanger posted...

Everything this skardnate guy posts is such a gigantic L lmao

It sounds like you haven't cleaned your room.

ReturnOfFa posted...

Have done so and you are incorrect.

Psst, @adjl I think you have a stalker. He knows you've been listening to Jordan Perterson.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io9xTYvfbkk

adjl posted...

Does he or does he not take issue with referring to people by their chosen names and pronouns instead of alternatives which he believes are more appropriate (for whatever reason)?

His stance is that it depends on the situation. He does take issue with passing laws to compel speech. Since this is not CE I cannot elaborate on that argument further. We are talking about what views Jordan Person has and not advocating for or against them. The point of which being that people do not take time to understand what his position is because they conflate "he has an issue with how laws are passed" with "he has an issue with trans people".

Knowing what his real argument is I do not find his position on that matter to be transphobic. Similarly, he has an argument about people being monkeys full of snakes. This can be interpreted as being in favor of self identifying, depending on the situation. If identifying as a monkey is more useful than identifying as snakes, and if people are consistent about it. Otherwise the facade of a monkey drops, the snakes start to come out, and other monkey people won't know what to make of that. Is that not what trans people advocate for? To be recognized as one thing instead of another that they would be seen as. Jordan Peterson also argues in favor of that.

adjl posted...

we all know Peterson's all about that.

I suspect you haven't tried listening to his actual comments on the subject instead of what people are saying about him.

Half the time when I visit the site lately it's just a blank page and will stay that way for a while. Then when I come back to it a half hour later it's back to normal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPyf5kIGoKA

Do you mean like it was just a character and he was never actually a rapper?

Judgmenl posted...

Also new dumb question

What does it do if you don't interact with it at all?
Is it not doing stuff until you allow it?
Or is it doing stuff until you indicate not to?

One, which is still there.

I could never figure out what the game expects from me just to mop the floor at the very start.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

you can store candy in the pouches of the white ones

Why only the white ones?

I think Aliens has become more iconic. It has the colonial marines, the queen, the power loader.
They mostly come out at night, mostly.

THEGODDAMNBATMA posted...

But they found out that I am taking one of them on a date.

I'm not seeing the strategy here. Do they want more dates? Or do they want to spend less time with you by equally distributing it?

adjl posted...

Of course, that particular cookie has been offering that particular enhancement for about 30 years now and has absolutely nothing to do with Fandom

Ah, yes, but as far as I know the bar stating it is new.
And I assume the cookies associated with it are new.
While I accept a cookie has enhanced my experience before I don't think this new bar or the new cookies are doing so.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Unless you've been terrible in the past and your MMA is so shit that they've secretly stopped letting you actually mark posts.

Probably this. My first couple years on the site I tried marking violations but never saw them get removed. Then I gave up on marking them altogether. Nothing I posted would get modded either. At least until Hillary called Donald illigitemate. Then everything about ToS enforcement changed.

Foppe posted...

When asked whether the site will ever see anything NEW added

I have a bar at the bottom of my screen saying "This website uses cookies to enhance user experience". I never saw that before. Also, so far it has not enhanced my experience.

HornedLion posted...

Im getting modded for political chat on PotD.

Odd, I've seen a bunch of political statements that haven't been touched.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/3/3665e346.jpg

adjl posted...

Not sure why you're talking about that, though, when the discussion is about why you've been modded.

The discussion is about the ToS and its enforcement. The reason I've been modded is because I believe in what I'm saying and the mods enforce an opposing opinion.

adjl posted...

I've stated the facts which form the basis of my overall opinion

That basis is formed from other conclusions. The "facts" are statements other people can dispute.

adjl posted...

My purpose here is to explain the reasoning behind your moderations, not to engage in a political debate.

I know the reason for my moderations. I've been trying to explain it to you.

adjl posted...

Probably not, just because getting punished for that would mean the community's values are so radically different from my own that participating in said community would just be an exercise in frustration.

That is where we differ. I don't compromise my values.

adjl posted...

In claiming that not expressing certain opinions is necessary to avoid getting modded?

No. That you're right in your opinion.

adjl posted...

Again, this is not a matter of debating these particular political opinions.

I thought you hadn't stated anything that isn't an observable fact. Now you admit your position is subjective.

adjl posted...

If pressed to defend the opinions themselves, I could very easily do so without invoking the ToS or opinions of the moderation team in any way

That's easy when you hold opinions they agree with. Would you still defend your beliefs so staunchly if they didn't agree with you?
If you believe in what you have to say, but know that you'll be punished for saying it, would you still be so quick to say it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukD4PEXvIek

You seem to think that because the mods support you, you're right. And because the mods are against me, I must be wrong. This is an appeal to authority fallacy. It especially doesn't work when the authority isn't trusted.Just because you should be fine isn't the vindication you think it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx2qPhPb5iQ

adjl posted...

"Without going into the merits of either narrative"

Means that it's become against the ToS to do so. Which you just did.

adjl posted...

I am explaining which position is against the ToS

Well, now it's against the ToS to advocate for any political position on this board. You've made statements regarding election integrity twice. I will not discus that subject with you.

adjl posted...

you were modded for supporting the election fraud narrative

And in the 4 years prior I was modded for refuting the election fraud narrative put out by the other side. Without going into the merits of either narrative this shows that enforcement of the ToS was politically biased.

adjl posted...

if you're comparing Jan 6th to BLM protests

Those are not the events I alluded to.

Sufferedphoenix posted...

Hmm. First time I've had a topic of mine derailed that I can recall. But also I usually don't get this many posts in my topics.

We're still sort of discussing the rule changes. I think adjl is demonstrating for us how badly they can abuse the new policy before mods are forced to step in.

adjl posted...

there's zero evidence whatsoever for the claim of...

adjl posted...

you said something in support of the false narrative that...

The subject at hand is the ToS and its enforcement. Due to the new policy I feel unsafe with how you continue to advocate for a position that is of an innately political nature in an attempt to distract me from that. The ToS was enforced one way for the narrative surrounding one event, and it was enforced differently for a similar narrative surrounding a similar event.

Spaghetti Sauce is more similar to a chili than a gravy.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

who wins

One brings about an ice age. The other regularly loses to an Italian in overalls.

Without going into specifics, it wasn't a ToS violation when something of the same nature was posted in support of the other side.

adjl posted...

You don't have to.

I don't believe I violated the ToS. Now that the position on discussing politics has been clarified I can't continue and still make that claim.

adjl posted...

That translates to...

I don't feel safe addressing something of a political nature given the new policy.

That just demonstrates how poorly you understood what I was getting at. Remember, I was posting in that topic to criticize Fox News as insincere.

adjl posted...

If you are still blindsided, that's what I mean by learning from your moderations.

So I should learn from my moderations that egalitarianism is not tolerated and it's encouraged to promote discrimination against certain groups of people. I don't think that's a good lesson.

adjl posted...

Saying you believe it attempts to lend it credence.

Only if, in your opinion, I'm a credible judge of reality. If you think I'm some clueless clod then my belief in it takes away credence by association.

adjl posted...

saying you believe the lie is indeed moddable because it amounts to you saying the belief has merit.

So I believe something has merit... Find for me the passage within the terms of service where that is against the site rules.

adjl posted...

what you believe is a lie.

But I do believe it. So I'm not lying.
Plus I was modded for saying I believe it. Not for saying it was unequivocally true.

adjl posted...

That said, you don't exactly have a track record of moderations that can reasonably be called unfair, so it's a bit of a moot point in your case.

A moderator commented that I'm not allowed to lie about a thing. One which I was being entirely truthful about.

Essentially...
Me: I believe X.
Mod: You're lying, you don't actually believe that.

adjl posted...

That said, regardless of the number of people marking, they're a lot more lenient to people with clean moderation histories.

So if you've been unfairly modded before that increases the likelihood that you won't be given the appropriate consideration next time.

So... here's a video from 8 years ago. I thought people had heard of them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWSF-LlrzSY