|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States44266 Posts
On August 19 2017 03:19 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 03:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 19 2017 02:39 Falling wrote:
@Wolf
Yes, the speaker is Adrienne Smith and that is the exact quote. I don't see how it's in another context or do you mean that if you don't seek out and establish a person's pronouns and subsequently 'mispronoun' that constitutes something akin to sexism in the workplace? Or is it that if you refuse to use squeak, elkself, squeakself, tik, dai, necro, frankenself, merself, vamp, witchself, whomp (that's a great one), botself, mechie, and so on (man, tumblr is educational), then this would constitute harassment and workplace discrimination? It means that the bar for discrimination in the work place, or other environments, is already quite high. And while you can get in trouble in general for being an ass-hole at work, it takes several degrees higher before human rights complaints can start to factor in. Like any other current charges of discrimination (or discriminatory environments), there has to be intent, sustained action, etc. Would not using those above pronouns constitute 'being an ass-hole at work'? Because it seems being an ass-hole is a much lower bar to cross and likely all that would be sufficient to give just cause for firing (see people's defence of Damore's firing.) And then suppose you sustained your refusal to not use those pronouns are moving to discrimination then or does it matter the intent- that one doesn't think any less of the person as a person, but one just doesn't think pronouns are individualized in the same way as proper nouns.
If there were a trans employee at my workplace and I insisted upon referring to them by a pronoun that made them upset I would 110% get fired and I would 110% deserve to get fired. Not for discrimination, for bullying.
|
On August 19 2017 03:22 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 03:17 TheTenthDoc wrote:On August 19 2017 03:02 LegalLord wrote:
This is unfortunate news. Bannon really spiced up the administration.
I look forward to seeing what happens when Trump runs out of fall guys and then he himself has to answer for the shittiness of his rather crooked administration. The beauty of being an executive who hires basically whoever you want whenever you want is that you never run out of fall guys. Most of these people are in the weird pseudo-positions that aren't really part of the government anyway, so it's child's play to rise and repeat. He's running out of willing hires at an impressive rate. Working for the Trump admin is a career hazard. Sooner or later he's just going to be left with a contingent of zero allies and his head will be next for the chopping block. At this rate it's inevitable since we are but seven months in.
This is going to test whether it's the Bannon inspired ideology/rhetoric that kept his base loyal, or a cult of personality.
|
|
|
On August 19 2017 03:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 03:19 Falling wrote:On August 19 2017 03:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 19 2017 02:39 Falling wrote:
@Wolf
Yes, the speaker is Adrienne Smith and that is the exact quote. I don't see how it's in another context or do you mean that if you don't seek out and establish a person's pronouns and subsequently 'mispronoun' that constitutes something akin to sexism in the workplace? Or is it that if you refuse to use squeak, elkself, squeakself, tik, dai, necro, frankenself, merself, vamp, witchself, whomp (that's a great one), botself, mechie, and so on (man, tumblr is educational), then this would constitute harassment and workplace discrimination? It means that the bar for discrimination in the work place, or other environments, is already quite high. And while you can get in trouble in general for being an ass-hole at work, it takes several degrees higher before human rights complaints can start to factor in. Like any other current charges of discrimination (or discriminatory environments), there has to be intent, sustained action, etc. Would not using those above pronouns constitute 'being an ass-hole at work'? Because it seems being an ass-hole is a much lower bar to cross and likely all that would be sufficient to give just cause for firing (see people's defence of Damore's firing.) And then suppose you sustained your refusal to not use those pronouns are moving to discrimination then or does it matter the intent- that one doesn't think any less of the person as a person, but one just doesn't think pronouns are individualized in the same way as proper nouns. If there were a trans employee at my workplace and I insisted upon referring to them by a pronoun that made them upset I would 110% get fired and I would 110% deserve to get fired. Not for discrimination, for bullying.
Being an asshole is likely one of, if not the, the most common reasons for firing someone lol
|
|
|
I hope they play "Too Little Too Late" before Trump's next press conference, because firing Bannon now is 100% too little too late to wash off the stink this created.
On August 19 2017 03:22 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 03:17 TheTenthDoc wrote:On August 19 2017 03:02 LegalLord wrote:
This is unfortunate news. Bannon really spiced up the administration.
I look forward to seeing what happens when Trump runs out of fall guys and then he himself has to answer for the shittiness of his rather crooked administration. The beauty of being an executive who hires basically whoever you want whenever you want is that you never run out of fall guys. Most of these people are in the weird pseudo-positions that aren't really part of the government anyway, so it's child's play to rise and repeat. He's running out of willing hires at an impressive rate. Working for the Trump admin is a career hazard. Sooner or later he's just going to be left with a contingent of zero allies and his head will be next for the chopping block. At this rate it's inevitable since we are but seven months in.
We're like 19 months in, the revolving door of Trump causing logistical nightmares for him has been his hallmark since he booted up his campaign. It seems to me like there will always be people seeing him as their big break (and competency is obviously completely unrelated for these positions)
|
I kind of wonder who exactly is telling Trump to do things this stupidly. We have to remember that who he is is merely a sleazy and vain New York billionaire, he's definitely not a right-wing extremist himself. He got a lot of talking points from conservative talk show radio, that much is clear - but who is telling him to do stupid shit like making disastrous decision after disastrous decision? I really can't imagine it's all being loose cannon, someone must be behind this.
|
|
|
I'm glad I woke up this morning. Bannon 2020 makes my month.
|
On August 19 2017 03:40 LegalLord wrote:
I kind of wonder who exactly is telling Trump to do things this stupidly. We have to remember that who he is is merely a sleazy and vain New York billionaire, he's definitely not a right-wing extremist himself. He got a lot of talking points from conservative talk show radio, that much is clear - but who is telling him to do stupid shit like making disastrous decision after disastrous decision? I really can't imagine it's all being loose cannon, someone must be behind this.
gentle reminder that it is reported the president ad libbed a threat of nuclear war 'fire and fury'
he may not be evil enough, but he's stupid enough.
|
On August 19 2017 03:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 03:19 Falling wrote:On August 19 2017 03:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 19 2017 02:39 Falling wrote:
@Wolf
Yes, the speaker is Adrienne Smith and that is the exact quote. I don't see how it's in another context or do you mean that if you don't seek out and establish a person's pronouns and subsequently 'mispronoun' that constitutes something akin to sexism in the workplace? Or is it that if you refuse to use squeak, elkself, squeakself, tik, dai, necro, frankenself, merself, vamp, witchself, whomp (that's a great one), botself, mechie, and so on (man, tumblr is educational), then this would constitute harassment and workplace discrimination? It means that the bar for discrimination in the work place, or other environments, is already quite high. And while you can get in trouble in general for being an ass-hole at work, it takes several degrees higher before human rights complaints can start to factor in. Like any other current charges of discrimination (or discriminatory environments), there has to be intent, sustained action, etc. Would not using those above pronouns constitute 'being an ass-hole at work'? Because it seems being an ass-hole is a much lower bar to cross and likely all that would be sufficient to give just cause for firing (see people's defence of Damore's firing.) And then suppose you sustained your refusal to not use those pronouns are moving to discrimination then or does it matter the intent- that one doesn't think any less of the person as a person, but one just doesn't think pronouns are individualized in the same way as proper nouns. If there were a trans employee at my workplace and I insisted upon referring to them by a pronoun that made them upset I would 110% get fired and I would 110% deserve to get fired. Not for discrimination, for bullying.
Yes, basically you would get written up by HR and probably fired long before Human Rights complaints are filed. And this is for anything that qualifies as discrimination, not just transgender discrimination. And if HR and your employers do not acknowledge the issue or take steps against it, then its the company facing the lawsuits.
And if someone at your workplace is being belligerent about the absolutely wacky "pronouns" (agreed, Tumblr is ridiculous), then they would probably be written up and fired.
|
On August 19 2017 03:40 LegalLord wrote:
I kind of wonder who exactly is telling Trump to do things this stupidly. We have to remember that who he is is merely a sleazy and vain New York billionaire, he's definitely not a right-wing extremist himself. He got a lot of talking points from conservative talk show radio, that much is clear - but who is telling him to do stupid shit like making disastrous decision after disastrous decision? I really can't imagine it's all being loose cannon, someone must be behind this.
do which things this stupidly?
what's wrong with it all being him being dumb nad loose cannon?
why can't he just be makign bad decisions because of incompetence?
and him being unable to tell good advice from bad?
of course, incompetence means it's all his fault regardless; as part of being a leader is knowing who's advice to listen to.
|
On August 19 2017 03:43 Sermokala wrote:
I'm glad I woke up this morning. Bannon 2020 makes my month.
He looks like every person infected with the alien virus that doesn't tell anyone until its to late. So clearly a shoe in for 2020.
|
Canada11603 Posts
On August 19 2017 03:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 03:19 Falling wrote:On August 19 2017 03:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 19 2017 02:39 Falling wrote:
@Wolf
Yes, the speaker is Adrienne Smith and that is the exact quote. I don't see how it's in another context or do you mean that if you don't seek out and establish a person's pronouns and subsequently 'mispronoun' that constitutes something akin to sexism in the workplace? Or is it that if you refuse to use squeak, elkself, squeakself, tik, dai, necro, frankenself, merself, vamp, witchself, whomp (that's a great one), botself, mechie, and so on (man, tumblr is educational), then this would constitute harassment and workplace discrimination? It means that the bar for discrimination in the work place, or other environments, is already quite high. And while you can get in trouble in general for being an ass-hole at work, it takes several degrees higher before human rights complaints can start to factor in. Like any other current charges of discrimination (or discriminatory environments), there has to be intent, sustained action, etc. Would not using those above pronouns constitute 'being an ass-hole at work'? Because it seems being an ass-hole is a much lower bar to cross and likely all that would be sufficient to give just cause for firing (see people's defence of Damore's firing.) Why wouldn’t it? That is a form of harassment. The same with refusing to use someone’s married name because they are in an interracial marriage. Or using a nick name that someone has said they do not want to be called that.
Is it? You just used alternate proper nouns as your examples, all of which are individualized to the person. Pronouns are a weird embedding of the language that are very functional, used rather subconsciously, and by their very nature, general. Think of the ones I just used: you, your, their- I don't need to know anything at all about you to use 'you'. I need to know a tiny bit more to use he/she, but I need to know you on a first name basis to know to use 'necro' rather than 'faun'. But it's not so obvious that refusing to treat pronouns like proper nouns is a matter of harassment or disrespect.
But if it is, then that would seem to put to a lie wolf's claim- this is an overblown fear.
|
On August 19 2017 03:40 LegalLord wrote:
I kind of wonder who exactly is telling Trump to do things this stupidly. We have to remember that who he is is merely a sleazy and vain New York billionaire, he's definitely not a right-wing extremist himself. He got a lot of talking points from conservative talk show radio, that much is clear - but who is telling him to do stupid shit like making disastrous decision after disastrous decision? I really can't imagine it's all being loose cannon, someone must be behind this.
I'd be actually careful with that, because trump fits the very definition of right wing extremist.
I also doubt that someone is puppeteer-ing a narcissist, that doesn't work either. I think the problem is that people are telling him how it's done right, and he deliberately does it differently. See for example the second "not everyone was nazi there" speech, where he factually was supposed to say something else and he just went off script (again).
He is a loose cannon. Or rather, he's a like a little rich 9 year old shit feeling superior to anyone who comes across.
|
United States44266 Posts
On August 19 2017 03:59 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 03:22 Plansix wrote:On August 19 2017 03:19 Falling wrote:On August 19 2017 03:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 19 2017 02:39 Falling wrote:
@Wolf
Yes, the speaker is Adrienne Smith and that is the exact quote. I don't see how it's in another context or do you mean that if you don't seek out and establish a person's pronouns and subsequently 'mispronoun' that constitutes something akin to sexism in the workplace? Or is it that if you refuse to use squeak, elkself, squeakself, tik, dai, necro, frankenself, merself, vamp, witchself, whomp (that's a great one), botself, mechie, and so on (man, tumblr is educational), then this would constitute harassment and workplace discrimination? It means that the bar for discrimination in the work place, or other environments, is already quite high. And while you can get in trouble in general for being an ass-hole at work, it takes several degrees higher before human rights complaints can start to factor in. Like any other current charges of discrimination (or discriminatory environments), there has to be intent, sustained action, etc. Would not using those above pronouns constitute 'being an ass-hole at work'? Because it seems being an ass-hole is a much lower bar to cross and likely all that would be sufficient to give just cause for firing (see people's defence of Damore's firing.) Why wouldn’t it? That is a form of harassment. The same with refusing to use someone’s married name because they are in an interracial marriage. Or using a nick name that someone has said they do not want to be called that. Is it? You just used alternate proper nouns as your examples, all of which are individualized to the person. Pronouns are a weird embedding of the language that are very functional, used rather subconsciously, and by their very nature, general. Think of the ones I just used: you, your, their- I don't need to know anything at all about you to use 'you'. I need to know a tiny bit more to use he/she, but I need to you on a first name basis to know to use 'necro' rather than 'faun'. But it's not so obvious that refusing to treat pronouns like proper nouns is a matter of harassment or disrespectful. But if it is, then that would seem to put to a lie wolf's claim- this is an overblown fear.
This isn't complicated. If you're in a professional setting and someone asks you for an incredibly basic courtesy you give it to them. The trans police are not coming to drag anyone away to camps. Instead of coming up with hypotheticals in which giving trans people basic human respect is the first sign of a dictatorship couldn't you just wait and see on this one? If in five years all men are forced to use women's bathrooms and all women are forced to use men's bathrooms, I will apologize to you and say that you were right.
The hysteria is absolutely overblown. Just as it was with every other trans issue. Take trans bathrooms. There has been exactly one case of a man walking into a woman's bathroom while insisting that he was trans and it wasn't a trans guy, it was a transphobic conservative who thought he was being clever.
|
This seems to me to be less "you can't do X" and more "if people are doing X and won't stop, and HR won't help you, and your boss won't help you (perhaps because HR or the boss are involved), you have legal recourse." Which seems so transparently obviously a good idea for analogous racial situations, so why not for gender identity situations?
I mean, for those that question the law, without a law like this, how would you protect people from those situations?
|
Didnt that Cernovich guy threaten to drop the "motherlode" or what was it if Bannon got fired?
|
A great summary of the last few weeks. But I can't wait until we fight about how the SJWs are going to far and are inciting fragile white people into racism.
|
Canada11603 Posts
"giving trans people basic human respect"
Well that rather assumes that individualized pronouns are a matter of basic human respect, and I wonder- is it? Was it before? Did it become so now?
"someone asks you for an incredibly basic courtesy"
Is it an incredibly basic courtesy? To be compelled to use an individualized set of pronouns. Up until now, pronouns were not considered to be owned by anybody- they were an embedded feature of the language used for general purposes. Proper nouns and honourifics is where we demonstrated respect. Why and when did this become and an incredibly basic courtesy- to play along with their cubself, kitself, meowself, squidself, wormself, lynxelf, whiskerself? (I tell you, this Ask a Non-Binary tumblr is a treasure-trove.) Wouldn't it be more respectful to treat them as the humans they are, rather than the animal or mythical being , or inanimate object they seem to think they are?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
