EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5954
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2938 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11967 Posts
On September 09 2026 17:58 EnDeR_ wrote: Right, we definitely needed a "what is the definition of a man" 5-page discussion for the 4th time I think the last time it was "What is the definitions of a woman????", so there is some variance here! | ||
|
Artesimo
Germany627 Posts
On September 09 2026 16:50 dyhb wrote: I've made several posts trying to understand your perspective and trying to understand DPB's, but the only thing that made sense is the kinds of people that ask "What is a man" don't know enough about biology or intersex to answer "What is a male." That part makes sense. The rest makes less sense. No, you tried to find a way where you could either match what I said and your initial response with something where you either did not fail to understand what DarkPlasmaBall wrote to begin with, or to communicate what part of what he wrote you took issue with. At least that is the most charitable way I can read this interaction. Your last 2 posts are a great example of what you could have led with if you either understood the conversation you are in, or were capable of/interested in communicating it without someone nudging you along. And you still seem to fail to understand my role in this exchange since you seem to read it as a defence of DarkPlasmaBall's point, which it is not. You had the assignment of discussing his thesis, I was the headteacher that handed you back your assignment and told you to "try again" because your argumentation failed the criteria for the assignment with no consideration for the conclusion. DarkPlasmaBall: A is B, therefore B has all of A. You: How does B have all of A??? Me: You have to question why A should be B (which you did later down the line, but while trying to argue that really that was included in your questioning of how B should have all of A, which is why you got another failing grade). With your last posts you outlined your belief system, thus gave opportunity to see where they might be incompatible, and how that shapes your argument, and where it might be incompatible with DarkPlasmaBall's. You are now finally in a position where you can argue your point logically without making a fool of yourself. Before you moved in a logical construct that isn't supportive of your ideas, while pretending that you weren't. And again, at no point was there any gotcha on my part because I basically just commented on what went down and where you went wrong, with the only trick on my part being to trust you to shoot yourself in the foot. I also don't think it would be fair to characterise any of what DarkPlasmaBall wrote as an attempted gotcha either. Again, I don't know him, can't read their mind, and all that, but they way they express themselves reads much more like "here is how I feel about this and why" less than a "first and foremost let me prove why you are wrong". Basically if you had led with what you arrived at in the end I would not have had anything to entertain myself with. Hope that helps you trying to understand "my perspective". I am the asshole who is calling the technical fouls. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18433 Posts
On September 09 2026 16:53 Dan HH wrote: It is baffling, it's not purely singular. I'm sure you can agree "They likes to present themselves" sounds completely wrong, you have to drop the s and use like as if the "they" were plural even though it's not. It's probably why people invented ze and other neo-pronouns, but they are worse. That said, gendered languages don't have a solution either. They don't have gender-neutral pronouns for people (just for objects, the equivalent of "it") and maybe worse, default to masculine for any heterogeneous group of people (amigos, compañeros, ... can include women, but amigas and compañeras cannot include men). German is basically the same, but has the advantage of having a neutral gender, and all genders use the same plural declension, so die Freunde can be a group of men, women or mixed with no grammatical change. But there's no way of referring to a person as gender-neutral in any language that I know of. Someone is a he/him or a she/her in all languages unless you use neo-pronouns. So it's a gap. And filling the gap with something new is going to sound profoundly weird until you start getting used to it and it isn't weird anymore. Whether that's they/them, ze/zir (considerably worse than they/them, imho) or in Spanish elle, compañeres or god forbid, compañer@s. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46379 Posts
On September 09 2026 17:58 EnDeR_ wrote: Right, we definitely needed a "what is the definition of a man" 5-page discussion for the 4th time My bigger issue is that ETisME asked the question, but didn't participate in any of the actual discussion. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2938 Posts
| ||
| ||
