EPTI'm not saying you're doing this. I'm saying it happens in online spaces that are highly vitriolic (X, reddit, 4chan)
Elon Musk's lies, propaganda, etc. - Page 32
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Uldridge
Belgium4536 Posts
I'm not saying you're doing this. I'm saying it happens in online spaces that are highly vitriolic (X, reddit, 4chan) | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11902 Posts
On December 04 2024 21:30 Uldridge wrote: You're not seeing how sometimes cis is used as a dogwhistle for bigotry. The right has (((code))), but so does the left. I'm not saying you're doing this. I'm saying it happens in online spaces that are highly vitriolic (X, reddit, 4chan) Then the comparison wouldn't be banning the n word, it would be banning Pepe the Frog or the OK sign. Edit: also unclear how often people need a dogwhistle to call someone a bigot, in my experience the complaint is that people are too comfortable doing that rather than not comfortable enough. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4536 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11902 Posts
On December 04 2024 21:38 Uldridge wrote: I'm quite sure the n-word is an overblown relic to be honest. We'll get past it some day. Maybe. When African Americans stop having daddy issues. To be fair, it's very difficult to get over those. Fathers can be real dogshit sometimes. Especially when they're boomers. Every rule ever has required good faith engagement and will continue to require it. The fact that if you use dogwhistles specifically with the intent of writing a post that looks racist, you can write a post that looks racist, doesn't score any kind of point. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43727 Posts
On December 04 2024 21:30 Uldridge wrote: You're not seeing how sometimes cis is used as a dogwhistle for bigotry. The right has (((code))), but so does the left. I'm not saying you're doing this. I'm saying it happens in online spaces that are highly vitriolic (X, reddit, 4chan) Assuming that what you're saying is true, why is implying that someone is a bigot comparable to literally calling someone the n-word? Even if the word "bigot" was explicitly used, that's not a slur. On December 04 2024 21:38 Uldridge wrote: I'm quite sure the n-word is an overblown relic to be honest. We'll get past it some day. Maybe. When African Americans stop having daddy issues. To be fair, it's very difficult to get over those. Fathers can be real dogshit sometimes. Especially when they're boomers. What do you mean when you say that we might get past the n-word "when African Americans stop having daddy issues"? | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4536 Posts
Social media is especially bad at this. I think mankind is doing something truly horrific with the way we conduct our online spaces at the moment. Cutting off, or max reduction of social media intake seems to be the best practice at the moment. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17804 Posts
On December 04 2024 20:10 Uldridge wrote: They're using the same logic harder left people use when calling out that racism against white people doesn't exist, so calling someone a (white) cracker is fine. Language has intent embedded into it. It's not just the words themselves, but how you use those words in that context. Banning any word just because it's a word and not looking at its context is silly imo. But it's a very fuzzy and difficult thing to get exactly right. I could call someone the worst thing possible with the nicest words and half of the people interpreting it might get it, while the other half will probably think it was perfectly reasonable use of language. Weird how it works like that. Indeed, you perfumed pile of human chocolate!  | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4536 Posts
On December 04 2024 21:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Assuming that what you're saying is true, why is implying that someone is a bigot comparable to literally calling someone the n-word? Even if the word "bigot" was explicitly used, that's not a slur. What can I say? Conservatives are frail snowflakes. The world moved too fast too soon for them. One day they're like: homosexual don't really exist, and then next day they need to share a public bathroom with a man that used to be a woman! What do you mean when you say that we might get past the n-word "when African Americans stop having daddy issues"? The "daddy-issues" is the brutal imprint and ramifications (very complex ones and very long lasting) colonizers and slave owners left on them and how they reclaimed the word towards a solely in-group term seems quite weird to me. Unless this is so American that as a non-American I just can't understand the subtlety of it all unless I've lived here long enough. There seems to be a whole slate of complex issues that are being comprised to a single word, but with so many exceptions that it's ultimately untenable. I don't care either way though. If a group of people is so upset that a certain word is used, I will happily drop it to appease them and try to understand why. But I hope we might get to a point where it's just a cultural relic and people have come to terms with it and we can all use it again, or there's simply no need to use it. Just like there won't be a need to have a gay pride thing when all the social issues have been solved for homosexuals. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5241 Posts
On December 04 2024 21:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: That's why Jock wrote "before any right wingers decide to do their normal thing and turn this in to a semantic debate". Absolutely prescient. 1) I am not a "right winger." 2) He posted that after me, slick. 3) You remain the one who has brought up the fascinating issue of the definition of "call" which I specifically used scare quotes for so there would be no ambiguity about what I meant. On December 04 2024 21:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: lol. If I say that Elon Musk is cis-gendered, I am calling him cis-gendered. He is cis-gendered. So am I. So are Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Donald Trump, and JD Vance. These are not slurs or inappropriate descriptors, and they are factually accurate. I'm sorry if it triggers you or Elon Musk that cis people are called cis, but wanting to ban "cis" and "cis-gendered" while also pretending to advocate for free speech is a hypocritical move by Elon Musk. Your constitutional right to free speech has not been abridged by anything Musk has done, as you have even meekly had to downgrade from "banning" to "wanting to ban" (i.e., not banning). You remain free to call people by factually accurate protected characteristics to your heart's delight. You can go outside right now and do it to more people than you will reach on the clearly failing X platform. For the rest of us, there is no reason to draw attention to (usually already extremely visible) protected characteristics 99% of the time, unless you are doing it for ulterior reasons. It is a practice which adds nothing to society, and anyone who has been on or witnessed a schoolyard knows exactly the purpose in again 99% of cases. Nevertheless, you remain free to do it and I encourage you to. I don't encourage people in general, just you specifically, because it's a practice which is self-discrediting in wider society. With "cis" it's even worse - it's a word to describe someone being the same as they were born. There is no reason to ever use this word, except to differentiate from someone who wasn't born the way they identify, which is to differentiate that person as well, meaning exclude (or a leftist would say "other"), meaning it's pointless except as a pejorative. Really though please keep calling Elon Musk cisgendered. I say there's no reason. You disagree, meaning there must be a reason. Good, I am willing to accept that. Every time you refer to him this way, or interrupt a conversation to remind us of equally blindingly obvious facts in the same vein (ex. helpful reminders like "Obama is half black."), we will be able to deduce the reason amongst ourselves. We will know your reason. You're communicating exactly what you want to when you call people by these things. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43727 Posts
On December 04 2024 22:46 oBlade wrote: 1) I am not a "right winger." 2) He posted that after me, slick. 3) You remain the one who has brought up the fascinating issue of the definition of "call" which I specifically used scare quotes for so there would be no ambiguity about what I meant. 1. Oh honey. 2. Um, no, slick. lol. He posted it and I even replied to it long before you posted your comment. An hour earlier... His post: Last Edited: 2024-12-04 06:00:21 EST. My post where I replied and included it: Last Edited: 2024-12-04 06:10:18 EST Your post with your semantics argument that I responded to, where you wrote "That's why I said "call" and not "refer to."": 7:08 EST. ...Not that this changes anything. 3. Oh right, it's me who made the semantics argument, not you. /s With "cis" it's even worse - it's a word to describe someone being the same as they were born. There is no reason to ever use this word, except to differentiate from someone who wasn't born the way they identify ... Correct! Or, at least, close enough. ... which is to differentiate that person as well, meaning exclude (or a leftist would say "other"), meaning it's pointless except as a pejorative. Incorrect. A discussion of different identities can be constructive, and using accurate labels isn't pointless or pejorative: I'm a man, and I find it informative and valuable to hear perspectives and experiences from people who are not men. I'm a white person, and I find it informative and valuable to hear perspectives and experiences from people who are not white. I'm a straight person, and I find it informative and valuable to hear perspectives and experiences from people who are not straight. I'm a cis person, and I find it informative and valuable to hear perspectives and experiences from people who are not cis-gendered. In general, I find it informative and valuable to hear perspectives and experiences from other people. These are not pejoratives or slurs. There are plenty of ways to use them in reasonable contexts. If a cis-person is hand-waving and ignoring the prejudice and lived experiences that the trans community encounters, and that cis-person is criticized with "As a cis-person, you probably can't relate with some of the issues that trans-people are dealing with, but let's at least hear them out", that's not using any slurs. Swap out "cis-person" for "white person" or "man", and swap out "trans-people" for "person of color" or "woman", and we still don't have any slurs. There might be some overlapping issues, but none of these are used pejoratively. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4536 Posts
I understand your argument and I'm sure many times a woman will be more informative and valuable when talking about things that a man will ever be able to give, but this is ultimately unnecessarily restrictive. It's just a framework for perpetual pigeon holing and discrimination. Also, not all perspectives are necessarily informing or valuable when they're not aligning with your discriptors. You're saying these things unable to qualify them. So how do you qualify them? Let me be absolutely clear here, by the way: I agree with you, I'm just playing devil's advocate while also pushing your idea even further. In an almost ideal world, we have people represented in every degree of society that reflects the demographics of that society. In absolutely ideal world, that's not necessary anymore and everyone in, for example, congress can be a white elderly male again because they're actually in tune with society and have a rigid understanding of the hardships of minority groups. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43727 Posts
On December 04 2024 23:52 Uldridge wrote: DPB, there are not enough descriptors in the world to find a single interaction not be informative and valuable between you and a man who is white, straight and cis. Everyone has their own little quirks, problems, social status that give them a unique perspective on the world. I understand your argument and I'm sure many times a woman will be more informative and valuable when talking about things that a man will ever be able to give, but this is ultimately unnecessarily restrictive. It's just a framework for perpetual pigeon holing and discrimination. Also, not all perspectives are necessarily informing or valuable when they're not aligning with your discriptors. You're saying these things unable to qualify them. So how do you qualify them? Let me be absolutely clear here, by the way: I agree with you, I'm just playing devil's advocate while also pushing your idea even further. In an almost ideal world, we have people represented in every degree of society that reflects the demographics of that society. In absolutely ideal world, that's not necessary anymore and everyone in, for example, congress can be a white elderly male again because they're actually in tune with society and have a rigid understanding of the hardships of minority groups. We don't live in an ideal world, and we do need to understand the plights of different groups that are being targeted and discriminated against, as well as generally communicate with other people just for the sake of learning and gaining perspective. I'm fine with your vision of what we could hypothetically no-longer-need if we lived in a utopian, post-prejudice society some time in the distant future, but I'm discussing the real world in its present state. The ideas of oBlade and Elroi would suggest that not only is "cis-gendered" a slur, but any identity descriptor is also prejudicial because it helps us distinguish between groups: "man" is a bad word, "Japanese" is offensive, "heterosexual" is taboo, and so on. Elon Musk might as well ban all of those words if he wants to ban "cis". | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3709 Posts
| ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4536 Posts
I'm not saying you're doing that, I'm not even saying the entire framework of diversity and inclusion is doing that - in fact, I'd say they're trying to incorporate that. What I am saying is that this seems, to me at least, to be the narrative that's playing with large amounts of people that have voted for Trump and there needs to be a narrative shift that heavily emphasises that they're also included. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23673 Posts
But for me it’s dancing semantics, the central crux of the matter is Elon ‘Free Speech Absolutist’ making this editorial call. And indeed why he made a point to publicly make that point. I dunno Kev, feels very much moderation to cater to a particular demographic’s sensibilities, something previous ownership was roundly criticised for doing. Not a problem I have to deal with as I’m very transparently and openly pro-moderation and say so all the time, albeit I want consistent standards across the board and not leaving them up to the whims of individual companies. A bit of a problem for Musk cheerleaders though who anointed him the saviour of free speech upon him taking over. Hence we dance a dance as old as humanity itself where engagement is around anything but that particular call, because it would require one to cede some ground, or admit they might be wrong on anything | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23673 Posts
On December 05 2024 00:29 Uldridge wrote: The idea that oBlade gets at, if I'm interpreting this correctly at least, is that majority groups get lumped together and get disproportionately less time of day at the moment because all the minority groups are fighting and getting their place in the sun. Meanwhile, rural people who's price of eggs and bread have gone through the roof are told to shut up and get by if they complain about their current situation. This is what the lens of diversity brings us. How do we elevate singular percentages of the population out of their problems when large percentages won't be lifted out of their problems because their perspective doesn't matter because they belong to the majority at the moment so their problems need to take a backseat. It's not about the white powerful rich patriarchal maintaining man, it's about the frail, poor, opportunity poor white trailer park man. Do we actually make a subdivision for this case? Or for all the other disenfranchised or less-opportunistic people? I'm not saying you're doing that, I'm not even saying the entire framework of diversity and inclusion is doing that - in fact, I'd say they're trying to incorporate that. What I am saying is that this seems, to me at least, to be the narrative that's playing with large amounts of people that have voted for Trump and there needs to be a narrative shift that heavily emphasises that they're also included. The entire conception and idea of intersectionality is meant to address just such problems and cases. That’s specifically what it was conceived to do. Does everyone do this? No, evidently not. But people have thought about, and came up with frameworks to analyse problems from the individual to the regional group level that factor in socioeconomic deprivation versus minority grouping or whatever mix one cares to throw in. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3709 Posts
On December 05 2024 00:29 Uldridge wrote: The idea that oBlade gets at, if I'm interpreting this correctly at least, is that majority groups get lumped together and get disproportionately less time of day at the moment because all the minority groups are fighting and getting their place in the sun. Meanwhile, rural people who's price of eggs and bread have gone through the roof are told to shut up and get by if they complain about their current situation. This is what the lens of diversity brings us. How do we elevate singular percentages of the population out of their problems when large percentages won't be lifted out of their problems because their perspective doesn't matter because they belong to the majority at the moment so their problems need to take a backseat. It's not about the white powerful rich patriarchal maintaining man, it's about the frail, poor, opportunity poor white trailer park man. Do we actually make a subdivision for this case? Or for all the other disenfranchised or less-opportunistic people? I'm not saying you're doing that, I'm not even saying the entire framework of diversity and inclusion is doing that - in fact, I'd say they're trying to incorporate that. What I am saying is that this seems, to me at least, to be the narrative that's playing with large amounts of people that have voted for Trump and there needs to be a narrative shift that heavily emphasises that they're also included. You're basically describing the problem that some minority groups such as homeless people are getting almost no attention by the media while other minority groups such as refugees get way too much attention. That's one of the examples of a hidden minority suffering in secrecy as a consequence of rampant media bias. But that has nothing to do with the "cis" ban. Elon doesn't worry about homeless people and other invisible minorities when he bans that word on Twitter. He's simply hateful of trans people asking for rights, because he fully buys into the right-wing anti-trans propaganda. If Elon wants to uplift invisible minorities like homeless people and broke pensioners and mentally ill people, he has one of the best platforms in the world to talk about them 24/7. So why isn't he doing that instead of banning "cis"? We all know why. We know his priorities, and one of his top priorities is to support fascism. He doesn't care about helping anyone who needs help. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43727 Posts
On December 05 2024 00:29 Uldridge wrote: The idea that oBlade gets at, if I'm interpreting this correctly at least, is that majority groups get lumped together and get disproportionately less time of day at the moment because all the minority groups are fighting and getting their place in the sun. Meanwhile, rural people who's price of eggs and bread have gone through the roof are told to shut up and get by if they complain about their current situation. This is what the lens of diversity brings us. How do we elevate singular percentages of the population out of their problems when large percentages won't be lifted out of their problems because their perspective doesn't matter because they belong to the majority at the moment so their problems need to take a backseat. It's not about the white powerful rich patriarchal maintaining man, it's about the frail, poor, opportunity poor white trailer park man. Do we actually make a subdivision for this case? Or for all the other disenfranchised or less-opportunistic people? I'm not saying you're doing that, I'm not even saying the entire framework of diversity and inclusion is doing that - in fact, I'd say they're trying to incorporate that. What I am saying is that this seems, to me at least, to be the narrative that's playing with large amounts of people that have voted for Trump and there needs to be a narrative shift that heavily emphasises that they're also included. None of that is what oBlade is talking about. oBlade's and Musk's complaints truly were as one-dimensional as they seem: "cis-gendered" is an inappropriate and taboo word that shouldn't be used, according to them. Talks of other disenfranchised groups, such as the struggles that large swaths of rural families encounter, are absolutely valuable conversations. That requires a discussion about socioeconomic status - and perhaps is more relevant in the US Politics thread. That's not what oBlade and Musk were referring to. Furthermore, we might use words such as "working-class" and "middle-class" families, which would be offensive to oBlade because using words to identify different groups of people would be "to differentiate that person as well, meaning exclude (or a leftist would say "other"), meaning it's pointless except as a pejorative". Edit: "Rural" must also be a bad word, too, when used to describe certain families, since many families are non-rural! See how stupid this is? | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4536 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43727 Posts
On December 05 2024 00:51 Uldridge wrote: I was of the idea the discussion had evolved to a broader point, but maybe I'm mistaken and it's all to do about Elon and his 'ban" of the prefix "cis". I'd be more than happy to see the topic change from Musk's idiotic take on the use of the word "cis-gendered". | ||
| ||
