The LiquidLegends Lounge - Page 266

This is what I was responding to. I have no idea what your second sentence is supposed to mean but presumably it makes the other stuff relevent to the song. I'm not responding to the song, here.



This is what I said (bold numbers added). Allow me to clarify what I meant in each claim.

(1): You made very broad claims about how you think sexual orientation and gender have progressed over time. These claims reflect narratives that are commonly spouted by straight cis people. This is well documented and it's trivial to find via google if you want to do research, or if you followed LGBT/queer news / publications / websites you would already be well aware of this. Same thing about race, but narratives from white people, and PoC/indigenous/mixed news/publications/websites etc. I misread what you said about fitness so that's where the able-bodied part comes from - this was my mistake. Saying I think you're acting very X Y and Z (non-negative qualities) is not an attack or an insult. It's like if you said something along the lines of "We don't we just take their oil by force" and I said "you're really really American". At this point I'm not arguing with you about anything.

(2): This is me disagreeing with your views on how race reflects gender/orientation, as well as your interpretation of how well tolerated these communities are. This is me disagreeing with you, but I don't elaborate on it here. This also is not an attack. Here I am also implying that I am actively a part of racialized queer communities, which I am.

(3): Here I am making a claim using the rational that your views about groups of people as expressed are radically different from many of the views expressed by the people you're talking about. The claim I'm making is that you probably don't study or research things such as: sociology, cultural studies, gender studies, respectability politics, social constructivism, systemic oppression, or social power dynamics. Generally, if you did study these things, you should be more familiar with insider perspectives of the groups you're talking about. This isn't an attack. Most people don't study these things. Here I am also implying that I do, which I do.

(4): Here I am suggesting that your unfamiliarity with the previously mentioned fields/ideas may leave you fascinated with basic ideas from these fields. People are often fascinated by basic ideas in lots of fields, often in first year college/university courses. I'm not disagreeing with you here. This isn't very much of an attack? I'm basically saying that you're (potentially easily) impressed by novel and good ideas that you're previously unfamiliar with.

(5): Here I'm saying that the message from the song isn't particularly deep or meaningful. It's a fine message. I don't disagree with it here or anywhere. I'm just voicing that I'm not impressed by it to the same degree that you are - because I'm very familiar with these ideas and they're not novel to me anymore. This isn't an attack. I am disagreeing with you here about the significance of the message. Many other posters have made similar comments.

(6): This is me agreeing with you on your interpretation of the song. I think it's a reasonable interpretation. This isn't an attack and I'm not disagreeing with you here.



This is your response. I added numbers again.

(1): I listened to the song. I don't really care how controversial the group is. You seem happy with your taste in music which is fine.

(2): I only made one post so "not once has..." is pretty extreme and really defensive. Aside from agreeing with you about the song interpretation, you're right in that I didn't directly respond to the things you said. I wasn't intending to because I wasn't making an argument against you or anything you said at the time.

(3): Assumed and inferred, yes. Attack, no. I think you've come to this realization now, anyway. My post was intentionally talking about you and not whatever argument you were making. Because I'm not using discussion of the arguer to disprove the argument, this isn't ad hominem. Ad hominem is like this: "You're [X] and therefore what you're saying is wrong". What I said is like this: "You're [X] and also wrong". Notice the word "and". If you're familiar with introductory symbolic logic then you should know that this means I'm making the claim that both qualities are true rather than one being conditional on the other. In fact, if you follow my line of thought, it's actually like this: "You're wrong so I think that you're [X]". ie you have it backwards.

(4): cool story bro. I joined to sign up for a local SCII tournament. I was Bronze so I got bottom seed and got wrecked by Col.FireZerg, who was the top seed and winner of the previous local tournament in that series. Nydus'd his main in ZvZ for kicks, though.

(5): This is what my next post is in response to. I'm not sure why you thought those would be productive discussion though.



This is pretty straight-forward and I don't think we disagree with each other here at all.



I added numbers again.

(1): This isn't ad hominem and I'm not attacking you. Please refer to above reasoning.

(2): When you say "give me one fact" after I basically say "I'm done with the conversation" it kind of implies that you'll take one fact and then fuck off. Which you didn't. So you wanted more than 1 thing. Anyway my next post gives an example.



(1): I lied.

For the rest, a lot of this post actually answers your response, so I'll just piecemeal it to try and clarify.



numbers etc.I swapped 2 and 3 to make it easier to read.

(1): I agree.

(2): Nope! Please refer to above explanation.

(3): Yes. This is a definition of a term. The term is homogenizing. This homogenization is a problem for two large reasons. The first is that it systemically supports various forms of oppression through active invisibilization from the most powerful in the group onto the least powerful in the group (which isn't particularly relevant, here, but it's related to the other part). The second is that it makes the term useless. Allow me to clarify - I am disagreeing with the significance of this as per the definition you have provided. I made this clear in my previous post before you posted this. Let me quote myself again.



To build on the example I gave, if you look up a definition of feminism it will almost always provide you with a definition of global feminism, which is a specific branch of feminism (which incorporates most all of first and second wave feminism) that posits that there are issues that all women face equally and that the elimination of these problems will help all women. Global feminism has been ripped to shreds by third wave intersectional feminism for being overly homogenizing. Similarly, the definition you have provided is that of what is commonly referred to as the mainstream gay/LGBT movement, which has also been ripped to shreds by many QT2IPOC writers, activists, and scholars.

So yes, I'm not using your term 'correctly' because I'm directly challenging your term. If I am to use your term for a moment, then I would agree with you and say that many of the people who are benefiting from the mainstream LGBT movement have indeed benefited greatly over the last few decades relative to their previous positions. However, to make my point clear, for the vast majority of the people who are typically included under the term "LGBT community" as you have defined it, the situation has not improved significantly or has worsened.

(4): I actually said queer Muslims. If you're not familiar with the difference between mainstream LGBT and queer movements then I suggest you do some research on the matter as they're very different.



(5): You say "only fact". You asked for a single fact. I gave you one example.

Again, there is no all-encompassing homogeneous LGBT community. In post-9/11 America, most/all Muslim communities are in a tougher social situation than they were previously. This includes queer Muslim communities, who, despite having an easier time as queers are having a much more difficult time as Muslims and come out at a "net negative" as people. If you're talking about LGBT identities, completely unattached to human bodies, then sure, these identities are better off. But the actual people, the actual bodies that these identities are attached to, the actual literal communities I'm talking about, the actual significant parts of the discussion, end up at a net negative as queer people.

Here are some more simple intersectional examples of the same variety.

X-on-black violence has increased over the last few decades. Violence against queer blacks has increased over the last few decades.
The economic recession disproportionately affected the poor(er)/lower-middle-class. Many poor queers are worse off post-recession than they were previously.
Many American citizens have family/friends in other countries. America keeps invading places (regardless of whether the invasions are justified, the citizens never come out unscathed). American queers with foreign relatives/friends have a higher chance of losing those significant others than they did in the past.
Indigenous communities are oppressed by the presence and power of colonial nation-states. The power of the American government has been reified over time and more people are dependent upon it for survival and legitimacy than was previously the case. This increase in AMURICA leaves many indigenous queer people worse off.

To clarify, if you still don't understand this concept, or think it illogical etc.: Research the term intersectionality, as I recommended. You can't hope to understand the things I'm saying if you don't do this, and there's no point in me typing anything related to these topics at you if you refuse to do basic research on them.

(6): I think mutually-exclusive was the wrong word choice here. You can be both of these things. I was giving the example of people who are both of these things. So I'm not entirely sure what you were going for here.

(7): I don't dislike Hello Venus. I never said I dislike Hello Venus. I'm not sure where you got this from and it really makes me think this "argument" has mostly been based on miscommunication (until now). But, also, no, I don't dislike (a) pretty young ladies or (b) bodily confidence or any combination of those two things.

tl;dr fuk u 1v1 deathmatch when