Originally posted by Nibedicus
Then the line of “fighting words” creates a bit of a contradiction in your statement.The agency of getting offended towards the statement is, of course, with the mother. But the insertion of “fighting words” then takes away said agency and assumes that offense would always be present. Or at least it makes it seem that way. It would have been best if you ended it at “but it is up to her...”.
I do get that there is nuance in the meaning of a word when one has a relationship with another person. As there could be an “inside joke” between the two parties or at least a type of personal understanding of the meaning of the word within the relationship or between said parties that would make an offensive word less offensive or even acceptable.
However, I will also state that “offense” is very subjective and a more mature and balanced approach would be understanding the intent of the person speaking, not simply the impact of a word being used. There are caveats, of course. IF a word is well known to be offensive and it is still used by an individual to address a person who is known to be offended by it, then maybe one can blame the person for getting offended. But a generalized word that was, until recently, thought to be benign by most shouldn’t be something to be triggered over (well, I personally didn’t know “preference” was offensive myself and I asked my extremely liberal wife, my gay friends (they are not American tho) they didn’t know either, until my wife googled it and then she said it could be). Especially when we KNOW the intention of the speaker was not to cause offense.
No, it really does not. You are just being pedantic, because you are wrong. Moreover, you assumed the term to be benign, because you did not have knowledge of its context in American conservative politics or the American LGBTQ community, which only reinforces my point. Context matters.
Originally posted by Surtur
We still come to the fact that Biden and ACB didn't use the phrase in different contexts.There is nothing in what they said to indicate either of them meant it as some sort of dog whistle.
It's not wrong for ACB to use the phrase, but if it was it would be equally wrong for Biden to use it. There is no "ally clause" where you get a pass.
The context is entirely different. One person seeks to advance LGBTQ equality, and the other seeks to curtail it.
Originally posted by Newjak
Like are people so concerned about Biden vs ACB using the same term that they're removing the context of why LGBTQ people would be concerned about a religious conservative Supreme Court nominee using the term?It was a long standing argument against homosexuals to say their desired partner was a choice therefore they can choose to be in a 'nonsinful' relationship with hetero partners instead.
This is a well documented standard that got applied to whether homosexual marriage or even homosexuality should be legal.
They think everyone is as stupid as they are, and we are all supposed to buy their bullshit. They do not even believe it, but they expect us to. They cannot defend her shitty record with regard to LGBTQ people, so they are seizing on this as a way to distract and change the subject. "If she is so bad, then how come all these other people used the same word!" As if the context does not matter.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, Surtur is triggered about imagined hypocrisy, and I am simply setting him straight. Try harder.
There is no imagined hypocrisy. You guys literally only threw a fit when a conservative used the term.
This is getting embarrassing. It's hypocritical. Put the shovel down and move on. Why is this a hill you guys choose to die on?
Originally posted by Silent Master
The word preferences doesn't appear to trigger Surtur. but I guess you're the expert on being triggered.
Now they think pointing out their hypocrisy equates to being triggered lol. It's a neat way to try to get people not to point it out, but it won't work. They seem to want to behave as if nobody was offended when in fact Hirono called her out during the hearing for it. And of course left leaning media was all over it. This wasn't some random people on social media.
Originally posted by Silent Master
What court rulings of hers do you have to support your claim that she wants to curtail LGBTQ rights?
Good question.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEI know. It's like we are supposed to go, "yeah, words aren't evil" or some other dumbass thought.
They think everyone is as stupid as they are, and we are all supposed to buy their bullshit. They do not even believe it, but they expect us to. They cannot defend her shitty record with regard to LGBTQ people, so they are seizing on this as a way to distract and change the subject. "If she is so bad, then how come all these other people used the same word!" As if the context does not matter.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
A president shouldn't be allowed to appoint 3 Supreme Court Justices in a 4-year term.There, I said it.
#Trumpexploitsoursystem'sflaws
I see this like I see the electoral college. Certain people cried like little wittle babies over it. Yet if Trump had won the popular vote, but Hillary won cuz of the EC? Most of those same people would be praising it, extolling its virtues. Saying it did its job.
So what I'm saying is I 100% do not believe you'd say shit about this if it was a democrat doing it. It's very similar to how it's only bad when republicans say sexual preference and not democrats.