Originally posted by Surtur
At this point we're going to move on if you guys are going to pretend they'd actually be understanding over this.I feel like you both know they wouldn't, but refuse to acknowledge it so I see no point in continuing. You also ignored the fact the complaint was about how preference suggests choice, which is true no matter who uses it.
So we move on.
They're both trolling you, obviously.
Originally posted by Newjak
Sorry Nib I was very busy but I did want to get around to replying to this.I think intent is such a hard thing to know sometimes especially in such an open ended context.
She may not have known and by some reports it looked like she was genuine in her not knowing. That could have been an act.
Maybe it was just a subconscious bias instilled in her from her Christian upbringing. Or it's just a façade and she very adheres to Homosexual relationships are sinful ones and therefore should not be allowed to be legal.
Those all could be her intent and could all be credible. The context here is she is a conservative Christian and that group has traditionally and even modernly homosexual relationships in general. It wasn't that long ago Kim Davis was celebrated for not doing her job and standing up to what they dub the "homosexual scourge".
You just can't remove that history and what she represents from this discussion entirely. She maybe the general exception but you can't just ignore it either because it's convenient or try to point hypocrisy without context.
An example, while extreme, would be a white citizen describing a person of color by the N word. Then defending them by saying someone else of color used the N word and saying if you don't denounce all uses of the N word by everyone then you're being hypocrites.
That logically doesn't make sense because ultimately one group using it has a context that is tied to the use of the word. In the case of conservative Christians in the U.S. sexual preference carries a history of trying be used to undermine Homosexuality in the U.S. both socially and legally.
Forgive me for saying this, but there is a HUGE level of mental gymnastics required to arrive at the possible “contexts” you are trying to have us believe possibly exists.
She is a SC nominee trying to get a job in an interview in front of media and politicians that would scrutinize everything she says to its limits just to get her to say something wrong. She is not stupid nor is she insane. There is practically no benefit for her to use “preference” in any context whatsoever other than the common understanding of the word. There is no “acting” there. She used it the same way you and I would use the word “purpose” or “friendship”: benign words.
If you want to fault her, perhaps it is more on because she has not caught on to the progressive lingo on what words mean to certain people, especially when such words have been used by other people before to no repurcussions whatsoever. Words apparently have constantly shifting meanings these days. But one cannot blame ppl for being unable to keep up with the offense olympics at the rate things are going. As smart and as prepared a person can be, one cannot be prepared for everything if the standards you are trying to meet become subjective.
There is a huge difference between the n-word: w/c is a specific word that has a well known and completely agreed upon oppressive history w/c is known and understood by most everyone, and is commonly understood when used by someone not black to have implied offense attached to it versus the word “preference”, w/c is a common word w/c is to this day still used as a benign descriptor meaning “choice”.
The fact you attach meaning based on a person’s identity without first just, you know, asking the person what their meaning was is kinda prejudiced and hypocritical don’t you think? You are assuming that all people are prejudiced just because they are a certain religion.
Let us be honest here: Biden used the word in exactly the same context as ACB. The only reason ACB is getting blockback from it, is because it is politically expedient. They are trying to paint a picture of “anti-gay” in order to smear her because they do not want another Trump nominee in the SC. You and I and everybody here knows this.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Forgive me for saying this, but there is a HUGE level of mental gymnastics required to arrive at the possible “contexts” you are trying to have us believe possibly exists.She is a SC nominee trying to get a job in an interview in front of media and politicians that would scrutinize everything she says to its limits just to get her to say something wrong. She is not stupid nor is she insane. There is practically no benefit for her to use “preference” in any context whatsoever other than the common understanding of the word. There is no “acting” there. She used it the same way you and I would use the word “purpose” or “friendship”: benign words.
If you want to fault her, perhaps it is more on because she has not caught on to the progressive lingo on what words mean to certain people, especially when such words have been used by other people before to no repurcussions whatsoever. Words apparently have constantly shifting meanings these days. But one cannot blame ppl for being unable to keep up with the offense olympics at the rate things are going. As smart and as prepared a person can be, one cannot be prepared for everything if the standards you are trying to meet become subjective.
There is a huge difference between the n-word: w/c is a specific word that has a well known and completely agreed upon oppressive history w/c is known and understood by most everyone, and is commonly understood when used by someone not black to have implied offense attached to it versus the word “preference”, w/c is a common word w/c is to this day still used as a benign descriptor meaning “choice”.
The fact you attach meaning based on a person’s identity without first just, you know, asking the person what their meaning was is kinda prejudiced and hypocritical don’t you think? You are assuming that all people are prejudiced just because they are a certain religion.
Let us be honest here: Biden used the word in exactly the same context as ACB. The only reason ACB is getting blockback from it, is because it is politically expedient. They are trying to paint a picture of “anti-gay” in order to smear her because they do not want another Trump nominee in the SC. You and I and everybody here knows this.
That’s more or less what I think too, which is not to say that she won’t be harmful to the LGBT community, of course.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
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.
Saying “your are wrong” does not make it so. You need to actually refute my arguments first.
For a person to speak out with offensive intent, they would need to first understand that the word itself is offensive. The vast majority of ppl out there do not see the word as offensive and only use it within its usual, well established (until the dictionary starts editing words on the fly of course) dictionary definition.
With the absence of offensive intent, the first MATURE reaction to a person speaking in error of a word’s use/purpose would be to correct the person, not attack them.
In contrast, the N-word has been well established thru so many mediums (From education to entertainment. Thru books, movies, music and poetry) of its offensive history that it would be safe to assume (in most every case) that a person using it is using it with the intent to offend because they should have known better. Maybe when you write, direct and produce a movie about the oppresive history of “preference” that it then becomes popular enough to be wide spread, well accepted fact, then maybe we can make the same level of assumptions about a person’s intent on using the word?
Without establishing offensive intent, many are using a person’s religious identity to assume prejudicial intent (you are Republican/Christian thus we assume your words have prejudicial intent). And that is both hypocritical and bigoted.
Originally posted by RobtardThat is the Road to Hell -Chris Rea
Because you'll fail to prove your point(s) and then claim victory. Yeah, taken that "road" with you countless times and it's boring, surt.
Originally posted by Silent Master
The term isn't actually offensive. pretending it is just an excuse one side uses so that they don't have to address arguments. it's a classic tactic.
True, and even the claims of context seem hollow because one reason given for the term being wrong is that it implies your sexuality is a choice. If that is true it is true regardless of who is using the term.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Forgive me for saying this, but there is a HUGE level of mental gymnastics required to arrive at the possible “contexts” you are trying to have us believe possibly exists.She is a SC nominee trying to get a job in an interview in front of media and politicians that would scrutinize everything she says to its limits just to get her to say something wrong. She is not stupid nor is she insane. There is practically no benefit for her to use “preference” in any context whatsoever other than the common understanding of the word. There is no “acting” there. She used it the same way you and I would use the word “purpose” or “friendship”: benign words.
If you want to fault her, perhaps it is more on because she has not caught on to the progressive lingo on what words mean to certain people, especially when such words have been used by other people before to no repurcussions whatsoever. Words apparently have constantly shifting meanings these days. But one cannot blame ppl for being unable to keep up with the offense olympics at the rate things are going. As smart and as prepared a person can be, one cannot be prepared for everything if the standards you are trying to meet become subjective.
There is a huge difference between the n-word: w/c is a specific word that has a well known and completely agreed upon oppressive history w/c is known and understood by most everyone, and is commonly understood when used by someone not black to have implied offense attached to it versus the word “preference”, w/c is a common word w/c is to this day still used as a benign descriptor meaning “choice”.
The fact you attach meaning based on a person’s identity without first just, you know, asking the person what their meaning was is kinda prejudiced and hypocritical don’t you think? You are assuming that all people are prejudiced just because they are a certain religion.
Let us be honest here: Biden used the word in exactly the same context as ACB. The only reason ACB is getting blockback from it, is because it is politically expedient. They are trying to paint a picture of “anti-gay” in order to smear her because they do not want another Trump nominee in the SC. You and I and everybody here knows this.
This is all correct. They both used it in the same context. The problem is they can't smear her as a rapist and they figured out that explicitly going after her over her religion is a bad idea so they needed something to complain about. Especially since nobody was really buying into their claims she would make in vitro fertilization illegal.
And as you said, words have shifting meanings. Hell I'm sure you saw the fact websters dictionary changed their definition the following day lol.
I laugh, but it's also kinda messed up.
That reminds me:
You love to see it.
Originally posted by Surtur
That reminds me:You love to see it.
Damn, do I thoroughly hate our incumbent Democrats.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Saying “your are wrong” does not make it so. You need to actually refute my arguments first.For a person to speak out with offensive intent, they would need to first understand that the word itself is offensive. The vast majority of ppl out there do not see the word as offensive and only use it within its usual, well established (until the dictionary starts editing words on the fly of course) dictionary definition.
With the absence of offensive intent, the first MATURE reaction to a person speaking in error of a word’s use/purpose would be to correct the person, not attack them.
In contrast, the N-word has been well established thru so many mediums (From education to entertainment. Thru books, movies, music and poetry) of its offensive history that it would be safe to assume (in most every case) that a person using it is using it with the intent to offend because they should have known better. Maybe when you write, direct and produce a movie about the oppresive history of “preference” that it then becomes popular enough to be wide spread, well accepted fact, then maybe we can make the same level of assumptions about a person’s intent on using the word?
Without establishing offensive intent, many are using a person’s religious identity to assume prejudicial intent (you are Republican/Christian thus we assume your words have prejudicial intent). And that is both hypocritical and bigoted.
There are more than enough posts in this thread to establish the context for this for any reasonable person. You are just being deliberately obtuse, because you were proved wrong. And instead of accepting that you were not sufficiently knoweldgedable about the history and context that everyone subsequently provided for you, you are doubling-down, so you do not have to admit it. No one is interested in convincing someone who does not want to be convinced.