Russ the Bigot

I'm fairly surprised that one of the frequent fliers on the Old Ship™ has avoided having his own personal Hell thread on the New Ship™ because he continues spouting bigoted garbage wherever he goes.

The latest offering is over on the Transgender thread over in Purgatory.
Russ wrote: »
But if by "trans woman" you mean someone whose only qualification for femaleness is their unsupported word that that is how they feel inside, then obviously not.

This follows ten pages of The Social-Progressive Mindset which is an exercise in justifying racism while accusing those Shipmates who feel that racism is unacceptable of a range of failings.

This has been challenged on the Purgatory thread by @josephine and @Ruth but in the current atmosphere, of which @Russ is aware as he's posted on the Styx thread, I am pretty sure he's playing games, and skirting the rules, again.
«13456

Comments

  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    Russ is a racist and a bigot. More fool the ship for allowing him to continue posting his nonsense.
  • @mr cheesy

    I'm not going to play whackamole with the criticism of Ship's crew, especially coming from someone who's had more than their fair share of involuntary shore leave. Referred to Admin.

    DT
    HH
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    I've never had involuntary shore leave. I'll add your comments to my thoughts in Styx.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Russ, why on God's green earth did you add fuel to the fire? Your post was monumentally stupid as well as plain wrong.
  • Russ lives in his own little 1950's world in which the strong (white cishet male) rules the roost, and people with brown skin or vaginas or differing sexualities know their place and keep their mouths shut. Everything works according to certain immutable laws designed to ensure that the John Galts of this world are respected and loved and treated the way their genius deserves. He's a dinosaur throwback who read Ayn Rand as a child and loved the way his own prejudices and hates were reinforced. He deserves our pity and our silence more than our censure.
  • Mr SmiffMr Smiff Shipmate
    Why won’t everyone just stay in the boxes Russ has decided they should be in? Don’t they realise that the world would just work so much better if everyone just accepted their place? It’s all for the best of course...
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    As someone who's interested in debating techniques, I find the Social-Progressive thread fascinating. The whole time it surprises me how much other posters are letting him get away with.

    One position that I'm more and more adopting is: "I won't debate anyone who defines my worldview for me." I talked a bit about this on the Buddhist critique thread. Defining other people's worldviews is exactly what the SP thread is about: this is the opening post on Ye Olde Shippe™.

    I think that if you debate someone who defines your world view for you, you'll always start from a defensive position. Discussions will start to look like this:

    [Opponent:] Progressives / Christians / jazz musicians / Dutchmen believe X.
    [LeRoc:] I'm a Progressive / Christian / jazz musician / Dutchman and I don't really believe X, my belief is closer to Y.
    [Opponent:] *dismisses it by simply not believing LeRoc or by ignoring his answer. This is even easier because by definition, LeRoc can't provide evidence that this is what he beliefs*

    Russ does this alotalotalot. For example, MPaul does this also on the Universalism thread where he defines what Universalists believe. I don't think a meaningful discussion can come out of this, and I find it a dishonest form of debating. To put it in football terms: the opponent doing this is always playing with a home advantage. That's why I'm more and more adopting the rule: if you want to debate me, don't define my worldview for me.

    But what Russ does even more insidious: not only does he start by defining what 'social-progressives' believe, he also defines who belong to this category, and he's very fluid in doing that. One moment, 'social-progressives' is a subset of posters on the Ship, the next moment it's every human who isn't an libertarian. He stretches and squeezes the definition to fit every situation he finds himself in.

    There's more: Russ repeatedly demands that other posters define extremely complex concepts like 'morality' or 'racism'. And whatever definition they come up with, he rejects it right away.

    So there's an interesting asymmetry going on: Russ defines other people's world views and by engaging with this, his definitions are accepted by other posters, not as the truth, but at least as the basis for discussion. On the other hands, definitions proposed by other posters are dismissed by Russ right away.

    I'm not sure if there is a formal name for this debating technique. In my mind, I started calling it: "Russ is monopolising definition". Like I said, fascinating.
  • FirenzeFirenze Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    A useful analysis LeRoc. You could also call it Russplaining.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    Firenze wrote: »
    You could also call it Russplaining.
    Ah yes of course. That's a good one.
  • Or "Russ is being a dick. Again."
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Or "Russ is being a dick. Again."
    True, but I like analysing these things in a bit more detail sometimes.


    Wait. Let me rephrase that …
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Russ, why on God's green earth did you add fuel to the fire? Your post was monumentally stupid as well as plain wrong.

    Foolish it may well have been.

    But I struggle to see how it could be plain wrong. I was trying to give an honest answer to Ruth's question "would you date a trans woman ?"

    My answer was"if you mean this then yes, if you mean that then no". CK has quoted only the second half.

    If anyone else wants to answer Ruth's question we can discuss, either here or there.



  • Russ wrote: »
    I was trying to give an honest answer

    I didn't think miracles could happen in hell. Mind thoroughly blown, though I'm still not sure the attempt worked.
  • LeRoc, good analysis there. I think there's a lot of bait and switch going on in Russ's posts, plus of course a forest of straw men. No point in engaging with it.
  • Russ wrote: »
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Russ, why on God's green earth did you add fuel to the fire? Your post was monumentally stupid as well as plain wrong.

    Foolish it may well have been.

    But I struggle to see how it could be plain wrong. I was trying to give an honest answer to Ruth's question "would you date a trans woman ?"

    My answer was"if you mean this then yes, if you mean that then no". CK has quoted only the second half.

    If anyone else wants to answer Ruth's question we can discuss, either here or there.



    I suppose a respectful and honest version of your answer might have been along the lines of:

    "I can imagine being attracted to some one who had undergone full male to female gender transition surgery, but I don't think I would experience sexual attraction to someone who appeared to have male secondary sexual characteristics."

    Rather than including a dismissive statement about such a person's subjective experience of their own gender.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Nice one, DT. Saved me a job.

    Russ, to give you some idea about how monumentally pissed off your post made me, if CK hadn't got in first, you would have been my first Hell call in the 13 years I've been here. Read the Styx thread! Think about it! And as Alan Cresswell, observed, give us some time to weigh up the the policy. And please don't, don't, DON'T add any more fuel to this blazing fire.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Nice one, DT. Saved me a job.

    Russ, to give you some idea about how monumentally pissed off your post made me, if CK hadn't got in first, you would have been my first Hell call in the 13 years I've been here. Read the Styx thread! Think about it! And as Alan Cresswell, observed, give us some time to weigh up the the policy. And please don't, don't, DON'T add any more fuel to this blazing fire.

    He can't help it. If he pissed on the fire he'd turn out to be pissing aviation fuel.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited July 2018
    Thanks mate. I'm both sad and as mad as Hell about this, but you made me chuckle!
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Russ, why on God's green earth did you add fuel to the fire? Your post was monumentally stupid as well as plain wrong.
    Seriously? You have not read the endless threads the knobend participates in? He deliberately frames his posts to inflame. He is a gentler version of romanlion or that other idiot, whose name escapes me at the moment.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Or "Russ is being a dick. Again."
    Let me know when he is not being one. It is rare enough a thing to be worth noting.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    LeRoc wrote: »
    As someone who's interested in debating techniques, I find the Social-Progressive thread fascinating. The whole time it surprises me how much other posters are letting him get away with.
    Surprises me anyone has the stamina. He is clearly trolling.
    Early on, I thought he was what mousthief describes, but at least well-intentioned. But it became obvious he clearly has no intention of actually engaging in a genuine discussion.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited July 2018
    lilBuddha

    Whatever previous evidence there is about mischief, I thought he might at least have the common sense to stay out of this controversy. Or at least not make it worse. Whatever his trolling tendency may be.

    Very possibly naive of me, of course. I try to think the best of people. If it's a failing, I think it's on the right side of failure.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    your answer might have been along the lines of:

    "I can imagine being attracted to some one who had undergone full male to female gender transition surgery, but I don't think I would experience sexual attraction to someone who appeared to have male secondary sexual characteristics."

    Rather than including a dismissive statement about such a person's subjective experience of their own gender.

    People's experience is what it is, and I'm not seeking to dismiss it or doubt it or invalidate it in any way.

    Nonetheless, I hold the philosophical view that there is an objective reality, and therefore it is always possible that any of us may experience feelings that do not correspond to that reality.

    I may feel that CK is out to get me. That doesn't make it true.

    (You don't have to deny it, Curiosity, it's just an example).

    I think the transgender issue is a difficult one. How to be fair to both sides ?

    Fair to those who suffer from dysphoria, whose best outcome is transition treatment - hormones and counselling as well as surgery - leading to full participation in society as the sex/gender that they have always perceived themselves to be.

    And also fair to those women - including those who have suffered from male violence - who find some level of refuge in female-only spaces. And whose best outcome is to continue to exclude male voices and male secondary sexual characteristics from those spaces.

    Pretending that only one side matters, that the only issue here is one of bigotry, is untrue and unjust.

    Your paraphrase of my answer is interesting. I don't know how much of the way men talk and the way men walk you consider to be "male secondary sexual characteristics" ?
    It captures much of what I'm trying to say, if lacking something of the simple and direct style I aspire to.

    But I put it to you that setting the bar for "definitely not" very high - only saying that to someone who shows no outward sign at all of their claimed gender - is leaving a bigger space in between yes and no. Which isn't any kind of rejection of trans people or derogatory comment. It's an openness to possibility.

    Perhaps the point here is that the label "trans" is being applied to people (and of course we're talking about people) with a potentially wide range in their "gender presentation" - how they come across to others ?

    Would you accept that that is true ?

    Or do you take the hardline view that they ought to be irrelevant ?

    Does that suggest that this isn't a topic on which hard-and-fast rules apply ? That individual circumstance will count for much ?
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    as Alan Cresswell, observed, give us some time to weigh up the the policy.

    I'm sure you (Purg hosts collectively) will take the time you need, and I trust you to do what you think is best.

    However, I note that it is customary in western justice systems to hear representations from both sides before passing judgment.

    If you're suggesting that I should just shut up while you listen to their special pleading to be allowed to set the rules of debate to suit their worldview, then you may just wish to reconsider.

    I read the Styx thread, and to be frank it made me angry. Trying to win the argument by having opposing views ruled unacceptable struck me as something like a betrayal of the very notion of truth.
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    Russ, I could see your responses on that thread were mostly thoughtful towards the people involved, but I flagged that response, the one I quoted in the opening post, as being unnecessarily inflammatory in the current circumstances - whether infelicitously phrased or not. I suspect the phrasing was deliberate, as your response to @Doublethink's paraphrase is:
    Russ wrote: »
    It captures much of what I'm trying to say, if lacking something of the simple and direct style I aspire to.

    Which was highly inappropriate when feelings are running so high that there are now two Hell threads and a Styx thread coming from that original thread.

    When your response to @Doublethink includes phrases such as:
    Russ wrote: »
    Nonetheless, I hold the philosophical view that there is an objective reality, and therefore it is always possible that any of us may experience feelings that do not correspond to that reality.

    Pretending that only one side matters, that the only issue here is one of bigotry, is untrue and unjust.

    But I put it to you that setting the bar for "definitely not" very high - only saying that to someone who shows no outward sign at all of their claimed gender - is leaving a bigger space in between yes and no. Which isn't any kind of rejection of trans people or derogatory comment. It's an openness to possibility.

    Perhaps the point here is that the label "trans" is being applied to people (and of course we're talking about people) with a potentially wide range in their "gender presentation" - how they come across to others ?

    Would you accept that that is true ?

    Or do you take the hardline view that they ought to be irrelevant ?

    Does that suggest that this isn't a topic on which hard-and-fast rules apply ? That individual circumstance will count for much ?
    Is demonstrating all the bait and switch and false reasoning that you demonstrated on the Social-Progressive mindset thread and has been analysed so compellingly by @LeRoc above. Most of what you are saying is totally irrelevant to the original thread and adding additional and unnecessary complications, and it feels, attempting to fan the flames that everyone else is attempting to put out.

    Now if you were posting in good faith and for the good of the community, you would not be stirring more here.

  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    Yes, bait-and-switch is exactly what it is. Suddenly Russ is bringing up Womens' refuges and claiming that he shouldn't have to stfu with his ridiculous shit-stirring.

    Fancy that.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited July 2018
    Russ wrote: »
    However, I note that it is customary in western justice systems to hear representations from both sides before passing judgment.
    Then express your policy and practice arguments in the Styx thread , the proper forum, and avoid opening up a second front while the policy is the subject of detailed and heated discussion elsewhere. You aren't silenced if you do that. You are just showing a responsible attitude to wider community needs.

    If you can't see that, I give up trying to communicate with you. You've seen me around here for many years. Getting pissed off is very very rare for me. So do you really think I get monumentally pissed off for nothing? Does anyone reading this?


  • Russ wrote: »
    I read the Styx thread, and to be frank it made me angry. Trying to win the argument by having opposing views ruled unacceptable struck me as something like a betrayal of the very notion of truth.

    I am not sure that you have read the same Styx thread that I have, because the argument suggesting certain views be ruled unacceptable comes from other Shipmates suggesting that hate speech should be banned, not from the Hosts and Admins. The Hosts and Admins are arguing that the discussions should be had, and that you will be able to continue to air your hateful views through the twisted logic and ever moving goalposts form of discussion you favour, it's up to the rest of the Ship to point out the flaws in your arguments.

  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Yes, bait-and-switch is exactly what it is. Suddenly Russ is bringing up Womens' refuges and claiming that he shouldn't have to stfu with his ridiculous shit-stirring.

    Fancy that.

    Actually I think on that point alone, he might just have a point. There must be quite a few women who would find it uncomfortable, in a refuge or safe house, after suffering abuse from some violent misogynistic bastard, to be regularly bumping into a lady in a skirt with a bass voice and beard, in the refuge common room. Even if 'beardy' had also suffered abuse some some violent misogynistic bastard.
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    Yeah, and we covered that on the original thread pages ago as a reason for women, currently, to be expressing wariness about self-identifying transgender M-F as the law is changing to allow. It really doesn't need bringing up again here. It's irrelevant to the transgender issues being discussed; a side issue, a worry that predatory men may abuse the self-identification of being transgender to access women. But not anything to do with this thread or the originating thread.
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    I hadn't got that far in the the thread. Perhaps I should not bother reading further and just get out of hell then. Bye.
  • Woman's refuges don't allow men as a security feature, primarily because they have rapidly changing populations of women being actively persecuted by violent (usually)men. So if a man is in the refuge there is a risk of a perpetrator not being accurately identified, because not everyone yet know perpetrator x's name and appearance.

    However, a transwomans who does not 'pass' i.e. look particularly feminine is unlikely to be easily mistaken for a man in the habit of beating up women (for a start mysignists tend not to dress up as women) and as a resident would be known to the community.

    But - and this is the point re Russ and others - at no point I this discussion, is it necessary to refer to this hypothetical trans woman as 'beardy'. That is the bit that is dismissive and contemptuous.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    It's irrelevant to the transgender issues being discussed; a side issue

    I think you're mistaken. But if you want to say what subset of transgender-related issues you think the thread is about, I'm open to the notion that it might be more constructive to focus on those.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    I hadn't got that far in the the thread. Perhaps I should not bother reading further and just get out of hell then. Bye.

    Throw in an insult (‘beardy’) then run, why don’t you? 🙄

    :rolleyes:

  • I'm not playing, Russ, I'm not allowing you to define what transgender issues are and changing the goal posts. I've seen you do it on other threads.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Russ wrote: »

    Perhaps the point here is that the label "trans" is being applied to people (and of course we're talking about people) with a potentially wide range in their "gender presentation" - how they come across to others ?

    Okay, I’ll play, taking the risk that you’re baiting. Because who knows, maybe it will be useful for someone else.

    Let’s take trans people out of the equation for a moment.

    When talking about cis people, the label ‘male’ applies a great many people whose gender presentation varies enormously. Same with the label ‘female.’ But in general, if someone tells you they are a man, you refer to them as ‘he’ and if someone tells you they are a woman, you refer to them as ‘she.’ You may privately think they don’t look/sound very masculine or feminine, but you don’t request to look at their genitalia as proof.

    Is there any particular reason why it should be different with trans people?

    (Leaving aside for a moment whether you’d want to date them, because I’m finding it hard imagining a scenario where a trans person would want to date you.)

  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    I hadn't got that far in the the thread. Perhaps I should not bother reading further and just get out of hell then. Bye.

    Throw in an insult (‘beardy’) then run, why don’t you? 🙄

    :rolleyes:

    Not running. Making a strategic withdraw. I don't like it here!
  • So why the beardy comment ? Do you see why it might be an issue ?
  • RdrEmCofERdrEmCofE Shipmate
    So why the beardy comment ? Do you see why it might be an issue ?

    Only to people who have an axe to grind. Did you get as upset over 'Boaty Mc Boat Face' as a popular name for the arctic survey vessel?

    Since I have no name for the fictional character I posited, and my fictional character is incapable of actually being offended, I do not feel obliged to apologize for upsetting its feelings.

    I have no idea if any of you have beards, but the comment was not addressed to you, it was addressed to an entirely fictional character, who I assure you was not offended. I know that because He/She was entirely my own creation and her loving character, like St Paul says, "Is not quick to take offense".

    I am now leaving Hell, because I do not want to take part in or associate with the predator 'feeding frenzy' which seems constantly to be circling in this region, whenever the smell of blood is in the water.

    Bye, again.

  • Come on, that's a cop out. Of course, you can upset people with a remark like 'beardy'. It's a slur on trans people.
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    Do you seriously think that fictional caricatures can't be offensive??
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    I get that people say things without meaning to be offensive, but am genuinely confused how ‘beardy’ in this context has anything to do with naming a boat, other than both ending with ‘y’.

    Surely it’s more like... let’s see... a discussion about what sorts of rights and accommodations should be given to kids in wheelchairs. Someone suggests that in a church holiday group setting, the time and effort needed to make accommodations for a hypothetical kid in a wheelchair is unfair on the rest of the kids, who get less attention. So ‘Cripply’ might be getting in the way of the poor little able-bodied kids learning about Jesus.

    (Very different issue of course. I was in a church once where this conversation did take place, and people felt very strongly about precluding disabled kids from holiday clubs, though they didn’t assign a familiar name to the hypothetical kid. But if they did, this is how the conversation would have gone. Note, I’m comparing the impact of usage of a familiar name to the minority in this way, rather than the issue itself.)
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    DT used the phrase " someone who appeared to have male secondary sexual characteristics" earlier. It's respectful to be careful with descriptive language when talking about sensitive stuff. Not too hard, either.
  • RdrEm clearly hasn't heard of polycystic ovary syndrome. Which affects women.

    If their definition of 'woman' is 'without beard', then I suggest an update. With the clue-bat.
  • RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Yes, bait-and-switch is exactly what it is. Suddenly Russ is bringing up Womens' refuges and claiming that he shouldn't have to stfu with his ridiculous shit-stirring.

    Fancy that.

    Actually I think on that point alone, he might just have a point. There must be quite a few women who would find it uncomfortable, in a refuge or safe house, after suffering abuse from some violent misogynistic bastard, to be regularly bumping into a lady in a skirt with a bass voice and beard, in the refuge common room. Even if 'beardy' had also suffered abuse some some violent misogynistic bastard.

    You must not know a lot of trans women. Trans women almost desperately try to be and appear womanly. They do not wear beards. This is abusive.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    lilBuddha

    Whatever previous evidence there is about mischief, I thought he might at least have the common sense to stay out of this controversy. Or at least not make it worse. Whatever his trolling tendency may be.

    Very possibly naive of me, of course. I try to think the best of people.
    You are a good and kind person, I am not. Sot that is part of why we look at things differently.
    If it's a failing, I think it's on the right side of failure.
    I am not so sure about this. Distrusting everyone is obviously not the answer either. But giving someone the benefit of the doubt despite all the evidence to the contrary has to be disrespectful to them. Would you truly trivialise all the effort they have putting into proving they are douches by doubting it?
    Barnabus, I thought better of you.

  • RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    Not running. Making a strategic withdraw. I don't like it here!
    So go already.
  • RdrEmCofE wrote: »
    I am now leaving Hell, because I do not want to take part in or associate with the predator 'feeding frenzy' which seems constantly to be circling in this region, whenever the smell of blood is in the water.

    I mean, clearly, if it's your blood, you should absolutely get out of the water as fast as possible, and the best way to do that is to apologise unreservedly for being a dick. Running away is fine, but Shipmates have memories of whether you did the decent thing or the cowardly thing, and will respond to you accordingly.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Yes! You are learning. Show him proper respect by giving him the disrespect he has earned.
This discussion has been closed.