Russ the Bigot
Curiosity killed
Shipmate
in Hell
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.
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.
The latest offering is over on the Transgender thread over in Purgatory.
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.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
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
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.
Wait. Let me rephrase that …
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 didn't think miracles could happen in hell. Mind thoroughly blown, though I'm still not sure the attempt worked.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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: 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.
Fancy that.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Throw in an insult (‘beardy’) then run, why don’t you? 🙄
:rolleyes:
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.)
Not running. Making a strategic withdraw. I don't like it here!
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.
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.)
If their definition of 'woman' is 'without beard', then I suggest an update. With the clue-bat.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe I thought better of me too?