Jer
'Til Tomorrow
Except for the fact that you flip the fuck out whenever you think it’s occurring, apparently.
I never commented on this, so I’m not sure why you’re bringing it up, or implying that somehow I’m not on the side of free speech.
To be transphobic is to demonstrate a strong dislike of, or strong prejudice against, transgender people. Please feel free to point out any time I have actually done this — but oops, you can’t, because I haven’t. My nephew would be both surprised and amused to hear that some fool on the internet was labeling me this way, since it’s so obviously false.
When someone deviates from progressive dogma, you label them in this way whether the word applies or not, because you get off on “othering” them (an activity you theoretically should despise), even though your use of the word is objectively wrong.
False.
I never bashed the trans community, but a couple of people with loose screws on this particular forum sure like to throw those sorts of accusations around.
It’s not a game, it’s the established (and frankly pathetic) reality of this particular forum, and it’s led to multiple long-term members leaving.
No, it’s just accurate shorthand for your approach to your social and political beliefs.
You have a set of inviolable core beliefs that are a litmus test for whether a person is a worthwhile member of society or not. These beliefs are like a religious absolute truth for you, and being part of the group that’s “in the right” is an empowering feeling that makes your endless condescension feel righteous and valid.
When you enter a conversation, your first goal, subconscious or otherwise, is to figure out if the person you’re talking to is in the “in” group or not by seeing if they’ve blasphemed against your dogma. If they haven’t, then you engage with the conversation normally — but the moment they tip their hand that they might not be fully on your team, then you abandon the actual conversation and switch to trying to discredit and deplatform the blasphemer, because they’re obviously a bad person with nothing valuable to say if they’re already wrong on what you consider to be the fundamentals. From that point on, your only function in the conversation is to condescend and try to apply labels to the person and their arguments, looking for any possible chink in the armor to exaggerate, anything you can try to twist into a supposed display of hypocrisy, or anyplace where you can cherry-pick a third party study that sounds like it might cast doubt on what they say, whether it represents an actual counterargument or not. After you flood the field with enough of that nonsense, you do a little strut, proclaim them to be beneath your notice, and announce that you’ve put them on ignore. Rinse and repeat. It’s exhausting, and it’s intellectually dishonest.
Please, explain what my supposed dogma is, then. Or is this just another performative line? (Oops!)
Hilarious how you phrase this as if I were roundly criticized and debunked, but you’re only referring to your own comments. I’ve never been allowed to have an actual conversation about this topic on here and likely never will be, so you’re really not in any position to assess my views, other than knowing that they deviate from your own to some degree. But apparently that’s all you need to know to start calling someone a -phobe and a bigot.
Then there’s no need for you to ever bring that up with someone again, is there? But you just can’t help yourself, because you are peacocking. Save it for someone who cares, if anyone like that actually exists.
