US Politics Thread

[SkyBlueFlux]

That is really what I just posted, the difference being that if someone is delusional it doesn't mean everyone else has to join in with that delusion.

Being sacked for not using a students pronouns falls under that argument doesn't it? I know it isn't common place but Kevin Lister was fired wasn't he?

Wiltshire teacher fired for not using preferred pronouns, tribunal told

Kevin Lister has taken New College Swindon to an employment tribunal, claiming unfair dismissal.

www.bbc.co.uk

You shouldn't ignore reality by being courteous IMO.

It’s not the same though. People can be delusional on things that are matters of opinion. Because you deem a person to be delusional doesn’t suddenly turn the discussion into a debate about facts - it’s still a debate about opinions. I could say that Boris Johnson is the most honest bloke I’ve ever seen. I would think that is a delusional perspective and contrary to my evidence-based interpretation, but it still sits in the arena of opinions because “honesty” is just an abstract human concept.

I’m quite happy for people to say “I think you are delusional, that is my opinion based on what I see” but people shouldn’t claim that they have “factual reality” stood behind them when they don’t. There is no objective factual reality in how we have chosen to categorise ourselves as humans, that isn’t a thing. It’s a ship of Theseus kind of argument. If we change something little by little, we’ll all have different points at which we decide to recategorise something or somebody.

 

[mexico1970]

It’s not the same though. People can be delusional on things that are matters of opinion. Because you deem a person to be delusional doesn’t suddenly turn the discussion into a debate about facts - it’s still a debate about opinions. I could say that Boris Johnson is the most honest bloke I’ve ever seen. I would think that is a delusional perspective and contrary to my evidence-based interpretation, but it still sits in the arena of opinions because “honesty” is just an abstract human concept.

I’m quite happy for people to say “I think you are delusional, that is my opinion based on what I see” but people shouldn’t claim that they have “factual reality” stood behind them when they don’t. There is no objective factual reality in how we have chosen to categorise ourselves as humans, that isn’t a thing. It’s a ship of Theseus kind of argument. If we change something little by little, we’ll all have different points at which we decide to recategorise something or somebody.

If you think Boris Johnson is an honest bloke I would have no problem calling you delusional as well ;-)

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Sophistry. If you say “this was said a generation ago” you can’t mean one person said it. By definition it means that many did, thus common, so don’t try to be a clever dick…..you don’t know enough about this subject, just musings. Neither do I which is why I don’t participate. Apparently I am gender critical for supporting a woman’s trade union rights in a previous post about the TUC. YCNMIU.

Because in phrasing that question it could have been x number or years or X number of decades. I considered all of them and chose generation.

It doesn't really matter whether it was commonly used, and you want to come back at me with "sophistry".

How do you know what I know when much of it is based on real life experience?

 

[KS55]

Because in phrasing that question it could have been x number or years or X number of decades. I considered all of them and chose generation.

It doesn't really matter whether it was commonly used, and you want to come back at me with "sophistry".

How do you know what I know when much of it is based on real life experience?

You asked the question ‘who added common?’ now you tell me it’s not important. Jeeze, proof of you just pissing about. I’m out.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

You asked the question ‘who added common?’ now you tell me it’s not important. Jeeze, proof of you just pissing about. I’m out.

It wasn't. It was your inference. You're the one that placed any importance on it. A misconception is a misconception. That fact doesn't change if it's a view held by 5000 people or 5 million.

 

[KS55]

It wasn't. It was your inference. You're the one that placed any importance on it. A misconception is a misconception. That fact doesn't change if it's a view held by 5000 people or 5 million.

Bollocks, you asked the question directly. If you are so knowledgeable and interested, who was Ian Gilmour? I’m out.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Bollocks, you asked the question directly. If you are so knowledgeable and interested, who was Ian Gilmour? I’m out.

From the perspective of someone who has met numerous trans people of various backgrounds. When did I proclaim to be an expert on gay liberation or know more than you on it? You're the only one commenting on knowledge of the other here.

Not sure why I need to be a historian on decriminalisation campaigns or legislation to comment but carry on. Ironically enough if you look up the debates in Hansard mental illness and "mental retardation" [wording of the time for other readers] are themes discussed.

Here's an article from the 1990s, what do you think of it?

WHEN GAY MEANT MAD

In the 1960s, homosexuality was a crime - and a mental illness. Gays desperate for a cure tried, or were forced into, aversion therapy. Some believe the after-effects ruined their lives; one did not survive

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

It’s not the same though. People can be delusional on things that are matters of opinion. Because you deem a person to be delusional doesn’t suddenly turn the discussion into a debate about facts - it’s still a debate about opinions. I could say that Boris Johnson is the most honest bloke I’ve ever seen. I would think that is a delusional perspective and contrary to my evidence-based interpretation, but it still sits in the arena of opinions because “honesty” is just an abstract human concept.

I’m quite happy for people to say “I think you are delusional, that is my opinion based on what I see” but people shouldn’t claim that they have “factual reality” stood behind them when they don’t. There is no objective factual reality in how we have chosen to categorise ourselves as humans, that isn’t a thing. It’s a ship of Theseus kind of argument. If we change something little by little, we’ll all have different points at which we decide to recategorise something or somebody.

He and others will never understand this nuance. It’s why the debate will never resolve itself.

 

[BobKowalski]

We are talking about an exception to the rule here, even then there are only two sexes to choose from. They are not waking up one morning thinking they are something other than what they are in reality.

If you're a Glen but want to be called Glenda then that's fine, just don't expect other people to join in on your delusion.

People who change their name should expect to be addressed by that name. It is common courtesy. For example, a woman changes her surname to her husbands because she wishes to be addressed as such. That is her choice and should be respected. To deliberately misname her would be rude.

 

[mexico1970]

People who change their name should expect to be addressed by that name. It is common courtesy. For example, a woman changes her surname to her husbands because she wishes to be addressed as such. That is her choice and should be respected. To deliberately misname her would be rude.

There shouldn't be a law forcing someone to call a man a woman or a he a she, it's rude expecting people to observe what is a fantasy based on someone's mental health.

If you want to do it Bob then crack on, it doesn't mean that your acquiescence is the norm.