Originally Posted by DeadChannel
(Post 1701653)
Plot twist: all words are made up. Seriously this semantics **** is easily one of the most vapid arguments I have ever heard. The fact that new words were applied because we didn't previously have them in no way invalidates their arguments. This is literally one of the fundamental ways in which language works. That's like if I were to say that "Roxy isn't a libertarian" because "libertarian" is really just a made up word from the 1800s.
I do think that the social justice movement sometimes uses jargon to the extent that their ideas are fall on deaf ears, but this isn't a fundamentally good line of reasoning.
Further, you're confusing biological sex with gender identity (although, keep in mind there's a lot of evidence to suggest that even biological sex isn't as binary as we once thought). Gender Dysphoria is a widely recognized phenomenon that has lots of research to back up its legitimacy. Thus, while someone can have a certain set of chromosomes and a certain set of genitals, this may not have anything to do with their gender identity. This isn't a hard idea to grasp. Trans people do not claim to have a different set of chromosomes or a different set of genitals than that which was assigned to them at birth -- they only claim to have a different gender identity.
Alongside this mass of evidence, your argument doesn't go beyond "but, like, she has a penis", which is not, nor has it ever been, logically sound.
Furthermore, you continuously accuse people of totalitarian thinking and "orwellianism" and whatever.
First of all, it always gets me when right-wingers cite Orwell, being that the dude fought alongside legit, dyed in the wool socialists during the Spanish Civil war, and was extremely critical of the right (even his critique of communism, animal farm, really only takes shots at Leninism and its ilk).
Secondly, people criticizing your ideas is not totalitarian, it's the opposite. If you think that someone telling you to shut up is censorship, then you clearly don't understand what free speech is (hint: telling you to shut up falls under free speech). Discourse is one of the things that separates totalitarianism from the alternative. In a free "society", people necessarily must be able to disagree with one another.
Now, certain portions of the social justice movement do use thought-terminating devices like "check your privilege" instead of making actual decent arguments, and I despise this kind of thinking, but you're just as guilty. You resort to cliche and claims of Orwellianism to hide the fact that you are unwilling or incapable of building rational arguments for your positions. Any criticism of your ideas is met with hostility and intolerance. You are easily as bad as the so-called SJWs.
Also, like, look at the current round of in-fighting on this forum. Let's look at what's happened:
J Guy, whose entire argument in the free speech thread was "open your mind", got offended once he couldn't argue his positions any longer, and is maybe giving me the silent treatment. Mordwyr has repeatedly used lazy, intellectually dishonest rhetoric and complaints about abrasiveness (no matter how charitable his opponents are) to get out of having to interact with difficult ideas. If you're worried that (your abhorrently bad conception of) free speech is being eroded in favour of people's feelings, then, like, you know, he's your guy. Neapolitan got mad at me because I guess I didn't say please or something, and refused to reply to my points. Oh, and I've already covered you.
Despite the fact that I sort of consider myself a part of it, I do think that sections of the social justice movement do often resort to certain forms of lazy, totalitarian thinking. However, you are a hypocrite. Y'all on the right are just as bad, if not worse, and you're not fooling anyone.
Anyway, that's the last god damn essay I'm writing today. Have a nice evening.
EDIT:
Alternatively, Machine's got ya back for the TL;DR.
|
