Well, it was his Justice Department pursuing the charges and generally treating Manning like a human punching bag for making them look bad; it was also his continuation of god-awful Bush-era practices that Manning exposed, among other things.
So, would it be just as wrong to beat up a non-transsexual person in a bathroom? Or is it only Transsexuals who are not allowed to be beat up in bathrooms.
Or is it an issue of bathrooms; and outside of bathrooms it is okay to beat people up.
It is about threatening someone because they are something, not the act itself. The latter is bad enough; the former is abominable.
Oh, alright; so in this situation, the congressman would beat up said transsexual for being a transsexual, and nothing else?
I could understand it if it was something like "I would beat up a transsexual in a bathroom if he/she was attempting to mug me; same as I would beat up anybody who attempted the same. I am willing to beat people up, given sufficient provocation". That would still be kind of stupid; and just because someone tries to beat you up doesn't mean that you should do the same.
And then it makes a sound bite, "I would beat up a transsexual in a bathroom".
Well, it was his Justice Department pursuing the charges and generally treating Manning like a human punching bag for making them look bad; it was also his continuation of god-awful Bush-era practices that Manning exposed, among other things.
I don't disagree, but I don't think it warrants hating Obama.
So, would it be just as wrong to beat up a non-transsexual person in a bathroom? Or is it only Transsexuals who are not allowed to be beat up in bathrooms.
Or is it an issue of bathrooms; and outside of bathrooms it is okay to beat people up.
It is about threatening someone because they are something, not the act itself. The latter is bad enough; the former is abominable.
Oh, alright; so in this situation, the congressman would beat up said transsexual for being a transsexual, and nothing else?
Yes.
The context in which Walpurgisnacht made the statement should have tipped you off to this fact.
I don't know. As far as I know, in the English Language, there is no common, currently-used, near-unanimously accepted singular third-person gender neutral pronoun that can politely be used to refer to a person (some people don't like "it").
Some people use "he" in that case; such as "If a man loses pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured, or far away".
It would be kind of silly to say "If a man or woman loses place with her or his companions, perhaps it is because she or he hears a different drummer or drummerette. Let him or her step to the music which he or she hears, however measured, or far away."
I guess there is nothing that is actually better.
I mean, "he", "he or she", "it", all just seem kind of clunky.
Perhaps assume one gender for Aliroz, for consistency and readability? Or, perhaps, alternate between pronouns (though that might be confusing)..
Or just say, "they" or "their".
well, i was trying to speak about heapers in general, not just you and your brother
'it' is clearly unacceptable, since it is dehumanizing (you might not mind this, but most people do)
'he' is considered sexist when treated as a gender-neutral pronoun, since it is usually interpreted as male, making it a form of erasure; it also alienates female readers
by the standards of the prescribed style for coursework at my university, singular 'they' is acceptable, while 'it' and 'he' are not acceptable gender-neutral pronouns
i am unwilling to altogether abandon 'they' in favour of clunky constructions like 'he or she', but i will try to do so in conversations with you, in future
also 'drummerette' is a ridiculous and unnecessary construction, since a woman can be a drummer without the need for a diminutive suffix (which is pointlessly patronizing, in any case)
So, would it be just as wrong to beat up a non-transsexual person in a bathroom? Or is it only Transsexuals who are not allowed to be beat up in bathrooms.
Or is it an issue of bathrooms; and outside of bathrooms it is okay to beat people up.
It is about threatening someone because they are something, not the act itself. The latter is bad enough; the former is abominable.
Oh, alright; so in this situation, the congressman would beat up said transsexual for being a transsexual, and nothing else?
Yes.
The context in which Walpurgisnacht made the statement should have tipped you off to this fact.
Can I get a source on this? Considering some of the horrible things congressmen have said in the past, I don't doubt he said that, but I would still like to see the quote with my own eyes.
I believe if I was standing at a dressing room and my wife or one of my daughters was in the dressing room and a man tried to go in there — I don’t care if he thinks he’s a woman and tries on clothes with them in there — I’d just try to stomp a mudhole in him and then stomp him dry.
incidentally, according to that article, it is illegal for a transgender person in Tennessee to change the gender on his or her birth certificate, so even if you're post-op MtF, you're still a man in his eyes
I believe if I was standing at a dressing room and my wife or one of my daughters was in the dressing room and a man tried to go in there — I don’t care if he thinks he’s a woman and tries on clothes with them in there — I’d just try to stomp a mudhole in him and then stomp him dry.
I believe if I was standing at a dressing room and my wife or one of my daughters was in the dressing room and a man tried to go in there — I don’t care if he thinks he’s a woman and tries on clothes with them in there — I’d just try to stomp a mudhole in him and then stomp him dry.
re: Obama: he explicitly refused to pardon Manning, which he had the power to do, as president.
And I heartily disagree with what he did but considering all the things he does and doesn't do it's kind of reductive to judge him based on one decision.
It's so weird because almost every time I see an opinion stated here it's done in such a self assured way so as to leave no room for the possibility that maybe, just maybe, it might be incorrect.
Comments
I could understand it if it was something like "I would beat up a transsexual in a bathroom if he/she was attempting to mug me; same as I would beat up anybody who attempted the same. I am willing to beat people up, given sufficient provocation". That would still be kind of stupid; and just because someone tries to beat you up doesn't mean that you should do the same.
And then it makes a sound bite, "I would beat up a transsexual in a bathroom".
'it' is clearly unacceptable, since it is dehumanizing (you might not mind this, but most people do)
'he' is considered sexist when treated as a gender-neutral pronoun, since it is usually interpreted as male, making it a form of erasure; it also alienates female readers
by the standards of the prescribed style for coursework at my university, singular 'they' is acceptable, while 'it' and 'he' are not acceptable gender-neutral pronouns
i am unwilling to altogether abandon 'they' in favour of clunky constructions like 'he or she', but i will try to do so in conversations with you, in future
(quoted here)
was this what you were referring to, Miko?
it's just, i know i allow myself to get drawn into these political discussions in the heap and it's my own fault, but they always put me out of temper
oh well, they never last that long anyway
I KILLED THE FOUR KINGS AND GOT THE WITCH SET AND THE DARKWRAITH COVENANT
THANK YOU, WINDOWS LIVE USER HUMANITYPHANTOM, WHEREVER YOU MAY BE
Four kings
More like 86ed kings.
lolololololololol
*uses laser pointer to distract Naney and make him less grumpy*
I could tell my summon was good because he had Smough's Hammer and nothing else.
No one is mad.
No one has ever been mad, ever, on the internet, in the entire history of the internet. You are simply misreading their tone.
re: Obama: he explicitly refused to pardon Manning, which he had the power to do, as president.