GTFO - Female Gamers

[TimG]

And many other words besides.

Don't forget "denier" (to mean anyone who does not fully support the CO2 mitigate policies preferred by the speaker). Edited May 14, 2015 by TimG

[Black Dog]

Yes, this parallels your similar statements in other threads about how white people cannot experience racism.

The problem is that you wanting to use a definition of sexism and racism that makes this true instantly alienates everyone that isn't already completely indoctrinated with the "social justice" agenda. To any normal person, sexism means discrimination based on sex and racism means discrimination based on race. As soon as you veer into ideas about "systemic power imbalance" or some such, the only people that are gonna agree with your definitions are social justice activists.

So why don't you agree with that definition?

To have any kind of productive discussion, it's important everyone is on the same page regarding definitions of terms they are using. And this is unfortunately what the social justice movement aims to subvert.. by arbitrarily redefining terms within its circles and then lashing out at those who do not agree. Muddying the waters about what words mean so that people can't even talk to each other productively only increases polarization on these issues, rather than moving society forward.

So people shouldn't be challenged with different concepts and ideas beyond the simplistic ones they are familiar with lest it hurt their feelings and makes them take their ball and go home. Got it.

[TimG]

So people shouldn't be challenged with different concepts and ideas beyond the simplistic ones they are familiar with lest it hurt their feelings and makes them take their ball and go home. Got it.

You seem to have missed the point: by choosing to redefine the meaning of words you ensure that less communication happens which completely undermines the stated goal of changing social attitudes. Of course, if real objective is really to inflate your ego with fantasies world about how you are 'fighting the system' then polarizing the debate by changing the meaning of words probably serves your purpose. Edited May 14, 2015 by TimG

[Black Dog]

You seem to have missed the point: by choosing to redefine the meaning of words you ensure that less communication happens which completely undermines the stated goal of changing social attitudes.

The only way less communication happens if if one side digs its heels and refuses to even engage with the concept, choosing instead to cling to their dictionary.com definitions.

Of course, if real objective is really to inflate your ego with fantasies world about how you are 'fighting the system' then polarizing the debate by changing the meaning of words probably serves your purpose.

*wanking motion*

[cybercoma]

Why does the extreme right want to censor everything!!! *wahhh*

[TimG]

The only way less communication happens if if one side digs its heels and refuses to even engage with the concept, choosing instead to cling to their dictionary.com definitions.

Even if the a suitable new word was invented for the concept it does not automatically follow that the concept has merit. Avoiding polarization by not re-defining well understood words is a necessary but not sufficient condition for discussion. Edited May 14, 2015 by TimG

[Black Dog]

Even if the a suitable new word was invented for the concept it does not automatically follow that the concept has merit.

That's why you need to have a discussion about the concept. Instead, you plug your ears.

Avoiding polarization by re-defining well understood words is a necessary but not sufficient condition for discussion.

I'm talking about discussing the definition. You and others can't even be bothered.

[Hal 9000]

This reminds me of Obamacare. The Dems wanted to extend benefits to people who are 25yo and living at home, when the Repubs took issue with the concept, the Dems ran around saying that the Repubs hated children.

[cybercoma]

Most healthcare plans that people have in Canada dependents living at home until they're 25, as long as they're still in schoool. But nice red herring anyway.

I love this stupid game of asking people to define things, then when they define those things just rejecting their definitions or asking them to define other things. It's pretty clear you have nothing to add to the discussion when you're struggling with a dictionary in your hand.

[Hal 9000]

Ah, right over your head....as per!

[cybercoma]

Sorry, not blunt enough for you? Your comparison was stupid.

Is that better?

[Hal 9000]

Most healthcare plans that people have in Canada dependents living at home until they're 25, as long as they're still in schoool. But nice red herring anyway.

I love this stupid game of asking people to define things, then when they define those things just rejecting their definitions or asking them to define other things. It's pretty clear you have nothing to add to the discussion when you're struggling with a dictionary in your hand.

The point is; and it's too bad that I have to spell it out for you, that you say "dependants" which is accurate, but when it suited the Dems. they tried to change the parameter of of what a "child" is. So, when one disagrees with what a Democrat considers a child, it's spun to try and show that those people hate children.

If one disagrees with what a "feminist" or "feminism" or "sexism" is; they are branded a misogynist. Very similar!

[WestCoastRunner]

If one disagrees with what a "feminist" or "feminism" or "sexism" is; they are branded a misogynist. Very similar!

You are stating preposterous statements with absolutely nothing to back this up. Again, just your attempts to discredit women seeking equal rights.

[Hal 9000]

Hal: If one disagrees with what a "feminist" or "feminism" or "sexism" is; they are branded a misogynist.

WCR: You are stating preposterous statements with absolutely nothing to back this up. Again, just your attempts to discredit women seeking equal rights.

Do you see the irony?

[-1=e^ipi]

As MCC said, the word feminism itself is a gender bias term - that should be the first clue.

Yes. The term feminism isn't gender neutral enough and isn't very inclusive to males and gender non-binary individuals. In my view, if you prefer to be called a feminist over a gender-egalitarian, then you are not gender-egalitarian enough.

To have any kind of productive discussion, it's important everyone is on the same page regarding definitions of terms they are using. And this is unfortunately what the social justice movement aims to subvert.. by arbitrarily redefining terms within its circles and then lashing out at those who do not agree. Muddying the waters about what words mean so that people can't even talk to each other productively only increases polarization on these issues, rather than moving society forward.

Clear definitions do not suit the SJW Orwellian agenda. They need to be able to manipulate language at convenience in order to propagate their ideology.

[-1=e^ipi]

You are stating preposterous statements with absolutely nothing to back this up. Again, just your attempts to discredit women seeking equal rights.

Are you suggesting that there are no male feminists?

[Michael Hardner]

If one disagrees with what a "feminist" or "feminism" or "sexism" is; they are branded a misogynist. Very similar!

Where ? By whom ? There's this weird tinfoil hat type train of thought that I'm reading on here that questions what words like "milestone" mean and try to use that as a basis for a semantic deep dive beyond any utility whatsoever.

[Black Dog]

Yes. The term feminism isn't gender neutral enough and isn't very inclusive to males and gender non-binary individuals. In my view, if you prefer to be called a feminist over a gender-egalitarian, then you are not gender-egalitarian enough.

Feminism was not intended to be a gender neutral term.

Clear definitions do not suit the SJW Orwellian agenda. They need to be able to manipulate language at convenience in order to propagate their ideology.

Tell me about it. I know of a guy, for example, who calls himself asexual but I'm pretty darn sure he's not able to reproduce without fusing gametes.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Black Dog

[-1=e^ipi]

Feminism was not intended to be a gender neutral term.

Definitions of feminism vary. I was referring to the subset of feminists that view feminism to mean gender egalitarianism.

Tell me about it. I know of a guy, for example, who calls himself asexual but I'm pretty darn sure he's not able to reproduce without fusing gametes.

And gay people are able to reproduce with someone of the same gender?

Asexuality is a sexual orientation, you bigot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality

[Black Dog]

And gay people are able to reproduce with someone of the same gender?

Asexuality is a sexual orientation, you bigot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality

Of course I'm aware of that. Just as you should be aware that asexuality as a sexual identity is a relatively recent concept, co-opting a term previously reserved for describing a form of reproduction among certain organisms. Manipulating the language, if you will.

[-1=e^ipi]

Of course I'm aware of that. Just as you should be aware that asexuality as a sexual identity is a relatively recent concept.

How is it a relatively recent concept? There have been asexuals since before humans existed (just like there have been homosexuals and bisexuals since before humans existed).

Manipulating the language, if you will.

Asexual is the logical name to use given that it means not sexual. What word would you prefer we use?

[Black Dog]

How is it a relatively recent concept? There have been asexuals since before humans existed (just like there have been homosexuals and bisexuals since before humans existed).

It wasn't really recognized as an actual sexual orientation until the mid 20th century.

Asexual is the logical name to use given that it means not sexual. What word would you prefer we use?

I don't care. The point is to illustrate that language is a fluid thing, a concept that clearly baffles you and your bros here.

[-1=e^ipi]

It wasn't really recognized as an actual sexual orientation until the mid 20th century.

People just didn't talk about it.

The point is to illustrate that language is a fluid thing

This is especially true if you are a SJW and you wish to manipulate words in an Orwellian manner and change the meaning of words whenever it is convenient for the ideology.

[Black Dog]

People just didn't talk about it.

Right. They didn't define it as a separate sexual identity.

This is especially true if you are a SJW and you wish to manipulate words in an Orwellian manner and change the meaning of words whenever it is convenient for the ideology.

Do you just keep this bullsh*t on a clipboard or something? Do you have any actual evidence that this is "especially true" of "SJW"?