Dave Chapelle Brilliantly Frames How Trans Ideology Feels Like for an Outsider

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. They have movies and shows where the N word is openly used. Its also factual by any standard, based on its history. Its not non PC in proper context. Waters get murky when dealing with the trans issue.

2. I don't see why I need to find you this. It works just fine for me and millions of others.

3. Ideology is quite commonly used, as it fits this group perfectly.

4. Not sure why it is you feel we should be in agreement here. Dissagreement is fine.

1. My point is that the existence of the most reviled word in a dictionary subverts your point ie. " No dictionary would dare define the word, because they would be considered transphobic."  

2. You know.  You don't.  I am saying that the word doesn't fit for me somehow and asking why you think it does.  "It works for me" is an admission that you would rather use a misplaced word than... not I guess.  Which is fine.

3.  You can't define it, in the context of the word you are dying to use.  So it seems weird to me that you say it fits "perfectly".  

4.  Yes it is.  I disagree that your use of "ideology" in that context makes sense and you have said that you are not obliged to tell me why it does.  It's just perfect says you.  Alrighty, to each his own  

2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Did you look up slurs against transgender people in the dictionary?  I linked to one.  Your BIG-DICTIONARY (lol @Michael Hardner) conspiracy fails. 

Now now.  If it were me I would retract my use of it.  That's why I was pressing for a deeper understanding of that word so I could defend its use.  But I'm not convinced.

Perspektiv did remind me that TERF isn't a good term to use though, so I learned something.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Did you look up slurs against transgender

Tranny is a commonly used word in some places, as is ladyboy in places like Thailand.

Your point?

[TreeBeard]

2 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Tranny is a commonly used word in some places, as is ladyboy in places like Thailand.

Your point?

You missed what I said about your dictionary conspiracy theory?

[Guest]

Trans ideology has a lot of words becoming murkier. 

I was eluding to words like woman.

I mean, murkying isn't the removal of curse words. Its the murkying of existing language.

Chest feeding, woman. 

I never once mentioned curse words being the case. This hasn't even been mentioned in my posts.

Just now, TreeBeard said:

You missed what I said about your dictionary conspiracy theory?

You missed what I said about the murkying of English language to accommodate a minority?

[TreeBeard]

4 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

You missed what I said about the murkying of English language to accommodate a minority?

Yes.  You have no evidence.  In fact, @Michael Hardner and I showed evidence to the contrary. And yet you double-down on your BIG DICTIONARY (©️ @Michael Hardner) conspiracy.  

[Michael Hardner]

36 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Yes.  You have no evidence.  In fact, @Michael Hardner and I showed evidence to the contrary. And yet you double-down on your BIG DICTIONARY (©️ @Michael Hardner) conspiracy.  

I don't think that was the basis for his using the word, as much as an offhanded comment.  He just feels it "fits" and says "It works just fine for me and millions of others".  

A lot of people like to use words loosely and the only downside is that people won't understand what they're saying, or - worse- will make assumptions of their politics by the use of the word.  

I myself am guilty of this sometimes as I will use the word "Christian" to describe myself, depending on context even though I disbelieve in the divinity of Jesus and I rather wonder if he even existed.  Moreover, I'm at best agnostic.  Still, I think the distillation of Hillel's philosophy with whatever bit of eastern philosophy drifted into his transom, along with the tremendous public relations work of his apostles makes me comfortable with using such a term from time to time.

People have also vilified me for calling myself "conservative" even though I think Trump is an incompetent dolt who will wreck democracy.  

 
 

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Yes.  You have no evidence.

There is plenty. The word woman. Breast. Words that now are controversial. Few want to publicly define woman, when it is blatantly as to what it is.

Now it's an umbrella term. Again. Murky.

Gender. Murky. 

Most cannot come to a concensus as to how many genders there are, or are petrified to take a gander, publicly. Why is that?

45 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

And yet you double-down

You posted curse words. My post has nothing to do with curse words. 

[TreeBeard]

2 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

There is plenty. The word woman. Breast. Words that now are controversial. Few want to publicly define woman, when it is blatantly as to what it is.

Now it's an umbrella term. Again. Murky.

Gender. Murky. 

Most cannot come to a concensus as to how many genders there are, or are petrified to take a gander, publicly. Why is that?

You posted curse words. My post has nothing to do with curse words. 

The dictionary defines woman and breast.  Not sure what you’re going on about there. 
 

Also, dictionaries are not prescriptive, they’re descriptive.  If a word changes in how people who speak English use the word, the dictionary definition changes. 

Edited January 16, 2024 by TreeBeard

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

In fact

The N word? Thats not a fact, its a legit word. 

Being offended by it is irrelevant. 

Trans ideology isn't about offensive words. Its about murkying waters to change definitions of words under guise of them not being inclusive. 

Just now, TreeBeard said:

The dictionary defines woman

It also changed the definition, to make it more inclusive.

[TreeBeard]

2 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

 

It also changed the definition, to make it more inclusive.

Dictionaries are not prescriptive, they’re descriptive.  If a word changes in how people who speak English use the word, the dictionary definition changes. 

Edited January 16, 2024 by TreeBeard

[Guest]

1 minute ago, TreeBeard said:

Not sure what you’re going on about there. 

Woman used to be a simple definition. More dictionaries are including the definition of one who identifies as a woman, when this has nothing to do with what being a woman is.

The definition of breast is the same, but activists are pushing to make it more inclusive in areas where breastfeeding may occur. 

Calling it chest feeding. 

Just now, TreeBeard said:

the dictionary definition changes. 

Culturally, woman has become a controversial word. The dictionary is a reflection of this.

[TreeBeard]

3 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Woman used to be a simple definition. More dictionaries are including the definition of one who identifies as a woman, when this has nothing to do with what being a woman is.

The definition of breast is the same, but activists are pushing to make it more inclusive in areas where breastfeeding may occur. 

Calling it chest feeding. 

I think the solution is for you not to use the words how other people are using them.  Use the words how you think they should be used. 
 

The solution is not to make up conspiracies about dictionaries.  Dictionaries don’t tell us how to use words, they reflect how words are being used.  Don’t like it?  Well….  Too bad, I guess.  Cross your fingers and hope the English language only changes in ways you approve of.  

Edited January 16, 2024 by TreeBeard

[Michael Hardner]

22 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

1. I think the solution is for you not to use the words how other people are using them.  Use the words how you think they should be used. 
2.  Dictionaries don’t tell us how to use words, they reflect how words are being used.  

1. I try to do that with "Chud" and I get shouted down.  But "Groomer" is semantically just somehow...

2. I see what you mean by 'descriptive'...

[Michael Hardner]

Speaking of definitions... if we want to redefine "ideology" as basically a kind-of-pejorative describing a single belief... (eg. "People in the mid-west who buy into the -no-gay-marriage-ideology- are known to...") then I guess we can define women as defined here in the Cambridge Dictionary too.  Key learning: language is POLITICAL... hoo boy...

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woman

an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

they reflect how words are being used.  

Which reflects the changes I cited to the English language, to accommodate how people feel inside.

57 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Don’t like it?

Not so much not liking it, as those on that side trying to silence that freedom of speech. 

58 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Cross your fingers and hope the English language only changes in ways you approve of.  

It can change however it sees fit. 

However, in a free society, one should be able to mock the changes if they are devoid of logic or an ability to understand reality.

Just like you can mock my pointing it out. Freedom is a beautiful thing.

[Michael Hardner]

18 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

 

However, in a free society, one should be able to mock the changes if they are devoid of logic or an ability to understand reality.

Just like you can mock my pointing it out. Freedom is a beautiful thing.

Perhaps, but I can only go so far and mocking without feeling bad. For example, you admitted that misusing the word ideology just works for you... Which is fine. I wouldn't mock that even though the logic is that everyone else is doing it.

 

I think we're starting to agree that words are malleable.

Edited January 16, 2024 by Michael Hardner

[TreeBeard]

28 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

However, in a free society, one should be able to mock the changes if they are devoid of logic or an ability to understand reality.

You do mock the changes, don’t you?  Who is stopping you from doing so? 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Who is stopping you from doing so? 

Nobody. Am not high profile like Chapelle is. 

Many have attempted to stop him. 

Only reason places like Netflix couldn't, is the fact he moves needles. If they didn't air his special, another platform would, raking in millions in profits. 

Many have attempted to silence his voice and other comedians who made offensive jokes. 

Venues have refused to allow him to perform, under blistering pressure from activists, and as a result he is raking it in with specials. 

Some would say, "then he wasn't stopped, was he".

That would be ignoring the attempt at making an example of him. Him being stopped is irrelevant. The firestorm he faced, and immense pressure would be enough to scare another from attempting the same jokes. 

That's not progress, nor is it freedom of speech.

Point being made.

[TreeBeard]

 

2 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Venues have refused to allow him to perform, under blistering pressure from activists, and as a result he is raking it in with specials. 

 Are they obligated to give him a platform?  I thought conservatives liked a free market….

 

3 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Some would say, "then he wasn't stopped, was he".

They would be wrong.   According to you, he was stopped at some venues.

 

4 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

The firestorm he faced, and immense pressure would be enough to scare another from attempting the same jokes

 They really should get their own material anyway, eh?

 

5 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

freedom of speech

Are you one of these people that thinks a private venue violates the 1st Amendment (I assume we’re talking USA here) when they don’t allow someone to perform at their place of business?

Thats not how it works.  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

Are they obligated to give him a platform?

Many wanted to, eventually folding under activist pressure. They chose to give him a platform. Others are free to choose to do the same.

Am pointing to the lack of choice some businesses had.

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

when they don’t allow someone to perform at their place of business?

Nobody is talking about businesses having to do anything. 

We are talking of businesses being forced to do something. 

Netflix almost broke under that same pressure. Glad they still have balls.

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

Are you one

You seem to make more assumptions than accurate judgments.

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, Perspektiv said:

We are talking of businesses being forced to do something. 

You must be really upset about Bud Light beer being forced to give up their transgender ad campaign because of the hostile activists too, eh?

3 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Many wanted to, eventually folding under activist pressure.

So the business made a business decision.  Like Bud beer did. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

You must be really upset about Bud Light beer being forced to give up their transgender ad campaign

Anyone trying to silence someone's freedom of speech, isn't something I can get behind.

2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Like Bud beer did. 

Bud chose to put the ad.

Sort of different if you get threats, and protests threatening to disrupt your business because people can't take a joke.

[TreeBeard]

4 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Anyone trying to silence someone's freedom of speech, isn't something I can get behind.

Bud chose to put the ad.

Sort of different if you get threats, and protests threatening to disrupt your business because people can't take a joke.

Of course…. The people who cancelled Bud…. That’s different of course.  
 

Seems like a double standard to me.   

[Michael Hardner]

People need to learn the concept of a principle.

 

If you're against words being redefined, then you're against all words being redefined. And you're against ideology being redefined and you're against groomer being redefined.

If you're against canceling, then you're against people canceling Netflix, and you're against beer companies canceling trans people

 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

That’s different of course.  

Technically people protested budweiser by not purchasing it.

People protested Chapelle, by sending him death threats, and threatening some of those who chose to attended his shows. Via intimidating corporations who wanted to provide him with venues.

If people protested Chapelle by refusing to buy his product, they would be right within their right. By refusing to get Netflix. All perfectly respectable.

Reality is it wouldn't work, because the demand for his product is sky high.

6 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Seems like a double standard to me.   

Sure if we are comparing apples to apples. IE people choosing to boycott a product.

We aren't.