''There are only 2 genders''' BAN!

[J4MES OX4D 10,037]

Some Twitch Streamer got perma banned last night attributing to her comment saying that there was only two genders. Twitch banned the streamer for 'hate speech' against the transgender community.  It's sad to see someone stating a scientific fact having their livelihood taken down because of social fury.

 

Being transgender doesn't highlight someone's gender precisely from either the one they were to the one they transitioned to, so why aren't people who have made the change wanting to identify to the one they have changed to and not some generic process to make the change? 

 

Anyhow, this is more about Twitch and how you can't say even unarguable fact without being destroyed these days.  Free speech is on thin ice as it is already in the social digital world but this is a step too far. Funny how non-gamers can go topless on there for some e-softcore but Twitch deems that perfectly fine content...

[crispymorgan 1,056]

Making money that way (ie. doing fuck all) always carries a risk that someone will get offended and it will all come crashing down.  

[Docwagon 856]

I suppose it depends on who's definition of gender you use.  Many use it, incorrectly, as a synonym for sex.  I think this largely started in the early 2000s when "harassment" was being pronounced hair-ess-mint because "sex" became a dirty word.  Gender was softer and more PC, despite not being the same thing.   Gender is a social and/or grammatical construct. Words in many language have a gender, they don't have a sex.  Sex is biological and exists with or without a culture.  Gender only exists with a culture.

 

That said, I understand this is such a political hot button now that pretty much nobody cares what words actually mean, or even acknowledge that words have meaning.  The ability to redefine words at will is a powerful propaganda advantage.

[Plumbers Crack 4,062]

Good points Doc

[GazzaGarratt 11,056]

1 hour ago, Docwagon said:

I suppose it depends on who's definition of gender you use.  Many use it, incorrectly, as a synonym for sex.  I think this largely started in the early 2000s when "harassment" was being pronounced hair-ess-mint because "sex" became a dirty word.  Gender was softer and more PC, despite not being the same thing.   Gender is a social and/or grammatical construct. Words in many language have a gender, they don't have a sex.  Sex is biological and exists with or without a culture.  Gender only exists with a culture.

 

That said, I understand this is such a political hot button now that pretty much nobody cares what words actually mean, or even acknowledge that words have meaning.  The ability to redefine words at will is a powerful propaganda advantage.

That's a pretty damn good post. Made me realise a few conversations at my work today were completely wrong. Thanks Doc.

[techno 3,511]

If you are able to define or invent your "gender" at will from a seemingly endless spectrum then surely the term " gender" loses its meaning somewhat?

[Docwagon 856]

6 hours ago, techno said:

If you are able to define or invent your "gender" at will from a seemingly endless spectrum then surely the term " gender" loses its meaning somewhat?

I think there are a lot of very "modern day" issues that are in conflict with the collective societal experience until very recently.  Can an individual determine their own gender when historically it's bestowed upon you by your society.  With a few exceptions, like the Castrati singers of Italy (eunuchs castrated before puberty to create singers with a man's frame and lungs and a boy's voicebox) gender and gender roles have been pretty much locked in by your sex.  Sexual orientation was a separate concept, whereas the plethora of genders some want society to accept are a hybrid of the two.

 

My personal guess is it's the societal equivalent of a fad and won't last for long before until it's pared back again.  It reminds me of the feminist fad of hyphenated last names for children that was briefly popular.  It's a way to show how progressive you are, but it's so cumbersome it collapses under it's own weight pretty quickly.

[Dr Diamond 407]

Huge socially left-leaning mega corporations holding the monopoly on online public discourse - what could possibly go wrong ?

[phil bottle 9,767]

Huge socially left-leaning mega corporations holding the monopoly on online public discourse - what could possibly go wrong ?

All public discourse is controlled and always has been. That you're still on this left/right bullshit is laughable.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[Dr Diamond 407]

Lol and what evidence do you have that im on " this left/right bullshit" as you so put it ?

None.ok.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[phil bottle 9,767]

27 minutes ago, Dr Diamond said:

Lol and what evidence do you have that im on " this left/right bullshit" as you so put it ?

None.ok.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 

It's funny which point you picked to reply to eh? Not me picking up on the wilful ignorance of your post, that's for sure.

[Dr Diamond 407]

It's funny which point you picked to reply to eh? Not me picking up on the wilful ignorance of your post, that's for sure.

I mean thats literally what you did with what i originally said but nevermind eh

Helpful ignorance..Lol whatever man. You gonna always go off on one whenever I post something with a definition you don't agree with or what ?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[phil bottle 9,767]

2 minutes ago, Dr Diamond said:

I mean thats literally what you did with what i originally said but nevermind eh

Helpful ignorance..Lol whatever man. You gonna always go off on one whenever I post something with a definition you don't agree with or what ?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 

 

'Wilful' ignorance Adam, try reading and comprehending before reacting.

 

But yes, when you come on here spouting opinions without context,  I will always make a point of drawing that to your attention.

 

What else should I do? 

 

 

 

[Dr Diamond 407]

 
'Wilful' ignorance Adam, try reading and comprehending before reacting.
 
But yes, when you come on here spouting opinions without context,  I will always make a point of drawing that to your attention.
 
What else should I do? 
 
 
 

Honestly is this just some 4D trolling or are you being serious ?

>OP - twitch streamer gets banned for stating facts about gender.

>social media platforms with a left leaning bias ban people for saying things which go against intersectional theories surrounding gender and identity.

>Me - probably not a good idea letting big left leaning companies have the final say on public discourse

>yOurE wiLlfUlLy ignorant aNd uR ideAs r 0uT 0F c0nTeXt xxDDDDDD

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[phil bottle 9,767]

Honestly is this just some 4D trolling or are you being serious ?

>OP - twitch streamer gets banned for stating facts about gender.

>social media platforms with a left leaning bias ban people for saying things which go against intersectional theories surrounding gender and identity.

>Me - probably not a good idea letting big left leaning companies have the final say on public discourse

>yOurE wiLlfUlLy ignorant aNd uR ideAs r 0uT 0F c0nTeXt xxDDDDDD

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

I called you out for the 'left-leaning' bullshit, that's the context I'm after.

Why are these corporations 'left-leaning'?

Are they Marxist? Leninist? Trotskist? Stalinist? What is 'left' about a capitalistic enterprise?

Socially left? What the fuck does that even mean?








Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[tronic44 3,642]

Wtf you two on about?  

 

What if someone said they find it offensive that someone thinks there's more than two genders? Can't believe someone got banned for stating scientific facts.

[GazzaGarratt 11,056]

2 minutes ago, tronic44 said:

Wtf you two on about?  

 

What if someone said they find it offensive that someone thinks there's more than two genders? Can't believe someone got banned for stating scientific facts.

Yep. Let's just have some more constructive posts like Doc's post above. I cba to go into whatever the fuck that was.

[phil bottle 9,767]

Funny, according to Adam, controlling public discourse is supposed to be left leaning. And, there's no lefties on this site as far as I'm aware.

I'm done.


Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[tronic44 3,642]

42 minutes ago, phil bottle said:

Funny, according to Adam, controlling public discourse is supposed to be left leaning. And, there's no lefties on this site as far as I'm aware.

I'm done.


Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
 

Sorry my original post was because I actually didn’t understand what you two both we’re saying, I even just had to google discourse. The laughing face was at myself not you guys. Reading it back it wasn’t worded very well by myself, I just didn’t understand. I love discussion and definitely don’t want to stop that, especially if I don’t understand it. 

 

 

[phil bottle 9,767]

Sorry my original post was because I actually didn’t understand what you two both we’re saying, I even just had to google discourse. The laughing face was at myself not you guys. Reading it back it wasn’t worded very well by myself, I just didn’t understand. I love discussion and definitely don’t want to stop that, especially if I don’t understand it. 
 
 

I ften don't even realise when I'm writing on these topics regarding how it looks, I probably should but I'm like a dog with a bone sometimes.

I had an extra pint at lunchtime today and my annoyance was obviously influenced by that, though I can't use alcohol as a defence in a court of law so shouldn't use it here[emoji16]

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[Dr Diamond 407]

Funny, according to Adam, controlling public discourse is supposed to be left leaning. And, there's no lefties on this site as far as I'm aware.

I'm done.


Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

That isn't what i said at all and the leanings of individual people on this site is not in question here.

All these big silicone valley tech companies/monopolies generally follow progressive intersectional agendas and routinely ban people they don't like...you can quibble about my use of the word "left" in this context but generally speaking most people would understand what i mean, even if you (pretend) you don't.

There are no tech companies owned or run by conservatives, centrists or whatever the fuck you want to call them, that have as much of a grasp on online public discourse as FB/google/Twitter etc.

You want to argue that left/right labels are stupid, fine. I agree. They are stupid. But in the context of speech censorship, it is predominantly companies such as FB, Twitter and Google, that censor people and they are *generally* described as left leaning....although to be honest I think you know all that anyway.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[phil bottle 9,767]

I agree mostly, I just find it interesting how capitalistic corporations can be described as 'left', whatever their mooted socially conscious ambitions might be. The word has been diluted as to be meaningless and used as an easy box to put all manner of conflicting ideologies. I find it lazy.

But (a) I think this conversation doesn't belong on this thread and ( I will be more considerate in future in how I present my arguments, and don't take it personally, I don't discriminate when it comes to being an annoying cunt[emoji8]

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[Dr Diamond 407]

I agree mostly, I just find it interesting how capitalistic corporations can be described as 'left', whatever their mooted socially conscious ambitions might be. The word has been diluted as to be meaningless and used as an easy box to put all manner of conflicting ideologies. I find it lazy.

But (a) I think this conversation doesn't belong on this thread and ( I will be more considerate in future in how I present my arguments, and don't take it personally, I don't discriminate when it comes to being an annoying cunt[emoji8]

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

Yeah well I know fully i am a disagreeable asshole so[emoji848]

Also.


I agree about the companies. They all act like they are socially aware and stick the social justice label on themselves, yet anyone with half a brain can see the hipocrasy in how profit driven they are

Nike sponsors Colin kapernick and claims they are about social justice..yet stick fuck over third world kids in sweatshops and made 3 billion off that campaign

Apple bangs on about connecting people and ensuring there is no hate speech through their platforms etc..yet their practises in China are pretty appalling etc

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Docwagon 856]

On 2/13/2019 at 1:25 PM, phil bottle said:

I agree mostly, I just find it interesting how capitalistic corporations can be described as 'left', whatever their mooted socially conscious ambitions might be. 
 

Perhaps a different meaning on your side, but it's well established in the states that left/right also applies to social issues and perceived norms.  "The Religious Right" or "Christian Right" being one of the most used versions of the term in US politics.  It describes the, largely Evangelical, socially conservative platform.  If there's a right, there's a left and a center.  It's nothing to do with economics or profit motive.  That would be capitalist, socialist, etc.  (Although, frankly, "socialist" is another word that's been stretched beyond any real meaning in US political theater...boiling down to most anything Republicans don't like at the moment.) So for something like gay marriage, the "Right" argument was against and being lead by the Christian Right, by default the argument for becomes the left argument.  One can argue it's "tribalism" or "marketing" or what-have you, but it's certainly not a new concept stateside and has been a theme in politics and social issues as long as I've been around to notice such things.

[phil bottle 9,767]

Perhaps a different meaning on your side, but it's well established in the states that left/right also applies to social issues and perceived norms.  "The Religious Right" or "Christian Right" being one of the most used versions of the term in US politics.  It describes the, largely Evangelical, socially conservative platform.  If there's a right, there's a left and a center.  It's nothing to do with economics or profit motive.  That would be capitalist, socialist, etc.  (Although, frankly, "socialist" is another word that's been stretched beyond any real meaning in US political theater...boiling down to most anything Republicans don't like at the moment.) So for something like gay marriage, the "Right" argument was against and being lead by the Christian Right, by default the argument for becomes the left argument.  One can argue it's "tribalism" or "marketing" or what-have you, but it's certainly not a new concept stateside and has been a theme in politics and social issues as long as I've been around to notice such things.

It's changed its meaning a few times over the centuries to be fair and I suppose it annoys me because it gets in the way of us dealing with some very serious issues, and stops ppl looking at things honestly.

The use of 'fascist' and 'nazi' is also easily thrown around, often by people who should know better...pointless and solves nothing.

And yes, I agree, part tribalism, part deliberate political marketing.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk