Caitlyn Jenner: The Reveal & The Reactions

[Ifreann]

My brain is a hamster running in a wheel

But the hamster's metabolism is still a chemical reaction! Illuminati confirmed!

Ye gods...

[Killdash]

Even the roles that genders typically play are generally things that facilitate into the brains structure and thought processes. Are there exceptions? Yes, of course there are. They should be free to do things their way. The point I've raised is a general rule, not a perfect one.

You do raise a good point. Reminds me of the quota issue actually. I'm less in favor of it given that I know employment gaps for women don't necessarily exist from sexism, but simply (in many cases) from an actual lack of female participation. You can't have a government made up of 50% women if you didn't have 50% of all electoral districts running only female candidates, because that's really the only way to guarantee female representation that high in government. But is it really necessary? Does having that much female employment somewhere (or elected officials rather than employees in this case) really guarantee women are getting represented? I really don't think so.

I agree with this all the way. In my opinion, people should be judged based on talent and skill, and not because of being a minority, or oppressed at one stage. The only reason for a quota should be in cases where people are still very oppressed or just coming out of oppression. Otherwise things can go to pot, my example being most African countries.

[Llamalandia]

I thought I made some points, but apparently not, because they've all been ignored.

Welcome to the wonderful world of being unfortunate enough to be in a thread when Llama pops in. I recommend the ignore function.

Meh everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion. I ignore no one. I can't stop you from ignoring, but I would say it sounds kind of childish. I mean, the best solution to speech with which you disagree is always more speech.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Welcome to the wonderful world of being unfortunate enough to be in a thread when Llama pops in. I recommend the ignore function.

Meh everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion. I ignore no one. I can't stop you from ignoring, but I would say it sounds kind of childish. I mean, the best solution to speech with which you disagree is always more speech.

Not always. I mean, when the person you're speaking with has a tendency to fall back on "Well, that's my opinion" when confronted by numerous facts contrary to said opinion, and usually (though, admittedly, not always) tends to wilfully ignore these facts in order to continue to have the same factually incorrect views rather than go through the effort of changing his or her perspective, then further speech becomes an exercise in futility. Matthew 7:6, you know?

EDIT: Also, as far as your first sentence goes, check my signature. You're the one who inspired me to put it there.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Meh everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion. I ignore no one. I can't stop you from ignoring, but I would say it sounds kind of childish. I mean, the best solution to speech with which you disagree is always more speech.

Not always. I mean, when the person you're speaking with has a tendency to fall back on "Well, that's my opinion" when confronted by numerous facts contrary to said opinion, and usually (though, admittedly, not always) tends to wilfully ignore these facts in order to continue to have the same factually incorrect views rather than go through the effort of changing his or her perspective, then further speech becomes an exercise in futility. Matthew 7:6, you know?

EDIT: Also, as far as your first sentence goes, check my signature. You're the one who inspired me to put it there.

Yeah, the idea that all opinions are equally valid is a terrible and terribly common misconception.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Not always. I mean, when the person you're speaking with has a tendency to fall back on "Well, that's my opinion" when confronted by numerous facts contrary to said opinion, and usually (though, admittedly, not always) tends to wilfully ignore these facts in order to continue to have the same factually incorrect views rather than go through the effort of changing his or her perspective, then further speech becomes an exercise in futility. Matthew 7:6, you know?

EDIT: Also, as far as your first sentence goes, check my signature. You're the one who inspired me to put it there.

Yeah, the idea that all opinions are equally valid is a terrible and terribly common misconception.

Well, all opinions are valid in the context of "everyone has a right to voice their opinions".

It's not the fact that we should be telling people "you can't shit here", but rather, people shouldn't be surprised when others tell them "your shit stinks".

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Yeah, the idea that all opinions are equally valid is a terrible and terribly common misconception.

Well, all opinions are valid in the context of "everyone has a right to voice their opinions".

It's not the fact that we should be telling people "you can't shit here", but rather, people shouldn't be surprised when others tell them "your shit stinks".

Well, a lot of people interpret it to mean that their opinion is on an equal standing of legitimacy with others. Thing is, if that opinion isn't backed up by shit and is essentially fallacious and/or pulled out of your ass, in opposition to a scientifically-supported opinion, your opinion is not as valid.

Or alternatively, if your opinion when enforced results in bad things like racism or sexism, it's not a good or valid opinion.

[Killdash]

Well, all opinions are valid in the context of "everyone has a right to voice their opinions".

It's not the fact that we should be telling people "you can't shit here", but rather, people shouldn't be surprised when others tell them "your shit stinks".

Well, a lot of people interpret it to mean that their opinion is on an equal standing of legitimacy with others. Thing is, if that opinion isn't backed up by shit and is essentially fallacious and/or pulled out of your ass, in opposition to a scientifically-supported opinion, your opinion is not as valid.

Or alternatively, if your opinion when enforced results in bad things like racism or sexism, it's not a good or valid opinion.

If your opinion causes problems, you must deal with those problems. I think that in First World countries at any rate, there are no really "oppressed" groups. Oppression is Uganda or Islamic countries Sharia law.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Well, a lot of people interpret it to mean that their opinion is on an equal standing of legitimacy with others. Thing is, if that opinion isn't backed up by shit and is essentially fallacious and/or pulled out of your ass, in opposition to a scientifically-supported opinion, your opinion is not as valid.

Or alternatively, if your opinion when enforced results in bad things like racism or sexism, it's not a good or valid opinion.

If your opinion causes problems, you must deal with those problems. I think that in First World countries at any rate, there are no really "oppressed" groups. Oppression is Uganda or Islamic countries Sharia law.

There are different degrees of oppression. Denying systematic racism in the American police force, for instance, that's just ignorant. Black Americans are still an oppressed group; just because they aren't as oppressed as, say, homosexuals in Uganda, doesn't mean they aren't oppressed.

[Killdash]

If your opinion causes problems, you must deal with those problems. I think that in First World countries at any rate, there are no really "oppressed" groups. Oppression is Uganda or Islamic countries Sharia law.

There are different degrees of oppression. Denying systematic racism in the American police force, for instance, that's just ignorant. Black Americans are still an oppressed group; just because they aren't as oppressed as, say, homosexuals in Uganda, doesn't mean they aren't oppressed.

The debates on racism in the police force depends from force to force. There's no common grouping. Anyway African Americans today don't know the meaning of oppression. I'm from South Africa, you can trust me on that.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well, a lot of people interpret it to mean that their opinion is on an equal standing of legitimacy with others. Thing is, if that opinion isn't backed up by shit and is essentially fallacious and/or pulled out of your ass, in opposition to a scientifically-supported opinion, your opinion is not as valid.

Or alternatively, if your opinion when enforced results in bad things like racism or sexism, it's not a good or valid opinion.

If your opinion causes problems, you must deal with those problems. I think that in First World countries at any rate, there are no really "oppressed" groups. Oppression is Uganda or Islamic countries Sharia law.

The problem is we can only change what is in our local frame of reference.

Americans are more likely to fix American issues than they are to fix issues in the Middle East or Uganda, for instance.

[Killdash]

If your opinion causes problems, you must deal with those problems. I think that in First World countries at any rate, there are no really "oppressed" groups. Oppression is Uganda or Islamic countries Sharia law.

The problem is we can only change what is in our local frame of reference.

Americans are more likely to fix American issues than they are to fix issues in the Middle East or Uganda, for instance.

You raise a fair point.

But I still think that a word other than oppression, (which is very negative) should be used.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

There are different degrees of oppression. Denying systematic racism in the American police force, for instance, that's just ignorant. Black Americans are still an oppressed group; just because they aren't as oppressed as, say, homosexuals in Uganda, doesn't mean they aren't oppressed.

The debates on racism in the police force depends from force to force. There's no common grouping. Anyway African Americans today don't know the meaning of oppression. I'm from South Africa, you can trust me on that.

"we'd fuck them niggers up back in the day, stupid spooks in america don't know how good they have it"

Terrible fucking argument that I've already explained is flawed and incorrect.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

The problem is we can only change what is in our local frame of reference.

Americans are more likely to fix American issues than they are to fix issues in the Middle East or Uganda, for instance.

You raise a fair point.

But I still think that a word other than oppression, (which is very negative) should be used.

Does repression or suppression work better for you, Oh Mighty Arbiter of Who Is Oppressed and Who Is Not?

[Killdash]

The debates on racism in the police force depends from force to force. There's no common grouping. Anyway African Americans today don't know the meaning of oppression. I'm from South Africa, you can trust me on that.

"we'd fuck them niggers up back in the day, stupid spooks in america don't know how good they have it"

Terrible fucking argument that I've already explained is flawed and incorrect.

There's no need to be vulgar. I have literally done nothing to provoke.

What I'm saying is, oppression isn't really the right word. Disadvantaged, maybe, requiring attention, a better one. Oppression is a buzz word. It immediately stirs up a huge passion for problems that aren't that big.

[Killdash]

You raise a fair point.

But I still think that a word other than oppression, (which is very negative) should be used.

Does repression or suppression work better for you, Oh Mighty Arbiter of Who Is Oppressed and Who Is Not?

Look, if you look at the dictionary definition of oppressed, you will see my meaning.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

"we'd fuck them niggers up back in the day, stupid spooks in america don't know how good they have it"

Terrible fucking argument that I've already explained is flawed and incorrect.

There's no need to be vulgar. I have literally done nothing to provoke.

What I'm saying is, oppression isn't really the right word. Disadvantaged, maybe, requiring attention, a better one. Oppression is a buzz word. It immediately stirs up a huge passion for problems that aren't that big.

It was hyperbolic comparison, don't get pissy.

Yeah it is. It is the right word. And systematic racism is a really fucking bad problem; ignoring it is fatal for more and more people every year.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Does repression or suppression work better for you, Oh Mighty Arbiter of Who Is Oppressed and Who Is Not?

Look, if you look at the dictionary definition of oppressed, you will see my meaning.

"op·pres·sion
əˈpreSHən
noun
prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control."

Sounds appropriate to me.

[Geanna]

I personally think that people who don't identify with their biological sex are mentally ill.
And the OP's comment was kind of funny to read.

Care to elaborate on that eh?

[Geanna]

oh god, male horomones, like they don't fucking know that everyone has testosterone and estrogen. lactating like they don't know that men have breast tissue and can sometimes lactate even without growing breasts, which is entirely possible. no ovaries like every woman that was born without them, can't have a period or had them removed isn't a real woman. it's too fucking funny.

e: it's not a coincidence that most if not all of the arguments seem simple, definitive and obvious at first but immediately all apart under even the slightest of scrutiny

Funny cause i could say the same to you

Oh no! You're terribly right! What a profound contradiction to the argument - way to go chap! Here's a medal, now go! Save the world - it needs you!

Come now - I surely hope you can provide a better opposition than that.

[Killdash]

There's no need to be vulgar. I have literally done nothing to provoke.

What I'm saying is, oppression isn't really the right word. Disadvantaged, maybe, requiring attention, a better one. Oppression is a buzz word. It immediately stirs up a huge passion for problems that aren't that big.

It was hyperbolic comparison, don't get pissy.

Yeah it is. It is the right word. And systematic racism is a really fucking bad problem; ignoring it is fatal for more and more people every year.

Lovely article, which of course fails to mention the killing of unarmed white youths, as well as the many instances of gang killings of both colours. Personally, I feel that all of these are tragedies. But I think calling it systemic racism is incorrect. Of the killings, many have to do with individuals, and not the whole force, as well as uncłear circumstances in a few.

[Geanna]

"we'd fuck them niggers up back in the day, stupid spooks in america don't know how good they have it"

Terrible fucking argument that I've already explained is flawed and incorrect.

There's no need to be vulgar. I have literally done nothing to provoke.

What I'm saying is, oppression isn't really the right word. Disadvantaged, maybe, requiring attention, a better one. Oppression is a buzz word. It immediately stirs up a huge passion for problems that aren't that big.

Well - that wasn't offensive and/or a big slap to anybody

[Yumyumsuppertime]

It was hyperbolic comparison, don't get pissy.

Yeah it is. It is the right word. And systematic racism is a really fucking bad problem; ignoring it is fatal for more and more people every year.

Lovely article, which of course fails to mention the killing of unarmed white youths, as well as the many instances of gang killings of both colours. Personally, I feel that all of these are tragedies. But I think calling it systemic racism is incorrect. Of the killings, many have to do with individuals, and not the whole force, as well as uncłear circumstances in a few.

Per capita, how many unarmed white kids are killed in comparison to black kids?

[Killdash]

Look, if you look at the dictionary definition of oppressed, you will see my meaning.

"op·pres·sion
əˈpreSHən
noun
prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control."

Sounds appropriate to me.

"Authoritian or violent treatment, suspension of civil rights"- Oxford New English.

Hmm,

Basic human rights, check
Right to vote, check
Right of marriage, check
Right to own property, check
Incidences of racism, hmm there are a few.

Guess the whole thing falls apart there.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

It was hyperbolic comparison, don't get pissy.

Yeah it is. It is the right word. And systematic racism is a really fucking bad problem; ignoring it is fatal for more and more people every year.

Lovely article, which of course fails to mention the killing of unarmed white youths, as well as the many instances of gang killings of both colours. Personally, I feel that all of these are tragedies. But I think calling it systemic racism is incorrect. Of the killings, many have to do with individuals, and not the whole force, as well as uncłear circumstances in a few.

Blacks are disproportionately pulled over, disproportionately killed, disproportionately arrested.

In the past months with the Baltimore riots and whatnot, many of us have grown quite educated on the subject, and could probably drown you in sources essentially proving a dangerous bias against blacks present in the modern American police force.

You trivialize their struggle against oppression and acting like it isn't a "big deal" is really, really, really fucking insulting.