A direct result
Always the same slogans where an argument should be, always the childish catastrophizing. It’s not cute when Trump does it, why would it be cute when trans activists do it?
I would love to know exactly how kylo knows she/he suffers violence “as a direct result of Stock’s arguments.” How would someone know that? I suppose the violence-source could shout Stock’s name while punching, but that seems pretty god damn unlikely, and short of that – what?
Nothing, which is why it’s wise to be careful about saying things like that, i.e. it’s wise to NOT SAY THEM. It’s stupid, it’s catastrophizing, it’s obviously not something a person could know. Saying it while claiming to be philosophy-backgrounded is a rooky error.
Also, no one is debating anyone’s existence. If there is a particular anyone, that anyone exists. No one is debating whether or not the person who composed that tweets. The debate is over description, and self-description, not existence.
Also no one is debating whether or not trans people are human beings.
There again – how does she/he know the macro- and micro-aggressions are a direct result of Stock’s work? Again I think it’s highly unlikely that anyone footnotes aggressions citing Stock as their source.
Also, speaking of micro-aggressions, there’s calling him “Nigel,” there’s the eye roll emoji, there’s the smirk emoji.
How not to persuade anyone of anything.
What is this CRT of which e speaks? Pardon my ignorance … the only CRT I know is Cathode-ray tube (remember those?). Wikipedia has a few more, but none of them seem to match any better. Cognitive Retention Therapy, perhaps?
Oh wait, Critical Race Theory? I didn’t spot that at first.
Would an eye rolling emoji constitute direct or indirect violence or a negation of someone’s existence?
If you needed further evidence of why avoiding Criticial Race Theory is a good idea it’s that somehow it has something to do with all this trans nonsense as perpetuated by white people.
Here again, Warburton confirms what I believe. If you’re buying into some dogma or other, you ain’t no philosopher. Even the dogma of what a philosopher is, for that matter. I’m not sure about that either. ;)
Further, I would say Prof. Stock is not only a philosopher proper IMO, but also a splendid one.
Sounds like Kylo is owed a micro-apology.
“Explicit violence.” So words just don’t mean anything any more?
I see this approach so often when arguing with the usual clowns on FTB. They will make a point that betrays their ignorance (or forgetfulness) of some basic concept, I will remind them of that concept, and they will reply exasperatedly that of course they already know that thing. Okay, then why did you make that earlier point that appeared to be ignorant of it? Cue huffiness.
It’s as if their knowledge is perfectly compartmentalised. They generally know for example that natural language word meanings are determined by common use rather than fiat, and will use that fact when arguing that singular third person ‘they’ has existed for centuries, but if the conversation is about the common use meaning of ‘woman’ that knowledge is curiously absent. Until they are reminded of it and become enraged as a result, anyway.
Speaking of compartmentalisation of knowledge regarding common use and the meanings of words… that’s not what ‘violence’ means.
By the way, I chose that example of ‘things TRAs forget when it suits them’ having not read the second tweet, and so did not know it would turn up immediately. They’re just that damn predictable.
Also, I understand that tweets are not professional communiques, but still. If you want people to believe that you are an academic, have some fucking pride in what you write and maybe aim above the level of ‘teenager texting friends’. A pinned tweet on that person’s* page reads “super privileged 2 have contributed 2 [book]”. Again, it is not a professional environment, but… yikes.
*See that? “Person”! No one doubts that trans people are people you numpty.
If Critical Race Theory is what kylo meant (thanks Harald) then yet again that’s trans activism pretending it’s kind of a branch or co-oppressed or near relation of anti-racism. It’s not. It’s not related, it’s not similar, it’s not oppressed the same way, it’s not comparable in any way. The level of dishonesty is getting pathological.
Anything to camouflage the fact that this seems to be largely a movement by and for straight, white men.