She says he liked the barely legal type, and then she said like 15. There’s a literal number associated with the law. 15 isn’t it.
Perv-view?
I found myself unconsciously drifting away from people who are mentally stuck behind the definition of words. I didn’t realize what I was doing or why I was feeling safety in isolating myself for the longest time.
People who are so heavily invested in the definitions of words rarely have good intentions.
It never really made much sense to me. Words are all made up and are in constant change from one time period to the next. Each generation has their own words and what it means to them.
I think subconsciously I realized that people obessed with defining words were attempting to assert power or dominance over me or my interests. That’s why I pushed back in my own way. By living a life that can’t be defined and cutting those weirdos out of my life.
After a weirdo dies, what did all that time spent fighting about the definition of a word archive? Maybe we can ask Charlie.
Words are the basis for all communication if you cannot communicate clearly what you want from me don’t talk to me.
I think people who don’t care about the definition of words to a group are lazy, selfish, and ussually trying to manipulate me by slapping me around with double speak.
It’s not about not caring about the definition of words. It’s about not doing that at the expense of caring about meaning.
Yes exactly. It’s nothing to do with the definition. It’s about how people try to re-define words to mean other shit. Not that we shouldn’t care about the definition of the word. If someone is trying to define something so we can all communicate on a level playing field with words we all understand then good. Otherwise it’s a bad faith argument. People need to be able to come to a common understanding together in a conversation.
Oh yeah, 100%
I see what you’re saying. There’s a huge difference between snidely asking “What is a woman?” so you can sit there and pick apart every definition they try to give, versus saying “When you use the term ‘woman’ here, what do you mean by it?” so you can understand their definition and move forward.
Oh yeah? Define definition of a word!
It depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.
I believe it’s about being which brings us to the question about being or not being
Something to do with oral sex 🤷🏻
D:
I think subconsciously I realized that people obessed with defining words were attempting to assert power or dominance over me or my interests.
It is. Language is powerful, and you can’t bow out, because you only ever have to win with a casual on looker to have tremendous impact on a small group. Heck, this even works for larger groups.
Wording is a big part of that.
I might be proving your point by disagreeing with you (well, not really but maybe clarifying). But, here it goes anyway.
I think what you’re trying to describe is just reactionary ideology. What you’ve noticed in reactionary conservative thought is specifically the attempt to restrict vocabulary. There is no room for them to allow language to evolve as society evolves and progresses. It’s a tool used to attempt to restrict thought into a “common sense” appeal.
For the case of a “women” it is appealing to a prior state of history in which nonbinary and trans people were forced to hide their outward expression and conform to society. Often times out of fear of individual or even state violence.
As that has changed the reactionary attempts to appeal to definitions of the past. To appeal to a group of people that grew up as children learning “girls have a vulva and boys have a penis”.
Which is a definition as simple as “a^2 + b^2 = c^2”. It’s a true definition for right angled triangles. The reactionary mathematician wants to live in a world in which there are only right angled triangles. So their “obsession with definitions” is nothing more than a restriction on what defines “a triangle”.
It is a suppression of language and defintions more than is anything else. It appeals strongly to those that are afraid of the world that they don’t understand and are looking for a scapegoat to direct their fear and blame onto.
Hi! I am your opposite. I hate when people mangle meaning of words with no reason altogether. Create new ones all you want, I am all behind it. But leave the old ones be and use them correctly.
Constant meddling, changing and pushing around of words makes them useless in communication and, in case of words having a weight attached to them, makes them hollow. It’s one thing to use custom meaning in your circle, another altogether to try to force it upon the world - in a way, becoming what you hate, someone forcing their definition.
For example, overuse of the word “Nazi” pretty much made it worthless. Today if people get called nazi…nobody cares. Word got overused, it’s meaning thinned.
What I hate about MAGA tho is that we create new words for new phenomena like transsexual and they behave as if it wasn’t valid. It’s not words they protect - they protect their worldview and frame it as defending language.
Gonna dig my grave but I do consider female and transfemale different. But especially if they had surgery they are both women. We never specified women fully, did we? Traditionally it’s just a person with tits and vagina. And I hate mental gymnastics MAGA go to to try and exclude people who literally went through invasive medical procedure to fit into what their brain deemed always natural. This is defending meaning of words vs. defending your worldview and framing it as defending words.
Also I may be autistic cuz I cling to rules too much xD
I hate when people mangle meaning of words with no reason altogether.
You’re speaking a language made of words that have been mangled and mutated with no rhyme or reason, with significantly less logic behind it than other languages.
For example, overuse of the word “Nazi” pretty much made it worthless.
Or does it just mean that Nazis are everywhere, and it’s more important than ever to call it out?
Most Nazis were not Hermann Göring, they were surprisingly normal people who enabled atrocities to happen. That’s the part people need to recognize.
Or does it just mean that Nazis are everywhere, and it’s more important than ever to call it out? Let’s not fool ourselves, at this point people on the left hurl “Nazi” as a common insult. No weight behind the word whatsoever, due to overuse.
You’re speaking a language made of words that have been mangled and mutated with no rhyme or reason, with significantly less logic behind it than other languages.
Yeah, but we are, at least should be, better than our ancestors at making it sensible. We can expand vocab for new words, we don’t need to destroy the meaning behind already existing ones.
Overall I agree, except that words and their definitions are all that our legal system really has to operate on. If I’m ever in legal trouble, you better believe I want someone defending me who takes words and their meaning deadly seriously. Cause laws, transcripts, testimony, the constitution, all of it top to bottom is just words and definitions that has massive power over our lives. So I can’t just say “labels and terms don’t matter to me” because, like it or not, words are the metaprogramming language of every government, scientific, educational and legal body on earth. And if you don’t care about them, but your opponents do, you just walked off a critical battlefield and gave up huge ground without a fight.
Funnily enough, I’ve found mental comfort in doing the opposite.
I used to get annoyed daily at online communities stretching words to mean whatever people want them to mean in the moment. It’s been much better for my mental health to just leave those communities.
Semantic post-truth gaslighting. It’s a manipulation of words to steer thoughts away from resolving actions.
Fascist does fascist things, gets called a fascist, argues he can’t be a fascist because he doesn’t meet the criteria and he’s actually the victim and you’re abusing him. We don’t speak the same language - our up is their down.
Agreed.
This is why I hate the calls for civility.
So much of the change being demanded in our political system lowers people’s inalienable rights to liberty and basic happiness, and I can’t be civil about that.
I remember seeing one of those “civility” types who was really sanctimonious about it suddenly start posting about how trans people must be stopped, because they’re anathema to their religion and against their (Christian, white) values. So much for the civility, eh? Funny how it just takes one moment for the mask to come off; they want civility only for their views, not everyone’s.
A lot of anti-trans people struggle to define “woman”. Honestly, it seems like most of them struggle with anything beyond “boys have a penis, girls have a vagina” level of understanding.
And yet so many of those same people have expert-level understandings of the various nuances of terminology used to define the rape and sexual assault of minors. They even have a well-defined litmus test to determine which forms are acceptable versus which ones are unacceptable.
Terribly weird, if you ask me, which you probably aren’t but I’m saying it anyway.
Pulls out the laminated card with the Romeo and Juliette law printed on it “UM ACKSHUALLY”
When that happened in a Transformers movie I laughed out loud.
Conservative’s level of understanding gender and sexuality starts and stops with a campus preacher hitting two male ends of extension cords together and going “see, see, it doesn’t work!”
With Trump giving a blowjob to a man we’re back to “define woman”
Its why Im always disappointed to see anyone who isnt a maga doing mental gymnastics to pretend they were hoodwinked as opposed to simply being ok with tremendous levels of sacrifice if it means hurting marginalized people.
Their arguments are never honest. They know what they actually want, and are for the most part getting it.
I hate the accuracy of this more than I ever thought possible
Some people want to be inclusive in their language and define woman by gender, and that’s great! Some people like the historical sex-based definition, and that’s fine too. Biological sex is real, and wanting to acknowledge that doesn’t make someone right-wing.
No but it makes you a clown that’s really really really proud of their junior school biology knowledge. Yes, we all know biological sex is real, you’re not a fucking genius with hidden knowledge. So if you feel the need to constantly bring it up, it’s most likely in bad faith and to display your absolute ignorance of anything that requires more than 5th grade reading comprehension.
Sex =/= gender. Psychology and sociology and cultures that make arbitrary bullshit rules are not some “woke librul” plot to turn the frogs gay. The world is bigger than your white christian home town with a population of 200. You are not the “standard” or the “norm”, you’re just ignorant of the fact that other people who do things differently exist.
The same people that feel the need to go around lecturing other grown fucking adults about what they learnt in biology class when they were 8 years old, are the same people that are adamant that blue is for boys and pink is for girls and that everyone must wear a particular shape of clothing based on their genitals. That’s not biology, that’s fucking culture.
The funniest thing about all of this. Is that the people who want to mansplain basic biology to everyone are the most obsessed with gender by a long fucking shot. And the biggest fucking babies and nazis about it. Assigning themselves cute little labels like “alpha” and following clown fucking rules that make a ‘man’, all for the sake of their gender affirming care.
Then they have the god damn fucking nerve to go around lecturing people because they’re too fucking stupid to be any level of self aware, and they’re damn proud of that too.
Agree 100% sex =/= gender and blue/pink are culture, etc. What about where it matters, like sports? If women want sex-specific leagues, should we support them? Do you support the young women that don’t want to play against biologically male players such as AB Hernandez?
Hormone replacement therapy actually changes a lot more than breast size, including muscle mass and bone density.
But let’s be real here. You’re the kind of person that would also complain about a trans person in a chess or COD tournament. And who would accuse cis women of being men because they don’t look woman enough to you.
The funny thing about this conversation is that I wasn’t born yesterday. And what I’ve noticed is that the people who are most concerned about it, are anti-feminist men that hero worship pedos and probably have rape charges in their past, Harry Potter fans that never gave a shit about feminism before, and women like Riley Gaines that came in 5th place and blamed everything on a trans woman that was in the same race.
Not that it’s even as widespread as you seem to think it is. You’re just obsessed with trans people.
It seems you’d really like me to be somebody else, that you can rail against for other opinions. It feels good when you can properly hate someone with moral conviction.
But it’s not that easy. HRT is great for people that need it, but it can’t erase the effects of male puberty. In the case of AB Hernandez, do you think the women have a right to not play against biological males?
can’t erase the effects of male puberty
You say that and then jump straight to an example of a teenager in high school. Clown. This is why trans kids are given puberty blockers in more enlightened places. So that their teenage puberty doesn’t take hold before they’re old enough for bigger steps. But you probably want to end that too.
It seems you’d really like me to be somebody else, that you can rail against for other opinions. It feels good when you can properly hate someone with moral conviction.
I’m thinking that you’re exactly what I think you are.
I’m confused why you apparently doubt that puberty affects teenagers in high school, but that’s not really relevant in the end.
I mention AB Hernandez because it’s in the news, and the women involved are emphatically expressing that they don’t want to play against biological males. Pick another situation if you want, like Julie Peterson refusing to take the podium in protest after taking second place to someone that has the advantage of male puberty.
The general point is what I’m asking about. Do you agree that women have the right to not compete against biological males, when they’re saying very strongly that they do not want to?
I’m confused why you apparently doubt that puberty affects teenagers in high school
Can you read? If you could, you’d probably be less confused.
