tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post3341700968909398915..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Who is to sayVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61537485849346506192018-11-22T14:59:12.556-07:002018-11-22T14:59:12.556-07:00Hal,
Both (the use of words and human institutions...Hal,<br /><i>Both (the use of words and human institutions) are essentially normative practices. And both are arbitrary and determined by humans. </i> Yes, indeed. That's why to speak of the one true meaning of 'marriage' sounds rather silly. One shouldn't take 'ordained by God' too literally. Rather it means proven to work for the crooked timber of human nature over countless generations. So there is a sense here of an evolutionary adaptation, and so not at all arbitrary, and tinkered with at our peril.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-40388856710350176872018-11-22T04:31:50.938-07:002018-11-22T04:31:50.938-07:00Hello BM,
It seems to me that in discussions like ...Hello BM,<br />It seems to me that in discussions like this we reach the boundary of the domain of reason and cross over into the domain of feeling. Haidt's work offers us a way of thinking about that frontier. For example, I don't understand why some of Legion's examples provoke a moral response in progressive minds. I don't share their moral psychology, as it were. But suppose we see things in terms of Haidt's sanctity/degradation foundation. I understand what this is from my own personal makeup and responses. Suppose for the progressive mind the fight against inequality and racism is sacred. Anything that diminishes or besmirches this is a blasphemy and provokes the corresponding moral reaction. We can now see where the reaction is coming from, as it were, even though the reaction doesn't occur in us in the same circumstances. It's as if we all have the same repertoire of potential moral sentiments but we vary in to what external circumstances and to what degree they become attached. Which brings us back to Victor's original question: Who is to say?David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10334713501232572022018-11-22T04:30:48.027-07:002018-11-22T04:30:48.027-07:00Hello Hal,
...claiming that there was only one tru...Hello Hal,<br /><i>...claiming that there was only one true meaning to the word ‘marriage’</i>. If religious conservatives allowed the debate to be seen as a linguistic issue then I think they made a tactical error. What was at stake was the character of an institution that to religious eyes had been ‘ordained by God’ and to others had been proven down the generations. Of course, if the institution changes then its name takes on a somewhat different sense. But the fundamental issue is the nature of the institution. Likewise, if we reclassify a man who is uncomfortable in his skin as a woman we cloud the important biological division of the sexes; we introduce moral hazard into situations where for good reasons the sexes are traditionally segregated; and we break logical invariants that encode the meaning of terms---it’s no longer true that every woman was once a girl, for example. To the conservative mind the saving of some by no means universal hurt and pain does not trump these considerations.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69140238141789666042018-11-20T21:22:15.031-07:002018-11-20T21:22:15.031-07:00David,
Did you have anything particular in mind o...David,<br /><br />Did you have anything particular in mind of Haidt's work or thought that is relevant to this topic? Or was it just a general promotion of his work?bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18257705019924504362018-11-20T11:41:40.751-07:002018-11-20T11:41:40.751-07:00David,
Haidt is great; very smart and nuanced. He ...David,<br />Haidt is great; very smart and nuanced. He came to give a talk at UC Berkeley-Haas about the challenges of having a form of Capitalism that is good for society as a whole. I stayed after so I also got to talk to him a bit :) World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27915666173117031202018-11-20T09:50:21.131-07:002018-11-20T09:50:21.131-07:00Legion,
Quick inline response to mention that I th...Legion,<br />Quick inline response to mention that I think that was a great summary and how you're certainly not an idiot to engage in any conversation! Imho, better too much of that than not enough, in general, even if the quality matters too of course...World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18076558541120941772018-11-20T08:20:35.334-07:002018-11-20T08:20:35.334-07:00Hal,
As I mentioned earlier, that was what religi...Hal,<br /><br /><b>As I mentioned earlier, that was what religious conservatives were doing in the same sex marriage debate: claiming that there was only one true meaning to the word "marriage" and that they knew what it was.</b><br /><br />Yes, those conservatives were much like Alice in her meeting with Humpty Dumpty.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12501164462113468802018-11-20T08:06:25.669-07:002018-11-20T08:06:25.669-07:00David,
Hey, I must be a liberal because I am in *...David,<br /><br />Hey, I must be a liberal because I am in *awe* of Michelangelo's David.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-76384740729974332292018-11-20T05:01:37.389-07:002018-11-20T05:01:37.389-07:00Perhaps those on the conservative side of this dis...Perhaps those on the conservative side of this discussion could allow themselves to psychologise a little. Does everyone know of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory" rel="nofollow">work</a> of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt" rel="nofollow">Jonathan Haidt</a>? His lectures on YouTube are worth watching. Maybe start with <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOQduoLgRw" rel="nofollow">this TED talk</a>. The central chapter of his book <i>The Righteous Mind</i> is available <a href="https://www.righteousmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ch07.RighteousMind.final_.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59643850554077892972018-11-19T20:47:41.718-07:002018-11-19T20:47:41.718-07:00Legion,
As an aside.
Speaking for one of those p...Legion,<br /><br />As an aside.<br /><br />Speaking for one of those people around us, I don't see your comments as being "tone deaf and out of touch with the vast variety of people around us."<br /><br />I think you have demonstrated a very logical, methodical and emotion-free expression of your thought process. I think it is very important to put rationality before emotion so you do not fight for the wrong thing.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75375996135965459692018-11-19T20:45:29.732-07:002018-11-19T20:45:29.732-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28258846414000694212018-11-19T13:52:57.475-07:002018-11-19T13:52:57.475-07:00A common complaint from conservatives is that the ...A common complaint from conservatives is that the left is constantly and deliberately attempting to change language to decieve people into accepting leftist ideas. In other words <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak" rel="nofollow">"Doublespeak"</a><br /><br />Sort of Orwell's "doublethink" and "Newspeak" rolled into one.<br /><br />The article mentions Conflict Theory and Noam Chomsky's opinion that indoctriniation is "the essence of democracy"".<br /><br />It seems this is actually a tendency that comes from leftist traditions doesn't it?bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33284246600367844292018-11-19T09:20:46.160-07:002018-11-19T09:20:46.160-07:00When the official arbiters of language inform me I...When the official arbiters of language inform me I've got it wrong, or new science shows my understanding of biology is wrong, then I might be willing to call a male a woman. Until then...Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28756152635183146042018-11-19T06:02:27.007-07:002018-11-19T06:02:27.007-07:00You forgot the rest of the story.
“The question i...You forgot the rest of the story.<br /><br />“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all."bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45406001984310624012018-11-19T05:34:59.766-07:002018-11-19T05:34:59.766-07:00Does it mean we should talk about cancer when some...<i>Does it mean we should talk about cancer when someone wants to raise awareness about suicide? </i><br /><br />If someone says that suicide is the biggest problem that cancer patients face, then yes, cancer statistics instantly become relevant. Especially if I see movements springing up and media attention focused on suicide among cancer patients, and neither on the problem of cancer itself. Makes me think one is seen as politically useful and the other not, maybe.<br /><br />As I said before, I don't just say these things out of nowhere. I generally respond to things that I find rather egregious, and often don't respond at all to things I agree with. A discussion of police bias against blacks is hard to disagree with in of itself so there would be no point in trying to counter it, but fantastical hyperbole is irresistible, which probably lends credence to your statement that I may only be arguing with idiots in the first place haha. Could be I'm an idiot too for engaging them, hmm...<br /><br />But you could be right. If my reactions do vary from the "norm" then maybe not only am I talking intellectual gibberish at them from a political standpoint, but there may be an emotional disconnect too. Maybe that's why my participation in political discussions leads to so many fascinating destinations!<br /><br />Not sure what to do about it, but something to keep in mind I suppose.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23616779427204834552018-11-18T22:35:01.680-07:002018-11-18T22:35:01.680-07:00No, it's not about your opinion! It is a fact ...No, it's not about your opinion! It is a fact that black-on-black violence is a much bigger problem, yes, just like it is a fact that hearth diseases and cancer are by far the most common causes of death in the USA. Does it mean we should talk about cancer when someone wants to raise awareness about suicide? <br /><br />Because that's the problem here; nobody is saying that violence against Blacks by police is the greatest issue in the world right now, but it is serious enough to warrant attention. So raising other issues that have nothing to do with that can be seen as racist given that they point out some statistics that are worse among the Black community specifically. And again, that's why it isn't true that you would be called racist for mentioned theses statistics in any and all context.<br /><br /><b>The hearth of my thesis is that it's not that hard to not be called a bigot or a racist regardless of your opinion</b> but, the more I read you what you write here, especially given the Asperger's diagnosis or the eye contact comment, the more I understand that it might indeed be difficult for you... so I do empathize with that and I hope you can try to understand what I am trying to 'teach' you, for lack of a better word. I know it might sound condescending but I don't know how else to put it. Basically, unlike bmiller and SteveK (sorry, not sorry) I always see what you write, even when I disagree, as being smart and logical but sometimes tone deaf and out of touch with the vast variety of people around us. <br /><br />In other words, there must be a combination of you running into idiots from the extreme left and you not being able to adapt your arguments accordingly. But you are certainly not called a racist ONLY for not disagreeing every time. It's not that simple. Which does go full circle to that long paragraph at the beginning...World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32246593561911397202018-11-18T22:05:20.686-07:002018-11-18T22:05:20.686-07:00Difference in opinion, then. I see it as far, far ...Difference in opinion, then. I see it as far, far worse, and a problem that needs to be addressed much more urgently.<br /><br />Interestingly enough, to bring it full circle, I'm called racist for...not agreeing! The heart of my thesis.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29881651096409034282018-11-18T17:00:33.437-07:002018-11-18T17:00:33.437-07:00Legion,
"No matter how big a problem systemi...Legion,<br /><br />"<i>No matter how big a problem systemic racism in law enforcement is, it's a lake next to the ocean compared to the problem within the black community itself, yet the latter does not inspire anywhere close to the emotion. Why?</i>"<br /><b>Because it's not because they are Black that they get targeted by other Blacks!</b><br /><br />But it is just because they are Blacks that some of them are unfairly targeted by cops. And it's that racism which is, in part, the cause for a lot of the misery of the Black community that cause the horrors you just described. So that's why it is indeed almost always irrelevant to mention black-on-black crime statistics as something much worse than systemic racism that has existed for centuries and, even though it's much better now, still exists today.<br />World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61561839217885636752018-11-18T16:47:35.780-07:002018-11-18T16:47:35.780-07:00why on Earth would you need to mention black-on-bl...<i>why on Earth would you need to mention black-on-black crime statistics? When would that be relevant?</i><br /><br />This is an astounding line of questioning, as the outlandishly high amount of black-on-black crime is utterly devastating to blacks. Why would you NOT want to address it if black lives actually do matter?<br /><br />Blacks make up only around 12-13 percent of the population, yet they are half of the murder victims in the country. That is HUGE, particularly when over 90 percent of the murderers are also black. <br /><br />And this is from a USA Today article: <br /><br /><i>"In 2011, the last year for which the FBI has complete data, 1,668 blacks under the age of 22 were killed in this country. That's more than triple the 469 American servicemen and women killed in Afghanistan that year. An average of eight children was killed each day in 2011 -- and half of them were black -- according to the Children's Defense Fund.<br /><br />In 2008 and 2009, black children and teenagers were just 15% of the nation's population but 45% of young people killed by guns. If that doesn't cause a churning in your gut, maybe this will: The leading cause of death for black males ages 15-19 in those years came from the barrel of a gun. Blacks in this age group were eight times more likely than whites and two-and-a-half times more likely than Hispanics to be killed by gunfire, the Children's Defense Fund said in "Protect Children, Not Guns," a 2012 report on effects of gun violence on this nation's children.<br /><br />Even more shocking, the Washington-based children's advocacy group said, the number of black children killed by gunfire since 1979 is nearly 13 times more than the number of blacks who were lynched in this country between 1882 and 1968.<br />In Chicago alone, more than 270 children have been killed since 2007. And most of them were killed by other blacks, as are most of the nation's homicide victims."</i><br /><br />Movements (and riots) get started whenever a white police officer kills a black man who was attacking him, but thousands upon thousands of dead, including children, thousands of families destroyed, lead to accusations of racism if brought up in any context whatsoever? I call BS. No matter how big a problem systemic racism in law enforcement is, it's a lake next to the ocean compared to the problem within the black community itself, yet the latter does not inspire anywhere close to the emotion. Why?<br /><br />It's not racist at all to wonder which is truly the greater blight on black lives. Indeed, it seems much more likely that those who disagree are the racists, if anyone in the discussion is.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8959574711562234562018-11-18T16:16:52.737-07:002018-11-18T16:16:52.737-07:00Language does change. And it is a normative practi...<i>Language does change. And it is a normative practice. </i><br /><br />I didn't give them permission to change it for me, nor do I see any reason to agree to their usage. Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69943566659647585852018-11-18T15:42:14.391-07:002018-11-18T15:42:14.391-07:00bmiller said...
"Haha!
I don't think any...bmiller said...<br />"<i>Haha!<br /><br />I don't think anyone will misunderstand your last sentence. </i>"<br /><br />Exactly! See, it made you laugh, it was obviously just some meaningless expletive but you didn't get offended by it. Now, what I don't know is whether you'll understand why I said that. Either you're a smartass and you'll get it, or you're not that smart and you won't. What you wrote was "do the words mean something different when a non-tribal member uses them?" and I hope you know the answer yourself because that was the whole point of this really long thread. Words do change meaning over time, they do require context, but no, they shouldn't mean something completely different just because they come from someone else; it's the context, intentions, tone, everything else but the 'member of the tribe' that matters. There are lots of nuances and stating that they change meaning because a non-tribe member users them is just funny because it's so wrong, so it seems to me that you were purposely condescending in stating that, so I thought it was also funny to say 'oh come on, you're just being facetious now'. And the short funny version of that was to just tell you to fuck off. But I am not sure honestly; if that sounds like gibberish to you, then you might not be a smartass after all...<br /><br />Now, clarifications regarding the Blue Lives Matter comment as you didn't get it, and Legion didn't get it...<br />bmiller said: "<i> Other than you, who on this blog made this connection? </i>"<br />Legion of Logic said: "<i> I never mentioned "Blue Lives Matter", nor have I in any discussion I've ever had as far as I can recall. It's not a very compelling rhetorical point. </i>"<br />I know you guys did not say that; that is obviously not the point. Discourse really doesn't work well on blogs unless we spell out every single little detail... <b>The point of mentioning Blue Lives Matter is that this is an example of a ridiculously bad timed movement</b>, barely 1 year after Black Lives Matter was started and therefore just a few months after it went mainstream. It was the perfect ANALOGY to explain why mentioning black-on-black crime statistics is very likely to be seen as racist. The Blue Lives Matter movement, if looked at on its own, and just about the short description, looks very positive: An organization by cops, for cops and their supporters. Great! But then, why pick that name, that timing? There are lots of reasons, some are good, some are bad. The points will always remain though; it was horrible timing.<br /><br />Therefore, the same question applies: why on Earth would you need to mention black-on-black crime statistics? When would that be relevant? Are you guys involved in some black community outreach and are trying to address that problem? No? Well, got to repeat then:<br /><br />We know there's an ongoing conversation in America about how Blacks are unfairly treated by law enforcement. We also know that black-on-black crimes is high. Both are problems. However, <b>if someone is whining that they are being called racist in that ongoing context, isn't obvious that it's because they chose to focus on the black-on-black crime stats at the wrong time?</b> Again, to be fair, there will be idiots on the Left who would argue that what I just wrote is also inappropriate because I dared to just mention it. But we can find extreme elements in any large enough groups... So the real problem here is that there is both a history of racist police officers (not just Whites, even Blacks can be harsher on other Blacks, so that was not relevant to ask) and of Blacks thus being disproportionally targeted by the police. It doesn't make other issues bigger/smaller, but it can be seen as racist to point out, in that context, that black-on-black crime is high as if that should partially mask the ugly truth of law enforcement's excesses.<br />World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6264772023069280892018-11-17T22:56:33.586-07:002018-11-17T22:56:33.586-07:00Hal: 've been trying to find where the APA co...Hal: <i>'ve been trying to find where the APA conflates the two. You recognize that there is a difference between sex and gender. The APA is careful to distinguish the two also.<br />Can you quote something on the page I linked to above that makes you think the APA is conflating the two?</i><br /><br />On the one hand they do give accurate definitions of sex and gender, with the former being based on biology and the second based upon cultural factors, etc. But they also say this:<br /><br /><i>Gender identity refers to a person’s internal sense of being male, female or something else</i><br /><br />Elsewhere they said sex was the biological status of being male or female. Here they are saying that it is a "gender identity" - not a "sex identity" - that describes one's internal feelings of being male or female. That's not gender, that's sex. <br />That looks to me like conflation due to equating male and female with masculine and feminine.<br /><br />All through their article they use "gender" to describe being male or female, when it would be much more clear and conforming with past word usage to say male and female refer to biological sex, masculine and feminine refer to gender norms and other such contextually-based measures.<br /><br /><i>I don't think it is logically impossible for a person with male genitals to want to assume the female gender roles our culture assigns.</i><br /><br />Me neither. But someone assuming female gender roles does not make them a woman or make me feel like I should refer to them as such. Being a woman is simply a matter of biology, even if you're the most manly lumberjack Brienne of Tarth woman who ever lived.<br /><br /><i>Do you think there is left-wing bias in the APA's views on autism and Asperger's </i><br /><br />It's possible that it might become so, but I doubt it ever will. I have seen people calling for "neurodiversity", a movement mostly based on autism, calling for acceptance of the way we do things and trying to transition away from the current strategy of teaching autistic people to conform to the way society does things. So there is a push from outside psychology to consider autism a different way of thinking, rather than a disorder.<br /><br />But, left-wing politics seems to be concerned with power dynamics, oppressed vs oppressor, the suppression of rights, etc. I think it's a stretch to consider autistic people oppressed victims of human rights violations, so I would expect autism to remain strictly of clinical interest to psychology and not a matter of social progression. I guess if enough autistic people took up the call for "neurodiversity", it might catch on as a trendy pushing of societal norms, but I don't foresee it making inroads into academia.<br /><br />Then again, it's been a while since I looked into it since I don't care, so for all I know it may already have caught on.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9176363284908179532018-11-17T22:26:21.658-07:002018-11-17T22:26:21.658-07:00The black-on-black crime comment and how I see a p...<i>The black-on-black crime comment and how I see a parallel with the Blue Lives Matter movement, for instance, is the worst imho.<</i><br /><br />I never mentioned "Blue Lives Matter", nor have I in any discussion I've ever had as far as I can recall. It's not a very compelling rhetorical point.<br /><br />Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48507947129287914912018-11-17T21:53:10.679-07:002018-11-17T21:53:10.679-07:00Haha!
I don't think anyone will misunderstand...Haha!<br /><br />I don't think anyone will misunderstand your last sentence. <br /><br />But I have to say that if the people you hang around with don't know that <a href="https://grammarist.com/usage/negative-prefixes/" rel="nofollow"> 'in' an 'un' attached to the beginning of a word means 'not'</a> we are definitely not speaking the same language and perhaps are not of the same tribe. Either that or we are not educated.<br /><br /><b>The black-on-black crime comment and how I see a parallel with the Blue Lives Matter movement, for instance, is the worst imho.</b><br /><br />Other than you, who on this blog made this connection?bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68776745746891685102018-11-17T20:35:36.704-07:002018-11-17T20:35:36.704-07:00bmiller,
I was curious actually, so I asked aroun...bmiller, <br />I was curious actually, so I asked around 3 people yesterday, without any context. I said: do you think that any action which is said to be 'unjust' is necessarily an 'injustice'?<br /><br />All 3 kind of hesitated, saying that, well, technically it is accurate because that's what the word means, but in general we don't really talk about an 'injustice' if someone serves more wine to 1 person, for example, even if that was not 'just'. Not a huge sample obviously, but even after insisting 'but don't you see how that's what the word injustice means?' just to force the opposite opinion out of them, it didn't work.<br /><br />So that's really all I meant. In general, <b>I think the word 'injustice' is loaded and isn't the same as any unfair action.</b> If someone makes an unjust comment, as in 'that comment wasn't deserved', I don't think the situation deserves the label 'injustice'. And as one of my friends mentioned, and I had mentioned that above too if you scroll up, the minute there are consequences, then it may well become an injustice. Someone being fired from a job for making a comment that was wrongfully labeled as sexist is an injustice.<br /><br />It's just semantics and I get why it caused confusion, especially in the context of a blog where we can't clarify right away. As Legion explained, he didn't mean that there was some grand injustice going on when expressing the long list of things I saw as 'whining'. And it's also true that there are problems with elements on the Left who are over-sensitive about certain words or sentences. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area so, trust me, there are quite a lot of excessive leftists around... <br /><br />Anyway, I think we clarified what Legion meant and <b>I am pretty sure that, in person, most of us could have interesting discussions on all the topics he mentioned.</b> I also think that he ran into some excessive folks who mistook his comments to mean more than they do. I am not going to lie though; the ongoing context around some of the comments make them look really bad, even after the explanations. The black-on-black crime comment and how I see a parallel with the Blue Lives Matter movement, for instance, is the worst imho. But <b>intentions matter, and I don't think anyone here has demonstrated that they were racist or transphobic.</b> There is a genuine intent to find common grounds and discuss disagreements and the reasons behind them.<br /><br />Finally, regarding this:<br />"do the words mean something different when a non-tribal member uses them?"<br />Fuck off.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.com