Quietly Thinking Aloud

appropriately-inappropriate:

alexandraerin:

appropriately-inappropriate:

alexandraerin:

Hey, alexandraerin, address me. Respond to me.
Don’t bring up Cathy Brennan like she’s some bugaboo monster, in a thread where she’s not been mentioned.

I get that you have a hate-on for her (quelle surprise!), but she doesn’t factor in this conversation, and I’ll kindly thank you not to try to go off-topic. If you don’t have anything to contribute, stay quiet.

I was responding to Kinsey, thank you very much. If I were to address someone further up thread directly, it wouldn’t actually be you as you’re the one who “in all fairness” pointed out that the thing you’re all hate-loling about Kinsey saying isn’t something that Kinsey actually said. 

Though I think you’re being a little too… soft… in your correction there. The people above you are basically arguing that because those words appeared on Kinsey’s blog, that’s somehow typical of her and “nasty”. But the same words now appear on all our blogs… yours, mine, everybody who has reblogged to comment on them.

Talk about hypocritical. Talk about not caring about the truth, as long as it suits one’s preconceived dogma.

Now that’s why I emphasized “directly” in the first paragraph. My invocation of an unrelated person (Ms. Brennan, in this case) with words that appeared on her blog but didn’t actually represent something she said (a title of a post where the title is a question written from the point of view of a hypothetical/generalized trans* woman) is a parallel to the original post above.

You see?

Cathy Brennan I regard as fair game not because I have a “hate-on” for her but because she publicly encourages this kind of nonsense and regularly indulges in it herself. That, and she actively lobbies against my existence.

Actively lobbying against someone’s existence > a snide joke here or there.

In case you were wondering.

But anyway, you folks are all about how objective and reasonable and rational you are and how crazy and violent and desperate we are, and how we take things out of context. So let’s have a little more reasonableness from you. Let’s hear you say in no uncertain terms what you think of the disgusting manipulation of someone’s words that started out this thread. Let’s hear whether you think the person above owes Kinsey an apology for making it appear that she said something that she reblogged to respond to, as you have reblogged to respond with me.

Your page says you want to deal brutally with hypocrisy. So deal brutally with the hypocrite who started this thread.

Since, you know, you wanted to converse with me.

Oh, you’re right. I do want to converse with you. And you give me so much material to work with.

For example:

I was responding to Kinsey

About me. So let’s not play coy; if you want to talk to me, or about me, don’t act all surprised when I answer. And certainly don’t act offended when I catch you trying to tangent off on the thread by mentioning something else entirely.

you as you’re the one who “in all fairness” pointed out that the thing you’re all hate-loling about Kinsey saying isn’t something that Kinsey actually said.

I’m also the OP, you know. I found the original link on GB’s page and posted it. Subsequently, I linked to the actual author, with the addendum that GB agrees with the statement.

The people above you are basically arguing that because those words appeared on Kinsey’s blog, that’s somehow typical of her and “nasty”

And I stand by that statement. GB has a history of ‘nastiness’ (including that ptsdreamy reference, which is a throwback to the fact that she and a few friends of hers tried to trigger a PTSD survivor (myself) into a disassociative state). But even without that context, the fact that she’s more concerned about the terminology than the fact that women’s health centres are under constant attack from political forces that would see them eradicated, is pretty damn nasty to me.

And it is typical of her.

My invocation of an unrelated person (Ms. Brennan, in this case) with words that appeared on her blog but didn’t actually represent something she said (a title of a post where the title is a question written from the point of view of a hypothetical/generalized trans* woman) is a parallel to the original post above.

So basically that sentence distills down to: Cathy Brennan says things I disagree with so I’ll make an example by bringing her up in a completely unrelated conversation to score rhetorical points because neener neener that’s why.
Like I said: talk about the issues, namely the fact that gb couldn’t care less about the majority of women who access those health centres she’s so against.

Let’s hear you say in no uncertain terms what you think of the disgusting manipulation of someone’s words that started out this thread.

If there was manipulation, I’d be against it. However, I didn’t manipulate a single thing, and in fact later clarified the point in question in order to give “credit” where it’s due.
I’ve never said that gb said the words, only that she supports and endorses them.

Let’s hear whether you think the person above owes Kinsey an apology for making it appear that she said something that she reblogged to respond to

If I’m in the wrong, I apologize. Since I’m not wrong, I owe gb nothing at all. Nihurog (I know I spelled that wrong) said it, GB endorsed it, and when asked, I clarified with alacrity. That doesn’t erase the fact that genderbitch would throw 99.99% of (poor, woc) women under the bus for the sake of the 0.01% of trans men who access the service.

Maybe you’d like to address that.

I’m going to hit the high notes here.

I’ve never said that gb said the words, only that she supports and endorses them.

But that’s not true… she didn’t endorse the words. You’re lying, and you’re lying in that really bald-faced way that radical feminists seem to do where anybody can just go back to the original post in question to see the truth.

What you are saying is exactly the opposite of observable reality. She reblogged him to disagree with him. Her post disagrees with the words you quoted “from her page”. Calling the fact that she reblogged it to respond to it “agreement”… well, you reblogged my response, does that mean you agree with it? Obviously not.

So basically that sentence distills down to: Cathy Brennan says things I disagree with so I’ll make an example by bringing her up in a completely unrelated conversation to score rhetorical points because neener neener that’s why.

Is “neener neener neener” why you did this to Kinsey? Because again, my purpose was to draw a parallel to help you understand why accusing Kinsey of supporting a position because it appeared on her page as part of a rebuttal to it was ridiculous… not to score rhetorical points.

Although yes, I confess to having realized you were the original poster. Again, making a point. Increasingly unsurprised that you’re not getting it.

If I’m in the wrong, I apologize. 

Okay.

Well, there are two possibilities here. Either reblogging something to disagree with it is endorsing it, in which case you’re not wrong but we both somehow completely agree with each other on everything we’ve said here and that’s really weird… or you are wrong, and you owe somebody an apology.

(And in case anybody thinks that it’s ambiguous whether Kinsey was agreeing or not, I’ll just remind everyone what appropriately-inappropriate is calling Kinsey’s “endorsement”. Here’s the exact quote:

I wish fuckers who don’t know shit about what’s being talked about would shut the fuck up until they do. Maybe even past then. As penance for even wanting to talk about shit they’re ignorant as fuck about.

That’s what’s being called an “endorsement”.

Calling the speaker a f***er who doesn’t know s**t about the topic, wishing they would shut up and learn something, and wishing they would stay quiet even after they’ve learned something.

This constitutes endorsement, when it’s coming from a trans* woman and is directed at an MRA. 

How?

Why?

How?

How does that work?

The radfem desire to bend everything they observe into a shape that fits their preconceived notions of INTERNET TRANS PEOPLE ARE AWFUL HUMAN BEINGS WHO ARE VIOLENTLY IN FAVOR OF ALL THE BAD THINGS is getting more and more ridiculous by the day.)

Ugh, why is it one in the morning and I’m still replying to this nonsense.
Must be masochism.

she didn’t endorse the words.

Really? Insofar as I interpreted it, she reblogged the statement and the subsequent vitriol you mention was responding to another individual who had called the original poster out for being a tool.

You’re lying, and you’re lying in that really bald-faced way that radical feminists seem to do where anybody can just go back to the original post in question to see the truth.

First of all, not a radfem! As I keep repeating, and you lot keep ignoring. (You’d think for a group so focused on self-identification and the respect of your identity, you’d respect that of others! But then again…)

I encourage everyone to go back and read the original context. I link sources for just that reason! So, by all means, check and see.

Is “neener neener neener” why you did this to Kinsey?

Why I did this to Kinsey?
Did what, precisely? Disagree with her?

God, you make it sound like I had her taken out to a wall, given a last cigarette and summarily executed by firing squad. And somehow, I’m the one given to hyperbole.

my purpose was to draw a parallel to help you understand why accusing Kinsey of supporting a position because it appeared on her page as part of a rebuttal to it was ridiculous

Uhuh. And I still maintain that her response of “fuckers yadda yadda etc inchoate capslock rage” was to a separate poster. But who knows! I may be wrong. It is possible. Then again, I’ve linked sources, you’ve quote-mined, so….

I confess to having realized you were the original poster. Again, making a point. Increasingly unsurprised that you’re not getting it.

Oh, were you being sarcastic, then? I didn’t know I was supposed to parse snideness through text—I’m a straight forward person not given to mindgames, so I guess I didn’t catch that! I’ll try harder in the future to tell when you’re being condescendingly sarcastic.

The radfem desire to bend everything they observe into a shape that fits their preconceived notions of INTERNET TRANS PEOPLE ARE AWFUL HUMAN BEINGS WHO ARE VIOLENTLY IN FAVOR OF ALL THE BAD THINGS is getting more and more ridiculous by the day.)

Wow, I guess, to use your own words—you’re acting out some drama in your head. But at least in your fictitious universe, I get to be a bender, so it’s not all bad!

Let me start by addressing one very important thing: no matter what your friends tell you, there is no “trans* hive mind”. That means that when you tell one of “us people” something, it does not travel through all of our minds at the speed of light. I apologize if that means that you sometimes have to tell each of us something individually, but that’s a consequence of talking to other human beings as if they were human beings.

Now, I apologize for the implication that you were a radical feminist, but here’s the thing: I’d still characterize the way you ignore reality and throw up bald-faced lies when the truth is plain for everyone to see as “the way that radical feminists do”. You’re picking up their habits through association, or you’re associating because you share similar habits, some combination thereof. Still, I’ll be more careful with how I describe this phenomenon, with regards to you.

Again, the high notes:

Why I did this to Kinsey? 
Did what, precisely? Disagree with her? 

God, you make it sound like I had her taken out to a wall, given a last cigarette and summarily executed by firing squad. And somehow, I’m the one given to hyperbole.

Uh, yes. Since you’re the one who’s bringing up summary execution, then yes, you are in fact the one given to hyperbole. Although I don’t think I’ve said that about you. But since you’re bringing up whether or not you’re given to hyperbole out of the blue like this, I guess it must be weighing on your mind. Rest assured: yes, yes you are.

Let me give you a little background on the word “this” as a part of speech. It’s a pronoun. Did you know that? It can also be an adjective (“as in this example”, where it answers the question “Which example?”), but in sentences where it stands in for another concept that has been referred to previously, it is a pronoun. That concept is the “antecedent”, because traditionally it precedes the pronoun.

All of this (“this” here standing in for that paragraph above) is to say that “this” in “do this to Kinsey” is “the thing we are discussing”, the thing I had previously described and which I had just finished describing with regards to Cathy Brennan.

There was no intimation of degree (much less extreme degree) to the word. It was simply a linguistic placeholder. I’m sorry that your tendency to run to hyperbole misled you into believing that I meant “THIS HORRIBLE THING” or “THIS UNTHINKABLE THING”, but “this” was literally just a placeholder for “attributing words that appeared on her blog out of context”, which is… not a great thing to do, honestly, not an A-1 champion stand up thing to do, but… yeah, let’s not act like I accused you of poisoning anyone’s puppy, okay? 

To put it shortly: when someone says “this” as a pronoun, they usually just mean “the thing we’ve been talking about” or “the situation that is at hand”. 

I hope this helps you to avoid future confusion.

Now, I’m not sure why you’re drawing such an extreme distinction between linking to sources and “quote-mining” when we’re both discussing the same source as part of a continuous thread. The links are there for anyone to click on. Do we need to repeat them every time that we refer to them? Sounds redundant to me. 

But since you want links to sources, here’s one you could find easily yourself just by clicking a link higher up this thread. It is the post of Kinsey’s I was responding to, to begin with… so I know you’ve seen it though I can charitably believe that you did not read it.

Here it is.

Can you still defend the idea that she was reblogging to agree with? I could see you making the argument that the “piece of sh*t MRA” being referred to was someone else, some third party that the offending words you say she endorsed was a rebuttal to, but it’s hard to imagine how the quote in question would rebut an MRA… and then there’s the inconvenient fact that Kinsey is saying she reblogged this “POS MRA”, which means that yes, the quote you said she endorsed is the thing she was giving a scathing rebuke to.

So…

Yes.

You’re in the wrong here.

But I would appreciate it if you would do more than just realize that you’re in the wrong. I would like you to think about how you came to be so wrong, how you came to misread the original context on Kinsey’s page so completely, how you managed to overlook her confirmation of the actual context, how you came to sit here and argue with me when the mistake is pointed out…

Basically, we’re dealing with a massive amount of cognitive bias on your part. I hope you can see past it, not just because it will make you less likely to sling nasty barbs at people who don’t deserve it but because it’ll honestly be helpful for you. Even if you don’t ultimately agree with me about anything, even if you continue to uphold anti-trans* discourse… well, you’ll be better at it. For what it’s worth.