Moderation Questions

Unlike flying and other tech stuff, we did have societies and sexes and sexual preferences and we did use language to refer to those, so there is nothing shortsighted in my view.

If gender identity exists in humans in the sense gender theory activists believe it does, it always existed in all **** sapiens.

Which btw is why some "gender studies" "experts" make up narratives about how some obscure human groups centuries ago purportedly had words to describe gender identities ("2 spirits" in american natives and other such made up identities).

So my claim is that purportedly, this core element of human identity always existed, yet the vast majority of human groups for the vast majority of human history didn't use pronouns based on it (and still don't today, in the present). It took "experts" in "gender studies" with marxist theorists to make up that, against the consolidated wisdom of every other human being that ever lived basically.

The probability that marxists for the first time in human history are right about something, and everyone else who ever lived was wrong, is basically 0. That btw is true for any marxist claim, and any claim in general by any "theorist" about social nature: if you can't find a foundation of your claims about social nature in ancient literature and cultures (or at least in shakespear ffs), you are inventing stuff that doesn't exist and never existed.

For the last decade, a “tweet” has been a method of electronic communication between a moron president and his cult of followers. For the vast majority of human history it was a sound a bird made. I guess you can live and learn to adapt or go elsewhere.

It’s not that difficult.

That would be an answer about the definition of what a woman is, which as for every word, can change in time and it's a different topic. What's marxist about the issue of the definition of woman is the attempt to violently force a change in semantics (through legislation), instead of accepting what society organically does (lke for what a tweet is, or what "googling" means: we didn't mandate the meaning through state violence).

That's not unique of marxism though. Culturally dominant systems try to enforce the meaning of words at least since the establishment of organized religion (from which marxism coopted most of it's most nefarious practices).

I am talking about the use of pronouns when talking about someone who isn't even there, based on the self-identification of the person being discussed and not based on EXTERNAL elements that are objective.

That's unique of current radical leftism, and it has nothing to do with semantic drifts/shifts

Other than the utterly, horrific, immoral requirement of pronoun usage, have you provided any proof that gender theory is false? Because all I have ever read from you is that you don’t believe in it.

No one cares to read repetitive posts that you think it is Marxist and it is an affront to your fragile belief system.

Lol i don't have to "provide proof that gender theory is false", given it's a non-provable theory based on unprovable assumptions. It starts with "the soul" (gender identity) exists in the way they define it (arbitrarily) and moves from there.

Gender theory is based upon the belief that subjective self identification is truth about reality, and that cannot be proved (or disproved).

So being banned from talking with others and kicked away from somewhere isn't violence now, ok.

Mind, in a private place like this you have a right to use violence in my model of the world. But the violence reference was about society at large, where that right does not exist (for me).

Imagine thinking getting a temp ban for being a bigot is "violence" lol.

We don't kick fascists enough these days, whole world has gone soft.

Correct, this is an online forum. That would be a bastardization the word violence to claim that it can occur here.

I don't understand this thing where people assign a highly idiosyncratic definition to X and then try and debate whether Y is an example of X based on that highly idiosyncratic definition.

For example, if we define treason to include temp-banning people on politics forums, then we can all agree that the mods on the Politics subforum on 2+2 occasionally engage in treason. But what is the point of this sort of semantic exercise?

It's a zero-effort troll designed to lure you into a pointless semantic debate.

The onus is on the gender proponents.

Are Japanese females more similar to American females or Japanese males?

Not all violence is physical. There is verbal violence. There is passive aggressive violence. You can violently insult someone. You can violently take aware their right to post

Unless you’re arguing that they are consenting to have their right to post taken away?

A disenfranchised Dem referred to the Dems as Marxist recently and I was like "Wow, I thought only the Nazis thought that!"

Turns out he had been on a particularly toxic Right Wing deep dive. "Oh, I was right"

Gender theory makes the social domain more chaotic while at the same time distracting from individuation. In other words, gender theory is branded as “progressive” but is actually morally regressive.

Moral progress is not dependent on some imagined perfect social system. Moral progress depends on being unsatisfied with the social reality and individuating.

its a pretty good troll to piss off both the Dems and the Marxists.

Good, that should conclude your need to comment any further on it. Your position is stated in the record. Your argument starts and stops with it not existing.

There is no reason to risk being banned.

Luciom, while I disagree with a lot of your positions, I personally think you are a net positive around here. I would hate to see you get banned over this nonsense. Just give it a rest.

There is if you're determined to make every thread you post in all about yourself.

Well here I am discussing rules I really hope I don't risk a ban for doing that in the appropriate thread.

Gangstaman gave you the answer. The mod team is acting with one accord regarding this issue. Please stop now. Thank you.

Dems aren't Marxist on all axis.

As described at length, the current iteration of Marxism is about cultural issues where they truly touch mao genocidal horror (in their thinking process) while leaving material (IE economic) issues largely untouched to the dismay of actual 1.0 material Marxists like jalfrezi and others.

Btw Tucker Carlson and JD Vance (and people like them) have a touch of Marxism as well in their talking and thinking, it's not exclusive of the democrats.

The rightwing justification for tariffs is classi material Marxism 101 which is why Sanders said the same things for decades.

It's self-evidently false in claiming that a novel social and psychological belief system, devised and propagated by American academia, has biological warrant, which it doesn't.

When it comes to the idea of “misgendering” someone by using bio-sex-gender pronouns, you are biased on this issue one way or the other. There is no neutrality.

The fact that the mods, who are clearly biased toward the woke religion, are still willing to allow pushback against the claims of trans activists, shows at some level an awareness that their bias is based on shallow sentiments. This should be encouraging rather than completely demoralizing.