Serious PC thread

[Moxie]

PS: I will answer the rest tomorrow.

 

[mrzz]

OK, so now you have put it in a format that requires me to do a lot of work, and I don't have the time or energy, now. I will say that I think you miss the point to say that I'm saying that Ramos is sexist or racist, more than the point is that the system is. I've told you I'm not trying to make it about Carlos Ramos. I'm exhausted from work and I'm not sure I can do this justice. And I'm not sure I want to spend the effort, tbh. I've argued these things with you guys before. You say that you recognize that there is racism and sexism in the world, but you don't approach it with empathy. You come at me with the aggression that I and my ilk present it with some sort of moral superiority. That is your interpretation. All I've asked for was some kind of empathy for a player who has been more than often aggrieved. I offer a rose. Don't ascribe to me aggression that I don't present, please.

If somehow you thought I was being aggressive towards you, than I am sorry. And have two roses back:

As I said other times, we disagree, sometimes you end up being the herald of viewpoints which I believe are held by people which I question the honesty -- or the brains -- but we have chatted long enough for me to know that you are beyond that, just the same pass you give me in opposite situations.

I know you are there trying to be fair to anyone, and to let an attention catching incident like that to pass by is hard, specially since you know that you are fighting for a just cause. But from your answer I can see -- as I already new -- that you don't want to be unfair to Ramos too. All I am saying is that, given how things unfolded, it is impossible to use this case to denounce prejudice and at the same time be fair to him. He is the scapegoat, scapegoats get no justice.

I will also happily concede that to use just one incident to judge one person is unfair, in all my posts you have not read a single judgement of Serena Williams -- I may judge her actions on this particular incident, but won't draw any conclusions about her overall character, simply because it is not my point, and also as I do not know her or her history well enough for it. Part of my point, also as we discussed before, is: if you want to fight prejudice, please find a stark, undeniable example. If the idea is to attack the root cause, the systemic problem, the broader view, well, we should pick a case clear enough so that we won't be here discussing the details of the particular example -- as we are. I keep remembering some USOPEN's ago when James Blake was beaten by the police -- and basically nobody said nothing, not even a public word of sympathy from his fellow players. Hell, isn't he worth the effort?

I know that these things, the debates and all, consume energy that we sometime don't have -- I can hardly understand how the hell I got so annoyed by this. But, don't worry, I'll leave my bad mood for others...

Hope you have a good rest.

 

[Moxie]

I appreciate all of your generosity of spirit in this debate, Mrzz. I have never made it about Carlos Ramos, and I think that's one point where even saying he's a scapegoat is missing the point, but if that's what you were debating, I get it, and perhaps why we were missing each other. Another is if you think that there wasn't quite a lot of outrage over the James Blake incident, you are wrong. In the tennis community, and on the forums. In fact, the New York Police Department apologized to Blake.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/09/10/us/tennis-james-blake-tackled-by-nypd/index.html

 

[Horsa]

A bit. But generally I feel better when I slap myself in the face while playing -- some people in my club think I should be sent to the funny farm -- so that is not necessarily a good thing.

I'm glad you feel better after your rant. I feel better after ranting sometimes too normally in rhyme, song or official letters of complaint (which get listened to, seen into & apologised for especially when you type them properly like I do). Answer to your 2nd sentence "Yeah, I'll believe you thousands wouldn't." You should be a comedian. You're making me laugh.

 

[Moxie]

If somehow you thought I was being aggressive towards you, than I am sorry. And have two roses back:

As I said other times, we disagree, sometimes you end up being the herald of viewpoints which I believe are held by people which I question the honesty -- or the brains -- but we have chatted long enough for me to know that you are beyond that, just the same pass you give me in opposite situations.

I know you are there trying to be fair to anyone, and to let an attention catching incident like that to pass by is hard, specially since you know that you are fighting for a just cause. But from your answer I can see -- as I already new -- that you don't want to be unfair to Ramos too. All I am saying is that, given how things unfolded, it is impossible to use this case to denounce prejudice and at the same time be fair to him. He is the scapegoat, scapegoats get no justice.

I will also happily concede that to use just one incident to judge one person is unfair, in all my posts you have not read a single judgement of Serena Williams -- I may judge her actions on this particular incident, but won't draw any conclusions about her overall character, simply because it is not my point, and also as I do not know her or her history well enough for it. Part of my point, also as we discussed before, is: if you want to fight prejudice, please find a stark, undeniable example. If the idea is to attack the root cause, the systemic problem, the broader view, well, we should pick a case clear enough so that we won't be here discussing the details of the particular example -- as we are. I keep remembering some USOPEN's ago when James Blake was beaten by the police -- and basically nobody said nothing, not even a public word of sympathy from his fellow players. Hell, isn't he worth the effort?

I know that these things, the debates and all, consume energy that we sometime don't have -- I can hardly understand how the hell I got so annoyed by this. But, don't worry, I'll leave my bad mood for others...

Hope you have a good rest.

I promised to respond to other of your points. I will say that I think that Ramos isn't really that much of a factor in the important parts of the discussion, and there's no need to defend him so much. I wish he'd have taken the moment on board and chosen to de-escalate rather than escalate, but I otherwise don't fault his umpiring, and he is one of my favorites. But I really don't think this conversation is about the umpire.

As to your point about Serena calling him a "thief," which seems to have you outraged, the rule is that the player cannot impugn the integrity of the judge. There is no fine point for how they do it. Federer did that not only in the 2009 USO, when he said, "do you have any rules?" but more recently in the AO, v. Chueng, when he told the very same Carlos Ramos that he'd made a "bullshit call." I don't think he got sanctioned for either. Not the same words, but same impugning of the chair's authority, per the rules.

I'm not sure what you mean about my version having some "moral superiority." It's merely my opinion. I absolutely think that Serena should have dialed it back. That she knew the knife-edge she was riding on, and she went there, anyway. I also understand her history at the USO, (and at IW, and RG,) and I can empathize with her outrage. Surely, she deserves more than a little of it. All I've asked you for is empathy in terms of the intricacies. I've think you've done a fair job. More than others, who are completely doctrinaire when it comes to these things. Thanks for listening, @mrzz.

 

[Federberg]

I listened to a debate yesterday about whether it was time to stop using pronouns "he" and "she", and that instead we should use "they" I swear to all that's holy... stuff like this just drives me crazy. I try to be understanding of this brave new world we're entering, where we have to be understanding of the need for some people to transition, but am I wrong in feeling that there needs to be a limit? The way I see it, a man is a man. A woman is a woman. If someone transitions from one of those genders, they do not become the other. I'm perfectly happy to consider a tri-polar world with men, women and transgender, but please don't tell me that someone who was born with a penis can suddenly define themselves as a woman and I'm supposed to treat them that way in all regards. It's not happening, no! Never ever ever...

 

[Federberg]

I feel like I'm having an Alf Garnett week. Non-Brits won't understand the reference, but my guess is that Archie Bunker might be the American equivalent. BB would probably be able to confirm. But I watched the clip below just now and I was infuriated. This so called Squad needs to stop resorting to victimhood. While I recognise that they are probably assailed by a level of hostility that few could imagine (death threats are probably an hourly occurrence for them) but they lost me the moment they claimed that Pelosi's dismissal of their influence had racial undertones. Does that mean that if anyone disagrees with them they're automatically racist or misogynist? Give me a freaking break! Progressives have to stop this habit of resorting to identity politics. It's not constructive and I think it's one thing that might hold some voters back in 2020...

 

[Moxie]

I listened to a debate yesterday about whether it was time to stop using pronouns "he" and "she", and that instead we should use "they" I swear to all that's holy... stuff like this just drives me crazy. I try to be understanding of this brave new world we're entering, where we have to be understanding of the need for some people to transition, but am I wrong in feeling that there needs to be a limit? The way I see it, a man is a man. A woman is a woman. If someone transitions from one of those genders, they do not become the other. I'm perfectly happy to consider a tri-polar world with men, women and transgender, but please don't tell me that someone who was born with a penis can suddenly define themselves as a woman and I'm supposed to treat them that way in all regards. It's not happening, no! Never ever ever...

I'd be astonished if anyone seriously considers eliminating gender-specific pronouns. They are useful, and most of us are specifically binary. Even a lot of trans people prefer the pronoun that conforms to their perceived gender. But there are people who consider themselves "gender-fluid" and prefer the pronouns "they/them." It's on you if you don't want to honor that. Having said that, I'll give you a personal anecdote from a friend, lest you think I bend over to super-PC all the time. A woman I know, highly placed in government in a big city in the Eastern US, and an out-lesbian told me this story. She was taking a meeting with 2 trans people who wanted to move their business to her city, which she was very open to, and in a position to facilitate. Calling them into her office, she said, "Come on in, gals." They stopped, affronted, and said, "We prefer non-gender terms." I report this from her POV, which was, *heavy sigh* Really? When faced with a person who is clearly an ally, clearly an LGBT+ person, do you have to start right in with being aggressive about how you must be addressed? To me, it's this kind of hard-nosed approach that gives politically inclusive language a bad name. So much easier to sit down, have a conversation and say...oh, by the way....

 

[Moxie]

To me, @Federberg, I find it more important that Nancy Pelosi can't say that what Trump said is "racist" on the House floor, because that constitutes a personal attack. That to me is a rule that needs to be changed. One thing that racists have always traded in, in this country, is acting in racist ways, saying racist things, and then saying..."That's not what I meant. You're attacking me personally." I'm sorry about the internal squabbling among the Dems, but I still think we have to focus on what is important within all of this. And also not let Trump control the narrative and the squabbling.

 

[Federberg]

To me, @Federberg, I find it more important that Nancy Pelosi can't say that what Trump said is "racist" on the House floor, because that constitutes a personal attack. That to me is a rule that needs to be changed. One thing that racists have always traded in, in this country, is acting in racist ways, saying racist things, and then saying..."That's not what I meant. You're attacking me personally." I'm sorry about the internal squabbling among the Dems, but I still think we have to focus on what is important within all of this. And also not let Trump control the narrative and the squabbling.

I wish you would tell them that! It's extraordinary to see this internal squabbling. It's like these people are allergic to winning or something!

By the way, I have never felt more certain than I do now, that the media and to a lesser extent the Dems will continue to steer the narrative wherever Trump wants it to go

 

[Federberg]

I'd be astonished if anyone seriously considers eliminating gender-specific pronouns. They are useful, and most of us are specifically binary. Even a lot of trans people prefer the pronoun that conforms to their perceived gender. But there are people who consider themselves "gender-fluid" and prefer the pronouns "they/them." It's on you if you don't want to honor that. Having said that, I'll give you a personal anecdote from a friend, lest you think I bend over to super-PC all the time. A woman I know, highly placed in government in a big city in the Eastern US, and an out-lesbian told me this story. She was taking a meeting with 2 trans people who wanted to move their business to her city, which she was very open to, and in a position to facilitate. Calling them into her office, she said, "Come on in, gals." They stopped, affronted, and said, "We prefer non-gender terms." I report this from her POV, which was, *heavy sigh* Really? When faced with a person who is clearly an ally, clearly an LGBT+ person, do you have to start right in with being aggressive about how you must be addressed? To me, it's this kind of hard-nosed approach that gives politically inclusive language a bad name. So much easier to sit down, have a conversation and say...oh, by the way....

Interesting! Let me be clear... I'm happy to call a trans person whatever gender fluid descriptive they want, as long as someone born with a penis doesn't expect me to call them a woman, or someone born with a vagina doesn't expect me to call them a man. That's not happening. Things are so out of control that people have allowed some of these trans folk to fight in MMA with predictable consequences.

 

[Moxie]

Interesting! Let me be clear... I'm happy to call a trans person whatever gender fluid descriptive they want, as long as someone born with a penis doesn't expect me to call them a woman, or someone born with a vagina doesn't expect me to call them a man. That's not happening. Things are so out of control that people have allowed some of these trans folk to fight in MMA with predictable consequences.

So if a person transitioned to female and presented as female, you would use the pronoun "she?"

 

[britbox]

I'd be astonished if anyone seriously considers eliminating gender-specific pronouns. They are useful, and most of us are specifically binary. Even a lot of trans people prefer the pronoun that conforms to their perceived gender. But there are people who consider themselves "gender-fluid" and prefer the pronouns "they/them." It's on you if you don't want to honor that. Having said that, I'll give you a personal anecdote from a friend, lest you think I bend over to super-PC all the time. A woman I know, highly placed in government in a big city in the Eastern US, and an out-lesbian told me this story. She was taking a meeting with 2 trans people who wanted to move their business to her city, which she was very open to, and in a position to facilitate. Calling them into her office, she said, "Come on in, gals." They stopped, affronted, and said, "We prefer non-gender terms." I report this from her POV, which was, *heavy sigh* Really? When faced with a person who is clearly an ally, clearly an LGBT+ person, do you have to start right in with being aggressive about how you must be addressed? To me, it's this kind of hard-nosed approach that gives politically inclusive language a bad name. So much easier to sit down, have a conversation and say...oh, by the way....

Interesting how this plays out. You might not be aware of the abuse Martina Navratilova has received for opining that transgenders (mail->female) shouldn't be competing in female sports, or the clashes between transgenders and feminists on various fronts. There is currently a big standoff between Muslims and LGBTQI+ in Birmingham, UK on schooling children. The Labour Party (who much like the Democrats in the US), claim to be the natural home for these voters, seem unable to express an opinion.

 

[britbox]

I feel like I'm having an Alf Garnett week. Non-Brits won't understand the reference, but my guess is that Archie Bunker might be the American equivalent. BB would probably be able to confirm. But I watched the clip below just now and I was infuriated. This so called Squad needs to stop resorting to victimhood. While I recognise that they are probably assailed by a level of hostility that few could imagine (death threats are probably an hourly occurrence for them) but they lost me the moment they claimed that Pelosi's dismissal of their influence had racial undertones. Does that mean that if anyone disagrees with them they're automatically racist or misogynist? Give me a freaking break! Progressives have to stop this habit of resorting to identity politics. It's not constructive and I think it's one thing that might hold some voters back in 2020...

Alf Garnett I don't think you'll ever see that guy on TV again!

 

[Moxie]

Interesting how this plays out. You might not be aware of the abuse Martina Navratilova has received for opining that transgenders (mail->female) shouldn't be competing in female sports, or the clashes between transgenders and feminists on various fronts. There is currently a big standoff between Muslims and LGBTQI+ in Birmingham, UK on schooling children. The Labour Party (who much like the Democrats in the US), claim to be the natural home for these voters, seem unable to express an opinion.

I'm not clear on the relevance of this to the point, but I am enjoying the concept of "mail to female."

 

[Federberg]

So if a person transitioned to female and presented as female, you would use the pronoun "she?"

Not if they were born with a penis.

Imagine a scenario where I introduced this trans-person to a male friend of mine, and they were under the impression that they were interacting with a woman? And this trans-person didn't feel the need to let my friend know that they were originally a man. That would be a horrific betrayal of the bro-code as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Federberg]

Alf Garnett I don't think you'll ever see that guy on TV again!

lol! I'm not even sure his shows are allowed on mainstream tv anymore!

 

[britbox]

I'm not clear on the relevance of this to the point, but I am enjoying the concept of "mail to female."

One day, your luck may be in.

 

[britbox]

I'm not clear on the relevance of this to the point, but I am enjoying the concept of "mail to female."

The relevance was related to your mention of "natural allies". It seems that isn't a shoo-in, and can't be taken for granted.

 

[britbox]

lol! I'm not even sure his shows are allowed on mainstream tv anymore!

They even edit Only Fools and Horses on BBC re-runs, so Alfie boy doesn't have a chance.