• 11 months - 117 posts - Latest - RSS
• OP: 10 Goods vs 5 No Goods
• Thread: 272 Goods vs 230 No Goods

1. Sociologist
   83d3
   

   OP doesn?t have an argument, so they pretend anyone who disagrees with them is a slave to wokeness. I?m an HxDx supporter, and my first sole authored article criticized identity politics. I also defended Regnerus very vocally. I?ll stop short of doxing.
   Quote me actually defending the term, rather than co r r ecting your deeply flawed understanding of its place and history.
   I just don?t like clueless people on my time.
   You obviously haven't "cor/rected" anything at all. You pretended I was arguing something inexplicable, and then I showed you an article in a leading law journal making the exact same argument.
   I stated the term is marginal in scholarship, nowhere near even Latinx in usage. And this is accurate.

   Evidence I defended the term?

   11 months ago # QUOTE 1 GOOD 2 NO GOOD !

2. Sociologist
   9ae5
   

   You're accusing me of being DH/PT now?? That's interesting, but really insulting.
   Do you think I'm PNC and Viv Shaw and whoever else you constantly imagine yourself arguing against here?

   I'm sor/ry that losing this argument has weighed so much emotionally on you that you are forced to repeatedly hurl false insults as you have for several pages now.

   Anyway, you can't explain the difference between these two sentences:

   "Is BIPOC just a way to say POC while excluding Asians?"
   "Is BIPOC just a way to say POC while erasing Asians?"

   I was almost going to accuse you of being pedantic, but I don't think that works since you're operating at a level genuinely not understanding these words rather than taking them in an overly literal sense. If English is not your first language I apologize if this went somewhat over your head or if there is something being lost in translation here.

   11 months ago # QUOTE 4 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

3. Sociologist
   5325
   

   Everyone said this term is ridiculous because if it doesn't exclude Asians/Latinos, then it's redundant. You've just spent five pages arguing it's redundant, but includes Asians. Everyone agrees, but somehow this is to imply they're wrong and you're right?

   11 months ago # QUOTE 1 GOOD 0 NO GOOD !

4. Sociologist
   9ae5
   

   Evidence I defended the term?

   You've spent 6 pages intensely ranting in defense of the term and hurling juvenile insults against anyone who disagrees. You seem like you're having some sort of amphetamine crash honestly. I haven't seen someone meltdown like this on SJMR in months. Are you sure you're not PT? This is really his style.

   11 months ago # QUOTE 4 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

5. Sociologist
   9ae5
   

   Everyone said this term is ridiculous because if it doesn't exclude Asians/Latinos, then it's redundant. You've just spent five pages arguing it's redundant, but includes Asians. Everyone agrees, but somehow this is to imply they're wrong and you're right?

   Didn't you just spend several pages claiming both that the term is not redundant and that it somehow has no exclusionary effect toward Asians? If "everyone agrees" then PT wouldn't have just flipped out or spent 6 pages ranting in defense of an obscure term.

   11 months ago # QUOTE 3 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

6. Sociologist
   4a78
   

   if that is true, then you should be able to provide me saying one thing about it’s utility. I never took issue with people disliking it. I took issue with bad arguments.

   11 months ago # QUOTE 0 GOOD 2 NO GOOD !

7. Sociologist
   9ae5
   

   No, you argued nonsensically in a weirdly emotionally intense way, indicating strong personal investment in the matter, against strawman arguments that had no relation to anything anyone actually said.

   11 months ago # QUOTE 4 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

8. Sociologist
   9ae5
   

   You just used "it's" instead of "its" for a second time -- I'm apparently arguing against someone whose knowledge of the English language is not at the level to be discussing nuances of meanings of words. This makes sense now, but doesn't explain why you argued in such a weirdly emotional way about a term you claim to dislike.

   11 months ago # QUOTE 3 GOOD 2 NO GOOD !

9. Sociologist
   4a78
   

   I didn’t think so. You’re arguing with your imagination. Go see a shrink.

   11 months ago # QUOTE 1 GOOD 2 NO GOOD !

10. Sociologist
    9ae5
    

    I'm sor/ry this argument went so badly for you. I'm posting a link for you as a gesture of good will. Next time you decide to debate someone on the internet, first read this:
    https://bit.ly/3LCUFtM

    After you've mastered that rule, then start reading definitions of "to exclude" and "to erase." I have faith in your ability to learn this and improve. We all have to start from somewhere and you shouldn't feel bad.
    Better luck next time, and try to not take arguments on the internet in such an emotionally serious way.

    11 months ago # QUOTE 4 GOOD 3 NO GOOD !

11. Sociologist
    2098
    

    LOL, looks like PT ran away again after getting pwned for multiple pages. This thread displayed PT's funniest breakdown crisis in months.

    11 months ago # QUOTE 3 GOOD 0 NO GOOD !

12. Sociologist
    f8c3
    

    how about you google the history of the term queer, which was at one point supposed to be an umbrella term.

    The general meaning of "queer" was definitely never meant as an umbrella term. A subset of very-online social media activists seemed to try to make it that only circa 2015 but it never really caught on in that sense at least not in the majority of usage. In the 1990s the meaning of "queer" used by activists was basically diametrically opposite the "umbrella" meaning you are saying is somehow always implied by the word.

    11 months ago # QUOTE 0 GOOD 4 NO GOOD !

13. Sociologist
    9641
    

    how about you google the history of the term queer, which was at one point supposed to be an umbrella term.
    The general meaning of "queer" was definitely never meant as an umbrella term. A subset of very-online social media activists seemed to try to make it that only circa 2015 but it never really caught on in that sense at least not in the majority of usage. In the 1990s the meaning of "queer" used by activists was basically diametrically opposite the "umbrella" meaning you are saying is somehow always implied by the word.

    What about Queer Eye for the Straight Guy? Or Queer as Folk? In things like that at that time, the Q was used as an umbrella term.

    11 months ago # QUOTE 2 GOOD 0 NO GOOD !

14. Sociologist
    9641
    

    And the first sentence of the wikipedia entry is about how it's an umbrella term. This is not like an outlier way of understanding the word.

    11 months ago # QUOTE 0 GOOD 0 NO GOOD !

15. Sociologist
    9641
    

    (but I do agree that it's a word that is sometimes used differently to indicate some kind of radicalness, so that's prob why in LGBTQIA, the Q refers to the more radical usage, thus is not redundant, which was the original point itt)

    11 months ago # QUOTE 0 GOOD 0 NO GOOD !

16. Sociologist
    892d
    

    LOL, so clearly yes, it includes Asians.

    And queer was an umbrella term when I was in grad school, learning a little queer theory, in 2013. Before 2015 and in scholarship.

    11 months ago # QUOTE 1 GOOD 0 NO GOOD !

17. Sociologist
    a0fc
    

    I’m old enough to remember when queer was an insult and never used in polite company. I was shoc/ked the first time I heard used in a non-pejorative way (probably late 80s).

    11 months ago # QUOTE 0 GOOD 0 NO GOOD !

Reply