Red Mosquito

Ms Harmless wrote:what will you do when you come up against neopronouns? "fae / faer", "ze / hir"

I fully realize I’m not educated as much as I perhaps should be on this topic, but are these actually real terms? I’ve never heard/ seen them before.

People spoke of a mythic pronoun that a nary a soul could pronounce.

Ms Harmless wrote:sorry Bammer, Bi_3 did, I'm having a hard time keeping up

Similar word, starts with the same letter. It’s interchangeable, really, no need to correct or clarify. Same same.

Ms Harmless wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Mickey wrote:Bi_3 is just trying to stop Maoism, you can't stop Maoism without breaking a few (former) eggs.

I explicitly grant Ms Harmless permission to post a screenshot of the PM I sent on October 14, 2022 at 6:56 pm.

I explicitly deleted it, just as I do whenever someone is too chicken shit to confront me in public

May I post it then?

wease wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:what will you do when you come up against neopronouns? "fae / faer", "ze / hir"

I fully realize I’m not educated as much as I perhaps should be on this topic, but are these actually real terms? I’ve never heard/ seen them before.

yes, they are real gender pronouns ("neopronouns") available to nonbinary people who don't want "she", "he" or "them"; I have friends who use neopronouns, I have myself in the past, and it takes some getting used to but it's important

"Neopronoun - Wikipedia" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopronoun

"Neopronouns 101 - Mermaids" https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/neopronouns-101/

Bammer wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:I made light of the difference between "their" and "there" because you're making light of pronouns; you know what was meant in that email, people make typos, it's not a big deal and it's bizarre that you'd private message me further antagonism over a conversation about grammar

Mods?

I did not PM her. This is patently false.

We can't verify, but you're claim has been made.

All your posts in this thread have obviously been made in good faith, so I'm sure everyone will take it at face value.

Bi_3 wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Mickey wrote:Bi_3 is just trying to stop Maoism, you can't stop Maoism without breaking a few (former) eggs.

I explicitly grant Ms Harmless permission to post a screenshot of the PM I sent on October 14, 2022 at 6:56 pm.

I explicitly deleted it, just as I do whenever someone is too chicken shit to confront me in public

May I post it then?

You're always allowed to post your own PMs, no?

why would you need my permission? it's something I would have responded to (and in general terms I already have) if you had put it in here; the act of pm-ing me with it, though, put me in a place where I felt cornered to defend myself in a space where no one was around to defend me; that's why I don't respond to that sort of thing, no matter who it is

Ms Harmless wrote:why would you need my permission? it's something I would have responded to (and in general terms I already have) if you had put it in here; the act of pm-ing me with it, though, put me in a place where I felt cornered to defend myself in a space where no one was around to defend me; that's why I don't respond to that sort of thing, no matter who it is

Because the PM was sent to explicitly avoid that exact scenario and I was worried you didnt read it.

Here you go:

<snipped>

if I recall correctly, the debate Bi_3 wanted to have in private was concerning the "failure" of "ideological extremists", who he alleges want to tear down but have no idea how to build

that's a big subject and he felt it sufficient to quote a long post of mine from this thread, and reply with the quote of someone who said that stuff

Bi_3, I didn't even read that top line, I read the bottom, which I realise was just your "signature" but at the time I thought it was your message; needless to say, it put me off replying

Bi_3 wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:why would you need my permission? it's something I would have responded to (and in general terms I already have) if you had put it in here; the act of pm-ing me with it, though, put me in a place where I felt cornered to defend myself in a space where no one was around to defend me; that's why I don't respond to that sort of thing, no matter who it is

Because the PM was sent to explicitly avoid that exact scenario and I was worried you didnt read it.

Here you go:

<snipped>

Dawg nobody could read that blurry ass shit to begin with.

B wrote:

Bammer wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:I made light of the difference between "their" and "there" because you're making light of pronouns; you know what was meant in that email, people make typos, it's not a big deal and it's bizarre that you'd private message me further antagonism over a conversation about grammar

Mods?

I did not PM her. This is patently false.

We can't verify, but you're claim has been made.

All your posts in this thread have obviously been made in good faith, so I'm sure everyone will take it at face value.

*yore

You are being shitty to people.

I foolishly believed B had chosen you're on purpose as part of an ongoing bit in this thread

B wrote:You are being shitty to people.

The allegation I made was verified by MH herself and you still question its validity. You done lost your mind, B(ro).

Mickey wrote:I said it probably twenty pages ago in this thread--the second you start asking questions based on the completely imaginary horizon of fairness in sports, you have ceded ground to a right-wing and/or anti-trans position. I don't know if that makes you a transphobe full stop but it does the work of transphobes.

Whose work are you doing by making sure anyone who asks questions is properly shamed? I assure you that person is really bad at politics, at the very least. I admit I don’t know any trans people, and for the record I don’t care about sports unless it’s the Yanks or Dolphins. I have 2 gay family members, both of whom had a rough go (immigrant catholic family), and it always bothered me. Still, “if you disagree with some of the mantra and ask sensitive questions, you’re a bigot” is the opposite of a persuasive argument. It’s counter-productive. Mickey, you know this. If my questions were beyond appropriate, please explain why.

BurtReynolds wrote:Sheer malignant narcissism.

Please leave and never post here again.

Rob wrote:

Mickey wrote:I said it probably twenty pages ago in this thread--the second you start asking questions based on the completely imaginary horizon of fairness in sports, you have ceded ground to a right-wing and/or anti-trans position. I don't know if that makes you a transphobe full stop but it does the work of transphobes.

Whose work are you doing by making sure anyone who asks questions is properly shamed? I assure you that person is really bad at politics, at the very least. I admit I don’t know any trans people, and for the record I don’t care about sports unless it’s the Yanks or Dolphins. I have 2 gay family members, both of whom had a rough go (immigrant catholic family), and it always bothered me. Still, “if you disagree with some of the mantra and ask sensitive questions, you’re a bigot” is the opposite of a persuasive argument. It’s counter-productive. Mickey, you know this. If my questions were beyond appropriate, please explain why.

You must have me confused with someone else. I'm not shaming you. I explicitly do not call you a transphobe or a bigot. I am merely explaining (again, since we did this a few months ago) that if you assume ahead of time that fairness in sports is a thing that exists--that until Lia Thomas, for example, sports were fair, and now we have to figure out how to make them fair again because of those pesky trans folks--then you are accepting a set of terms for the debate which are reactionary and regressive. IMO you should not do that, and you should do something else instead.

I certainly think responses of the "how DARE you ask that question, bigot" orientation are often more about the responder than the asker. But you'll have to take that up with someone who behaves that way.