So are transgenders guilty of gender appropriation? Or am I getting this wrong?

So are transgenders guilty of gender appropriation? Or am I getting this wrong?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=bc_KQt3U3-I
dictionary.com/browse/deservedness
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

░░░░░░░░░░░▌▌▄▀▄▒░░░░░░░░░░█
░░░░░░▄▄▄░▐▄▀▄▀▄▒░░▒▄▄▄▄░▄░░▌
░░░░▄▀░▄░▐▐▄▀▄▀▒░░░▀░░░░▀░▄▀▐
░░░█░▌░░▌░▐▐▀▄▀▒░░░▒▌$$▐░░▌▄▐
░░▐░▐░░░▐░▌▐▐░▐░░░░░░▀▀░░░░░▀▌
░░▌░▌░░░░▌▐▄▀░▀▄▒░░░░░░░▄▀▄░░▐
░▐▐░▌░░░░▐▐░▌▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀█▄▄▄░░░▌
░▌░░▌▌░░░░▌░▐▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▄▄▀
░▐░░▌▌░░░░▐░░▌▀▄▀▄▀█▄█▀█▀█▀
░▌▌░▌▌░░░░░▌░▐▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄█▄█▄ -good goyim this makes me moist
▐░░░▐▐░░░░░▐▐░▌▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▀▀▄▀█
▌▌░░░▌▌░░░░░█▐░▌▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀░▄▐▄▄
▌░░░░▐▐░░░░░░▀░▐▀▄▀▄▀▄▀░░░▀▀▄▀▌
░░░░░░▌░░░░░▄▀█▄█▄▀▀░▀▄░░░░▀░▀▐
░░░░░░▐░░░░░░░▌░░░░░░▐▐░▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
░░░░░░░█░░░░░▐░░░▌░░░█▀▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
░░░░░░░░▀▄░░▄▄▄▀▐▄▄▀▀
░░░░░░░░░░▀▄▄▄▄▄▀

I heard those
>transgenders
are just mentally ill or so

better take this one
>youtube.com/watch?v=bc_KQt3U3-I

You cannot appropriate anything from a culture that is more empowered than your own. Therefore, people assigned male at birth who present themselves as female are guilty of appropriation. However, people assigned female at birth who present themselves as male are not guilty of appropriation.

I hope this helps.

It helps that you're a shithead. What faggot community college teacher shoved that nonsense into your little brain, faggot?

I appreciate your homophobic defense of male to female transgendered people. Keep defending them.

Okay so wheres the logic in that at all? Why cant i appropriate from a culture stronger than mine? Furthermore, what are the standards of this empowerment? How is it measured? Were speaking of magnitudes here, so numbers are absolutely necessary. Preferably ones grounded in objective, scientific observation.

Ha! Project much...

So sorry to bust up your little Trump-y tea party.

Racist, sexist homophobe-

You cannot appropriate from a culture stronger than yours because one culture is not inherently more deserving than another. Men do not deserve to be more privileged than women. If you were assigned female at birth, and present yourself as male, you are only reclaiming privilege that should never have been denied you in the first place. If you were assigned male at birth, and present yourself as female, you are claiming a victimhood that was not assigned to you, as it was assigned to everyone assigned female at birth.

Yes this is another thing I've been wondering about: the power structures. If I understand correctly, a white cannot be the victim of racism from blacks, because whites in the west hold more power. So I was wondering, if say, three whites go to an African country which is ruled by blacks and beat up black people shouting racial slurs, it isn't racist, because the blacks are more powerful there?

Okay so how do we determine deservedness in an objective manner? I really need help here because a lot of these terms seem highly subjective and i really need this ideology fleshed out so i can understand it.

That is correct. They are racially prejudiced, but not racist.

Deservedness is always equal.

Seconded.
Is it sufficient for a group to dominate power in the government, as in or is there more to it?

Why is deservedness equal? Doesnt that interfere with the concept of merit?

I'm all for transgenders, but holy fuck this Tom guy looks ridiculous.

All this non binary nonsense is getting out of hand.

Yes, it does. Merit is relative. If you give $5 to someone I don't know, no matter how deserving that person might be in your opinion, it won't mean nearly as much to me as if you give me $5. In my opinion, me and mine will always merit more. But that doesn't make it so.

>deservedness
That's not a word, anons.

Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

Holy fucking SHIT. People are allowed to be racist while not doing anything about it. The racism is still there. When a Mexican calls me gringo in america, I laugh it off. When I'm surrounded by them when I find myself in a shitty neighborhood in Mexico, I'm fucking terrified.

>deservedness

First, yes it is a word.

dictionary.com/browse/deservedness

Second, I didn't even introduce the word to this conversation:

jew gonna be soorry, gringo

that's not how merit works.

If you assume that all people are created equal, then equal opportunity will necessarily result in equal outcomes. If you don't see equal outcomes, that is evidence of unequal opportunity.

If you don't assume that all people are created equal, you are anti-American. Maybe you're not from the US.

Tell me how merit works, user.

How is merit relative? The whole point of merit is that it is meant to be grounded in objective reality: productive output. Right?

>>Holy fucking SHIT. People are allowed to be racist while not doing anything about it.
Huh?
>>When a Mexican calls me gringo in america, I laugh it off. When I'm surrounded by them when I find myself in a shitty neighborhood in Mexico, I'm fucking terrified.
One is worse for you than the other you say. So do you mean to say then, that both are racist, just not equally threatening or something?

Productive output is relative. If I get on the toilet and shit 5lbs out, is that productive output? It is if you're a coprophiliac. It comes down to a value proposition, and value is always relative.

So you disregard all forms of pragmatism? All forms of emotional value are subjective in that manner, but other forms of value are not. Im not assuming that what you have to say is incorrect, but to reject pragmatism in its entirety seems intellectually suicidal.

Define pragmatism.

Everybody is a genius but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree blah blah blah Albert Einstein I'm sure you've heard the quote

If something is relative, would it not also contain an absolute function between the two? We see that sort of pattern in mathematics.

> Huh?
I was commenting on how the left think racism and threat have to go hand in hand. It doesn't. They're not mutually inclusive. Power is very dynamic. You just don't find those in power walking out of their comfort/safe zones to be overpowered, ie you dont find the affluent walking into terrible neighborhoods to get culturally enriched. Anyone can be racist.

That's not how human nature works. The only objective human values are those necessary for life. Everything else we value is subjective.

Einstein didn't actually say that, though.

Pragmatism sees no fundamental difference between practical and theoretical reason, nor any ontological difference between facts and values. Both facts and values have cognitive content: knowledge is what we should believe; values are hypotheses about what is good in action. Pragmatist ethics is broadly humanist because it sees no ultimate test of morality beyond what matters for us as humans. Good values are those for which we have good reasons, viz. the Good Reasons approach.

In many ways, its basically applied hedonism.

Human perception is not the center of the universe. This is why magic doesnt work.

well since liberals think gender does not exist, no.

How is that not subjective?

No, but cultural values and prejudices play a large part in how happy each individual can be in life. That's why spin, propaganda and advertising work.

The dude in your picture was always male - his vagina was just clouding his judgement

Just because something is socially-constructed does not mean it does not exist. For example, money is socially-constructed. In themselves, green pieces of cotton-paper do not have much value. But in US society, we ascribe value to them. Therefore, they have real value to us, in the real world. Money is a thing that exists. So is gender. Both are social constructs.

i know, im saying liberals think that way.

Everyone thinks that way. No one goes around denying that anyone is any gender, that I've ever heard of.

Pragmatism places numbers above humanity. Numbers and results.

LIBERALS THINK THAT THERE IS NO GENDER


damn dude can you not comprehend?

No, it doesn't. It uses numbers to justify its ideas about what is best for humanity. It judges results in as subjective a way as any other value system.

Since I've never heard any liberal say this, and have only heard conservatives say that liberals believe this...no, I cannot comprehend.

If you believe that human nature doesnt work like that, then why place social and cultural understanding above that of hard science like biology? Many a times I have seen the rejection of scientifically provable fact for socially constructed viewpoints.

oh okay damn, sorry dude, I go to school in sf so I hear it all the goddamn time.

Yes.

Numbers > Ideas > Humanity

how bout you all just have a nice tall glass of shut the fuck up because no one cares

no but they do affirm gender stereotypes which alienate people who are not transgender.

>Many a times I have seen the rejection of scientifically provable fact for socially constructed viewpoints.

Right. I see that, most of the time, too. I see it when people say straights are better than gays, or whites are better than blacks, or men are better than women, or cis are better than trans. People come up with their own definitions and values, and go around insisting that they are objective facts. However, they aren't.

In the hardest, objective facts, no one is better than anyone else. Some just have advantages that others don't have, because their fathers successfully fought for them over hundreds or thousands of years.

Do you nazi a problem with that kind of thinking?

Numbers and ideas are without meaning if humans don't exist. Humans have objective needs and subjective desires. Anything beyond what is necessary for human survival is subjective, even if you assign numbers and ideas to it.

Yes, but our ability to use these hard, objective facts to our advantage is what creates merit. Merit is based on the rules of nature, which are ingrained into every human being on the planet because they come from a time of primitive experience.

Furthermore, nearly everything cultural is unjust to seem degree leaving any sort of cultural policing to be futile, especially as subjectivity becomes more permissible because people adopt more specific viewpoints which they then vehemently defend as they become more and more frustrated with those they disagree with.

What of emotional needs? They are feelings that tether both subjective desire and objective need.

If numbers and ideas are without meaning if humans dont exist, are you also asserting that the rest of the universe would not exist without a living being to perceive it? Those are what the numbers relate to. The part of existence that goes on even if we die and our perceptions disappear.

Then we agree. As I said a while ago, the only objective values are those that are necessary for human life. If one of us were not human, even that would be subjective. But as humans, we generally tend to agree that whatever is necessary for human life is objectively valuable, such as oxygen. Everything else is subjective.

There's no process of subjectivity becoming "more permissible." Subjectivity has always been the norm.

Those are subjective, as they differ in value for each individual. For example, my need to be loved is not a significant concern of yours.

Or is it?

Let's get an example in here. Give me an example of a number that has meaning, even if no humans or other intelligent beings exist. How does pi have meaning to grass, for example?

My point is that you may have numbers, but the meaning of those numbers is only of significance to the extent that they impact human values, which are either directly related to human survival, or are subjective.

Even if all things were ultimately subjective, to imply any sort of equality is absurd. You stated yourself that people perceive things differently and that this alters the values of specific things. That alone suffices to point out that things arent equal, for if they were equal, that would imply some sort of alternative objective plane that all things exist upon.

That's right, and that was the assumption of the founding fathers of the United States. That's why they believed that all people are created equal.

If you don't believe that, you're anti-American. But that's probably ok. You're probably not from the USA.

Pi has meaning for grass because it dictates the rate of growth for grass as all other forms of grass and it also has meaning for absolutely everything else it affects. Furthermore, it possesses a value of its own, no matter what symbol is being used to represent it, whether it be 3.1415... etc., or whether its written as "Tengu Porn". The symbol and the idea are not the same thing, including your own personal perception of said symbol. How you cant see anchor points of objectivity in reality is beyond me because if there were no anchor points, then there would be no need for evidence or repetition in science. Relativity is only half of the equation m8. Numbers have meaning beyond human value because they affect the universe regardless of how its perceived.

Why bother espousing equality if you dont believe it?

No, pi has no meaning at all for anything that cannot recognize it. It might be part of the way the universe works, but that doesn't mean it has meaning to anything in the universe.

You're confusing different definitions of the word "value." The number 1 has a value, in that it represent a singular quantity. That's not the same as saying it has value to someone.

In human values, we tend to agree that whatever is necessary for human life is valuable. Therefore, by sheer consensus, we say that whatever is necessary for human life is objectively valuable. However, anything beyond that is only subjectively valuable.

Why is this difficult for you?

You don't have to. But at least be true to yourself and your own ideas. Denounce the US Constitution, and devote your life to instituting a race-based governmental hierarchy. At least have the courage of your convictions.

Hold on. YOURE the one conflating the value terms because you believe relativity overpowers cold hard fact due to the flaws found within human perception. I was just following suit.

Looking at your post, if were not conflating meaning with value, then you clearly believe an objective aspect of reality exists. That being said, merit has validity because its based on proper usage of those cold hard facts in reference to the persons "value system". Again, relativity is only half of the equation.

Im tired of this cultural shit. Cull the fags in your group that think otherwise before they use their "subjective perceptions" to alter objective science because you agree with the fact that those are two distinct domains.

Also, its not difficult. Theres this magical thing called vocabulary misalignment that, ideally, would be checked and corrected before every debate because its generally what causes tensions and fuck ups in the debate to begin with.

Im not a poltard faggot. Not everyone who disagrees with you is one of them.

Its a problem in its purist form.

If you don't believe that all people are created equal, then you are opposed to the fundamental idea of democracy. Just have the courage to admit it, and devote your life to what you truly believe.

>Cull the fags

You're getting really confused. You're losing it.

>proper usage of those cold hard facts in reference to the persons "value system".

Putting "cold hard facts" between two relative terms does not make an objective sandwich.

There is no objective merit beyond what is necessary for human life. Anything beyond that is subjective merit. You've said as much, yourself, in different ways, during this conversation.

Everyone is created equal. That means that, statistically, you should see equal outcomes across all demographics. If you don't see that, then not everyone has the same opportunities. Either that, or some people are created better than others.

If you believe some people are created better than others, denounce the US Constitution and devote yourself to dismantling democracy. At least have the courage of your convictions.

All I got from this was
>Appropriation has double standards based on gender; which is sexist; therefore SJWs are sexist.