The disney insanity continues

#554
#554
SamRebel35 said:
It is part of a mosaic that has been added to every day for ten years or more. It is the frog in the pot. It is the single straw at a time added to the camel's back. It is the single grain of dirt washed away from the foundation every time it rains. No single thing is a big deal on its own, but every inch of ground given is an inch that won't be regained and it is increased momentum in what many believe to be a bad direction. Sweat the small stuff because it will have a cumulative effect.
Click to expand...

Cool. So you are a victim bc Disney doesn't say "boy" as often as you'd like?
 
#558
#558
SamRebel35 said:
Link to claim of victimhood?
Click to expand...

Link to where I claimed you claimed victimhood?

The point of my post was that people are acting like they are victimized, and it appeared you responded by justifying their behavior (acting like victims) with the slippery slope fallacy. I figured you said that to me with my OP quoted because you are explaining how you are victims. I guess you were just explaining why you let this issue dominate your headspace? What else about my post could you be responding to?
 
#559
#559
SamRebel35 said:
Slippery slope fallacy is not what we're talking about. We're talking about incremental/cumulative erosion. The grand canyon wasn't just washed out in a day. It is an accumulation of tiny tiny erosion events happening all the time.
Click to expand...

You're a smart guy, but this is some slick willy "depends on what your definition of 'is' is" type ****. If you're fooling yourself with this, Jesucristo.
 
#560
#560
Huff, do you think if we went back ten years and someone was arguing against the progressive trans movement by saying "before you know it, we'll have men beating women in women's sports!" would you have said something like "Quit being paranoid. That won't happen just because we suddenly start calling trans people by their preferred pronouns" in response? I think that very well may have been your argument given how you treat these issues today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DC_Vol, TN-POSSUM, Carl Pickens and 5 others
#561
#561
n_huffhines said:
You're a smart guy, but this is some slick willy "depends on what your definition of 'is' is" type ****. If you're fooling yourself with this, Jesucristo.
Click to expand...

Am I wrong? Is there no such thing as incremental cumulative change? How did we get to the point of women having to compete against men in women's sports if not for cumulative cultural change?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13, davethevol and Rickyvol77
#562
#562
SamRebel35 said:
Huff, do you think if we went back ten years and someone was arguing against the progressive trans movement by saying "before you know it, we'll have men beating women in women's sports!" would you have said something like "Quit being paranoid. That won't happen just because we suddenly start calling trans people by their preferred pronouns" in response? I think that very well may have been your argument given how you treat these issues today.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that now. All I said was that you are arguing using a fallacy.

The reason it is a fallacy is you don't have debate the thing that we are talking about right now. You can just deflect to a future thing that you are afraid might happen as a distant and possibly related consequence. It is a fallacy because you can make this argument anytime on any topic.

I don't think you should oppose Disney on this just because there is something going on with trans sports. This is right/fine. The other is wrong.

It's like saying Disney shouldn't say Merry Christmas because it emboldens Christians and they might try to ban 2 Live Crew again.
 
Last edited:
#563
#563
n_huffhines said:
I didn't say that now. All I said was that you are arguing using a fallacy.

The reason it is a fallacy is you don't have debate the thing that we are talking about right now. You can just deflect to a future thing that you are afraid might happen as a distant and possibly related consequence.

I don't think you should oppose Disney on this just because there is something going on with trans sports. This is right/fine. The other is wrong.

It's like saying Disney shouldn't say Merry Christmas because it emboldens Christians and they might try to ban 2 Live Crew again. That's an analogy.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with saying "hello friends," and there's nothing wrong with saying "hello boys and girls". They're both fine. But using radical gender theory as the reason to choose one vs the other is where my issue lies. The gender ideology is the problem. Failing to acknowledge it just because the result of the application of the gender ideology was innocuous this time is tantamount to condoning the ideology.
 
#564
#564
85SugarVol said:
Oh they’re absolutely vicious
Click to expand...

VICIOUS!
MXflE-.gif
 
#565
#565
SamRebel35 said:
There's nothing wrong with saying "hello friends," and there's nothing wrong with saying "hello boys and girls". They're both fine. But using radical gender theory as the reason to choose one vs the other is where my issue lies. The gender ideology is the problem. Failing to acknowledge it just because the result of the application of the gender ideology was innocuous this time is tantamount to condoning the ideology.
Click to expand...

Right. You're upset "because Disney decided to be considerate to the wrong group at no cost to any other group." And now we've come full circle.

As far as I know, Disney is just a business trying to pretend it's progressive. Even if they are doing it because they actually subscribe to radical gender theory, this action still shouldn't bother you or anybody. The action is what it is, regardless of motive.
 
#566
#566
n_huffhines said:
I didn't say that now. All I said was that you are arguing using a fallacy.

The reason it is a fallacy is you don't have debate the thing that we are talking about right now. You can just deflect to a future thing that you are afraid might happen as a distant and possibly related consequence. It is a fallacy because you can make this argument anytime on any topic.

I don't think you should oppose Disney on this just because there is something going on with trans sports. This is right/fine. The other is wrong.

It's like saying Disney shouldn't say Merry Christmas because it emboldens Christians and they might try to ban 2 Live Crew again.
Click to expand...
Mr. Martinez would approve:p
 
  • Like
Reactions: n_huffhines
#567
#567
Two things that people don't really get in politics...

The Streisand effect...calling attention to it by saying "no" or "prohibit" often leads to a greater spotlight.

IDK what this effect is called, but opposing something innocuous because it's got a distasteful association will cause you to lose credibility when a thing with that distasteful association really should be opposed. "Why should we listen to the people who were mad that Disney said 'hello friends?'"
 
#568
#568
n_huffhines said:
Right. You're upset "because Disney decided to be considerate to the wrong group at no cost to any other group" No. They decided to make a needless, pointless, frivolous change away from traditional speech for no other reason than to appease radical gender activists. This change helps nobody and hurts nobody. It is literally just for the purpose of furthering the ideology. Saying "Boys and Girls" is not inconsiderate, and saying "Friends" is not any less or more considerate. And now we've come full circle.

As far as I know, Disney is just a business trying to pretend it's progressive. Even if they are doing it because they actually subscribe to radical gender theory, this action still shouldn't bother you or anybody. The action is what it is, regardless of motive.
Click to expand...

See above
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#569
#569
n_huffhines said:
Two things that people don't really get in politics...

The Streisand effect...calling attention to it by saying "no" or "prohibit" often leads to a greater spotlight.

IDK what this effect is called, but opposing something innocuous because it's got a distasteful association will cause you to lose credibility when a thing with that distasteful association really should be opposed. "Why should we listen to the people who were mad that Disney said 'hello friends?'"
Click to expand...

That may be. But I've always thought that good or even innocuous ends by bad means are still bad. That's just my wiring.
 
#570
#570
SamRebel35 said:
Saying "Boys and Girls" is not inconsiderate, and saying "Friends" is not any less or more considerate. And now we've come full circle. See above
Click to expand...

I certainly didn't say it was and I don't even know how you can argue being more inclusive is not more considerate, but I really don't care to argue that. It defies all logic.
 
#572
#572
n_huffhines said:
I certainly didn't say it was and I don't even know how you can argue being more inclusive is not more considerate, but I really don't care to argue that. It defies all logic.
Click to expand...

You said that Disney chose to be considerate by changing the greeting. It implies that what they were saying before was not considerate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dovervolz and Rickyvol77
#573
#573
SamRebel35 said:
You said that Disney chose to be considerate by changing the greeting. It implies that what they were saying before was not considerate.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. You inferred that out of thin air. You can go from considerate to more considerate. It's easy and obviously true.
 
#575
#575
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol and Orangeslice13
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top