If anyone was trolling it was your good friend Kayleigh. My reply fitted the context beautifully I think and I think that the only one who thinks different is you.
1. n.
an ugly person; a grouchy person. : Gee, that dame is a real troll. What's her problem?
2. n.
an internet user who sends inflammatory or provocative messages designed to elicit negative responses or start a flame-war. (As a fisherman trolls for an unsuspecting fish.) : Don't answer those silly messages. Some troll is just looking for an argument.
3. n.
a message sent by a troll (sense 2). : Every time I get a troll, I just delete it.
Dictionary of American Slang and Colloquial Expressions by Richard A. Spears.Fourth Edition.
Copyright 2007. Published by McGraw Hill.
You both can be said to be trolling. But Kayleigh was ranting and preaching. Your 'fuck off Kayleigh' replies were made to upset her into leaving. You are free to disagree with my use of the word, but it is a fair use of the word.
Both could be said? Not at all. You know what is strange? You were inferring that which came
after the "Fuck off Kayleigh" replies was trolling and quoted it and had me back my claim on it and now you move the boundaries to the "fuck off Kayleigh replies" themselves. Is that you argument "style"? if on a pitiful point try to change the goalposts or the boundaries and assert new rules? Were someone to try to do that in any game there would be a word for that kind of playing.
That said....let's look at this NEW argument and humour you.
2. n.
an internet user who sends inflammatory or provocative messages designed to elicit negative responses or start a flame-war. (As a fisherman trolls for an unsuspecting fish.) : Don't answer those silly messages. Some troll is just looking for an argument.Does this equate under any reading to a member of a forum coming in railing against all the membership falsely and emotively as being transphobic and insulting their forum, and preaching how they must behave with them.....kinda huh? OK that is GA.
Next
Is a response from the forum at large and by as large being faced, with this non-contributing, inflammatory poster, in telling him to fuck off and stop their inflammatory remark trolling him or simply reacting and defending against the bigoted, self-righteous blowhard? If that is what they and i am doing then no your definition is not trolling. Even under the loosest definition the
"provocative messages designed to elicit negative responses or start a flame-war" would at best become ""provocative messages designed to elicit a pompous buffoon to indeed fuck off and stop clogging up respectable threads with his idiocy"
Now you made what "may" seem like a decent argument in the "If they don't use "the right" pronouns, then they are cissexist. as it is "infraction-worthy. The act of doing do makes them cis-sexist." (Paraphrased)
However under any reasonable scrutiny this falls down doesn't it?
"If they don't use a prescribe set of pronouns =/= they think transgendered people are inferior"
No it simply doesn't mean that at all. People could use pronouns other than what you prescribe and not think any the less of transgendered people, nor think them inferior.
Are those people cis-sexist?
botty-burp is all about cissexual/cisgender priveledge. I'm sure Kayleigh has posted it before but I can't blame you for not wanting to read it. The difference between botty-burp and transphobia is like the difference between heterosexism and homophobia, or maybe sexism and misogyny/misandry. It's generally about pettier things and the difference in how the other side is treated more favourably. Compare it to white priveledge or male priveledge or whatever. If a cisperson has their gender identity respected but a transperson doesn't, they are being treated inferior to a cisperson. Ignorance or apathy isn't an excuse. There are plenty of people don't think black people are inferior to white people, but they still avoid black people and favor white people. If you've ever watched the italian movie Black and White/Bianco e nero, it had a father proclaimed to like black people but in truth only fetishized black females. Actions kind of speak louder than words and thoughts. And it's not like it's an over-all bad trait. But it's offensive to some people. And in calling some people cissexist, I only mean to point out offensive behavior.
"And in calling some people cissexist, I only mean to point out offensive behavior" It really doesn't matter "what you want to do" it is the claims you make that I am calling you on in as much as you call me and others here.
"Compare it to white priveledge or male priveledge or whatever". OK I looked at you examples to compare
"they still avoid black people and favor white people" We are not avoiding black people or transgender people.
"it had a father proclaimed to like black people but in truth only fetishized black females" We are not fetishising black women or transgender people.
YOU are still not making yourself clear.
Your kind of attitude always interests me. You insert yourself somewhere to take part in a discussion that has nothing to do with you, and now that you are here you will persist until you have shown everyone the light and changed the world. I usually only see this behavior coming from evangelical Christians.
Are you here on God's authority to bring light to the wicked and save the sinners?
Are you here out of a duty to humanity to make sure all the spazzes are shown the proper way of thinking?
Or are you here out of an overblown sense of self-importance, and because you literally cannot conceive of a conversation in which your enlightened viewpoint should not be held at highest center?
I'm pretty sure it's typical human judging, like the type you're casting on me. I'm not trying to make anyone change their views, I'm just using a word on people that describes their behavior. I could make up a word called Spoonrape and say that it perfectly describes what kind of person you are. Basically, I say you're being offensive and then you say 'whatever' and then we continue with our lives.
I'm just critical and like to argue with people about whatever. I don't try to tell people how to live their lives. I don't even have a reason to live, I just do whatever I want.
You are using a word (cis-sexist) that infers a defined moral and valued judgement and that is that the bearer of such a label (cisexist) views transpeople as inferior. Then you say
"I could make up a word called Spoonrape and say that it perfectly describes what kind of person you are.". We are not disagreeing with a word YOU made up are we but rather one in existence used to describe that people that believe transpeople are inferior. You used it and now say "Oh it is just a word" No.
"I'm just using a word on people that describes their behavior" - Sorry this is a cop out. Someone either views people as inferior or they don't. They may be grouchy, mean-spirited, insulting or offensive but that does not mean that they view a community of people (transpeople) as inferior and the word (cis-sexism and its derivative cis-seixist) you have made at people here is defined to mean exactly this.
Try again, and this time please back your shit up. (Oh and keep your spoonrape to yourself.)
I know you aren't arguing with me. It's mostly Swearengen who likes this topic.
If your intention is to stick around until Al stops arguing with you, then
to I2. I hope you brought extra clothes and something comfortable to sit on. You aren't ever leaving.
Ever.
Oh shit yes. You got that right.
IN fact I am in mixed minds. I think Rissy could survive a callout and is not that new. The other thing probably more pressing is it is Rissy's birthday soon. What date, Rissy? I ought to start a birthday thread.
![angel :angel:](http://www.intensitysquared.com/Smileys/default/angel.gif)