Aqarius

Nah, it's a tone knob

IIRC, it's still common to see male friends walk holding hands in the Middle East for the same reason.

Yeah, turns out it's kinda hard to dodge the draft for a war you hate when all the countries that allegedly oppose it closed their borders to you.

Easy there, Bill.

Doubly insane when the first mention of what's thought to be the Palestinians was by Ramesses III, 3199 years ago.

99% of rapists are men

...?

...!?!

...Really, you're just gonna throw this out there, with no reflection on it? Like, not even a pause? Not even a minute to go "wow, that's really high, like, suspiciously high, like, Glorious-Leader-Wins-Election high!"?

You know what, I'll rephrase my argument: The M&M argument is to be rejected out of hand, because any standard set for it's acceptance will inevitably be met by sufficiently determined bigot, and a sufficiently gullible audience.

Feel free to pick which of these two you are, I genuinely don't care at this point.

The hilarious new sequel - in theatres now.

The point isn't that you should eat the M&Ms, the point is that when a batch of food is suspected to be tainted, you throw it away. You don't keep tainted food around, you order it recalled from the market and incinerate it because merely having it around is a hazard. It's a matter of public safety. The problem of applying it to people should be obvious - this is why I mentioned "un-poisoning the M&Ms". And yes, the argument is alienating for both sides, it alienates them from each other, and that is an obstacle. Unless, I guess, we go for the incinerator solution like we would with M&Ms.

I'm "making a linguistics argument" because I don't think you understand the argument being made. An argument isn't faulty because it's used against oppressed and minority groups, it's used against oppressed and minority groups because it's faulty - it's the faultiness that allows for bigotry. Your response is you're not talking about oppressed and minority groups, so it's not bigoted, so it's not faulty. This is getting it precisely backwards. This isn't a misunderstanding, I know what you - I mean, Pyre - set out to say. But what you actually said - and, frankly, the rest of this conversation - is telling me I was right to speak up. You think I'm "arguing linguistics" because you think the problem is the words themselves, because what you set out to say isn't bigotry, because you're not a bigot, you only have a problem with people who deserve it! Hell, your exit admits there is no other M&M metaphor, but it's OK, because we both agree you didn't mean it like that! That's the important part here! Because this is a conversation about you!

You're gonna think this is more linguistics, but if you read back, you'll notice I never called you a bigot. I said the argument is a veil for bigotry. The reason for this is both because essentialism isn't helpful, and because my problem isn't with you - it's with the argument.

Username checks out, at least.

Back when Russia invaded Ukraine, they issued a statement about how they're saddened that Europe has descended into violence and are calling for the region to give peace a chance. It was a solid troll.

I swear it's like formaldehyde.

I know. I normally wouldn't, but it keeps trying to lecture others on tree climbing, so I thought I could at least try and help it get the basics right.