Transgender discussions, ad hominem comments and Godwin’s Law

chaosanswers.comLEXIE CANNES STATE OF TRANS — Let me erase any doubt right off the bat — when it comes to all things transgender, it is important that everyone is heard. Whether its transgender colleagues or those trying to oppress us, an opportunity to be heard ought to be provided.

For the former, one never knows when colleagues holding different views could provide information that triggers one to reformulate an opinion, while for the latter, “knowing thy enemy” is usually a reliable source of ammunition for neutering them. Being heard though, comes with showing respect for the reader.

For the purpose of this article, I’m focusing on written discussion between our transgender colleagues and friends on social media and in the blogosphere.

Obviously, false claims and rhetoric can safely be ignored. If the writer did not take the time to ensure the statements being made are factual, readers are under no obligation to read further, comment or share the information.

Deleting the article and blocking the writer from sharing on your social media page or site is a perfectly acceptable course of action here. The internet will thank you for nipping misinformation in the bud.

Writers making ad hominem comments (attacking the person, not the argument), is also another cue to stop reading. This is true even if the point the writer is trying to make is valid. Writers don’t get to make their point by bullying. This is would be another great opportunity to delete the article and/or block the writer.

Likewise with violating any variation of Godwin’s Law. If writer attempts to make his point by bringing up the Nazis or Hitler, that’s your cue to stop reading. Another variation of Godwin’s Law says that the first person to bring up the Nazis in a discussion thread automatically loses the discussion and the thread is closed.

Discussion decorum for our community ought to be free of having to dodge loose cannons, wading through personal vilifying and witnessing the restructuring of the Third Reich.

As for the writers, they’ll soon shift their tactics if they want an audience. In the meantime, delete and block guilt-free.

——

An overflowing in box prompted this article. Thanks to everyone that contacted me!

chaosanswers.com

———

“Lexie Cannes” — an award-winning feature film about a transgender woman who is stalked, solves a mystery, saves a lost soul and finds love. Get it here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0963781332   

LEXIE CANNES STATE OF TRANS is associated with Wipe Out Transphobia: http://www.wipeouttransphobia.com/

Read Lexie Cannes in The Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/courtney-odonnell/



Categories: Transgender, Transsexual, Trans

Tags: , ,

2 replies

  1. This is such cool article. In my position I can agree, but those that are ignorant of what goes on they may have to see and smell the vomit all around.

  2. “Obviously, false claims and rhetoric can safely be ignored.”
    –That’s not how disinformation works. Repeated, clouding, assertive, and controlling the information even in a “discussion”:
    http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/03/say-it-like-you-mean-it-how-lies-can-easily-trump-facts.html

    This is currently going on on YouTube and other places, with mobbers and disinformation lackeys consistently posting, “liking”, deleting, and falsely reporting for abuse or spam. Although I’m still waiting for a response from the ACLU on some posts, I was recently “reinstated” on Google+ and thus able to post on YouTube. To call out “Godwin’s Law” is both prejudicial and spurious, as repeated disinformation has been used forever, not just by Nazis.
    I didn’t post the following before on the blog about Tucker Carlson, but will now as an example of concerted disinformation:

    * * *
    How serendipitous?

    A while back I posted about someone on YouTube using different avatars/profiles and controlling the public viewpoint by deleting science-based comments, then claiming that trans didn’t exist because “science” said so. Some of the names used have been “Jewish Pride”, “Chaim Kekenstein”, “Solomon Shekelstein”, and “Trevon Toney” which changed into “Chanty Morris” in mid-conversation. You can see it here under “Jewish Pride” where I address “Trevon” who reports me for abuse to get me out of the way, but then turns into “Chanty”:

    Note that in the above conversation Jewish Pride says “They are kind and loving”–but this is right after I posted observable fMRI responses in circuits of love and disgust/contempt, meaning that after I posted the scientific facts of the last 20 years to “Chaim Kekenstein”, he was taking note of my posts.

    I’m sure this seems like a stretch, but I’m betting that “Betsy Rothstein” (aka, Betsy Ross) is one and the same with all those names and all are Tucker Carlson. Names, word choice and revealed intelligence level, and sentence structure indicate they are.

    Odd, though, that at another site with yet another deletion of studies, I got reported again and have been bounced from Goog pus. I guess I’m just more on the contempt side than the loving side.

    * * *

    If you have the time, the counter to this is posting the truth simply as independent statements, not as part of a “discussion” that can be controlled. But with all those female avatars and profiles, is Carlson a case of “methinks she doth protest too much”?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: