Lumping in would be saying “all people who defend trans folx have a tendency to defend all trans folx, even if there is a specific indefensible individual they are wanting to defend on the mere basis that they are trans” such as you may be doing in this thread. I saw no such “lumping in”, by either you or chippy in the comments above. they chose to include that descriptor maybe as a subtle way to associate this Chan person with other transitioned people, but I don’t think “lumping in” is the exact words I would think to use in such a statement of (biased, but not universalizing) selection of descriptors
an example how Chippy could have been “lumping in” would be if he had just included a word like “another” (xyzfghpqrs [insert negatively stigmatized descriptor here] + trans person) to show that he feels the traits are typically aligned (lumped)
I’m coming at this from the perspective that all stigmas are rooted in fear, short-sighted self-interest, or attachment to a particularly limited scope of ontology used in one’s view of the world or themselves which cannot accept new aspects of the reality they exist in. So imo stigmatizing for example racist people (hardest to defend so good example) does nothing to defeat racism because they are being proven right (that such an issue is worth fighting over) when one tries fighting a person over their racism. It’s like any phobia: exposure therapy can work but shame often pushes people further from owning their own thoughts and behaviors and into safer frameworks or circles where less effort is needed to survive such an ontological (I hope I’m using this word correctly I just learned what it means last week…) restructuring of their sense of self/values/meaning in their mortal life.
and lastly, if you are the one inserting the word “another” to the statement in your own head, then maybe the best place to start working on transphobia would be to ask why you felt the need to insert that slight tweak to the statement, and how such a subversion of someone else’s verbiage might have served your ego or confirmed your worldview in some way, and perhaps why that could be what has happened
This is some JP-level philbro bullshit I had never thought I would see on Lemmy. 5 people fell for it though so congrats. Also very nice of you to share some of your more simplistic ideas right here.
“It’s just a joke bro” type of shit. Do the attack helicopter one too, quick, while everyone is laughing 🤡
you’re not wrong lol. are you for or against the “/s” construct anyways because in my opinion, it feels like a shitty thing to even dare to do, considering how covert narcissism is basically founded on that type of humor of gaslighting some of the people they are interacting with into thinking that they have thought about some type of feeling (deep, personal, vulnerable, challenging, or dissenting) on a deeper level and are just using “ironic” statements to try and remain relevant to the issue/topic without doing the internal work of even processing the questions posed by the original statements which might seem puzzling to readers/listeners upon first impressions, but if one could take enough careful time to think them through or piece them together, might be able to come up with actually much more meaningful takeaways from even simpler statements, pieces of art, or expressions more generally.
I don’t disagree with you, I think basically all humor is in bad taste, but comes from a true intention to express some kind of emotion, as limited in its complexity or rarity as may it be. I generally try to epitomize misconceptions in ways that allow for genuine constructive pushback, to test what I am doing wrong because I often times find that what sometimes I expect to be common decency or typical behavior has been proven to be inaccurate to what my predictions might have been. At various points seeing other people treating others in their life in minimizing ways that I had been able to observe in some limited way, but also sometimes beginning to notice ways that people have perhaps at times been doing some of those manipulative strategies with me, either intentionally or unintentionally. And also sometimes through reflection upon times when it had taken me sometimes weeks to months after an interaction to put together the context or way to interpreting my actions or an expression of thoughts/feelings of general unease or uncertainty about life, the world, or perhaps some underlying unease with the social interaction with another (often seemingly due to lack of perfect socialization on my part) I will realize that many of those times I will have at some point in the exchange acted or spoken out of ignorance in that person’s perspective, and they just did not have the patience to teach me in that moment. so I am interested in improving my ability to be understood on an increasingly precise or “nuanced” level as I learn to both hear and validate the perspectives of others while still being able to use their own language with them to be able to mitigate conflicts of interest while not coming across as intentionally provoking disgust in others through disrespecting of cultural taboos in the various forms they can come in.
Lumping in would be saying “all people who defend trans folx have a tendency to defend all trans folx, even if there is a specific indefensible individual they are wanting to defend on the mere basis that they are trans” such as you may be doing in this thread. I saw no such “lumping in”, by either you or chippy in the comments above. they chose to include that descriptor maybe as a subtle way to associate this Chan person with other transitioned people, but I don’t think “lumping in” is the exact words I would think to use in such a statement of (biased, but not universalizing) selection of descriptors
an example how Chippy could have been “lumping in” would be if he had just included a word like “another” (xyzfghpqrs [insert negatively stigmatized descriptor here] + trans person) to show that he feels the traits are typically aligned (lumped)
I’m coming at this from the perspective that all stigmas are rooted in fear, short-sighted self-interest, or attachment to a particularly limited scope of ontology used in one’s view of the world or themselves which cannot accept new aspects of the reality they exist in. So imo stigmatizing for example racist people (hardest to defend so good example) does nothing to defeat racism because they are being proven right (that such an issue is worth fighting over) when one tries fighting a person over their racism. It’s like any phobia: exposure therapy can work but shame often pushes people further from owning their own thoughts and behaviors and into safer frameworks or circles where less effort is needed to survive such an ontological (I hope I’m using this word correctly I just learned what it means last week…) restructuring of their sense of self/values/meaning in their mortal life.
and lastly, if you are the one inserting the word “another” to the statement in your own head, then maybe the best place to start working on transphobia would be to ask why you felt the need to insert that slight tweak to the statement, and how such a subversion of someone else’s verbiage might have served your ego or confirmed your worldview in some way, and perhaps why that could be what has happened
This is some JP-level philbro bullshit I had never thought I would see on Lemmy. 5 people fell for it though so congrats. Also very nice of you to share some of your more simplistic ideas right here.
“It’s just a joke bro” type of shit. Do the attack helicopter one too, quick, while everyone is laughing 🤡
you’re not wrong lol. are you for or against the “/s” construct anyways because in my opinion, it feels like a shitty thing to even dare to do, considering how covert narcissism is basically founded on that type of humor of gaslighting some of the people they are interacting with into thinking that they have thought about some type of feeling (deep, personal, vulnerable, challenging, or dissenting) on a deeper level and are just using “ironic” statements to try and remain relevant to the issue/topic without doing the internal work of even processing the questions posed by the original statements which might seem puzzling to readers/listeners upon first impressions, but if one could take enough careful time to think them through or piece them together, might be able to come up with actually much more meaningful takeaways from even simpler statements, pieces of art, or expressions more generally.
I don’t disagree with you, I think basically all humor is in bad taste, but comes from a true intention to express some kind of emotion, as limited in its complexity or rarity as may it be. I generally try to epitomize misconceptions in ways that allow for genuine constructive pushback, to test what I am doing wrong because I often times find that what sometimes I expect to be common decency or typical behavior has been proven to be inaccurate to what my predictions might have been. At various points seeing other people treating others in their life in minimizing ways that I had been able to observe in some limited way, but also sometimes beginning to notice ways that people have perhaps at times been doing some of those manipulative strategies with me, either intentionally or unintentionally. And also sometimes through reflection upon times when it had taken me sometimes weeks to months after an interaction to put together the context or way to interpreting my actions or an expression of thoughts/feelings of general unease or uncertainty about life, the world, or perhaps some underlying unease with the social interaction with another (often seemingly due to lack of perfect socialization on my part) I will realize that many of those times I will have at some point in the exchange acted or spoken out of ignorance in that person’s perspective, and they just did not have the patience to teach me in that moment. so I am interested in improving my ability to be understood on an increasingly precise or “nuanced” level as I learn to both hear and validate the perspectives of others while still being able to use their own language with them to be able to mitigate conflicts of interest while not coming across as intentionally provoking disgust in others through disrespecting of cultural taboos in the various forms they can come in.
Lotta words to explain how you’re DEFINITELY not transphobic 😒
Reading is good for the mind, feeling is good for the soul, thinking is good for the gut, while drinking is good for the heart.
deleted by creator
They gave a thoughtful and well written response to you that was not transphobic in the slightest.
Maybe it’s time for you to log off and live in the real world for a moment.
deleted by creator