3 ms·

(Caitlyn. Caitlyn Jenner. Surely the definition of "transgender" couldn't have eluded you while you were making a point about her being transgender?)

cglace 11y ago
Actually it did. . . I don't see the need for outrage.
- tangled_zans 11y ago
  What outrage? Simply teaching you some respect, as well as some factual accuracy.
  - garrettgrimsley 11y ago
    >Simply teaching you some respect, as well as some factual accuracy. The author of the parent comment has established that they made a mistake. Maybe you weren't outraged before but now there is some readily apparent hostility.
    - tangled_zans 11y ago
      Yes, that was indeed the case. Surely if I made a factual error on something that you were knowledgeable on - say, NodeJS - and you corrected me, you'd be slightly peeved - or at least see my behavior as odd - if I replied to you claiming that your friendly input was "outrage".
      - cglace 11y ago
        It wasn't that you pointed out a factual inaccuracy. It was how you did it. You assumed you needed to "teach me some respect" instead of just saying "It's actually Caitlyn Jenner".
        tangled_zans 11y ago
        The initial comment was just a joke, mate (clearly you're the one choosing to be outraged over my tone?) which came out of my assumption that it's impossible to both know that she is transgender and that she does not want to be called Bruce. If that was indeed an honest error then you could have elaborated on how it was possible for you to hold both of these contradicting views simultaneously, and I would have admitted that I was wrong to assume that you were a prick. Since instead of doing that you've decided to deflect with "STOP WITH THE OUTRAGE THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!", I did surmise that you are simply not aware of what 'respect' is. Hence while it was wrong of me to take on that role of 'teaching' it to you (what a waste of effort), I stand by my implication that someone should have done that by now.
        cglace 11y ago
        Why should I have to explain why I accidentally called someone by the name they went by for 65 years. It's not a contradictory view. It's a slip up. My response was literally a 5 second google search, went with the name in the title, and posted. No malice, no motives, just a mistake. Stop reading so far into it. The way you worded your response was basically, "If it was an error why are you a bigot?"
        tangled_zans 11y ago
        Hmm, you are right, I read into it a bit too much. Like I said, I felt insulted by you labelling my off-hand comment as "outrage", especially after you agreed that I was factually correct. In hindsight I can see why you took offence to my original comment, but there is a massive difference in connotation between saying "I am offended" and "you are outraged". [0] As I am a big proponent of free speech online, your implication of what I should and should not be able to say has been quite vexing to me, hence my annoyance. But I shouldn't have conflated that with whatever your views on trans women are. [0] http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2164 http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2164
        garrettgrimsley 11y ago
  - datburg 11y ago
    You correct people and not pull a tantrum based on one comment. Please, teach yourself respect. The OP obviously understood the point.
    - tangled_zans 11y ago
      I think the OP has made his point quite well already, and I understood him. No need for added outrage.

cglace 11y ago

Actually it did. . . I don't see the need for outrage.

tangled_zans 11y ago
What outrage? Simply teaching you some respect, as well as some factual accuracy.
- garrettgrimsley 11y ago
  >Simply teaching you some respect, as well as some factual accuracy. The author of the parent comment has established that they made a mistake. Maybe you weren't outraged before but now there is some readily apparent hostility.
  - tangled_zans 11y ago
    Yes, that was indeed the case. Surely if I made a factual error on something that you were knowledgeable on - say, NodeJS - and you corrected me, you'd be slightly peeved - or at least see my behavior as odd - if I replied to you claiming that your friendly input was "outrage".
    - cglace 11y ago
      It wasn't that you pointed out a factual inaccuracy. It was how you did it. You assumed you needed to "teach me some respect" instead of just saying "It's actually Caitlyn Jenner".
      - tangled_zans 11y ago
        The initial comment was just a joke, mate (clearly you're the one choosing to be outraged over my tone?) which came out of my assumption that it's impossible to both know that she is transgender and that she does not want to be called Bruce. If that was indeed an honest error then you could have elaborated on how it was possible for you to hold both of these contradicting views simultaneously, and I would have admitted that I was wrong to assume that you were a prick. Since instead of doing that you've decided to deflect with "STOP WITH THE OUTRAGE THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!", I did surmise that you are simply not aware of what 'respect' is. Hence while it was wrong of me to take on that role of 'teaching' it to you (what a waste of effort), I stand by my implication that someone should have done that by now.
        cglace 11y ago
        Why should I have to explain why I accidentally called someone by the name they went by for 65 years. It's not a contradictory view. It's a slip up. My response was literally a 5 second google search, went with the name in the title, and posted. No malice, no motives, just a mistake. Stop reading so far into it. The way you worded your response was basically, "If it was an error why are you a bigot?"
        tangled_zans 11y ago
        Hmm, you are right, I read into it a bit too much. Like I said, I felt insulted by you labelling my off-hand comment as "outrage", especially after you agreed that I was factually correct. In hindsight I can see why you took offence to my original comment, but there is a massive difference in connotation between saying "I am offended" and "you are outraged". [0] As I am a big proponent of free speech online, your implication of what I should and should not be able to say has been quite vexing to me, hence my annoyance. But I shouldn't have conflated that with whatever your views on trans women are. [0] http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2164 http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2164
        garrettgrimsley 11y ago
- datburg 11y ago
  You correct people and not pull a tantrum based on one comment. Please, teach yourself respect. The OP obviously understood the point.
  - tangled_zans 11y ago
    I think the OP has made his point quite well already, and I understood him. No need for added outrage.