3 ms·
> shows that you understand your initial statement to be a dog whistle, and that upon reflection, you decided not to say the quiet part loud. You seem to be ma
by try_the_bass 4y ago
> shows that you understand your initial statement to be a dog whistle, and that upon reflection, you decided not to say the quiet part loud.
You seem to be making some very strong assumptions about intent [E] and have been since your first response in this thread. As an outside observer, those assumptions don't seem supported by the conversation up to this point.
Instead of assuming this person is strongly biased and bigoted, perhaps can you instead assume they simply did not make the point they were trying to make as clearly as they would have liked, and thus revised their statement accordingly?
Something something positive intent and the like. Assuming negative intent when there's very little signal to support that assumption speaks more to your own prejudices and biases than anything else.
- klyrs 4y ago> Something something positive intent and the like Trust, but verify. It's one thing to recognize a dog whistle and flip out. It's quite another thing to hear a dog whistle, ask for elaboration, and nope out when negative intent is revealed.
- nailer 4y agoWhat negative intent is there in not wanting children to harm their own bodies?
- Ralfp 4y agoI agree with parent poster in their assumptions. Few posts up @nailer repeats anti-trans talking point that originated from 4chan.
- nailer 4y agoThe 'talking points' thing is a non argument. For the record, my sister - the same one from the Lesbian Mother's Group - counsels at-risk adolescents and I live near the Tavistock center which was shut down by the UK government after one of their doctors blew the whistle on 'gender affirming' care.