Not enough like Twitter.

Dec 4 bradl commented on Republicans Struggle to Explain Away Eric Garner's Death.
@1 that you think 'tautology' is such a fancy word might say a little bit more about you than it does Paul Constant.

on another note, I'm surprised that nobody's combined the Rand Paul and Peter King approach to say that it's about time we've done something about this obesity epidemic. Maybe someone has, but I certainly don't want to go looking for it.
Nov 4 bradl commented on The Bowler Hat Is the New Fedora.
I usually find myself agreeing with Paul Constant on a lot of topics, but this post left a sour taste in my mouth. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but this comes across as weirdly snobbish and cruel. Why the hypercriticism of others' clothes? And the politicization of them? Try to imagine doing to with respect to a class of people you actually like and it becomes a little clearer how needlessly mean-spirited this is.

Or maybe I'm just having a rough day!
Oct 29 bradl commented on Columbia Center Is Our Finger of God.
I know people love to show how sophisticated they are by criticizing pictures taken with computer-generated filters, but think that's a really cool picture! It's so far precluded me from getting to the post
Oct 24 bradl commented on Shooting at Pilchuck High School in Marysville; One Student, Believed to Be the Shooter, Is Reportedly Dead.
@17 "a noun modifying another noun."

um, what about 'doghouse'?
Sep 27 bradl commented on Will "Cisgender" Survive?.
@116, I think the confusion becomes clear when you say this:

"Now you may think that's arbitrary, but it isn't. It's a very real difference"

It's not a contradiction for a difference to be both arbitrary and very real. None of us are doubting the realness of the difference, but we are taking issue with that particular one-of-many-other-very-real-differences being specially important in a way that fundamentally distinguishes it from other differences. Because maintaining that, as we've be saying, is not tenable given the bewildering variety of people personal experiences across the world and across the centuries.
Sep 27 bradl commented on Will "Cisgender" Survive?.
@113, no the idea is that *of course* there are differences. But there are also *of course* differences between all sorts of men and women. Singling out trans-ness as the specially relevant difference is arbitrary. It's just as arbitrary as singling out as specially important the difference between men who grew up rich versus those who didn't. Of course there will be real differences between those groups, but that doesn't mean that it should be used to constitute the 'real' man dividing line
Sep 26 bradl commented on Will "Cisgender" Survive?.
@109 you say "I will always know what it's like be a man, just as a dude from the congo will"

but wait, how in the world do you know this? It is no way sensible to ascribe the subjective perceptions of other to yourself. You can only claim this in virtue reifying some arbitrary notion of what it means to be a man. It's exactly this arbitrary notion that we are disputing.
Sep 25 bradl commented on Will "Cisgender" Survive?.
@78 also, way to pat yourself on the back with your truth-speaking! brava! I can totally understand how brave it must be to hold forth against the tides of people who don't boldly and repeatedly make what is known as "The Worst Argument in the World"

"X is in a category whose archetypal member gives us a certain emotional reaction. Therefore, we should apply that emotional reaction to X, even though it is not a central category member."

http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentr…

Sep 25 bradl commented on Will "Cisgender" Survive?.
@68 oh, silly me, I guess I just understood 'collude' in the sort of 'secretive, illicit collaboration' sense. I know we cisgender-as-a-word-adopters are not doing so great on the secretive bit or the illicit bit, but whatever. You can keep on refraining from your own version of "collusion"
Sep 25 bradl commented on Will "Cisgender" Survive?.
@69 Do you realize how mind-bogglingly silly your argument is? It takes the form: thing X is not common now, therefore it will NEVER be common.

If that were to be true, then we would be living in a very static place where nothing becomes more common which is, like, transparently false.
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy