Anne Hathaway apologies for depiction of limb difference

On the Beach

When is all this apologising to the any offended going to stop? Let's all build a bridge together to prance along to our Utopia where everyone's feelings are considered and nobody is offended anymore because we've covered every possible angle of potential offence. Ugh

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And similarly, and perhaps unsurprisingly, the only metric I have to judge someone who is outraged perpetually, is that you need to be perpetually outraged - as you obviously are - starting threads because someone apologised for something, frequent foul mouthed outbursts.

Chill.

If only I could have foreseen this absolute zinger of an argument you have landed on me.

From the opening post....

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2020/1106/1176307-anne-hathaway/

For **** sake. What the hell is wrong with people getting so easily offended?

Before the usual suspects get in to accuse me of being offended by the apology, I'm not. Yes, I'm baffled, but certainly not offended.

It's so bizarre.

I know... Starting a thread on a discussion board is definitely outrage at its finest... Come on Andrew. Do better.

AndrewJRenko

On the Beach wrote: »

When is all this apologising to the any offended going to stop? Let's all build a bridge together to prance along to our Utopia where everyone's feelings are considered and nobody is offended anymore because we've covered every possible angle of potential offence. Ugh

You should post that to https://twitter.com/LeftAccidental - they'd love you over there.

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If only I could have foreseen this absolute zinger of an argument you have landed on me.

From the opening post....



I know... Starting a thread on a discussion board is definitely outrage at its finest... Come on Andrew. Do better.

Funnily enough, you SAYING that you're not perpetually outraged does not mean that your not perpetually outraged, given that your behaviour tells a different story. I'd expect that many of those that you claim are perpetually outraged would also say that they're not outraged, but presumably you would ignore that.

So I'm going to ignore your claim to not be perpetually outraged, and look at your behaviour and responses here. I'm therefore going to make the subjective judgement that you are perpetually outraged. Presumably you're not claiming to be the only person on boards.ie who is allowed make such a subjective judgement?

On the Beach

AndrewJRenko wrote:

- they'd love you over there.

That's alright, I love me.

CountNjord

Oh for crying out loud I thought the SJWs and liberals were gone, and retired.

They're still whinging.

Isn't it ironic when education was never more affordable and you've these whinge bag's and fruit loops giving out out about creativity and imagination.

What kind of upbringing have these people had to have to complain all the time ?

AndrewJRenko

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Oh i took you up wrong. We are actually in agreement. However, I would say that a group set up speaks for noone other than the members of that group. Since the groups you posted about are highly unlikely to have even nearly a majority of disabled people as group members (and are in fact likely to have a tiny minority) , I fail to see why you posted them as some sort of authority on what words are deemed acceptable to be used and what ones aren't.

That's a fairly different point to your original 'representing all' claim. I don't know where you got the idea that I claimed these posters were 'authorities' on anything. Orla would be fairly well known and well respected. Gary, well, Gary is Gary, but he would also be well known within community development circles. I didn't post them as an authority on anything. I posted them to counter the 'who are you to be telling us what to do' stuff. It's not me telling people what to do. There are well established guidelines from people with disabilities and disability organisations at home and abroad.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Funnily enough, you SAYING that you're not perpetually outraged does not mean that your not perpetually outraged, given that your behaviour tells a different story. I'd expect that many of those that you claim are perpetually outraged would also say that they're not outraged, but presumably you would ignore that.

So I'm going to ignore your claim to not be perpetually outraged, and look at your behaviour and responses here. I'm therefore going to make the subjective judgement that you are perpetually outraged. Presumably you're not claiming to be the only person on boards.ie who is allowed make such a subjective judgement?

Andrew J Renko is not accepting someone self identifying as something they claim to be...

Jeepers creepers. I wonder how you would respond to others who do the same.

No andrew, I made that disclaimer as I do think this a topic worthy of discussion, but I did preempt people would exhaust their avenues of debate and just resort to pathetic misrepresentation, patronising language and then when all hope was lost, claim that I was outraged.

You've done that.

And I have no issue with you making your claim, because, as with all of your claims on this thread, they are easily disproven and discredited.

To make it clear again, I am bemused by all of this and not one bit outraged. You haven't made any counter point or any cohesive argument to convince me otherwise.

Would you care to answer somethings?

Again, you have avoided the question, what makes you so angry about white men? Do you think women, Asians and black people are under represented? Do you believe that 19% of all firefighters should be disabled?

Would you honestly say to someone who was disabled and referred to themselves as handicapped that the word is offensive and they need to use a more socially acceptable term when talking about themselves?

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

Andrew J Renko is not accepting someone self identifying as something they claim to be...

Jeepers creepers. I wonder how you would respond to others who do the same.

No andrew, I made that disclaimer as I do think this a topic worthy of discussion, but I did preempt people would exhaust their avenues of debate and just resort to pathetic misrepresentation, patronising language and then when all hope was lost, claim that I was outraged.

You've done that.

And I have no issue with you making your claim, because, as with all of your claims on this thread, they are easily disproven and discredited.

To make it clear again, I am bemused by all of this and not one bit outraged. You haven't made any counter point or any cohesive argument to convince me otherwise.

Would you care to answer somethings?

I don't think that's how 'identifying' works, though I know you keep repeatedly banging that drum loudly and regularly as part of your perpetually outraged 'down with that sort of thing' campaign.

For the record, I don't need to convince you of anything or get your approval, just like you didn't convince others or get their approval.

I'm making a subjective judgement that you are perpetually outraged on any matter related to gender identity.

And no, I don't think I'll be answering your somethings, to give you another opportunity to be abusive and foul mouthed. We're a bit past that stage of the discussion.

But I will add one professional authority on the importance of the people-first language that you disparage;
https://twitter.com/soceallaigh/status/1327721051225268226?s=20

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I don't think that's how 'identifying' works, though I know you keep repeatedly banging that drum loudly and regularly as part of your perpetually outraged 'down with that sort of thing' campaign.

For the record, I don't need to convince you of anything or get your approval, just like you didn't convince others or get their approval.

I'm making a subjective judgement that you are perpetually outraged on any matter related to gender identity.

And no, I don't think I'll be answering your somethings, to give you another opportunity to be abusive and foul mouthed. We're a bit past that stage of the discussion.

Identifying works as an individual identifying as something. The clue is in the name Andrew. You only seem to champion it when it suits your virtue signalling agenda

You are right about one thing, you do not need to convince me of anything. I use common sense and facts. So I doubt you could lure me into your way of thinking.

You have made an erroneous decision (not your first, not your last) to decide I am perpetually outraged on gender identity issues (goalpost movement you'd call that).

I'm consistent that I am willing to discuss the issue and feel that it is an issue worth further debate.

However, you deciding that is outrage is telling.

The fact that you have now run out of corners to hide in, you are deciding to shut down conversation because of some bad words (which were censored with asterisk).

Fair enough.

I think it is clear to see for anyone engaging honestly in the debate, who is the person who actually wants to discuss the issue...

The person who brought up the topic for discussion and answers questions put to them,

or

the one who deflects, insults and refuses to answer questions while claiming the higher ground.

Good man Andrew.

CtevenSrowder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I don't think that's how 'identifying' works, though I know you keep repeatedly banging that drum loudly and regularly as part of your perpetually outraged 'down with that sort of thing' campaign.

For the record, I don't need to convince you of anything or get your approval, just like you didn't convince others or get their approval.

I'm making a subjective judgement that you are perpetually outraged on any matter related to gender identity.

And no, I don't think I'll be answering your somethings, to give you another opportunity to be abusive and foul mouthed. We're a bit past that stage of the discussion.

But I will add one professional authority on the importance of the people-first language that you disparage;
https://twitter.com/soceallaigh/status/1327721051225268226?s=20

What is the point of this 'authority' if you, like me, acknowledge they don't speak on behalf of.. Well, really anyone?

AndrewJRenko

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

What is the point of this 'authority' if you, like me, acknowledge they don't speak on behalf of.. Well, really anyone?

You seem a bit hung up on this 'speaking on behalf of' thing. You've seen the message from several national and international disability organisations. You've seen the comments from people with disabilities. You've seen the statement here from a medic.

What more do you need to get past the denial, or (in the case of others here) the taking of deliberate actions intended to offend people, just because?

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

Identifying works as an individual identifying as something. The clue is in the name Andrew. You only seem to champion it when it suits your virtue signalling agenda

You are right about one thing, you do not need to convince me of anything. I use common sense and facts. So I doubt you could lure me into your way of thinking.

You have made an erroneous decision (not your first, not your last) to decide I am perpetually outraged on gender identity issues (goalpost movement you'd call that).

I'm consistent that I am willing to discuss the issue and feel that it is an issue worth further debate.

However, you deciding that is outrage is telling.

The fact that you have now run out of corners to hide in, you are deciding to shut down conversation because of some bad words (which were censored with asterisk).

Fair enough.

I think it is clear to see for anyone engaging honestly in the debate, who is the person who actually wants to discuss the issue...

The person who brought up the topic for discussion and answers questions put to them,

or

the one who deflects, insults and refuses to answer questions while claiming the higher ground.

Good man Andrew.

Thanks for clearly demonstrating your ignorance of how identifying works.

And thanks for being such a big here with your 'willingness to discuss' (when you're not being personally abusive, of course).

It's actually quite funny to see you coming up with all the reasons why you're not offended, and ignoring those very same reasons when they apply to those you accuse of being offended.

CtevenSrowder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You seem a bit hung up on this 'speaking on behalf of' thing. You've seen the message from several national and international disability organisations. You've seen the comments from people with disabilities. You've seen the statement here from a medic.

What more do you need to get past the denial, or (in the case of others here) the taking of deliberate actions intended to offend people, just because?

What actions attempting to offend people? Attempting to offend and unwittingly offending are two very different concepts.

Also we have seen comments from, what, 2 people with disabilities, and organisations that represent the minority.

Not everyone, disabled or not, takes offence to things as easy as you seem to be suggesting.