So, how about that Manning thing

[SciFiFisher]

If I'm correct, it is possible to hate being incorrect.

I only hate it when people tell me I am incorrect. When, of course, that couldn't possibly be possible. I am never incorrect.

[vendic]

You are correct... lol

[vendic]

You too, vendic. Just noticed you use "him" in your OP...

rofl

My bad. I'll go fix that now. Sometimes I still think of Manning as Bradley Manning. Probably because the crime was done when she was a he and I don't really think of the incident itself in terms of gender.

For the record, I have a transgender nephew. I still sometimes say she when talking about the early days because no one including himself knew any different and I remember a sweet little niece.

I do however stand corrected.

[squ1d]

Bahaha karma Zee!

I work with a transgender person. Sometimes I think of the person as their past gender as I may be remembering them from a time prior to "coming out". It takes some time to realign things in my mind. These mistakes get made, and as long as we recognize and correct, it is not the world's worst crime. Deliberately mocking someone via obfuscation is a different thing.

[DimSum]

I don't hate you, I just think you're incorrect on this point. It's possible to be incorrect without deserving hate.

No... you are judging whether or not I support a community, based on how I address one sorry little twatwaffle.

And because I wasn't being sufficiently politically correct for you and others, it hurt your feelings, and you felt that it was OK to gang up on me.

And y'all wonder why I walked away....

And there you have it.

I am obviously NOT politically correct enough for you. Parting is not sweet sorrow.... there is no sorrow.... Shakespeare had it all wrong.... it is a release....

[vendic]

I don't hate you, I just think you're incorrect on this point. It's possible to be incorrect without deserving hate.

No... you are judging whether or not I support a community, based on how I address one sorry little twatwaffle.

And because I wasn't being sufficiently politically correct for you and others, it hurt your feelings, and you felt that it was OK to gang up on me.

Judging you? Over this stupid thing? No.
Trying to understand, yes.

We're not ganging up on you. It might seem that way but we certainly aren't ganging up. That to me is when numbers of people do and say thing to deliberately provoke a person or upset them. That is not happening here.

It's people who you know and have known for a long time simply disagreeing with you on this position. This one position. I've had the whole board disagree with me on Hillary. Including my wife and MIL and that's ok. Sometimes it's hard being the only awesome person to see the truth for what it is! lol

I saw this thread develop but stayed out till I thought I might have something valuable to say. I always look for new information on a topic in case it changes my position. After the Lyme affecting both my memory and cognitive ability I have particularly been re-evaluating things over the last 4 years that I was affected. Even re-evaluating my position on the Clinton's. From that perspective, I did what I would want someone to do for me, point out where there was conflicting evidence.

That imho is not dog piling or ganging up. I just want you to understand that. Having met most of the players on this thread in real life, I can't see any of them ganging up. I can and do expect them to point out anything that seems to be self contradictory and let you decide what you want to do with it.

Hopefully that makes sense. I'm now with the same cold SFC has and am drinking coffee with scotch so I might re-read this later and wonder wtf I was on about myself.

I can tell you, it's not me ganging up on you or being upset with you or judging you. We've known each other way too long for that shit. We really have.

[SciFi Chick]

I certainly hate to see you go DimSum. It was good having you back. I know it's important to take breaks though. Maybe just hang out with us in Lights, Camera. No controversies there.

[vendic]

Bahaha karma Zee!

Damned Aussies can't get anything right! lol

[squ1d]

If there are 5 people, and 4 share an opinion that #5 doesn't, is that ganging up?

I thought the whole vibe was supposed to be that those seeing what they perceive to be prejudice stand up to it?

In any case, there's no need to leave. That seems a bit thin skinned.

[SciFiFisher]

If there are 5 people, and 4 share an opinion that #5 doesn't, is that ganging up?
.

Yes. One of the dictionary definitions of "Ganging up" is: To join together in opposition. In addition, the intent was to force Dimsum to change her attitude or her opinion(s) about Bradley Manning. She was called snide. She was told she had a sketchy position and couldn't possibly be a supporter of gay rights (implied by the post) if she felt that Bradly Manning was not really a transgender person. She was told that because she was not a "trained mental health professional" she was not qualified to have the opinion that she did about whether he was or was not using the transgender issue to garner sympathy and/or attention. And at least one poster decided that because the "military has a poor track record" when it comes to gay rights and treatment of gays that her position about Manning was invalid (inferred from the post).

It doesn't matter if you don't think that you were ganging up. It doesn't matter if that was not your intent. If I apply the same standard in this situation that you insist that we have towards Bradly Manning then I must insist that you treat each other with the same regard and courtesy that you expect from people.

It's ok to disagree with an opinion. It's not ok to question a person's right to have that opinion. It's not ok to imply, infer, or suggest that the person is being petty, vile, or couldn't possibly have a good reason for having that opinion just because you hate the institutions or the reasons why people feel the way they do.

If you all had suggested that Bradly Manning deserved to be identified clearly by the gender he chooses to be identified as because it is a basic human right that we should all be treated with a modicum of respect you all would have been presenting a valid point for debate.

When it was suggested that there were reasons for why some people might feel that Bradly Manning was not deserving of being called by his self identified gender and that he may not be deserving of that courtesy you dismissed it outright because the military sucks at gay rights. I might add that not everyone in the military agrees that Manning doesn't deserve the courtesy of being called she or her. But, a lot of us do. Because in the military, imperfect as it is, you earn respect. You earn the courtesy to be addressed by the titles you want or have earned. You don't automatically get that courtesy just because you demand it. And in the military you can lose the right to a courtesy. You don't deserve respect when you toss things like honor, integrity, and your sworn oath on the trash heap.

You have the right to think that I am wrong. You have the right to feel that I am a total a**hole because of this opinion. You may feel free to attack this position and me. But, the minute more than one of you joins in to help me understand why I am wrong and an a**hole you will all be engaged in a textbook example of ganging up on someone.

[vendic]

The only problem with that view is that if anyone else has an opinion that has already been expressed they now lose their right to state their opinion because by merely stating it, they are ganging up on those that have a differing opinion.

If you all had suggested that Bradly Manning deserved to be identified clearly by the gender he chooses to be identified as because it is a basic human right that we should all be treated with a modicum of respect you all would have been presenting a valid point for debate.

I thought that's what we were saying among other relevant things.

Because in the military, imperfect as it is, you earn respect. You earn the courtesy to be addressed by the titles you want or have earned. You don't automatically get that courtesy just because you demand it. And in the military you can lose the right to a courtesy. You don't deserve respect when you toss things like honor, integrity, and your sworn oath on the trash heap.

This seems to be the fundamental problem, at least for me. No one needs to earn respect to be treated as they identify themselves. That's a dark road to travel. It gives legitimacy to anyone claiming they refuse to treat a person with basic human decency because they don't respect them. So calling black people niggers would be ok, because white supremacists don't respect them, or they disrespected the military.

r.e. opening for debate. I did point out that there was an issue of timing, when Manning came out. A claim was made that it happened after the trial during sentencing and nothing mentioned before. That is incorrect as I showed. The Army knew about it because he sent his commanding officer an email with a picture of him dressed as a woman with the title, this is my problem. This happened, BEFORE, the leaks. I see this as bringing facts to the discussion, not ganging up and was never addressed.

Just clarifying my position here. I was happy to discuss it, with facts. That's not by my definition ganging up on someone but I know it can certainly feel like it and wish that wasn't the case. If I made her feel like I was ganging up on her, please convey my apologies. That was not my intent and as I explained above, I was addressing points that seemed relevant, not dog piling.

[vendic]

SFC and I were just discussing it and she pointed out something that might be very relevant.

It may simply be a case of private vs public discussion. For example, if Dimsum feels this board is more private than public, I can understand it. For example, there are two people we know that have gone down the transgender path but we honestly feel is something else. In private we discuss it anyway we want and certainly don't feel the need to hide our opinions from one another. In public we treat them the way they want to be treated. Much like I would say someone is an asshole without meaning they are an actual asshole, it's insulting the person for the sake of insulting them as opposed to disrespecting their position on something.
Much like when I meet people who think Trump is awesome. I let them know they are entitled to their opinion an treat them with respect. To my wife or among friends I'd say, what a complete moron. If the person actually had a low iq, that could be very politically incorrect. It's not meant as such, it's meant as an insult.

So yeah, if Dimsum feels she was having a discussion among friends as opposed to a public discussion, I could care less what she called Manning and wouldn't even have discussed it at all. But text and in person are two very different things and public and private are easy to deal with in rl but not so much on a board.

Hope that makes sense.

[SciFiFisher]

The only problem with that view is that if anyone else has an opinion that has already been expressed they now lose their right to state their opinion because by merely stating it, they are ganging up on those that have a differing opinion.

It depends on how you voice it. The challenge is that online forums dispense with more than 50% of the message. We communicate more than half of the message non-verbally. It also doesn't allow for a real feedback loop. Lots of time and room for misinterpretation.

Anytime you have 4 people telling a 5 person they are wrong it is going to feel like ganging up. How, you tell them they are wrong can increase the feeling of being attacked. And I think you may be on to something in regards to the private vs public arena. Sometimes we don't want our friends to tell us we are wrong. We want them to tell us they understand why we think that way or why we feel that way. And we expect that we can be reasonably honest with our friends.

But, I must also acknowledge that when it comes to respect and courtesy people often get hung up on the concept of "earning the right to be respected". I don't expect a black person to earn the right to be treated with courtesy or basic dignity. Anymore than I expect a white person will be automatically treated with respect and courtesy simply because they are white.

Earning respect and courtesy is a lot like earning and keeping trust. You always accord everyone you meet a certain measure of trust when you first meet them. How much trust they get after that depends on their actions and behavior over time. If they consistently act untrustworthy or betray that initial trust they don't get to keep coming back to the well for more of my trust.

There are also different types of courtesy that we are talking about. For example, if I met Bradley Manning in person I probably would not shake his hand. But, I wouldn't call him a fucking faggot either. Basic social courtesy rules apply. Also, notice that I have deliberately chosen to refer to Manning by his given name. Because, officially and legally, that is his name. In prison he is housed with the male population. His legal gender is male. The only courtesy I am bound to provide him is to address him by his legal given name and gender. That is exactly what the military does. As a Lt. Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve that is the only courtesy and respect I am legally and ethically bound to provide to him. If he wants to be addressed as Chelsea he should not have betrayed his country. I cannot and will not afford him anymore courtesy than I am required to by the rules of the society that I identify with. He had a choice. He could have asked for and received an administrative discharge from the army at practically any point. He started breaking the rules almost from the day he got in the army. Inability to adapt to the military is a valid discharge reason. His behavior pretty much points to being a borderline personality disorder(BPD). He could be both Transgender and BPD. But, again he had a choice to seek treatment and get help. He chose criminal behavior instead.

There are some who might suggest or believe that the military social courtesies and respects are not applicable. Or that I should conform to other societal norms. I could. But, I choose not to. Because I believe that my societal norms are just as valid as the ones that say,for the sake of courtesy, I should address Bradley Manning as her or she or Chelsea. In that context I feel very comfortable saying that Bradley Manning has to earn Respect and Courtesy. And he failed to do that in a very glaring way.

When Dimsum chose to address Bradly/Chelsea Mannning as S/he she was expressing her outrage that he/she was using the issue of gay rights to bring extra attention and sympathy to his plight. She was outraged that President Obama may have been swayed to commute his sentence because Bradly Manning played the Transgender card. In much the same way someone might commit a crime and then claim that they were being harassed and forced to commit crimes because they were black. Manning's defense team didn't really seem to try to use the Transgender issue as a defense for why he committed his crimes. But, Manning has used it to garner sympathy and to try to cast the military in a bad light for the way they insist on treating him. i.e. insisting on housing him with males in prison.

[squ1d]

If there are 5 people, and 4 share an opinion that #5 doesn't, is that ganging up?
.

Yes. One of the dictionary definitions of "Ganging up" is: To join together in opposition.

So voting for a winning candidate in an election is ganging up? Holding the prevailing view is ganging up? In that case, I concede, we were ganging up.

When I hear that phrase, it conjurs up imagery of a group of children joining together to bully a single child. I believe this is the way most people use the term. And I disagree that it is the appropriate term in this context.

If it is, then every time I am in the minority with my opinion, I am being ganged up on. And if I am, then I say: big fucking deal. I've been ganged up on many times in my life, and some of those times, it has turned out I was wrong, and later changed my mind. Others, well fuck 'em, life goes on.

In addition, the intent was to force Dimsum to change her attitude or her opinion(s) about Bradley Manning.

I'm not sure whose intent you're talking about here, but it isn't mine, as my intent was to point out what I perceive to be hypocrisy.

She was told that because she was not a "trained mental health professional" she was not qualified to have the opinion that she did about whether he was or was not using the transgender issue to garner sympathy and/or attention.

In that context, you left out the fact she was told she didn't know Manning either. And it seems like a completely salient point too. One that I am surprised causes offence.

It's ok to disagree with an opinion. It's not ok to question a person's right to have that opinion.

I think its everybodies insistence on their right to have an opinion about everything, and then have that opinion respected, that is causing many of the problems in the world right now. Issues like "climate skepticism". The media being punished for pointing out that Trump's inauguration speech was sparsely attended. Stopping evolution being taught in schools. Insistence on religious education in schools. Etc.

I say that if you're going to make a call about someone being falsely transgender, you should probably at least have strong grounds to do so, rather than an argument of circumstance and a large measure of hostility. It sets a precedent. If for some reason you don't like someone you can deny parts of their identity and openly mock them for it.

Other Transgender people will look to this situation, and see the cynicism and convolution of the separate issues (treason, gender), and it will make them feel sad.

Prejudiced people will look to this situation and be emboldened to convolute any wrongdoing by a Transgender person with the person's identity.

It's not ok to imply, infer, or suggest that the person is being petty, vile, or couldn't possibly have a good reason for having that opinion just because you hate the institutions or the reasons why people feel the way they do.

I can't suggest someone is being petty because I think the reasoning for their opinion is petty?

Wait, what?

When it was suggested that there were reasons for why some people might feel that Bradly Manning was not deserving of being called by his self identified gender and that he may not be deserving of that courtesy you dismissed it outright because the military sucks at gay rights.

The dismissal of those reasons was unrelated to the observation that the military sucks at gay rights.

You have the right to think that I am wrong. You have the right to feel that I am a total a**hole because of this opinion. You may feel free to attack this position and me. But, the minute more than one of you joins in to help me understand why I am wrong and an a**hole you will all be engaged in a textbook example of ganging up on someone.

"NOW I'VE SAID MY BIT IF MORE THAN ONE OF YOU DISAGREE YOU'RE GANGING UP NEENER NEENER"

Come on dude.

[squ1d]

If he wants to be addressed as Chelsea he should not have betrayed his country.

^^ This best highlights where my disagreement with your position(s) lies.