Apology

[Phytotron]

waaaah

A) Did you really need to quote the entire post? Or quote it at all? B) You really want to get into that again? We've been over this before, and I believe it was even you who made the big stink about it. And I've answered it, multiple times over. C) Is your memory that poor, or are you aware and just trolling as usual? I know where my money is. D) Shoo, fly. Kid.

[sinewav]

You called him a kid so he can get riled up and stoop to your level of insults?

Heh, I've yet to see anyone stoop to Pytotron's level of insults; they are of an elevated quality. Methinks you would need some heavy duty scaffolding to match wits. Maybe even a space elevator.

Edit: He's the king!

[TaZ]

waaaah

A) Did you really need to quote the entire post? Or quote it at all? B) You really want to get into that again? We've been over this before, and I believe it was even you who made the big stink about it. And I've answered it, multiple times over. C) Is your memory that poor, or are you aware and just trolling as usual? I know where my money is. D) Shoo, fly. Kid.

I'm not trying to get into anything with you, Phytotron.

[Lucifer]

I think you're reading way too much into that comment. It's not like a transgendered identity is something deeply subconscious and he just committed a Freudian slip and should enter psychoanalysis.

I really couldn't care less what Elmo was up to. I don't care much either way. I'm looking at the responses to it and feeling disappointed. Probably doesn't help that my current emotional state includes finding out recently that two people with whom I was developing a strong relationship ganged up on a TG girlfriend after finding out what her anatomy really was, so I'm feeling a bit sensitive.

Anyway, I'll continue, since I started it.

Ignoring what's actually happening with Elmo, let's take the hypothesis that he is a mtf TG. As motivation, he wants to be accepted here as a girl, so he pretends to be a girl for two years. Now he outs himself as a boy in a joking fashion to see how people will react, and gets the prejudice he was expecting. Under the circumstances, he can now never be a she here.

Now, whatever Elmo's up to is irrelevant for this part. Let's say another TG individual comes along and considers outing him/herself (because there are ftm TG too). This person finds this thread and decides not to out himself based on the reactions there.

It's that second situation that I'm more concerned about, mainly because:

I think much more likely it's a dumbass kid giving the lazy, unthinking "I dunno" when asked, "why did you do that?" I know you've gotten that response from your kids.

I agree with this. It is much more likely this is what Elmo's doing. I'm still open to my hypothesis being true about him, but I don't seriously consider it a possibility. He'd have to PM me to talk about it.

So I'm calling out how what he's doing and the generated reactions will affect other people in a bad way. This is the same reason I consider using the word "gay" in a derogatory way to be a bad thing: it may not hurt anybody when you say it, but the attitude that goes behind it inadvertently hurts people you don't even know, because as a population that behaves this way, it hurts a minority that needs a more compassionate and accepting response.

I'm particularly concerned about the "lying" accusations sinewav has made. I don't seriously think he'd make those accusations if someone were outing themselves for real, but who's going to do that on a public forum? They'd test the waters first, and sinewav would fail that test.

[sinewav]

I'm particularly concerned about the "lying" accusations sinewav has made. I don't seriously think he'd make those accusations if someone were outing themselves for real, but who's going to do that on a public forum? They'd test the waters first, and sinewav would fail that test.

Man I think you need a vacation. Don't you remember this thread where a tronner actually came out as TG in public? I mean, you posted all over it. And it's pretty clear from that thread this community warmly welcomes people of all sexualities. In fact, it's one of the most successful threads on this site with regards to civility over sensitive subject matter. Anyone who has been visiting this forum for even a short time can clearly see that sexuality isn't a problem at forums.arma. I don't see how I failed any test. I even stated my stance here in this very thread:

And this thing with Elmo isn't about being transgender, which I have no problem with. This is about lying, for whatever lame reason, then keeping up the lie for a ridiculous amount of time (I say ridiculous because it really is worthy of ridicule).

And again, my main argument this whole time wasn't against Elmo's lie as much as it was against some people's way too casual attitude toward lying. Sorry, I am way into honesty. And if you are lying to yourself about your sexuality, well, you need to get over that first before you post about it -- so no trouble from me there. But of course, this isn't about trans-genders. Elmo's OP reads clearly: "I lied, it was stupid, I'm ashamed."

[Venijn]

There's a difference between you telling me that my opinion is wrong, and saying you disagree with it.

No there isn't. That's what it means to disagree, man. In case you missed it, the line I put in quotations is mocking you, because it doesn't make a lick of sense. "I don't think you're wrong, but I disagree!"

Where do you kids get this stuff?

Actually, to disagree is to differ in opinion. It doesn't make my opinion suddenly wrong, simply because it is different.

What is the best cuisine in the world? I bet your opinion differs to mine. Does that mean I'm wrong, or that we have differing opinions?

[Lucifer]

I'm particularly concerned about the "lying" accusations sinewav has made. I don't seriously think he'd make those accusations if someone were outing themselves for real, but who's going to do that on a public forum? They'd test the waters first, and sinewav would fail that test.

Man I think you need a vacation. Don't you remember this thread where a tronner actually came out as TG in public? I mean, you posted all over it. And it's pretty clear from that thread this community warmly welcomes people of all sexualities. In fact, it's one of the most successful threads on this site with regards to civility over sensitive subject matter. Anyone who has been visiting this forum for even a short time can clearly see that sexuality isn't a problem at forums.arma.

I remember that thread, but it's not currently active. This one is, and is attracting a lot more traffic. You should know that you can't rely on people to find a particular thread if it's only come up once. On the other hand, someone off googling such things might turn up that thread and then come join the community. Then they have to deal with this one.

]And this thing with Elmo isn't about being transgender, which I have no problem with. This is about lying, for whatever lame reason, then keeping up the lie for a ridiculous amount of time (I say ridiculous because it really is worthy of ridicule).

And again, my main argument this whole time wasn't against Elmo's lie as much as it was against some people's way too casual attitude toward lying. Sorry, I am way into honesty. And if you are lying to yourself about your sexuality, well, you need to get over that first before you post about it -- so no trouble from me there. But of course, this isn't about trans-genders. Elmo's OP reads clearly: "I lied, it was stupid, I'm ashamed."

My argument isn't about Elmo at all. The fundamental issue here is unchanged by my argument. I was hoping to change the direction of the conversation, because I felt that people's "way too casual attitudes" about Elmo's particular lie were the most appropriate way to respond to Elmo, but for reasons that have nothing to do with Elmo's situation at all. I agree with the argument that if their attitudes about lying don't stop there and stretch to the rest of the persona they give us here then that's a problem. But if it stops there, then what's the rub?

[PokeMaster]

There's a difference between you telling me that my opinion is wrong, and saying you disagree with it.

No there isn't. That's what it means to disagree, man. In case you missed it, the line I put in quotations is mocking you, because it doesn't make a lick of sense. "I don't think you're wrong, but I disagree!"

Where do you kids get this stuff?

Actually, to disagree is to differ in opinion. It doesn't make my opinion suddenly wrong, simply because it is different.

What is the best cuisine in the world? I bet your opinion differs to mine. Does that mean I'm wrong, or that we have differing opinions?

Food would be a preference. The difference between a preference and your debate with phyto is that your debate is an argument over the way things are/ought to be. Saying "people shouldn't kill each other" implies the same thing as "I think people shouldn't kill each other," even if they're technically different. So yes, phyto disagrees with your opinion, and that's why he's saying that it's wrong --> he thinks it's wrong. It's really just a minor technicality.

[Word]

I think what Phytotron meant was simply that Venijns "opinion" is wrong because he has no argument to back it up whereas Phytotron has a good one. And yes, that's where the disagreement comes from. (And Venijn you said you didn't read all of Phytotron's reply - which was written solely directed at you - do you think someone who ignores you is a good, respectable discussion partner? Please, counter or leave it as it is but don't say someone's wrong just for the sake; remember that this won't make your own opinion - whatever it is - any more credible to other readers as well.)

similar to sine's post here:
http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... se#p251227

[sinewav]

I agree with the argument that if their attitudes about lying don't stop there and stretch to the rest of the persona they give us here then that's a problem. But if it stops there, then what's the rub?

Ok, I see what you mean. In fact, my initial response in this thread was just how you describe. And now that I look over it, I realize I wasn't as clear as I could have been stating the reasons for my contentiousness. It's not people's indifference to lying (which is bad), but people who were praising Elmo for fessing up to a lie that should have never existed in the first place. That is not the same as praising honesty, especially since the lie dragged out for two years. It was a really rotten thing to do and this confession deserves no praise.

This goes back to my previous example. If my girlfriend was cheating on me for two years, I wouldn't think she was a good person for finally telling me the truth. I'd still kick her ass to the curb.

[Venijn]

I think what Phytotron meant was simply that Venijns "opinion" is wrong because he has no argument to back it up whereas Phytotron has a good one. And yes, that's where the disagreement comes from. (And Venijn you said you didn't read all of Phytotron's reply - which was written solely directed at you - do you think someone who ignores you is a good, respectable discussion partner? Please, counter or leave it as it is but don't say someone's wrong just for the sake; remember that this won't make your own opinion - whatever it is - any more credible to other readers as well.)

similar to sine's post here:
http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... se#p251227

Why do I need to justify my opinion to anyone? It's my opinion. Why would I read any more of a post that starts with an insult? Have I insulted anyone in this thread?

Poke, I accept that, perhaps it's not quite a fitting analogy, but I stand by my point. My opinion is not wrong because it isn't the same as yours, or anyone else's, and I have no time for people who can't see the difference.

It's gotten to the point where I care too much about this discussion, I'm headed out. Sorry Lucifer.

[Phytotron]

Actually, to disagree is to differ in opinion.

And what is an opinion? A view or judgement formed about something. A view that you believe to be right, and more right than others from which it differs, others which you believe are therefore wrong. You've been telling me I'm wrong this whole time.

Why would one differ in opinion if one did not believe that other opinion is wrong?

It doesn't make my opinion suddenly wrong, simply because it is different.

And no one said you're wrong simply because you have a different opinion. Someone says you're wrong because of the substance of it. That's why we engage in debate. But you won't have that. You declare that no one can say you're wrong and brush them off, like you're flippin' royalty. "Yes, fine, let the peasantry 'disagree,' but they shall not say I am wrong!"

What is the best cuisine in the world? I bet your opinion differs [from] mine. Does that mean I'm wrong, or that we have differing opinions?

And now you're completely changing subjects from the kind of thing that began this. Evasion or conflation? You've gone from matters of principle—people's beliefs and behaviors—to matters of personal taste. Of course there is no universal answer when it comes to value-neutral subjects, be they inherent characteristics or harmless matters of taste, as I already addressed above. But that was in the part of my post you claimed to have not read—you know, the one you claim began with an insult but didn't really. Good job there, thanks.

Yet still, even in this example, the fact that I would disagree would mean I believe you're wrong, and vice-versa. Furthermore, things like cuisine, art, music, literature—all of these are subject to criticism, positive and negative. One does not (at least, should not) get a trophy just for showing up.

I don't understand why you think you're so entitled that your precious "opinions" be sacrosanct and free of criticism.

I think what Phytotron meant was simply that Venijns "opinion" is wrong because he has no argument to back it up whereas Phytotron has a good one.

Nope, that's not what I meant at all. It doesn't matter whether one can back it up or not. One can make a strong, rational argument in support of a position, but another can still consider it wrong, for various reasons. The very existence of disagreement indicates that at least one party considers the other's position to be wrong.

Remember, we're not arguing whether the substance of my or Venjin's position is right or wrong. We're now arguing if one has the right to even say another person's opinion is wrong at all. (It seems he has no objection to judging an opinion as being right, just as it being wrong. Trophies for everyone just for showing up!)


Of course, the word "wrong" has many definitions and usages, ranging from 'factual incorrectness' to 'that which is considered immoral'. But it seems Venijn doesn't want to make any distinctions between facts, morality, or value-neutral inherent characteristics or personal preferences. That's the conflation I addressed above. And that's the crux of the problem. It's the same thing as arguing that all "truths" are equal. It's banal inanity, and when expressed in regard to oneself, narcissistic.

Why do I need to justify my opinion to anyone?

Yeah, shit, why even justify it to yourself? Maybe if you could justify it people wouldn't say you're wrong. Ever think of that, little prince?

My opinion is not wrong because it isn't the same as yours, or anyone else's....

Let's try to make that phrasing a little clearer: "That my opinion differs from another does not make my opinion wrong." Or, "My opinion is not rendered wrong by virtue of differing from another." Now, let's examine this using the various definitions of "wrong."

A) Factual: If your position, or the claims or assumptions on which it is premised, is factually incorrect, then it is wrong. Period. No, it is not wrong simply by virtue of differing from that of another person; that's not the determining factor. But it is wrong by virtue of being inconsistent with reality. And anyone whose position is on the side of reality has every right—and responsibility—to call you wrong.

B) Moral: Morality concerns principles of what is right and wrong. If you hold a moral position, you must, by definition, consider it to be "right" and those that oppose it "wrong"—to varying degrees and application, perhaps, depending on the subject (plus the whole "morally obligatory" vs. "morally praise-worthy" thing), but nonetheless. Otherwise, what's the use of holding that moral position? And conversely, those who hold a moral opinion that differs from yours will consider their position right and yours wrong, and oftentimes feel an obligation to express that objection. Not only that, but they have as much a right to express that opinion in the negative as you do to express yours in the positive. Grow up and accept that. Mind you, we're not discussing enforcement of that morality, merely its expression. Over here we have a certain Constitutional amendment that enumerates that natural human right. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes a similar statement. You seem not to believe that right exists. But I digress momentarily.

Back to whether your moral opinion is made wrong by differing from another's, well, quite obviously it is from their perspective. OK, that's somewhat relativist (but, shouldn't you embrace that?). So, is it made wrong in a universal sense? Of course not, not by a single person's objection. But there enters moral philosophy, society and civilization, culture, intersubjective determination of what can be constituted universally moral. And here we return to, for example, the Enlightenment moral philosophy of freedom of speech and expression codified in my Constitution and the wonderful UDHR.

Moreover, I very strongly doubt that there aren't some moral positions you believe are wrong—abhorrently, horrifically, disgustingly, obscenely wrong. We can test this very easily. Or are you a nihilist? If that's the case we can end all this right now.

C) Value-neutral preference (where you changed subjects, so this is hardly relevant): If someone's preference differs from yours, they may or may not consider your preference wrong. They may simply be indifferent, and in that respect you're correct; they haven't defined your opinion as wrong.

But they may also strongly dislike what you like, and therefore naturally think that you're wrong to think it's good.

Person A: "This food is yummy."
Person B: "No way, this food is yucky."

But here's the nifty thing. We can rephrase that interaction.

Person B: "This food is yucky."
Person A: "No way, this food is yummy."

Same situation, same juxtaposition of opinions, but the direction of the "you're wrong" switches. And of course, both could be rephrased in the positive. See how that works? So who's wrong for calling the other wrong? So, you see, in that respect, yes, whether your opinion is right or wrong is, in effect, defined by the other person.

But of course, we can (and I think, should) move beyond simply subjective, relativist taste, and into critique of cuisine and the like, as I mentioned earlier. For example, you may like your mama's home cookin', but it wouldn't hold up in an upscale restaurant. You're not wrong for liking it personally, but you're wrong for thinking it's haute cuisine. But I digress again.

Now, here's the funny bit: If you continue to insist that you like something (because you think it's good) despite other people's opinions to the contrary, you are implying that they are wrong to hold their opinion that it is bad.


And if you go further, as you have here, to tell other people that they aren't even allowed to say your opinion is wrong, you are not just implying their opinion is wrong, but implicitly disregarding and invalidating their opinion entirely—whichever category of opinion it falls into.

So who's the real asshole here: The one who says, "you have the right to hold and express that opinion, but I think you're absolutely wrong, let's debate it" or the one who royally declares, "you're not allowed to say I'm wrong! I don't have to justify myself! F'ck off! I dismiss thee, peasant!"?

[þsy]

Oh my, I've just seen this!

ahaa Elmo you're a genius

[devicat]

I'm particularly concerned about the "lying" accusations sinewav has made. I don't seriously think he'd make those accusations if someone were outing themselves for real, but who's going to do that on a public forum? They'd test the waters first, and sinewav would fail that test.

Man I think you need a vacation. Don't you remember this thread where a tronner actually came out as TG in public? I mean, you posted all over it. And it's pretty clear from that thread this community warmly welcomes people of all sexualities. In fact, it's one of the most successful threads on this site with regards to civility over sensitive subject matter. Anyone who has been visiting this forum for even a short time can clearly see that sexuality isn't a problem at forums.arma. I don't see how I failed any test. I even stated my stance here in this very thread:

And this thing with Elmo isn't about being transgender, which I have no problem with. This is about lying, for whatever lame reason, then keeping up the lie for a ridiculous amount of time (I say ridiculous because it really is worthy of ridicule).

And again, my main argument this whole time wasn't against Elmo's lie as much as it was against some people's way too casual attitude toward lying. Sorry, I am way into honesty. And if you are lying to yourself about your sexuality, well, you need to get over that first before you post about it -- so no trouble from me there. But of course, this isn't about trans-genders. Elmo's OP reads clearly: "I lied, it was stupid, I'm ashamed."

Laziness has me quoting this whole post, so please forgive me. I think the post about my coming out was probably where I wanted to start my input, anyway. I just read this entire thread, and as Sine pointed out, this isn't about transgender intolerance. Honestly, I would be surprised if Elmo came out to really be trans. He should know that the community would accept him, thus rendering coming out as a male completely irrelevant. Here would have been the opportunity to do what I did, many months ago, but he didn't.

Why did he decide to wait so damn long? Who knows. Maybe he grew accustomed to the way people treat him, and he was basking in it. Is it selfish? Sure, but we shouldn't condemn someone too hard for an act of selfishness. We have to look at gender as a scale, rather than a two sided coin. Elmo now tells us that he views himself as more on the male side of the scale, but this doesn't really change what we know about him. He's still the same person.

Sine, you hate lying, and I understand that, but we shouldn't be too harsh on the poor guy. I think your problem is that people are just saying, "Okay, cool, whatever", when you would rather them be saying "Damn, Elmo, I'm disappointed in you." In a way, that makes sense to me. But on the other hand, I think it's nice to know that we are in such an accepting community that things like this don't completely rock our world. I sympathize with you, Sine, but I can't entirely side with you.

If we look at biological sex as a scale, nothing has really changed, aside from the way Elmo is viewed. Maybe he just finally decided he wanted to be viewed in the same way every other male tronner is viewed: with great ridicule and taunting. I kid. But it's something to think about. The differences between the way people treat males and females are a lot larger than some people give credit.

[þsy]

I think Elmo would make a very interesting analysis from a psychological perspective

Two ideas concerning internet identities spring to mind. The first consists of the 'avatar', the identity which you project. This identity has no sex, as this avatar has no reproductive function i.e. my avatar can't have sex with your avatar to make another avatar. You create your avatar and give it the characteristics you wish it to have, and it is a representation of your personality to some degree, but it is really not a very holistic portrayal of who you are. What is interesting, is that these avatars are generally gendered, which affects the approach people have towards this avatar, despite having no sexual function

The second approach, which is arguably more of an issue in this smaller community than other bigger e-communities, is that the internet is a mediator between real people and allows for 'genuine' relationships to be formed. From my personal experience, this has definitely been the case. I've met cyclo and fofo outside of tron, and thus my relationships with them are genuine - as in, we've transcended the avatar relationship and know each other at a more 'human', face-to-face level. What is important to note, however, is that I feel like I knew them both to a degree of intimacy before I met them in real life, through tron/teamspeak/forums, and that meeting in real life further cemented characteristics I already knew to be true in both of these people, but also opened up my understanding a lot more as I got to know them both to greater levels

So, in Elmo's case, the concept of the avatar resonates more with his/her understanding of internet-based relationships, as the more the lie continued, the more story this avatar collected (from projected personality to fake images posted on unk forums). What I find fascinating is that Elmo clearly enjoyed the gendered privileges of being a girl amongst such a community. If he/she didn't, 'girl-Elmo' could have died/quit early on and 'boy-Elmo/other username' could have emerged as a new player

This probably could have worked in another, bigger e-community where characters are less known, but alas with tron the truth apparently had to come out eventually

The response people have had is also interesting in regards to the two above approaches. Are people angry because they feel that this game/community serves as a mediator between people, allowing some form of 'genuine' relationships to be formed, i.e. vis-a-vis, which would make Elmo a liar and thus the basis upon which any relationship she had with people was forged on a lie?

Or, are people annoyed because they've been treating this avatar differently (in a gendered sense) and are embarrassed/confused/something else?

I think the answer probably lies somewhere in between the two. I personally don't care (though it is hilarious/interesting), I don't really know Elmo very well and have always thought 'girl-Elmo' was a little bit fishy... But I do feel that some people here hate lying, and others just love to hate. This is the internet after all