Denying someones existence is pretty bigoted…
If denying the existence of omni-gender foxkin is bigoted then I guess I’m a bigot. Who knew?
2 Likes
I have no idea what you even are talking about.
Which is why I said ignorant or bigoted.
Non binary people exist, by refusing to use gender neutral terminology in the appropriate context you are essentially denying those people of there existence or refusing to treat them equally to others(you call women she, men he those are there prefered pronouns yet you refuse to extend the same courtesy to others). Which is either not understanding the reason for gender neutral terms(ignorance) or saying they dont exist or are not worth treating equivalent to other people(bigoted).
I think you are either trolling or went off a cliff somewhere dude. No one is owed anything in this society, you are talking about compelled speech. Maybe would work well in North Korea where you can force people to say things, but not here.
The most cruel thing you can do, is tell a person who is not ok (who is ill or confused), that they are ok. So they have no incentive to make themselves better, trying to make up pretend world. Lying for the sake of “fake politeness” is very selfish. It’s like telling your drug addicted friend that doing drugs is normal and it’s ok to screw up their life. When it’s not, and they should fix themselves. It’s why police bumpers have “DARE” stickers.
This is why you are going to spent all of your time in pugs and crappy guilds
Its not compelled speach, its calling you a bigot for being unwilling to extend the same courtesy you would extend to most people to a minority essentially you are treating a minority worse just because they are a minority and that last statement implies that they are less then others.
This is the definition of bigotry.
Good god, man. You are nuts.
3 Likes
If someone looks like a dude to me, I say ‘he’. If that person looks female, I say ‘she’. There’s no bigotry in that.
I had long hair when I was younger and was mistakenly called "ma’am’ more than once by a waitress coming up behind me. At no point did I consider her a bigot or attempting to deny my existence.
2 Likes
Yes but if that person corrects you and you refuse to switch then you are treating them differently, which is where the bigotry exists.
Its also why people are pushing for people to make it more obvious what there prefered pronouns are so mistakes are less common.
The places people consider people bigots is when they misgender someone and refuse to correct themselves. If the waitress had refused to correct herself after calling you ma’am, it’d be different would it not?
I would laugh it off because it is literally her issue, not mine. Why do I care what she calls me? I know who and what I am and what somebody else thinks isn’t going to change that one iota.
edit: I taught both of my kids at around age 7 how meaningless insults are and, if you get mad or upset, you are only letting someone else control your emotions.
2 Likes
IF that happens again, you can bet that pretty much the same result will happen as the first time. Do you think it will happen again? Like maybe he would try to find out in advance if it would be possible to pull it off with little repercussions or something…hmm… 
There are a couple of things where you are wrong here. I know you are coming from a place of compassion, but that compassion is a bit misguided.
-
Courtesy is earned, it isn’t an entitlement. We don’t owe that to each other.
-
Catering to someones whatever desires is not called “courtesy”. If I demand you to call me “God”, because I identify myself as God, you don’t owe it to me. Would that make you a bigot? No reasoned or functioning society would do that. Because this is compelled speech.
-
No one says disrespect someone “because they are a minority”. That is something you think that’s going on there. When reality no one cares about numbers. It’s just an issue of compelled speech. I’m absolutely in agreement there with Jordan Peterson when it comes to compelled speech laws or policies.
Mats that are only obtainable through raid content belong to the raid, especially ony hides. Ony hides aren’t a “possible exception”. There was no guild out there that would let the skinner keep the hide.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWcrtpUdwos
I’m sure you’ll say its not definitive proof. However you will notice there is not loot action at all, nothing to roll for or anything. So unless they were raiding with ffa (they weren’t) loot it shows the majordomo chest was different. Completely different in regards to loot rules.