Tumblr, Otherkin, and Political Correctness Overkill

Tristan_Geoff · 03-13-2017, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riseagainstrocks

I disagree with your characterization of 'genital mutilation' being a scientifically accurate term. 'Mutilation' is not a clinic term at all. It's a word like massacre, or brutal. It's meant to engender revulsion and outrage. If you can find a dispassionate examination of the issue by clinicians that uses the term genital mutilation as a non-ironic stand-in for circumcision, I'll happily concede this point.

Most people are able to hold both circumcision and 'FGM' as you put it in their head and react to both accordingly. But circumcision is the 'All Lives Matter' of this issue. "Nigerian girls are subject to horrific butchering as they reach adolescence, removing the clitoris to discourage sexual pleasure and other behavior perceived as wanton." "BOYS GET THEIR DICKS CUT UP TOO"

Both you and TheBatlord are right though, circumcision has been normalized over several thousand years. If I were an alien observing this behavior, it would baffle me. But on the list of issues we should address? Toward the bottom. Let's get to that after illiteracy, poverty, hunger, access to clean drinking water, malaria vaccination, stable government, contract law, etc. etc. etc.

I agree with this.

**Goofle** · 03-14-2017, 02:30 AM

"Risible language", says the guy obfuscating the issue in multiple different ways. It's quicker to just say "I don't care about male genital mutilation".

~~normalMBuser~~ · 03-14-2017, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riseagainstrocks

Most people are able to hold both circumcision and 'FGM' as you put it in their head and react to both accordingly. But circumcision is the 'All Lives Matter' of this issue. "Nigerian girls are subject to horrific butchering as they reach adolescence, removing the clitoris to discourage sexual pleasure and other behavior perceived as wanton." "BOYS GET THEIR DICKS CUT UP TOO"

... well, there is another key difference between the two practices, as long as we are making distinctions in the level of brutality or the medical sophistication involved.

that difference is that one is being carried out by 3rd world savages in states where human rights abuses are easy to come by, and the other is a daily practice in western hospitals where we supposedly hold ourselves to a higher standard. just so long as we are comparing apples and oranges.

out of curiosity... you ever watched footage of a circumcision?

riseagainstrocks · 03-14-2017, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goofle

"Risible language", says the guy obfuscating the issue in multiple different ways. It's quicker to just say "I don't care about male genital mutilation".

You know, instead of acting like the guy who is so correct it should be obvious to all, you could try and, I don't know, provide a counter argument.

Just because I'm not emotionally invested in this issue doesn't mean I don't have a view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

If those words make you feel that way, fine, but I see it as an accurate descriptor so don't pin your perception of it on me.

Aren't you constantly getting on Chula Vista for imprecise language? That's 90% of your posts in the Trump thread, pointing out inconsistency. Whether or not you, the individual, sees the word 'mutilation' as dispassionate is irrelevant. Words carry their connotation into the public square, so when people decry "genital mutilation" they want to conjure images of bloody knives and screaming children. Not sterile medical equipment and a 30 minute old newborn (the screaming stays the same though). Your relationship with the word mutilation is inconsequential when so many others hear it differently. And I think you know that; you just like being contrarian, which is fine, until your position becomes inconsistent.

I feel like I have to reference the dictionary a lot with you guys. Words have meaning, they carry implication, and the most salacious are used by people with agendas. Mutilate | Define Mutilate at Dictionary.com

Quote:

Originally Posted by normalMBuser

... well, there is another key difference between the two practices, as long as we are making distinctions in the level of brutality or the medical sophistication involved.

that difference is that one is being carried out by 3rd world savages in states where human rights abuses are easy to come by, and the other is a daily practice in western hospitals where we supposedly hold ourselves to a higher standard. just so long as we are comparing apples and oranges.

out of curiosity... you ever watched footage of a circumcision?

I don't disagree with any of that. I have not watched one and have no interest in doing so. Medical procedures gross me out. Not much stomach for poking and prodding around the human body.

**Goofle** · 03-14-2017, 08:45 AM

A counter argument to genital mutilation is don't needlessly cut off a part of your child.

**Frownland** · 03-14-2017, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riseagainstrocks

Aren't you constantly getting on Chula Vista for imprecise language? That's 90% of your posts in the Trump thread, pointing out inconsistency. Whether or not you, the individual, sees the word 'mutilation' as dispassionate is irrelevant. Words carry their connotation into the public square, so when people decry "genital mutilation" they want to conjure images of bloody knives and screaming children. Not sterile medical equipment and a 30 minute old newborn (the screaming stays the same though). Your relationship with the word mutilation is inconsequential when so many others hear it differently. And I think you know that; you just like being contrarian, which is fine, until your position becomes inconsistent.

I feel like I have to reference the dictionary a lot with you guys. Words have meaning, they carry implication, and the most salacious are used by people with agendas. Mutilate | Define Mutilate at Dictionary.com

Well, pick out a synonym for me that you prefer. The word as I use it means

Quote:

to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts:

And that is a ****ed up thing to do to a penis.

Female circumcision is a lot more horrendous, I agree, but that's not exactly what we're talking about here, is it?

riseagainstrocks · 03-14-2017, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goofle

A counter argument to genital mutilation is don't needlessly cut off a part of your child.

There you go. You did it. Some might debate you on 'needlessly', but I won't. It's a strange tradition. I'm not sure if it rises to the level of harm, but too each their own. Literally the only thing I wanted out of this "argument" is to bring the language back to where it belongs with this issue.

It's cutting off a part of a newborn. Not hacking. Not carving. Not mutilating.

Frownland, you need to show injury (I was circumcised and it works just fine), disfigurement (looks fine too), or imperfection (arguable, but we also have vestigial organs, the foreskin made a lot more sense when we wandered the savanna, naked), for your application of "mutilate" to fit. How about just circumcision? It's the clinical term for a specific medical procedure. If you want to describe it, how about 'slicing off the foreskin'? I don't get why it's so important to apply the term 'mutilate' to something it doesn't apply to. MRA types, of which I don't think you are one, use culture's general blase attitude toward circumcision as proof of anti-men biases in society. The word mutilation is then introduced to make a direct comparison to FGM, which we both agree is a far more violent, painful, and medically unnecessary, and actually harmful, procedure. I bring this back up, because I think it explains why specificity when talking about issues around gender, race, sex, etc. are important. Hysterical misappropriation of strong, visceral language helps no one.

I can't believe I've made like 7 posts about circumcision... *trundles off toward the music section*

**Frownland** · 03-14-2017, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riseagainstrocks

Frownland, you need to show injury (I was circumcised and it works just fine),

While it heals over time it is indeed an injury. Neat display of anecdotal evidence though.

Quote:

disfigurement (looks fine too)

It changes the appearance, which is disfigurement if you're not into the whole dick scar look.

Quote:

or imperfection (arguable, but we also have vestigial organs, the foreskin made a lot more sense when we wandered the savanna, naked)

Depends on what you consider perfect. Cutting off a bodypart does not sound perfect to me.

Quote:

How about just circumcision? It's the clinical term for a specific medical procedure.

Sure, I already do that. I think both terms are fine.

Quote:

The word mutilation is then introduced to make a direct comparison to FGM

Again, this is on you.

riseagainstrocks · 03-14-2017, 10:54 AM

You are correct, it is anecdotal evidence. I'll concede that 'injury' could fit if the definition was stretched a bit. But as a point of comparison, something like a battlefield injury that could be described as 'mutilation' would not be expected to heal to the point where full functionality is maintained. The definition you cite does include 'removing or irreparably damaging parts'. A much more common use of the word would be attached to injuries from landmines, or woodchippers, or chainsaw-wielding Texans.

Regardless, referring to both circumcision and FGM as genital mutilation implies an equivalency with the substantive difference being which gender the practice is performed upon. I think you're being willfully blind to the propaganda value this false equivalency creates. But since you're returning to 'what the word mutilation means to me' I can't argue against a personal belief. Consider the point dropped, on my end at least.

**Frownland** · 03-14-2017, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riseagainstrocks

You are correct, it is anecdotal evidence. I'll concede that 'injury' could fit if the definition was stretched a bit. But as a point of comparison, something like a battlefield injury that could be described as 'mutilation' would not be expected to heal to the point where full functionality is maintained. The definition you cite does include 'removing or irreparably damaging parts'. A much more common use of the word would be attached to injuries from landmines, or woodchippers, or chainsaw-wielding Texans.

Regardless, referring to both circumcision and FGM as genital mutilation implies an equivalency with the substantive difference being which gender the practice is performed upon. I think you're being willfully blind to the propaganda value this false equivalency creates. But since you're returning to 'what the word mutilation means to me' I can't argue against a personal belief. Consider the point dropped, on my end at least.

They're clearly not equivalent in more than one way. For one, FGM is not even practiced in my culture and looks to be 100% vilified by everyone, while male circumcision is incredibly rampant in my society and seems to be accepted as absolutely fine by 75% or more of people (estimate). Does FGM still suck chrome donkey balls? See my 100% number. That doesn't mean that anything less than FGM is no longer an issue.

Like anything else, it being used as a talking point by a side that you don't like (nor I for that matter) does not mean that the idea is inherently wrong. I don't think I'm implying an equivalency here, I think you're just inferring too much. It's easy to get swept up in the bigger picture, these conversations get abstract fast. I end up doing it all the time.

03-14-2017, 10:54 AM	#379 (permalink)
riseagainstrocks Music Addict Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: DC Posts: 3,320	You are correct, it is anecdotal evidence. I'll concede that 'injury' could fit if the definition was stretched a bit. But as a point of comparison, something like a battlefield injury that could be described as 'mutilation' would not be expected to heal to the point where full functionality is maintained. The definition you cite does include 'removing or irreparably damaging parts'. A much more common use of the word would be attached to injuries from landmines, or woodchippers, or chainsaw-wielding Texans. Regardless, referring to both circumcision and FGM as genital mutilation implies an equivalency with the substantive difference being which gender the practice is performed upon. I think you're being willfully blind to the propaganda value this false equivalency creates. But since you're returning to 'what the word mutilation means to me' I can't argue against a personal belief. Consider the point dropped, on my end at least. __________________ One note timeless, came out of nowhere...