11/25/2009 12:20am, #181
Rivington, cut the ****. He rephrased what he said and it carried the same meaning. I got what he was saying, even if I disagreed with it. Quit arguing semantics and being a douche.
11/25/2009 12:39am, #182
11/25/2009 12:49am, #183
Also, look up "semantics." There's a huge difference between "being asked to leave" and having the right to question a person's motives. That's not a semantic difference, it's an actual difference—behavior and feelings of discomfort or suspicion are radically different things. Martin Luther King famously said, "Morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated," because ultimately he knew he was going to change the minds of few white racists, but he could get restaurants owned by those same people to seat blacks, no matter what.
And some man going into a BJJ class and saying, "I'm gay" or "After this, I'm going home to my boyfriend—he's cooking me dinner" is very different than some man going into a predominately woman's yoga class and saying "I'm straight" or "I'm straight, but I can still wear this leotard" or "After this I'm going home to my girlfriend—she's cooking me dinner." They will surely receive very different reactions as well.
11/25/2009 12:50am, #184
11/25/2009 1:13am, #185
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
1 : the study of meanings: a : the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development b (1) : semiotic (2) : a branch of semiotic dealing with the relations between signs and what they refer to and including theories of denotation, extension, naming, and truth
2 : general semantics
3 a : the meaning or relationship of meanings of a sign or set of signs; especially : connotative meaning b : the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dualmeanings"
I could put an inspiring Winston Churchill quote here and it would have absolutely nothing to do with the topic.
My point is...we understood what he was saying. You're arguing semantics. And you're turning into Tharuz...stop it.
11/25/2009 1:51am, #186Originally Posted by AlphaFoxtrot51;2267199
"Main Entry: [B
Semantics. Both asking someone to leave and questioning someone's motives are acts based on a person's level of discomfort.
One, you again moved the goalposts for your yoga-going hard-on sportin' pal. He said people would have the right to question motives in the second formulation, so he was talking about a general state of affairs not even necessarily an action per se.
Two, even questioning motives is different from asking someone to leave for a simple reason: one can and often does question another's motives internally. That is, without behaving in any particular way visible to anyone else.
Don't make me slap you with my Intro to Communications, Interpersonal Communications, and Public Communications textbooks. If the meaning conveyed in the communication is the same, then all arguments over the wording are reduced down to semantics.
a. some generic yoga class is different than a predominantly female yoga class
b. saying "I'm going to have to ask you to leave this class" is different than thinking "I wonder if this guy is here for sex! Suspicious!" and is different than even saying, "Well, that's nice that you're gay/straight, mister, but in here we're all about pajama wrestling/crazy positions."
Jesus, "Both...acts based on a person's level of discomfort" is enough to make you declare that the difference between two acts is semantic? Fag-bashing someone to death can be an act based on someone's discomfort, and so can privately and quietly praying for one's gay son to be made straight by the blood of Christ. Are the differences between those two acts semantic as well?
Dropping Martin Luther King into this in an attempt to make this response sound important is just ridiculous.
I think you're stuck on the different environments.
An environment of a yoga class, where confrontation is not an element of the class, and where women are likely to be a plurality or majority, is very different than a BJJ class. So too is the feedback straight men get for being/acting/declaring themselves straight (especially to straight female decoders) as compared to the feedback gay men get for being/acting/declaring themselves gay (especially to straight male decoders).
So yes, in a yoga class where a straight man is a minority, partially because straight men have a lot of freedom in this culture and partially because women in general are socially trained to not get into confrontations with men and partially because most women in a yoga class will also be straight, walking in and saying, "Hi, I'm Straight VonTesticles, single male, and I'm here to see the ankles go behind the ears, if you get my drift," is a qualitatively different act than a gay man walking into a BJJ class where men are socially indoctrinated to demonstrate their manliness/straightness and to have confrontations sometimes and where most men will not be gay and saying, "Yoohoo handsome pajama wrestlers, my name is Girly McBallLick and I just love making oil check jokes."
Or to really simplify it: how often do you think straight women harass adult straight men for being straight? How often do you think straight men harass adult gay men for being gay?
Battlefields thought those two things would be the same, or close to it. I invited him to prove it, in proper Bullshido fashion. He responded by shitting his panties and you joined in. The stink is yours, precious.
Last edited by Rivington; 11/25/2009 1:58am at .
11/25/2009 2:11am, #187
11/25/2009 2:17am, #188
11/25/2009 2:22am, #189
11/25/2009 2:31am, #190