x
Click to expand

Zanchoff

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:3/16/2010
Last Login:5/30/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#8372
Comment Ranking:#6232
Highest Content Rank:#2496
Highest Comment Rank:#1552
Content Thumbs: 1675 total,  1844 ,  169
Comment Thumbs: 6423 total,  7231 ,  808
Content Level Progress: 15% (15/100)
Level 113 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 114 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 27% (27/100)
Level 252 Comments: Contaminated Win → Level 253 Comments: Contaminated Win
Subscribers:0
Content Views:93639
Times Content Favorited:144 times
Total Comments Made:1597
FJ Points:6545

latest user's comments

#49 - Thanks, man! What a great and articulate explanation!  [+] (1 new reply) 09/10/2014 on Looks like the work of an... 0
User avatar #74 - articulate (09/10/2014) [-]
Indeed.
#168 - These are not my made up words. These are the words used by t… 09/07/2014 on Would still fuck, no-homo 0
#166 - To say that he has a preference for men would be the same as s…  [+] (2 new replies) 09/07/2014 on Would still fuck, no-homo 0
User avatar #167 - iamkagji (09/07/2014) [-]
"Cisgender" is normal. Anything else is gender identity disorder, also known as transsexualism in most cases and asexual identification in others. Not a bad thing, but calling it something else is wrong. It's called abnormal psychology for a reason, but that does not make it a bad thing. Furthermore, there are already terms and phrases in English and that serve the purpose of your made-up words. A lot of the confusion surrounding this sort of thing is that you people refuse to use the same language as the rest of us. Try to use actual words you can find in a dictionary when explaining. I am not saying your term is not relevant. However it isn't a real word. It's something a small group of people decided to coin despite there already being words for it. For example, this "white male privilege" and in some parts of the east coat "black female privilege" is actually a previously noted phenomenon called societal preference. It's a real phenomenon, but not on the same scale or with the same connotations as this "privilege" shit.

TL ; DR, There's already real words for it, stop making new ones up for no reason
#168 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
These are not my made up words. These are the words used by the lgbt community. In addition, I do not believe in the idea that a person's privilege or lack thereof invalidates their opinions or ideas. The reason these terms became recently accepted in the lgbt community is for the same reason we have to keep replacing the word for retarded. Every time, it starts off as the PC term, but then becomes an insult. SJWs are already using cis as an insult, sometimes introducing the term at the same time. As a side note, I prefer the German language. In such a dictionary, there'll be one section for root words, and a much, much larger one for affixes. In German, there are rules for creating new words because the language both necessitates and allows it. By the way, Merriam Webster's unabridged dictionary includes -sexual -gender and -romantic as suffixes, and the prefixes that I have used are all fairly basic from Latin roots. These terms are meant to be easy to understand by anyone who's passed elementary school. It's also a bit more specific and much less condescending than saying someone has gender identity disorder.
#160 - Well, no. It isn't that he has a preference for men. It's th…  [+] (4 new replies) 09/07/2014 on Would still fuck, no-homo 0
User avatar #162 - iamkagji (09/07/2014) [-]
I see. However, couldn't you say he has a preference for a relationship with a man? That is far less autistic than "homoromantic"
#166 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
To say that he has a preference for men would be the same as saying I have a preference for women. While technically true, it's not the best word for the situation. By using terms such as panromantic, cisgender, and heterosexual, I can accurately describe myself briefly. Cisgender means that I identify as the sex I was born as, heterosexual is pretty obvious, and panromantic means I'm capable of a romantic relationship with anyone. Personally, I find it hard to have a romantic relationship without being sexual as well, so it's a bit of a moot point, but a point nonetheless. But I assure you, I wouldn't use the term if it were not relevant, and I'm not saying that it is or should be the case with everyone.
User avatar #167 - iamkagji (09/07/2014) [-]
"Cisgender" is normal. Anything else is gender identity disorder, also known as transsexualism in most cases and asexual identification in others. Not a bad thing, but calling it something else is wrong. It's called abnormal psychology for a reason, but that does not make it a bad thing. Furthermore, there are already terms and phrases in English and that serve the purpose of your made-up words. A lot of the confusion surrounding this sort of thing is that you people refuse to use the same language as the rest of us. Try to use actual words you can find in a dictionary when explaining. I am not saying your term is not relevant. However it isn't a real word. It's something a small group of people decided to coin despite there already being words for it. For example, this "white male privilege" and in some parts of the east coat "black female privilege" is actually a previously noted phenomenon called societal preference. It's a real phenomenon, but not on the same scale or with the same connotations as this "privilege" shit.

TL ; DR, There's already real words for it, stop making new ones up for no reason
#168 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
These are not my made up words. These are the words used by the lgbt community. In addition, I do not believe in the idea that a person's privilege or lack thereof invalidates their opinions or ideas. The reason these terms became recently accepted in the lgbt community is for the same reason we have to keep replacing the word for retarded. Every time, it starts off as the PC term, but then becomes an insult. SJWs are already using cis as an insult, sometimes introducing the term at the same time. As a side note, I prefer the German language. In such a dictionary, there'll be one section for root words, and a much, much larger one for affixes. In German, there are rules for creating new words because the language both necessitates and allows it. By the way, Merriam Webster's unabridged dictionary includes -sexual -gender and -romantic as suffixes, and the prefixes that I have used are all fairly basic from Latin roots. These terms are meant to be easy to understand by anyone who's passed elementary school. It's also a bit more specific and much less condescending than saying someone has gender identity disorder.
#122 - Oh, I see. For a moment, it seemed a bit ambiguous. 09/07/2014 on Would still fuck, no-homo 0
#120 - I agree with you completely. But why did you start off with &…  [+] (2 new replies) 09/07/2014 on Would still fuck, no-homo 0
User avatar #121 - hemomagus (09/07/2014) [-]
you said it can be offensive to people who really have issues, i was saying i get it because i have some to and it annoys me when some white chick goes "omg, i so have bipolar"
#122 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
Oh, I see. For a moment, it seemed a bit ambiguous.
#117 - I'd have to say it's because tumblr is filled with different p…  [+] (4 new replies) 09/07/2014 on Would still fuck, no-homo 0
User avatar #119 - hemomagus (09/07/2014) [-]
i get it, i have a few things wrong with me, but it seems like anyone who says "im gay" or "i've got (X disorder)" is labeled a tumblr fag and same goes for anyone who says trans gerndered people arn't gross. kinda bothers me. yes tumblr is wrong, but sometimes people get so anti tumblr that they go strait into the exact opposite side.
#120 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
I agree with you completely. But why did you start off with "I get it, I have a few things wrong with me?"
User avatar #121 - hemomagus (09/07/2014) [-]
you said it can be offensive to people who really have issues, i was saying i get it because i have some to and it annoys me when some white chick goes "omg, i so have bipolar"
#122 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
Oh, I see. For a moment, it seemed a bit ambiguous.
#114 - You bring up a good point, but I'm not saying that credibility… 09/07/2014 on Would still fuck, no-homo 0
#105 - There are many disorders that involve having multiple personal…  [+] (6 new replies) 09/07/2014 on Would still fuck, no-homo 0
User avatar #108 - hemomagus (09/07/2014) [-]
borderline is different, but im not gonna get into the details.
i can see why speakign to people with the same disorder can be comforting, but yea i get it, tumblr. question is why do we think everyone with a mental disorder or everyone thats trans/bi/gay is a tumblr fag?
#117 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
I'd have to say it's because tumblr is filled with different people. There are misandrysts, feminists, misogynists, 12 year olds, 50 year olds, and people who only want acceptance of all people. But most of funnyjunk and 4chan sees the average tumblr user as a white misandryst lesbian with green hair, who is constantly complaining about the patriarchy, and how everyone is ableist, racist, sexist, and many many other kinds of -ists that are made up on the spot. Because of this, any valid ideas that would come from that voicebox (mainly acceptance of genderqueer persons) are lumped along with the rest of it. However, one particular trend on tumblr is the romanticizing of serious disorders (such as PTSD, OCD, and clinical depression). This is both harmful to an impressionable community, and insulting to people who actually deal with the disorders in question.
User avatar #119 - hemomagus (09/07/2014) [-]
i get it, i have a few things wrong with me, but it seems like anyone who says "im gay" or "i've got (X disorder)" is labeled a tumblr fag and same goes for anyone who says trans gerndered people arn't gross. kinda bothers me. yes tumblr is wrong, but sometimes people get so anti tumblr that they go strait into the exact opposite side.
#120 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
I agree with you completely. But why did you start off with "I get it, I have a few things wrong with me?"
User avatar #121 - hemomagus (09/07/2014) [-]
you said it can be offensive to people who really have issues, i was saying i get it because i have some to and it annoys me when some white chick goes "omg, i so have bipolar"
#122 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
Oh, I see. For a moment, it seemed a bit ambiguous.
#100 - I later added (Schizophrenia excluded), but you have a very go…  [+] (8 new replies) 09/07/2014 on Would still fuck, no-homo 0
User avatar #101 - hemomagus (09/07/2014) [-]
its not schizophrenia, its called D.I.D.
#105 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
There are many disorders that involve having multiple personalities, including Scizophrenia, Dissociative Idendity Disorder, and Borderline Personality Disorder. My point is that there are actual reasons that one person may have more than one identity, but it became romanticized on tumblr after a 4chan raid, that started the idea of "headmates."
User avatar #108 - hemomagus (09/07/2014) [-]
borderline is different, but im not gonna get into the details.
i can see why speakign to people with the same disorder can be comforting, but yea i get it, tumblr. question is why do we think everyone with a mental disorder or everyone thats trans/bi/gay is a tumblr fag?
#117 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
I'd have to say it's because tumblr is filled with different people. There are misandrysts, feminists, misogynists, 12 year olds, 50 year olds, and people who only want acceptance of all people. But most of funnyjunk and 4chan sees the average tumblr user as a white misandryst lesbian with green hair, who is constantly complaining about the patriarchy, and how everyone is ableist, racist, sexist, and many many other kinds of -ists that are made up on the spot. Because of this, any valid ideas that would come from that voicebox (mainly acceptance of genderqueer persons) are lumped along with the rest of it. However, one particular trend on tumblr is the romanticizing of serious disorders (such as PTSD, OCD, and clinical depression). This is both harmful to an impressionable community, and insulting to people who actually deal with the disorders in question.
User avatar #119 - hemomagus (09/07/2014) [-]
i get it, i have a few things wrong with me, but it seems like anyone who says "im gay" or "i've got (X disorder)" is labeled a tumblr fag and same goes for anyone who says trans gerndered people arn't gross. kinda bothers me. yes tumblr is wrong, but sometimes people get so anti tumblr that they go strait into the exact opposite side.
#120 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
I agree with you completely. But why did you start off with "I get it, I have a few things wrong with me?"
User avatar #121 - hemomagus (09/07/2014) [-]
you said it can be offensive to people who really have issues, i was saying i get it because i have some to and it annoys me when some white chick goes "omg, i so have bipolar"
#122 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
Oh, I see. For a moment, it seemed a bit ambiguous.
#91 - I believe the people I've met for the same reason anyone belie…  [+] (2 new replies) 09/06/2014 on Would still fuck, no-homo 0
User avatar #104 - gammajk (09/07/2014) [-]
You aren't viewing people's arguments using objectivity. All you're doing is judging people's arguments by the content of their character. IE "Person Y said this, and they seem like an alright person, so I'll believe them" "Person Z said this, but they're kinda weird, so they must be wrong". You aren't judging their arguments, you're judging the people.

If you had a close personal friend who was a young earth creationist, would you believe them just because they're you're friend? Because according to what you just said, that's precisely what you'd do.

And if you had a pastor who you viewed as an almost father figure, would you believe in god just because of that? He has credibility in your eyes, and you were told that they know their shit.
And what if that pastor was not your pastor but rather the pastor of a close friend? What about their friend? Or their friend's friend? Why do things have to happen to you specifically before you can believe them?
#114 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
You bring up a good point, but I'm not saying that credibility is universal. For example, if your history teacher defined the Pythagorean theorem as something that contradicts what your maths teacher taught you, you'd be more likely to believe your maths teacher. For the same reason, I'm inclined to believe my friends because they're sharing their own thoughts and feelings, something which they know best, and have the most credibility to discuss. As for the YEC example, I have a friend who once explained to me "I don't believe in ghosts, but I feel there's a spiritual connection in this world. Sometimes, when I'm alone, I'll see something out of the corner of my eye and I'll just know it's my dead cat, Whiskers." This doesn't mean I believe this friend. She happens to be classically trained in vocal performance, so if she gives me pointers on vocal timbre or something like that, I'll believe her. In that particular area, she has credibility. However, I have no reason to believe that she's an authority on the paranormal. As for your question: "Why do things have to happen to you specifically before you can believe them?" It's because we all live our lives chronologically. At 5 years old, I wasn't wondering whether Euclid's posits were plausible or not, because I had no idea who Euclid was. He existed long before me, but without knowing anything about him or his work, I couldn't form an opinion. There are people in the scientific field who have credibility. I don't need to be doing their work to believe them, but I need a reason to believe they're credible. This is why Bill Nye should have more pull than Ken Hamm.
#85 - Perhaps it would be better if you did explain. How would I ba…  [+] (4 new replies) 09/06/2014 on Would still fuck, no-homo -2
User avatar #87 - gammajk (09/06/2014) [-]
Because that's goddamn retarded? Why would you have any reason to believe anything anybody says about anything if you did that? If I did that, why would I believe YOU when you claim that all the trans people you've met are normal people?

Do you believe the earth began only as soon as you were born? Do you believe the cities you've been in are the only cities that exist on earth? Do you think the sun isn't actually a ball of gas undergoing nuclear fusion but instead is just a light in the sky?

It's bordering on solipsism.
#91 - Zanchoff (09/06/2014) [-]
I believe the people I've met for the same reason anyone believes anyone else: credibility. I know these people well enough that they wouldn't exactly lie to me. These are people in good standing with my particular group of friends, in addition to helping me get out of a fix every now and then. Why would you believe your school teacher when they tell you the Earth is round? I'd take a guess that it's because you're told that they know their shit. Teachers have credibility in one respect. If you have a close personal friend, and he tells you his address, are you going to second guess him? I'm going to guess that he has credibility as well, and if not, maybe you and I have different definitions of friendship. Now, I'm not saying that everyone has to change their sex, or that trans people can do no wrong, but I'm proposing that, rather than assuming every trans person is a trap, or trying to fool someone, you treat them with the same respect as you would any other person. I (try my best to) assume nothing about someone until I get to know them well. For this reason, I'm not going to eliminate the possibility in my mind that a well-adjusted, level-headed individual can identify as a dog, but until I meet one, I only have what I know. For the same reason, I have no proof that there is a god. I have no reason to believe there is one, and will continue to have no reason to believe until I meet god or receive concrete proof. If there's something I'm not getting, please try to explain it without insulting me or using a strawman argument. It's really just reflecting poorly on your character.
User avatar #104 - gammajk (09/07/2014) [-]
You aren't viewing people's arguments using objectivity. All you're doing is judging people's arguments by the content of their character. IE "Person Y said this, and they seem like an alright person, so I'll believe them" "Person Z said this, but they're kinda weird, so they must be wrong". You aren't judging their arguments, you're judging the people.

If you had a close personal friend who was a young earth creationist, would you believe them just because they're you're friend? Because according to what you just said, that's precisely what you'd do.

And if you had a pastor who you viewed as an almost father figure, would you believe in god just because of that? He has credibility in your eyes, and you were told that they know their shit.
And what if that pastor was not your pastor but rather the pastor of a close friend? What about their friend? Or their friend's friend? Why do things have to happen to you specifically before you can believe them?
#114 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
You bring up a good point, but I'm not saying that credibility is universal. For example, if your history teacher defined the Pythagorean theorem as something that contradicts what your maths teacher taught you, you'd be more likely to believe your maths teacher. For the same reason, I'm inclined to believe my friends because they're sharing their own thoughts and feelings, something which they know best, and have the most credibility to discuss. As for the YEC example, I have a friend who once explained to me "I don't believe in ghosts, but I feel there's a spiritual connection in this world. Sometimes, when I'm alone, I'll see something out of the corner of my eye and I'll just know it's my dead cat, Whiskers." This doesn't mean I believe this friend. She happens to be classically trained in vocal performance, so if she gives me pointers on vocal timbre or something like that, I'll believe her. In that particular area, she has credibility. However, I have no reason to believe that she's an authority on the paranormal. As for your question: "Why do things have to happen to you specifically before you can believe them?" It's because we all live our lives chronologically. At 5 years old, I wasn't wondering whether Euclid's posits were plausible or not, because I had no idea who Euclid was. He existed long before me, but without knowing anything about him or his work, I couldn't form an opinion. There are people in the scientific field who have credibility. I don't need to be doing their work to believe them, but I need a reason to believe they're credible. This is why Bill Nye should have more pull than Ken Hamm.
#77 - No, not exactly. To say that would mean that I get all of my …  [+] (12 new replies) 09/06/2014 on Would still fuck, no-homo -2
User avatar #148 - iamkagji (09/07/2014) [-]
So he's bisexual and has a preference for men. Just say that like a normal person. There's no need for all these superfluous made-up terms like homoromantic
#160 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
Well, no. It isn't that he has a preference for men. It's that he feels no romantic connection to women whatsoever. Though he enjoys sex, he does not wish to pursue a romantic relationship with women. I also know two straight women in a romantic relationship with each other, who have agreed that each could pursue other romantic and sexual interests. There's a difference between a sexual and romantic relationship, even if one is just a goal to the other for some people.
User avatar #162 - iamkagji (09/07/2014) [-]
I see. However, couldn't you say he has a preference for a relationship with a man? That is far less autistic than "homoromantic"
#166 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
To say that he has a preference for men would be the same as saying I have a preference for women. While technically true, it's not the best word for the situation. By using terms such as panromantic, cisgender, and heterosexual, I can accurately describe myself briefly. Cisgender means that I identify as the sex I was born as, heterosexual is pretty obvious, and panromantic means I'm capable of a romantic relationship with anyone. Personally, I find it hard to have a romantic relationship without being sexual as well, so it's a bit of a moot point, but a point nonetheless. But I assure you, I wouldn't use the term if it were not relevant, and I'm not saying that it is or should be the case with everyone.
User avatar #167 - iamkagji (09/07/2014) [-]
"Cisgender" is normal. Anything else is gender identity disorder, also known as transsexualism in most cases and asexual identification in others. Not a bad thing, but calling it something else is wrong. It's called abnormal psychology for a reason, but that does not make it a bad thing. Furthermore, there are already terms and phrases in English and that serve the purpose of your made-up words. A lot of the confusion surrounding this sort of thing is that you people refuse to use the same language as the rest of us. Try to use actual words you can find in a dictionary when explaining. I am not saying your term is not relevant. However it isn't a real word. It's something a small group of people decided to coin despite there already being words for it. For example, this "white male privilege" and in some parts of the east coat "black female privilege" is actually a previously noted phenomenon called societal preference. It's a real phenomenon, but not on the same scale or with the same connotations as this "privilege" shit.

TL ; DR, There's already real words for it, stop making new ones up for no reason
#168 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
These are not my made up words. These are the words used by the lgbt community. In addition, I do not believe in the idea that a person's privilege or lack thereof invalidates their opinions or ideas. The reason these terms became recently accepted in the lgbt community is for the same reason we have to keep replacing the word for retarded. Every time, it starts off as the PC term, but then becomes an insult. SJWs are already using cis as an insult, sometimes introducing the term at the same time. As a side note, I prefer the German language. In such a dictionary, there'll be one section for root words, and a much, much larger one for affixes. In German, there are rules for creating new words because the language both necessitates and allows it. By the way, Merriam Webster's unabridged dictionary includes -sexual -gender and -romantic as suffixes, and the prefixes that I have used are all fairly basic from Latin roots. These terms are meant to be easy to understand by anyone who's passed elementary school. It's also a bit more specific and much less condescending than saying someone has gender identity disorder.
User avatar #83 - gammajk (09/06/2014) [-]
Either way, you're basing your opinions off of what only YOU have experienced. I shouldn't have to explain to you why that's bad.
#85 - Zanchoff (09/06/2014) [-]
Perhaps it would be better if you did explain. How would I base my opinions off of things I've never experienced?
User avatar #87 - gammajk (09/06/2014) [-]
Because that's goddamn retarded? Why would you have any reason to believe anything anybody says about anything if you did that? If I did that, why would I believe YOU when you claim that all the trans people you've met are normal people?

Do you believe the earth began only as soon as you were born? Do you believe the cities you've been in are the only cities that exist on earth? Do you think the sun isn't actually a ball of gas undergoing nuclear fusion but instead is just a light in the sky?

It's bordering on solipsism.
#91 - Zanchoff (09/06/2014) [-]
I believe the people I've met for the same reason anyone believes anyone else: credibility. I know these people well enough that they wouldn't exactly lie to me. These are people in good standing with my particular group of friends, in addition to helping me get out of a fix every now and then. Why would you believe your school teacher when they tell you the Earth is round? I'd take a guess that it's because you're told that they know their shit. Teachers have credibility in one respect. If you have a close personal friend, and he tells you his address, are you going to second guess him? I'm going to guess that he has credibility as well, and if not, maybe you and I have different definitions of friendship. Now, I'm not saying that everyone has to change their sex, or that trans people can do no wrong, but I'm proposing that, rather than assuming every trans person is a trap, or trying to fool someone, you treat them with the same respect as you would any other person. I (try my best to) assume nothing about someone until I get to know them well. For this reason, I'm not going to eliminate the possibility in my mind that a well-adjusted, level-headed individual can identify as a dog, but until I meet one, I only have what I know. For the same reason, I have no proof that there is a god. I have no reason to believe there is one, and will continue to have no reason to believe until I meet god or receive concrete proof. If there's something I'm not getting, please try to explain it without insulting me or using a strawman argument. It's really just reflecting poorly on your character.
User avatar #104 - gammajk (09/07/2014) [-]
You aren't viewing people's arguments using objectivity. All you're doing is judging people's arguments by the content of their character. IE "Person Y said this, and they seem like an alright person, so I'll believe them" "Person Z said this, but they're kinda weird, so they must be wrong". You aren't judging their arguments, you're judging the people.

If you had a close personal friend who was a young earth creationist, would you believe them just because they're you're friend? Because according to what you just said, that's precisely what you'd do.

And if you had a pastor who you viewed as an almost father figure, would you believe in god just because of that? He has credibility in your eyes, and you were told that they know their shit.
And what if that pastor was not your pastor but rather the pastor of a close friend? What about their friend? Or their friend's friend? Why do things have to happen to you specifically before you can believe them?
#114 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
You bring up a good point, but I'm not saying that credibility is universal. For example, if your history teacher defined the Pythagorean theorem as something that contradicts what your maths teacher taught you, you'd be more likely to believe your maths teacher. For the same reason, I'm inclined to believe my friends because they're sharing their own thoughts and feelings, something which they know best, and have the most credibility to discuss. As for the YEC example, I have a friend who once explained to me "I don't believe in ghosts, but I feel there's a spiritual connection in this world. Sometimes, when I'm alone, I'll see something out of the corner of my eye and I'll just know it's my dead cat, Whiskers." This doesn't mean I believe this friend. She happens to be classically trained in vocal performance, so if she gives me pointers on vocal timbre or something like that, I'll believe her. In that particular area, she has credibility. However, I have no reason to believe that she's an authority on the paranormal. As for your question: "Why do things have to happen to you specifically before you can believe them?" It's because we all live our lives chronologically. At 5 years old, I wasn't wondering whether Euclid's posits were plausible or not, because I had no idea who Euclid was. He existed long before me, but without knowing anything about him or his work, I couldn't form an opinion. There are people in the scientific field who have credibility. I don't need to be doing their work to believe them, but I need a reason to believe they're credible. This is why Bill Nye should have more pull than Ken Hamm.
#73 - To be honest, I'd chalk it up to personal experience. I work …  [+] (14 new replies) 09/06/2014 on Would still fuck, no-homo -2
User avatar #74 - gammajk (09/06/2014) [-]
So you rely purely on anecdotal evidence to form your opinions?
#77 - Zanchoff (09/06/2014) [-]
No, not exactly. To say that would mean that I get all of my opinions from stories that I hear. I rely on my interactions with people in different situations than I to better understand theirs. I'm about to get into some terminology here, and it's going to sound like bullshit, but try to understand that just because it's a long word doesn't mean I'm making it up. One of my best friends is bisexual and homoromantic. His sexual behavior suggests that he's straight, while his romantic behavior suggests he's gay. In reality, he's sexually attracted to both guys and girls, but romantically interested in men.
User avatar #148 - iamkagji (09/07/2014) [-]
So he's bisexual and has a preference for men. Just say that like a normal person. There's no need for all these superfluous made-up terms like homoromantic
#160 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
Well, no. It isn't that he has a preference for men. It's that he feels no romantic connection to women whatsoever. Though he enjoys sex, he does not wish to pursue a romantic relationship with women. I also know two straight women in a romantic relationship with each other, who have agreed that each could pursue other romantic and sexual interests. There's a difference between a sexual and romantic relationship, even if one is just a goal to the other for some people.
User avatar #162 - iamkagji (09/07/2014) [-]
I see. However, couldn't you say he has a preference for a relationship with a man? That is far less autistic than "homoromantic"
#166 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
To say that he has a preference for men would be the same as saying I have a preference for women. While technically true, it's not the best word for the situation. By using terms such as panromantic, cisgender, and heterosexual, I can accurately describe myself briefly. Cisgender means that I identify as the sex I was born as, heterosexual is pretty obvious, and panromantic means I'm capable of a romantic relationship with anyone. Personally, I find it hard to have a romantic relationship without being sexual as well, so it's a bit of a moot point, but a point nonetheless. But I assure you, I wouldn't use the term if it were not relevant, and I'm not saying that it is or should be the case with everyone.
User avatar #167 - iamkagji (09/07/2014) [-]
"Cisgender" is normal. Anything else is gender identity disorder, also known as transsexualism in most cases and asexual identification in others. Not a bad thing, but calling it something else is wrong. It's called abnormal psychology for a reason, but that does not make it a bad thing. Furthermore, there are already terms and phrases in English and that serve the purpose of your made-up words. A lot of the confusion surrounding this sort of thing is that you people refuse to use the same language as the rest of us. Try to use actual words you can find in a dictionary when explaining. I am not saying your term is not relevant. However it isn't a real word. It's something a small group of people decided to coin despite there already being words for it. For example, this "white male privilege" and in some parts of the east coat "black female privilege" is actually a previously noted phenomenon called societal preference. It's a real phenomenon, but not on the same scale or with the same connotations as this "privilege" shit.

TL ; DR, There's already real words for it, stop making new ones up for no reason
#168 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
These are not my made up words. These are the words used by the lgbt community. In addition, I do not believe in the idea that a person's privilege or lack thereof invalidates their opinions or ideas. The reason these terms became recently accepted in the lgbt community is for the same reason we have to keep replacing the word for retarded. Every time, it starts off as the PC term, but then becomes an insult. SJWs are already using cis as an insult, sometimes introducing the term at the same time. As a side note, I prefer the German language. In such a dictionary, there'll be one section for root words, and a much, much larger one for affixes. In German, there are rules for creating new words because the language both necessitates and allows it. By the way, Merriam Webster's unabridged dictionary includes -sexual -gender and -romantic as suffixes, and the prefixes that I have used are all fairly basic from Latin roots. These terms are meant to be easy to understand by anyone who's passed elementary school. It's also a bit more specific and much less condescending than saying someone has gender identity disorder.
User avatar #83 - gammajk (09/06/2014) [-]
Either way, you're basing your opinions off of what only YOU have experienced. I shouldn't have to explain to you why that's bad.
#85 - Zanchoff (09/06/2014) [-]
Perhaps it would be better if you did explain. How would I base my opinions off of things I've never experienced?
User avatar #87 - gammajk (09/06/2014) [-]
Because that's goddamn retarded? Why would you have any reason to believe anything anybody says about anything if you did that? If I did that, why would I believe YOU when you claim that all the trans people you've met are normal people?

Do you believe the earth began only as soon as you were born? Do you believe the cities you've been in are the only cities that exist on earth? Do you think the sun isn't actually a ball of gas undergoing nuclear fusion but instead is just a light in the sky?

It's bordering on solipsism.
#91 - Zanchoff (09/06/2014) [-]
I believe the people I've met for the same reason anyone believes anyone else: credibility. I know these people well enough that they wouldn't exactly lie to me. These are people in good standing with my particular group of friends, in addition to helping me get out of a fix every now and then. Why would you believe your school teacher when they tell you the Earth is round? I'd take a guess that it's because you're told that they know their shit. Teachers have credibility in one respect. If you have a close personal friend, and he tells you his address, are you going to second guess him? I'm going to guess that he has credibility as well, and if not, maybe you and I have different definitions of friendship. Now, I'm not saying that everyone has to change their sex, or that trans people can do no wrong, but I'm proposing that, rather than assuming every trans person is a trap, or trying to fool someone, you treat them with the same respect as you would any other person. I (try my best to) assume nothing about someone until I get to know them well. For this reason, I'm not going to eliminate the possibility in my mind that a well-adjusted, level-headed individual can identify as a dog, but until I meet one, I only have what I know. For the same reason, I have no proof that there is a god. I have no reason to believe there is one, and will continue to have no reason to believe until I meet god or receive concrete proof. If there's something I'm not getting, please try to explain it without insulting me or using a strawman argument. It's really just reflecting poorly on your character.
User avatar #104 - gammajk (09/07/2014) [-]
You aren't viewing people's arguments using objectivity. All you're doing is judging people's arguments by the content of their character. IE "Person Y said this, and they seem like an alright person, so I'll believe them" "Person Z said this, but they're kinda weird, so they must be wrong". You aren't judging their arguments, you're judging the people.

If you had a close personal friend who was a young earth creationist, would you believe them just because they're you're friend? Because according to what you just said, that's precisely what you'd do.

And if you had a pastor who you viewed as an almost father figure, would you believe in god just because of that? He has credibility in your eyes, and you were told that they know their shit.
And what if that pastor was not your pastor but rather the pastor of a close friend? What about their friend? Or their friend's friend? Why do things have to happen to you specifically before you can believe them?
#114 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
You bring up a good point, but I'm not saying that credibility is universal. For example, if your history teacher defined the Pythagorean theorem as something that contradicts what your maths teacher taught you, you'd be more likely to believe your maths teacher. For the same reason, I'm inclined to believe my friends because they're sharing their own thoughts and feelings, something which they know best, and have the most credibility to discuss. As for the YEC example, I have a friend who once explained to me "I don't believe in ghosts, but I feel there's a spiritual connection in this world. Sometimes, when I'm alone, I'll see something out of the corner of my eye and I'll just know it's my dead cat, Whiskers." This doesn't mean I believe this friend. She happens to be classically trained in vocal performance, so if she gives me pointers on vocal timbre or something like that, I'll believe her. In that particular area, she has credibility. However, I have no reason to believe that she's an authority on the paranormal. As for your question: "Why do things have to happen to you specifically before you can believe them?" It's because we all live our lives chronologically. At 5 years old, I wasn't wondering whether Euclid's posits were plausible or not, because I had no idea who Euclid was. He existed long before me, but without knowing anything about him or his work, I couldn't form an opinion. There are people in the scientific field who have credibility. I don't need to be doing their work to believe them, but I need a reason to believe they're credible. This is why Bill Nye should have more pull than Ken Hamm.
#72 - For the same reason some guys are sexually attracted to other … 09/06/2014 on Would still fuck, no-homo -2
#70 - Not exactly. The whole headmate-furkin thing came out of a 4c…  [+] (16 new replies) 09/06/2014 on Would still fuck, no-homo 0
User avatar #71 - gammajk (09/06/2014) [-]
And you could say the exact same thing about trans people - people "impressionable enough to believe it's an actual thing".
Why do you judge one as being exclusive to idiots or the mentally ill, but not the other?
#73 - Zanchoff (09/06/2014) [-]
To be honest, I'd chalk it up to personal experience. I work in musical theater, and have a lot of interaction with lgbt/genderqueer people. I've met several trans people who were not only well adjusted, but explained how and why they felt during the course of their life. However, I've yet to meet a well- adjusted person identifying as a fox, or as both a 9 year old phillipino girl and a middle aged german man. When/if I do, my opinion will definitely change.
User avatar #74 - gammajk (09/06/2014) [-]
So you rely purely on anecdotal evidence to form your opinions?
#77 - Zanchoff (09/06/2014) [-]
No, not exactly. To say that would mean that I get all of my opinions from stories that I hear. I rely on my interactions with people in different situations than I to better understand theirs. I'm about to get into some terminology here, and it's going to sound like bullshit, but try to understand that just because it's a long word doesn't mean I'm making it up. One of my best friends is bisexual and homoromantic. His sexual behavior suggests that he's straight, while his romantic behavior suggests he's gay. In reality, he's sexually attracted to both guys and girls, but romantically interested in men.
User avatar #148 - iamkagji (09/07/2014) [-]
So he's bisexual and has a preference for men. Just say that like a normal person. There's no need for all these superfluous made-up terms like homoromantic
#160 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
Well, no. It isn't that he has a preference for men. It's that he feels no romantic connection to women whatsoever. Though he enjoys sex, he does not wish to pursue a romantic relationship with women. I also know two straight women in a romantic relationship with each other, who have agreed that each could pursue other romantic and sexual interests. There's a difference between a sexual and romantic relationship, even if one is just a goal to the other for some people.
User avatar #162 - iamkagji (09/07/2014) [-]
I see. However, couldn't you say he has a preference for a relationship with a man? That is far less autistic than "homoromantic"
#166 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
To say that he has a preference for men would be the same as saying I have a preference for women. While technically true, it's not the best word for the situation. By using terms such as panromantic, cisgender, and heterosexual, I can accurately describe myself briefly. Cisgender means that I identify as the sex I was born as, heterosexual is pretty obvious, and panromantic means I'm capable of a romantic relationship with anyone. Personally, I find it hard to have a romantic relationship without being sexual as well, so it's a bit of a moot point, but a point nonetheless. But I assure you, I wouldn't use the term if it were not relevant, and I'm not saying that it is or should be the case with everyone.
User avatar #167 - iamkagji (09/07/2014) [-]
"Cisgender" is normal. Anything else is gender identity disorder, also known as transsexualism in most cases and asexual identification in others. Not a bad thing, but calling it something else is wrong. It's called abnormal psychology for a reason, but that does not make it a bad thing. Furthermore, there are already terms and phrases in English and that serve the purpose of your made-up words. A lot of the confusion surrounding this sort of thing is that you people refuse to use the same language as the rest of us. Try to use actual words you can find in a dictionary when explaining. I am not saying your term is not relevant. However it isn't a real word. It's something a small group of people decided to coin despite there already being words for it. For example, this "white male privilege" and in some parts of the east coat "black female privilege" is actually a previously noted phenomenon called societal preference. It's a real phenomenon, but not on the same scale or with the same connotations as this "privilege" shit.

TL ; DR, There's already real words for it, stop making new ones up for no reason
#168 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
These are not my made up words. These are the words used by the lgbt community. In addition, I do not believe in the idea that a person's privilege or lack thereof invalidates their opinions or ideas. The reason these terms became recently accepted in the lgbt community is for the same reason we have to keep replacing the word for retarded. Every time, it starts off as the PC term, but then becomes an insult. SJWs are already using cis as an insult, sometimes introducing the term at the same time. As a side note, I prefer the German language. In such a dictionary, there'll be one section for root words, and a much, much larger one for affixes. In German, there are rules for creating new words because the language both necessitates and allows it. By the way, Merriam Webster's unabridged dictionary includes -sexual -gender and -romantic as suffixes, and the prefixes that I have used are all fairly basic from Latin roots. These terms are meant to be easy to understand by anyone who's passed elementary school. It's also a bit more specific and much less condescending than saying someone has gender identity disorder.
User avatar #83 - gammajk (09/06/2014) [-]
Either way, you're basing your opinions off of what only YOU have experienced. I shouldn't have to explain to you why that's bad.
#85 - Zanchoff (09/06/2014) [-]
Perhaps it would be better if you did explain. How would I base my opinions off of things I've never experienced?
User avatar #87 - gammajk (09/06/2014) [-]
Because that's goddamn retarded? Why would you have any reason to believe anything anybody says about anything if you did that? If I did that, why would I believe YOU when you claim that all the trans people you've met are normal people?

Do you believe the earth began only as soon as you were born? Do you believe the cities you've been in are the only cities that exist on earth? Do you think the sun isn't actually a ball of gas undergoing nuclear fusion but instead is just a light in the sky?

It's bordering on solipsism.
#91 - Zanchoff (09/06/2014) [-]
I believe the people I've met for the same reason anyone believes anyone else: credibility. I know these people well enough that they wouldn't exactly lie to me. These are people in good standing with my particular group of friends, in addition to helping me get out of a fix every now and then. Why would you believe your school teacher when they tell you the Earth is round? I'd take a guess that it's because you're told that they know their shit. Teachers have credibility in one respect. If you have a close personal friend, and he tells you his address, are you going to second guess him? I'm going to guess that he has credibility as well, and if not, maybe you and I have different definitions of friendship. Now, I'm not saying that everyone has to change their sex, or that trans people can do no wrong, but I'm proposing that, rather than assuming every trans person is a trap, or trying to fool someone, you treat them with the same respect as you would any other person. I (try my best to) assume nothing about someone until I get to know them well. For this reason, I'm not going to eliminate the possibility in my mind that a well-adjusted, level-headed individual can identify as a dog, but until I meet one, I only have what I know. For the same reason, I have no proof that there is a god. I have no reason to believe there is one, and will continue to have no reason to believe until I meet god or receive concrete proof. If there's something I'm not getting, please try to explain it without insulting me or using a strawman argument. It's really just reflecting poorly on your character.
User avatar #104 - gammajk (09/07/2014) [-]
You aren't viewing people's arguments using objectivity. All you're doing is judging people's arguments by the content of their character. IE "Person Y said this, and they seem like an alright person, so I'll believe them" "Person Z said this, but they're kinda weird, so they must be wrong". You aren't judging their arguments, you're judging the people.

If you had a close personal friend who was a young earth creationist, would you believe them just because they're you're friend? Because according to what you just said, that's precisely what you'd do.

And if you had a pastor who you viewed as an almost father figure, would you believe in god just because of that? He has credibility in your eyes, and you were told that they know their shit.
And what if that pastor was not your pastor but rather the pastor of a close friend? What about their friend? Or their friend's friend? Why do things have to happen to you specifically before you can believe them?
#114 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
You bring up a good point, but I'm not saying that credibility is universal. For example, if your history teacher defined the Pythagorean theorem as something that contradicts what your maths teacher taught you, you'd be more likely to believe your maths teacher. For the same reason, I'm inclined to believe my friends because they're sharing their own thoughts and feelings, something which they know best, and have the most credibility to discuss. As for the YEC example, I have a friend who once explained to me "I don't believe in ghosts, but I feel there's a spiritual connection in this world. Sometimes, when I'm alone, I'll see something out of the corner of my eye and I'll just know it's my dead cat, Whiskers." This doesn't mean I believe this friend. She happens to be classically trained in vocal performance, so if she gives me pointers on vocal timbre or something like that, I'll believe her. In that particular area, she has credibility. However, I have no reason to believe that she's an authority on the paranormal. As for your question: "Why do things have to happen to you specifically before you can believe them?" It's because we all live our lives chronologically. At 5 years old, I wasn't wondering whether Euclid's posits were plausible or not, because I had no idea who Euclid was. He existed long before me, but without knowing anything about him or his work, I couldn't form an opinion. There are people in the scientific field who have credibility. I don't need to be doing their work to believe them, but I need a reason to believe they're credible. This is why Bill Nye should have more pull than Ken Hamm.
#67 - Check my sign up date, bro. I've been loyal to fj longer than…  [+] (18 new replies) 09/06/2014 on Would still fuck, no-homo -3
User avatar #68 - gammajk (09/06/2014) [-]
So explain to me people who identify as animals/more than one person are wrong?
You never explained that, all you said is "they're either trolls or weirdos". That's exactly the sort of thing people would say about trans people - either trolls or "weirdos".
You're a hypocrite.
#70 - Zanchoff (09/06/2014) [-]
Not exactly. The whole headmate-furkin thing came out of a 4chan raid a while ago. The reason I say they're either trolls or weirdos is because they're either trolling others for attention or impressionable enough to believe it's an actual thing.

(Schizophrenia excluded)
User avatar #71 - gammajk (09/06/2014) [-]
And you could say the exact same thing about trans people - people "impressionable enough to believe it's an actual thing".
Why do you judge one as being exclusive to idiots or the mentally ill, but not the other?
#73 - Zanchoff (09/06/2014) [-]
To be honest, I'd chalk it up to personal experience. I work in musical theater, and have a lot of interaction with lgbt/genderqueer people. I've met several trans people who were not only well adjusted, but explained how and why they felt during the course of their life. However, I've yet to meet a well- adjusted person identifying as a fox, or as both a 9 year old phillipino girl and a middle aged german man. When/if I do, my opinion will definitely change.
User avatar #74 - gammajk (09/06/2014) [-]
So you rely purely on anecdotal evidence to form your opinions?
#77 - Zanchoff (09/06/2014) [-]
No, not exactly. To say that would mean that I get all of my opinions from stories that I hear. I rely on my interactions with people in different situations than I to better understand theirs. I'm about to get into some terminology here, and it's going to sound like bullshit, but try to understand that just because it's a long word doesn't mean I'm making it up. One of my best friends is bisexual and homoromantic. His sexual behavior suggests that he's straight, while his romantic behavior suggests he's gay. In reality, he's sexually attracted to both guys and girls, but romantically interested in men.
User avatar #148 - iamkagji (09/07/2014) [-]
So he's bisexual and has a preference for men. Just say that like a normal person. There's no need for all these superfluous made-up terms like homoromantic
#160 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
Well, no. It isn't that he has a preference for men. It's that he feels no romantic connection to women whatsoever. Though he enjoys sex, he does not wish to pursue a romantic relationship with women. I also know two straight women in a romantic relationship with each other, who have agreed that each could pursue other romantic and sexual interests. There's a difference between a sexual and romantic relationship, even if one is just a goal to the other for some people.
User avatar #162 - iamkagji (09/07/2014) [-]
I see. However, couldn't you say he has a preference for a relationship with a man? That is far less autistic than "homoromantic"
#166 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
To say that he has a preference for men would be the same as saying I have a preference for women. While technically true, it's not the best word for the situation. By using terms such as panromantic, cisgender, and heterosexual, I can accurately describe myself briefly. Cisgender means that I identify as the sex I was born as, heterosexual is pretty obvious, and panromantic means I'm capable of a romantic relationship with anyone. Personally, I find it hard to have a romantic relationship without being sexual as well, so it's a bit of a moot point, but a point nonetheless. But I assure you, I wouldn't use the term if it were not relevant, and I'm not saying that it is or should be the case with everyone.
User avatar #167 - iamkagji (09/07/2014) [-]
"Cisgender" is normal. Anything else is gender identity disorder, also known as transsexualism in most cases and asexual identification in others. Not a bad thing, but calling it something else is wrong. It's called abnormal psychology for a reason, but that does not make it a bad thing. Furthermore, there are already terms and phrases in English and that serve the purpose of your made-up words. A lot of the confusion surrounding this sort of thing is that you people refuse to use the same language as the rest of us. Try to use actual words you can find in a dictionary when explaining. I am not saying your term is not relevant. However it isn't a real word. It's something a small group of people decided to coin despite there already being words for it. For example, this "white male privilege" and in some parts of the east coat "black female privilege" is actually a previously noted phenomenon called societal preference. It's a real phenomenon, but not on the same scale or with the same connotations as this "privilege" shit.

TL ; DR, There's already real words for it, stop making new ones up for no reason
#168 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
These are not my made up words. These are the words used by the lgbt community. In addition, I do not believe in the idea that a person's privilege or lack thereof invalidates their opinions or ideas. The reason these terms became recently accepted in the lgbt community is for the same reason we have to keep replacing the word for retarded. Every time, it starts off as the PC term, but then becomes an insult. SJWs are already using cis as an insult, sometimes introducing the term at the same time. As a side note, I prefer the German language. In such a dictionary, there'll be one section for root words, and a much, much larger one for affixes. In German, there are rules for creating new words because the language both necessitates and allows it. By the way, Merriam Webster's unabridged dictionary includes -sexual -gender and -romantic as suffixes, and the prefixes that I have used are all fairly basic from Latin roots. These terms are meant to be easy to understand by anyone who's passed elementary school. It's also a bit more specific and much less condescending than saying someone has gender identity disorder.
User avatar #83 - gammajk (09/06/2014) [-]
Either way, you're basing your opinions off of what only YOU have experienced. I shouldn't have to explain to you why that's bad.
#85 - Zanchoff (09/06/2014) [-]
Perhaps it would be better if you did explain. How would I base my opinions off of things I've never experienced?
User avatar #87 - gammajk (09/06/2014) [-]
Because that's goddamn retarded? Why would you have any reason to believe anything anybody says about anything if you did that? If I did that, why would I believe YOU when you claim that all the trans people you've met are normal people?

Do you believe the earth began only as soon as you were born? Do you believe the cities you've been in are the only cities that exist on earth? Do you think the sun isn't actually a ball of gas undergoing nuclear fusion but instead is just a light in the sky?

It's bordering on solipsism.
#91 - Zanchoff (09/06/2014) [-]
I believe the people I've met for the same reason anyone believes anyone else: credibility. I know these people well enough that they wouldn't exactly lie to me. These are people in good standing with my particular group of friends, in addition to helping me get out of a fix every now and then. Why would you believe your school teacher when they tell you the Earth is round? I'd take a guess that it's because you're told that they know their shit. Teachers have credibility in one respect. If you have a close personal friend, and he tells you his address, are you going to second guess him? I'm going to guess that he has credibility as well, and if not, maybe you and I have different definitions of friendship. Now, I'm not saying that everyone has to change their sex, or that trans people can do no wrong, but I'm proposing that, rather than assuming every trans person is a trap, or trying to fool someone, you treat them with the same respect as you would any other person. I (try my best to) assume nothing about someone until I get to know them well. For this reason, I'm not going to eliminate the possibility in my mind that a well-adjusted, level-headed individual can identify as a dog, but until I meet one, I only have what I know. For the same reason, I have no proof that there is a god. I have no reason to believe there is one, and will continue to have no reason to believe until I meet god or receive concrete proof. If there's something I'm not getting, please try to explain it without insulting me or using a strawman argument. It's really just reflecting poorly on your character.
User avatar #104 - gammajk (09/07/2014) [-]
You aren't viewing people's arguments using objectivity. All you're doing is judging people's arguments by the content of their character. IE "Person Y said this, and they seem like an alright person, so I'll believe them" "Person Z said this, but they're kinda weird, so they must be wrong". You aren't judging their arguments, you're judging the people.

If you had a close personal friend who was a young earth creationist, would you believe them just because they're you're friend? Because according to what you just said, that's precisely what you'd do.

And if you had a pastor who you viewed as an almost father figure, would you believe in god just because of that? He has credibility in your eyes, and you were told that they know their shit.
And what if that pastor was not your pastor but rather the pastor of a close friend? What about their friend? Or their friend's friend? Why do things have to happen to you specifically before you can believe them?
#114 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
You bring up a good point, but I'm not saying that credibility is universal. For example, if your history teacher defined the Pythagorean theorem as something that contradicts what your maths teacher taught you, you'd be more likely to believe your maths teacher. For the same reason, I'm inclined to believe my friends because they're sharing their own thoughts and feelings, something which they know best, and have the most credibility to discuss. As for the YEC example, I have a friend who once explained to me "I don't believe in ghosts, but I feel there's a spiritual connection in this world. Sometimes, when I'm alone, I'll see something out of the corner of my eye and I'll just know it's my dead cat, Whiskers." This doesn't mean I believe this friend. She happens to be classically trained in vocal performance, so if she gives me pointers on vocal timbre or something like that, I'll believe her. In that particular area, she has credibility. However, I have no reason to believe that she's an authority on the paranormal. As for your question: "Why do things have to happen to you specifically before you can believe them?" It's because we all live our lives chronologically. At 5 years old, I wasn't wondering whether Euclid's posits were plausible or not, because I had no idea who Euclid was. He existed long before me, but without knowing anything about him or his work, I couldn't form an opinion. There are people in the scientific field who have credibility. I don't need to be doing their work to believe them, but I need a reason to believe they're credible. This is why Bill Nye should have more pull than Ken Hamm.
#65 - *There are some people who identify as one gender, with a diff… 09/06/2014 on Would still fuck, no-homo +2
#63 - Gender =/= Sex Your sex is what you are physically. That …  [+] (33 new replies) 09/06/2014 on Would still fuck, no-homo +8
User avatar #99 - hemomagus (09/07/2014) [-]
acctualy the "more then one person" thing is a real and serious mental illness and you really shouldn't make fun of that or think someones a troll.
#100 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
I later added (Schizophrenia excluded), but you have a very good point.
User avatar #101 - hemomagus (09/07/2014) [-]
its not schizophrenia, its called D.I.D.
#105 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
There are many disorders that involve having multiple personalities, including Scizophrenia, Dissociative Idendity Disorder, and Borderline Personality Disorder. My point is that there are actual reasons that one person may have more than one identity, but it became romanticized on tumblr after a 4chan raid, that started the idea of "headmates."
User avatar #108 - hemomagus (09/07/2014) [-]
borderline is different, but im not gonna get into the details.
i can see why speakign to people with the same disorder can be comforting, but yea i get it, tumblr. question is why do we think everyone with a mental disorder or everyone thats trans/bi/gay is a tumblr fag?
#117 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
I'd have to say it's because tumblr is filled with different people. There are misandrysts, feminists, misogynists, 12 year olds, 50 year olds, and people who only want acceptance of all people. But most of funnyjunk and 4chan sees the average tumblr user as a white misandryst lesbian with green hair, who is constantly complaining about the patriarchy, and how everyone is ableist, racist, sexist, and many many other kinds of -ists that are made up on the spot. Because of this, any valid ideas that would come from that voicebox (mainly acceptance of genderqueer persons) are lumped along with the rest of it. However, one particular trend on tumblr is the romanticizing of serious disorders (such as PTSD, OCD, and clinical depression). This is both harmful to an impressionable community, and insulting to people who actually deal with the disorders in question.
User avatar #119 - hemomagus (09/07/2014) [-]
i get it, i have a few things wrong with me, but it seems like anyone who says "im gay" or "i've got (X disorder)" is labeled a tumblr fag and same goes for anyone who says trans gerndered people arn't gross. kinda bothers me. yes tumblr is wrong, but sometimes people get so anti tumblr that they go strait into the exact opposite side.
#120 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
I agree with you completely. But why did you start off with "I get it, I have a few things wrong with me?"
User avatar #121 - hemomagus (09/07/2014) [-]
you said it can be offensive to people who really have issues, i was saying i get it because i have some to and it annoys me when some white chick goes "omg, i so have bipolar"
#122 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
Oh, I see. For a moment, it seemed a bit ambiguous.
#69 - ddylann (09/06/2014) [-]
this is just ridiculous how can you have a dong and consider yourself a woman when your genitals are literally the only thing that determines whether you are a guy or girl
#72 - Zanchoff (09/06/2014) [-]
For the same reason some guys are sexually attracted to other guys. I'm not saying that everyone born gay also identifies as another gender, but it's in the same vein as identity vs. biology.
User avatar #66 - gammajk (09/06/2014) [-]
back 2 tumblr
#67 - Zanchoff (09/06/2014) [-]
Check my sign up date, bro. I've been loyal to fj longer than you. There are certain things, however, that should be common knowledge. Just because you don't understand someone doesn't mean they're wrong.
User avatar #68 - gammajk (09/06/2014) [-]
So explain to me people who identify as animals/more than one person are wrong?
You never explained that, all you said is "they're either trolls or weirdos". That's exactly the sort of thing people would say about trans people - either trolls or "weirdos".
You're a hypocrite.
#70 - Zanchoff (09/06/2014) [-]
Not exactly. The whole headmate-furkin thing came out of a 4chan raid a while ago. The reason I say they're either trolls or weirdos is because they're either trolling others for attention or impressionable enough to believe it's an actual thing.

(Schizophrenia excluded)
User avatar #71 - gammajk (09/06/2014) [-]
And you could say the exact same thing about trans people - people "impressionable enough to believe it's an actual thing".
Why do you judge one as being exclusive to idiots or the mentally ill, but not the other?
#73 - Zanchoff (09/06/2014) [-]
To be honest, I'd chalk it up to personal experience. I work in musical theater, and have a lot of interaction with lgbt/genderqueer people. I've met several trans people who were not only well adjusted, but explained how and why they felt during the course of their life. However, I've yet to meet a well- adjusted person identifying as a fox, or as both a 9 year old phillipino girl and a middle aged german man. When/if I do, my opinion will definitely change.
User avatar #74 - gammajk (09/06/2014) [-]
So you rely purely on anecdotal evidence to form your opinions?
#77 - Zanchoff (09/06/2014) [-]
No, not exactly. To say that would mean that I get all of my opinions from stories that I hear. I rely on my interactions with people in different situations than I to better understand theirs. I'm about to get into some terminology here, and it's going to sound like bullshit, but try to understand that just because it's a long word doesn't mean I'm making it up. One of my best friends is bisexual and homoromantic. His sexual behavior suggests that he's straight, while his romantic behavior suggests he's gay. In reality, he's sexually attracted to both guys and girls, but romantically interested in men.
User avatar #148 - iamkagji (09/07/2014) [-]
So he's bisexual and has a preference for men. Just say that like a normal person. There's no need for all these superfluous made-up terms like homoromantic
#160 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
Well, no. It isn't that he has a preference for men. It's that he feels no romantic connection to women whatsoever. Though he enjoys sex, he does not wish to pursue a romantic relationship with women. I also know two straight women in a romantic relationship with each other, who have agreed that each could pursue other romantic and sexual interests. There's a difference between a sexual and romantic relationship, even if one is just a goal to the other for some people.
User avatar #162 - iamkagji (09/07/2014) [-]
I see. However, couldn't you say he has a preference for a relationship with a man? That is far less autistic than "homoromantic"
#166 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
To say that he has a preference for men would be the same as saying I have a preference for women. While technically true, it's not the best word for the situation. By using terms such as panromantic, cisgender, and heterosexual, I can accurately describe myself briefly. Cisgender means that I identify as the sex I was born as, heterosexual is pretty obvious, and panromantic means I'm capable of a romantic relationship with anyone. Personally, I find it hard to have a romantic relationship without being sexual as well, so it's a bit of a moot point, but a point nonetheless. But I assure you, I wouldn't use the term if it were not relevant, and I'm not saying that it is or should be the case with everyone.
User avatar #167 - iamkagji (09/07/2014) [-]
"Cisgender" is normal. Anything else is gender identity disorder, also known as transsexualism in most cases and asexual identification in others. Not a bad thing, but calling it something else is wrong. It's called abnormal psychology for a reason, but that does not make it a bad thing. Furthermore, there are already terms and phrases in English and that serve the purpose of your made-up words. A lot of the confusion surrounding this sort of thing is that you people refuse to use the same language as the rest of us. Try to use actual words you can find in a dictionary when explaining. I am not saying your term is not relevant. However it isn't a real word. It's something a small group of people decided to coin despite there already being words for it. For example, this "white male privilege" and in some parts of the east coat "black female privilege" is actually a previously noted phenomenon called societal preference. It's a real phenomenon, but not on the same scale or with the same connotations as this "privilege" shit.

TL ; DR, There's already real words for it, stop making new ones up for no reason
#168 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
These are not my made up words. These are the words used by the lgbt community. In addition, I do not believe in the idea that a person's privilege or lack thereof invalidates their opinions or ideas. The reason these terms became recently accepted in the lgbt community is for the same reason we have to keep replacing the word for retarded. Every time, it starts off as the PC term, but then becomes an insult. SJWs are already using cis as an insult, sometimes introducing the term at the same time. As a side note, I prefer the German language. In such a dictionary, there'll be one section for root words, and a much, much larger one for affixes. In German, there are rules for creating new words because the language both necessitates and allows it. By the way, Merriam Webster's unabridged dictionary includes -sexual -gender and -romantic as suffixes, and the prefixes that I have used are all fairly basic from Latin roots. These terms are meant to be easy to understand by anyone who's passed elementary school. It's also a bit more specific and much less condescending than saying someone has gender identity disorder.
User avatar #83 - gammajk (09/06/2014) [-]
Either way, you're basing your opinions off of what only YOU have experienced. I shouldn't have to explain to you why that's bad.
#85 - Zanchoff (09/06/2014) [-]
Perhaps it would be better if you did explain. How would I base my opinions off of things I've never experienced?
User avatar #87 - gammajk (09/06/2014) [-]
Because that's goddamn retarded? Why would you have any reason to believe anything anybody says about anything if you did that? If I did that, why would I believe YOU when you claim that all the trans people you've met are normal people?

Do you believe the earth began only as soon as you were born? Do you believe the cities you've been in are the only cities that exist on earth? Do you think the sun isn't actually a ball of gas undergoing nuclear fusion but instead is just a light in the sky?

It's bordering on solipsism.
#91 - Zanchoff (09/06/2014) [-]
I believe the people I've met for the same reason anyone believes anyone else: credibility. I know these people well enough that they wouldn't exactly lie to me. These are people in good standing with my particular group of friends, in addition to helping me get out of a fix every now and then. Why would you believe your school teacher when they tell you the Earth is round? I'd take a guess that it's because you're told that they know their shit. Teachers have credibility in one respect. If you have a close personal friend, and he tells you his address, are you going to second guess him? I'm going to guess that he has credibility as well, and if not, maybe you and I have different definitions of friendship. Now, I'm not saying that everyone has to change their sex, or that trans people can do no wrong, but I'm proposing that, rather than assuming every trans person is a trap, or trying to fool someone, you treat them with the same respect as you would any other person. I (try my best to) assume nothing about someone until I get to know them well. For this reason, I'm not going to eliminate the possibility in my mind that a well-adjusted, level-headed individual can identify as a dog, but until I meet one, I only have what I know. For the same reason, I have no proof that there is a god. I have no reason to believe there is one, and will continue to have no reason to believe until I meet god or receive concrete proof. If there's something I'm not getting, please try to explain it without insulting me or using a strawman argument. It's really just reflecting poorly on your character.
User avatar #104 - gammajk (09/07/2014) [-]
You aren't viewing people's arguments using objectivity. All you're doing is judging people's arguments by the content of their character. IE "Person Y said this, and they seem like an alright person, so I'll believe them" "Person Z said this, but they're kinda weird, so they must be wrong". You aren't judging their arguments, you're judging the people.

If you had a close personal friend who was a young earth creationist, would you believe them just because they're you're friend? Because according to what you just said, that's precisely what you'd do.

And if you had a pastor who you viewed as an almost father figure, would you believe in god just because of that? He has credibility in your eyes, and you were told that they know their shit.
And what if that pastor was not your pastor but rather the pastor of a close friend? What about their friend? Or their friend's friend? Why do things have to happen to you specifically before you can believe them?
#114 - Zanchoff (09/07/2014) [-]
You bring up a good point, but I'm not saying that credibility is universal. For example, if your history teacher defined the Pythagorean theorem as something that contradicts what your maths teacher taught you, you'd be more likely to believe your maths teacher. For the same reason, I'm inclined to believe my friends because they're sharing their own thoughts and feelings, something which they know best, and have the most credibility to discuss. As for the YEC example, I have a friend who once explained to me "I don't believe in ghosts, but I feel there's a spiritual connection in this world. Sometimes, when I'm alone, I'll see something out of the corner of my eye and I'll just know it's my dead cat, Whiskers." This doesn't mean I believe this friend. She happens to be classically trained in vocal performance, so if she gives me pointers on vocal timbre or something like that, I'll believe her. In that particular area, she has credibility. However, I have no reason to believe that she's an authority on the paranormal. As for your question: "Why do things have to happen to you specifically before you can believe them?" It's because we all live our lives chronologically. At 5 years old, I wasn't wondering whether Euclid's posits were plausible or not, because I had no idea who Euclid was. He existed long before me, but without knowing anything about him or his work, I couldn't form an opinion. There are people in the scientific field who have credibility. I don't need to be doing their work to believe them, but I need a reason to believe they're credible. This is why Bill Nye should have more pull than Ken Hamm.
#65 - Zanchoff (09/06/2014) [-]
*There are some people who identify as one gender, with a different sex, and have no desire to change their sex to match their gender.
#5 - The heart wants what the heart wants.  [+] (1 new reply) 09/06/2014 on one job +10
#38 - Ethshar (09/07/2014) [-]
And the heart wants to be batman.
#147 - The sad thing about American cops is that if you make a mistak… 09/04/2014 on not all cops are bad 0
#171 - WASTED 09/04/2014 on (untitled) +1
#29 - I love the guy who just responds to every clip with the opposi… 09/02/2014 on CHEESE!!! +2
#107 - Only one doubt: in the last story, Carlos put on wraps. 09/02/2014 on arena's profile 0
#106 - Holy **** . I am impressed. Also assuming it's hi… 09/02/2014 on arena's profile 0

items

Total unique items point value: 3419 / Total items point value: 7873
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #1 - soundofwinter (06/20/2014) [-]
**** you
#2 to #1 - Zanchoff (06/21/2014) [-]
I admire your dedication, but question your lifestyle.
 Friends (0)