Qt, Why is gender so important?

submitted by HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (56 children)

Guess qt only posts when it’s to call us bad people.

[–]beris😎 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (55 children)

Lord save me, it's amazing how you can drive off the only like, what, two posters who aren't a part of your echo chamber, and without a shred of irony boast your own moral superiority about it. This sub was fun to watch as a dumpster fire before, now it's just sad.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (54 children)

Lol, I haven’t run anyone off. They left because they had zero arguments that hadn’t been repeatedly debunked and couldn’t force anyone to bow to emotional manipulation, particularly in the case of circlingmyownvoids/masks.

Seems like you’re just as empty handed when it comes to debates and think you’re proving something by complaining. It’s totally unclear what you think the complaint is achieving other than exactly the sort of sad unironic boast you’ve accused me of.

[–]beris😎 2 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 7 fun -  (53 children)

Seems like you're just as empty handed when it comes to debates

Who do you mean by "you're"? It certainly can't be me personally, since up until this point i've exclusively lurked, and I'm absolutely more on gc side than not, so I hope it's not the collective you.

I love this place because it's a toxic cesspit and fun to watch, but I assure you i have literally 0 skin in the game so let me tell you a secret. You (collectively) had trans people who wanted to debate try REALLY hard to post here for years. You (collectively) ran them out and now you're posting about how morally superior you are compared to them in a glorified echo chamber where the only people left are you (collectively). You (personally) need hobbies.

[–]BiologyIsReal 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (30 children)

A toxic echo chamber that run out dissenters and whose members feel morally superior to the outside group, you said? Are you sure you're not talking about the hundreds of QT forums? Maybe not, since in those forums people get banned the moment they say any wrongthink unlike here. But I suppose expecting QT users to behave like everyone else qualifies as run them out.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

Thinking qt might answer genuine questions? Running them off. Being slightly snarky in the space where you’ve seen qt behave appallingly? Literally chasing them with torches and pitchforks.

[–]beris😎 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (16 children)

You've both acted appallingly, and only one side gets banned consistently. Weird, huh?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I’ve had a temp ban or two and have been requested by mods to edit plenty of shit that I think is absurd like not being allowed to call a male user he.
There was the rape apology drama which garnered a temporary ban from the apologist, and spammers have been banned. Who else do you think has been banned?

If you find my behaviour so appalling, report it to the qt mod who abandoned you all. Or is his leaving our fault too?

[–]beris😎 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

What were you temporarily banned for? Was it, gasp, being toxic, perhaps? Surely not, because the most toxic thing gc users do here is 'disagree'.

been requested by mods to edit plenty of shit that I think is absurd like not being allowed to call a male user he.

And you don't think that maybe not being able to follow simple rules shouldn't preclude you from being in a space where those rules are in place to make the environment less toxic for the qt posters?

You're sure doing a shit job of proving you definitely aren't hostile or toxic.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I’m not trying to prove anything to you because I don’t feel any need for your approval lol. Untwist your knickers and cry about how shit we are to qt on Reddit if that’s what you enjoy. They won’t point and chuckle at the clown appointing themselves master of who may snark and who may not.. they will give you all the ass pats you can handle over your championing of the nasty women who don’t make their space cater to qt. Have fun.

[–]redarmyshrike 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (8 children)

What are the usernames of the QT users who have been banned?

[–]beris😎 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I don't remember off the top of my head, moderation log only logs 2 months anyways so it's not like you can check. Pretty sure I've seen thegreensquid and circlingmyvoid though.

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

These are the permant banned users, who are, as I said, a spammer or alt right:

https://i.postimg.cc/xjWYQrwj/Users-banned.png

No QT user was banned forever since I became a mod less than a year ago. Circling was temporary banned before that (although yourself has said that you'd banned circling, so...). I don't know whether squid has ever been temporary banned.

[–]redarmyshrike 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Actually, it's GC users who are disproportionately banned. I can't remember their usernames and there's no record of any of it in the moderation logs though.

See how I can make shit up too?

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There is only a QT user who was temporary banned. All the permant bans have been mostly the same spammer who likes to pose as QT (but is not) and alt right users.

[–]beris😎 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (11 children)

This would be a gotcha if i were qt, but as luck would have it I am not, so im happy to say both you and they are very toxic.

And what, should i be impressed that you don't instantly ban any dissenters? Is that what you want? Congratulations for meeting the absolute minimum requirements for a DEBATE space.

[–]BiologyIsReal 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Yes, you are absolutely right. I am as toxic as the people who send rape and death threaths to dissenting women. I am exactly the same as the people who defend sex offenders like the Wi Spa guy. Totally equivalent./s

[–]beris😎 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

You probably also aren't as toxic as axe murderers and billionaires. You are allowed to be toxic while still being less toxic than other people. This shouldn't be something you need explained to you.

[–]BiologyIsReal 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Provide proof of specific examples or it didn't happen.

[–]beris😎 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

You're the fucking mod, i've seen you remove gc comments for crossing the imaginary line of plausible deniability. You can scroll back in the moderation log and theres plenty of removed comments from gc users, BY YOU. The fucking gall to ask for proof when you know for a fact im right is amazing beyond words. Or did you not know the moderation log was public?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Probably aren’t as toxic as axe murderers..probably.. lmao you’re really putting axe murderers and people who disagree with qt on the same level and simultaneously saying we’re shit at arguing

Mate take the troll trophy and go celebrate a job well done. That’s legitimately hilarious.

[–]beris😎 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

You know, I see this a lot here and since I'm posting for a bit before we all admit this place is dead, I have to ask. Do you not know what hyperbole is? Does anyone here? Are you just reading 'axe-murderer' and ignoring the rest of the comment because you're seeing red or something?

Cause like, it's clear I'm saying that it's possible to be toxic without being "them" levels of toxic. It's clear that I'm being hyperbolic to laugh at the idea that because "actually, they're toxic" that you magically can't be any amount of toxic yourselves at all. Who knows, maybe I'm crazy.

And again, I'm not qt, I disagree with qt, so by your logic I've called myself as toxic as a billionaire, and that's just a mean thing to imply.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

Yes you. Who else? You could have participated in the debate and actually answered the question I initially posed, you could have continued to lurk, but you specifically decided to post a complaint that achieves nothing other than the exact sort of boast of moral superiority that you claimed I displayed.

I honestly dunno how that was unclear at all.

Repeating yourself with the “running off the qts” bit isn’t making it true. I personally have hobbies, you personally need a better one than lurking and coming out of the woodwork only to make an ass of yourself by doing the very act of performative superiority you’re having a sook about.

You (personally) should have thought a little bit more.

[–]beris😎 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (20 children)

Why would i answer a question not directed toward me? I think 'gender' is a load of bull, but if it lets trans people express themselves without denying biological fact then cool, good for them.

My complaint achieves exactly as much as yours does, or is yours actually magically better somehow? I'm not claiming moral superiority, just chuckling at how wildly laughable your "oh no i guess my points are too strong for the mean transes to debate me" comment is in a sub with no trans people left who arent licking boots.

Repeating yourself with the “running off the qts” bit isn’t making it true.

Correct. My repeating doesn't make it true. It just IS true. Or are you telling me they dont want to stay in a hostile 10-1 against them space with zero moderation on their behalf because they understand how much smarter you are than them and they'll never be able to beat you in an entirely unrigged internet debate?

You (personally) should have thought a little bit more.

The jab doesn't work unless you follow through with it all the way. You even literally said 'you personally' earlier in your post. Be consistent if you're gonna try to clap back, come on.

[–]BiologyIsReal 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Why would i answer a question not directed toward me? I think 'gender' is a load of bull, but if it lets trans people express themselves without denying biological fact then cool, good for them.

That is not going to happen. "Gender identity" is a concept made up to replace sex. Denying biological facts IS the point. That is why you have males competing in women's sports and accessing all sort of former women-only spaces from restrooms to prisons. That is why you have male criminals, including sexual offenders, being recorderd as "women". That is why you have female and male who identify as the opposite sex get their medical records changed without caring if that put their health or life in danger . That is why you have all the newspeak to not name women. That is why you have people acused of "transphobia" for basing their sexual orientation in sex rather than "gender identity". None of this has happened by accident. None of this has to do with expressing themselves. You don't need to identify out of your sex to express yourself.

[–]beris😎 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

Okay? I don't disagree, but at the end of the day you can't be the thought police any more than they can. Seperating sex and gender while acknowledging sex is far better than blurring the lines so that sex can be misinterpreted. There's nothing more to it than that, you don't need to read deep into it.

[–]BiologyIsReal 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Okay? I don't disagree, but at the end of the day you can't be the thought police any more than they can.

So, does acknowledging basic facts as "there are only two sexes" and "humans can't change sex" qualify as thought policing now? You're trying really hard with this "both sides are bad" angle. If I made fun of flat Earth theories, would you say I'm thought policing, too?

Seperating sex and gender while acknowledging sex is far better than blurring the lines so that sex can be misinterpreted. There's nothing more to it than that, you don't need to read deep into it.

The point transactivists won't settle for recognizing both sex and "gender identity", just like they won't settle for third spaces. They have made pretty clear they don't want any sort of compromise. It's absurd you think we're toxic for refusing to entertain their ever-incressing demands, lies and threaths.

Edit: I fixed the quotes

[–]beris😎 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

it's absurd you think we're toxic for refusing to entertain their ever-incressing demands, lies and threaths.

Or maybe just that you actively maintain a hostile environment. You give gc users a slap on the wrist when they repeatedly break rules, you actively perform mental gymnastics to say direct harassment and bad-mouthing isn't against any rules, and just generally don't have any standards whatsoever with regards to moderating your own side. If you don't believe me, go into the moderator log and count how many times you've "warned" a gc user vs actually temporarily banned them.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Lol you’ll work it out eventually. Maybe try not insulting people you’re not trying futilely to start a fight with, though. The hostility of “boot lickers” really detracts from the holier-than-thou act you started off with.

[–]beris😎 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (12 children)

Ah, sorry, should i have called them "the good ones"? Never seen that in terrible context before.

And cute you've got no response to the fact that your qt posters have been gone for months. Love to know how im wrong though.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

Aww you really think you were making some excellent points dontcha?

Even the worst qt posters were less obvious about trying to start a fight. Get your conflict fix somewhere else, love.

[–]beris😎 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (10 children)

"I don't have an answer for you".

Paraphrased for you.