shootniron
New member
Can someone tell me what this in parenthesis, on this thread title, means?
Thanks
Thanks
-
Anything ‘published’ on the web is viewed as intellectual property and, regardless of whether it displays a copyright symbol or not, is therefore copyrighted by the originator. The only exception to this is if there is a “free and unrestricted reuse” statement associated with the work.
In order to protect our members and TFL from possible litigation, all members must abide by the following new rules:
1. Copying and pasting entire articles from another site to TFL is strictly prohibited. The same applies to articles from print or other media, and to posting photographs taken of copyrighted pages or other media.
2. Copyright law provides for “fair use” of portions of a copyrighted work. You can copy no more than a SINGLE paragraph from the article to your post (3 or 4 sentences at most).
3. You must provide a link to the article along with the name of website. For example: ww.xxx.yyy/zzz (The Lower Thumbsuck Daily News).
4. You must provide, in your own words, a brief summary of the article AND your reasons for believing it will be of interest to TFL members. Failure to do so may result in the thread being closed or your post being deleted as a “cut and paste drive by.”
5. Photographs and other images are also copyrighted. "Hotlinking" of images (so that it appears in your message) from other sites is also prohibited unless you own rights to the image. If you wish to share an image, provide a clickable link to it.
Posts that do not follow these new guidelines will be altered or deleted by staff. Members who continue to violate this policy may lose their posting privileges at TFL.
Thank you for your cooperation and your participation in TFL, the leading online forum for firearms enthusiasts.
Someone...Please Explain This
- Thread starter shootniron
- Start date
TheDevilThatYouKnow
New member
"Non-Binary" - There's a theory going around that there are more than just two (binary) genders; male and female.
So, to be inclusive "Buckle up Boys" was amended with " and Girls, and Non-binary).
So, to be inclusive "Buckle up Boys" was amended with " and Girls, and Non-binary).
shootniron
New member
Well, actually...I understood the non-binary part and I was pretty sure about the other.
I guess I just phrased my post wrong.
Who amended the post?
Has this forum gone this politically correct?
I guess I just phrased my post wrong.
Who amended the post?
Has this forum gone this politically correct?
Last edited:
dakota.potts
New member
Probably the wrong forum for this post and I see it getting locked.
There are boys and girls who support gun rights who don't want them taken away. There are people who identify with being outside of the binary gender system who don't want guns taken away also and are strong supporters of gun rights. Agree with them or not, it is best to respect them as our allies. They are free human beings with the autonomy to act how they want with their bodies save for violating the rights of others. I personally know a number who are gun rights supporters.
It's probably also worth considering that a broader community than usual may be exposed to our forum from googling materials related to the shooting at the LGBT club and an open minded attitude is the best way to keep or make new allies.
Whether the title was changed for these reasons or to make some kind of other point, I couldn't tell you.
There are boys and girls who support gun rights who don't want them taken away. There are people who identify with being outside of the binary gender system who don't want guns taken away also and are strong supporters of gun rights. Agree with them or not, it is best to respect them as our allies. They are free human beings with the autonomy to act how they want with their bodies save for violating the rights of others. I personally know a number who are gun rights supporters.
It's probably also worth considering that a broader community than usual may be exposed to our forum from googling materials related to the shooting at the LGBT club and an open minded attitude is the best way to keep or make new allies.
Whether the title was changed for these reasons or to make some kind of other point, I couldn't tell you.
shootniron
New member
Cool...dakota.potti...
Since y'all see fit to modify what has always been seen as an inclusive general statement...for the benefit of appearing to be more "INCLULSIVE" ...y'all can have this place.
Since y'all see fit to modify what has always been seen as an inclusive general statement...for the benefit of appearing to be more "INCLULSIVE" ...y'all can have this place.
dakota.potts
New member
I'm not sure who modified anything. It's listed as "mod edit". There's another part of the forum where those types of questions can be asked and answered. PMs to the moderators for the forum (found at the bottom of the sub forum page) might be helpful as well.
I edited it. It was a combination of things.
For a thread specifically addressing consequences of an attack on a LGBT club, I thought a more explicitly inclusive thread title would be better. There are all kinds of victims of violence, and all kinds of gun rights supporters who will have to brace for another round of anti-gun proposals due to this latest psychotic and terrorist tragedy. The "non-binary" reference was motivated by this news in particular: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/oregon-nonbinary-transgender-sex-gender.html?_r=0. While the merits of such government policy are open for debate, the fact that some people identify that way isn't.
For a thread specifically addressing consequences of an attack on a LGBT club, I thought a more explicitly inclusive thread title would be better. There are all kinds of victims of violence, and all kinds of gun rights supporters who will have to brace for another round of anti-gun proposals due to this latest psychotic and terrorist tragedy. The "non-binary" reference was motivated by this news in particular: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/oregon-nonbinary-transgender-sex-gender.html?_r=0. While the merits of such government policy are open for debate, the fact that some people identify that way isn't.
winchester1917
New member
Surprising...
It seems that in an effort to "include" everyone, some are willing to "disclude" anyone who sees things differently. It's one thing to censor certain topics of conversation (religion, politics, etc.), but it's entirely another matter to mandate that everyone speak in agreement and compliance with a certain philosophy and agenda!
For a forum that holds so dearly to the 2nd amendment, I would expect a little more respect for portions of the 1st...
It seems that in an effort to "include" everyone, some are willing to "disclude" anyone who sees things differently. It's one thing to censor certain topics of conversation (religion, politics, etc.), but it's entirely another matter to mandate that everyone speak in agreement and compliance with a certain philosophy and agenda!
For a forum that holds so dearly to the 2nd amendment, I would expect a little more respect for portions of the 1st...
Tyme said:
Writers here are routinely chided to leave these political and cultural issues to other fora, but you have seen fit not only to insert your views on the matter which You could have almost as easily have done thought in a post of your own. Instead you did it by altering someone else's writing to fit your personal views.
That is appalling.
dakota.potts
New member
No portion of the 1st amendment has been affected, contrary to stated here, and no part of a person's writing has been changed. There's a clear note that it's a moderator edit. So what's the issue?
Indeed, there is no 1st A. issue.
That is not correct inasmuch as the title written by the OP was changed.
The issue is the liberty taken by a moderator to gratuitously inject personal political views by way of an edit to another writer's text. It's a weird way to make one's point and was reasonably taken by the writer as enforcement of forced adherence to a sort of activist language code.
That's why it isn't appropriate.
Tom Servo on June 28 said:
Last edited:
winchester1917
New member
I never asserted that the 1A was "affected" or that there was a 1A "issue", but that there seems to be a lack of "respect" for portions of the Amendment. I hold to that claim. (Perhaps the word "appreciation" would have been more appropriate.)
A person's words should not be altered without his or her consent to be made favorable to anyone else.
This was a clear bow to current liberal philosophy.
Almost all of the 2A supporters I know (myself included) are of a certain "religious" group, yet no one is altering posts or titles to make sure we feel included. And I wouldn't want anyone to! In fact I wouldn't be a part of a forum where that was done.
A person's words should not be altered without his or her consent to be made favorable to anyone else.
This was a clear bow to current liberal philosophy.
Almost all of the 2A supporters I know (myself included) are of a certain "religious" group, yet no one is altering posts or titles to make sure we feel included. And I wouldn't want anyone to! In fact I wouldn't be a part of a forum where that was done.
Last edited:
I made the subject more literally inclusive for those (unfortunate) liberals who might stumble across the thread, given the event it's related to has such a high profile and is highly emotionally charged. We all know there are liberals who have trouble discerning that male pronouns are often not intended as male pronouns. Then there are people who know they're intended as gender-neutral, but who still get miffed when encountering male pronouns like that. Ordinarily I wouldn't touch such a subject, but I didn't think we needed any such confusion in a thread related to this particular tragedy given its nature.
How is that an injection of personal politics?
Think about all the liberals yammering about gun control this and gun control that and how that this tragedy was a LGBT hate crime full stop. What would someone like that think encountering that thread's subject as it was originally? They'll think, "those gun people are not only anti-LGBT, they're even anti-women. Their own words prove it!" That doesn't help anyone. I was simply trying (apparently badly) to mitigate that to what little extent I could.
I thought labeling it as a mod edit would make clear that it wasn't the original poster's words, and the original poster wasn't the one being "politically correct", if the additions were interpreted that way.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I still am, that anyone is flying off the handle about this. This is not TFL becoming PC; nobody's words are being misrepresented. If someone looks at that title and decides it isn't a bad idea to be careful choosing pronouns to more precisely communicate their intentions to their audience in the future, fine. (Which tends to be my personal philosophy.) If someone looks at that title and resolves to continue using male pronouns because the hassle of making references gender-neutral isn't worth it to them, and being PC sucks, that's fine too.
How is that an injection of personal politics?
Think about all the liberals yammering about gun control this and gun control that and how that this tragedy was a LGBT hate crime full stop. What would someone like that think encountering that thread's subject as it was originally? They'll think, "those gun people are not only anti-LGBT, they're even anti-women. Their own words prove it!" That doesn't help anyone. I was simply trying (apparently badly) to mitigate that to what little extent I could.
I thought labeling it as a mod edit would make clear that it wasn't the original poster's words, and the original poster wasn't the one being "politically correct", if the additions were interpreted that way.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I still am, that anyone is flying off the handle about this. This is not TFL becoming PC; nobody's words are being misrepresented. If someone looks at that title and decides it isn't a bad idea to be careful choosing pronouns to more precisely communicate their intentions to their audience in the future, fine. (Which tends to be my personal philosophy.) If someone looks at that title and resolves to continue using male pronouns because the hassle of making references gender-neutral isn't worth it to them, and being PC sucks, that's fine too.
RaySendero
New member
You should have, and in the future, just leave it alone.
Think that's all were are saying.
Think that's all were are saying.
winchester1917
New member
Tyme,
I appreciate your further explanation, and I understand the rationale.
I for one am glad to see that there are some in the more conservative camp who rush to the defense of their position and opinion, particularly in regard to societal agendas and policies. Failure to do so is part of the reason we're in the mess we are in here in the USA.
I've said my piece.
I appreciate your further explanation, and I understand the rationale.
I for one am glad to see that there are some in the more conservative camp who rush to the defense of their position and opinion, particularly in regard to societal agendas and policies. Failure to do so is part of the reason we're in the mess we are in here in the USA.
I've said my piece.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
People being the plural of person, the original title should probably have been "Buckle Up, People."
Being sorta country, I generally say "folks", so "Buckle Up, Folks" would have worked equally well.
Note that the terms are all-inclusive, so nobody should feel left out.
Back off and calm down.
Just leave it that not all good intentions work out as intended. Every now and then I've hit that problem, "Hey, I'm trying!" and the response is, "Yeah, very trying."
Being sorta country, I generally say "folks", so "Buckle Up, Folks" would have worked equally well.
Note that the terms are all-inclusive, so nobody should feel left out.
Back off and calm down.
Just leave it that not all good intentions work out as intended. Every now and then I've hit that problem, "Hey, I'm trying!" and the response is, "Yeah, very trying."