11 ms·

I think this article comes very close to saying "don't let words affect you", which is fundamentally impossible to ask anyone to do and taken to it's logical co

I think this article comes very close to saying "don't let words affect you", which is fundamentally impossible to ask anyone to do and taken to it's logical conclusion I should also not absorb anything in the article. I also think this article also ignores the fact that hateful people often use the language of free speech to justify their own behavior and to punish their critics. Everyday on the internet I see trans people threatened, disrespected, or legislated out of existence... then the ensuing backlash in which people try to reassert the rights of trans people... and then the backlash to the backlash is always "these woke libs trying to cancel us are the real n@zis". It's exhausting. Infuriating. Some speech suppresses the speech of others. And some people don't want to be taught that they are hateful. If you make declarative statements that villainize minority groups, you make others fear for their safety and it silences voices. That is a form of "violent speech", though that term sucks. Free speech isn't just about saying anything you want, it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table, and to do that you can't just let people get away with saying vile shit.

gigibec 4y ago
[dead]
trieste92 4y ago
> Some speech suppresses the speech of others Isn't this exactly what you're trying to do here? > Free speech isn't just about saying anything you want, it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table Free speech is "about" whatever is in the first amendment > it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table Ahh yes, because the people who try to redefine "free speech" like what you're doing are definitely well known for promoting this /s
- banannaise 4y ago
  > Free speech is "about" whatever is in the first amendment It is very odd to assert that the morality of speech is completely, correctly, and undeniably established in a document written 250 years ago that defines the laws of only one country.
  - kneebonian 4y ago
    It derives from philosophical thought and justification that rests on the idea that all men are created equal and that no one man is above another because of where or how they were born and that all men should be allowed to operate freely so long as they do not cause harm to others.
    - Xeoncross 4y ago
      Yeah, we can't have that. That thinking is going to cause some obvious issues.
  - gazpachotron 4y ago
    [dead]
  - trieste92 4y ago
    > morality of speech Where are you getting this morality business from? Free speech is how it's defined in law, in the USA that's the 1st Talking about "morality of speech" is just noise and deserves the quotation marks
    - lo_zamoyski 4y ago
      I do not agree with the OP's apparent presupposition that age somehow invalidates truth (without even giving us so much as an alternative and a basis for accepting it). However, the law is incomprehensible without morality. What on earth could you possibly take the law to be in the absence of morality? The natural law is the basis of morality and morality is the basis of law which is the particular and concrete determination of it in especially in matters concerning the common good. Yes, there is such a thing as immoral speech. Slander is an obvious example. Lies. But what should be subject to the law? That is a prudential question. And the 1st amendment is interpreted to some extent according to more or less prudential considerations.
  - lannisterstark 4y ago
    Just because a document is written 250 years ago doesn't make it a 'bad' document. Why the fuck do I care what the laws in Australia are when I don't live in Australia. you should see how govts interpret the "morality" or "offending" clauses in nation-states like India and Egypt to give themselves more power and arrest dissidents.
- disembiggen 4y ago
  Free speech is "about" whatever is in the first amendment Lol, USAian moment, how about the other 7.7 billion of us?
  - trieste92 4y ago
    I hope people elsewhere don't have the same bullshit pseudo debates we have in usa...
listless 4y ago
> Everyday on the internet I see trans people threatened, disrespected, or legislated out of existence... Granted that there is an overreaction happening but that seems largely in response to a rather hostile approach from that community. “If you deadname me I’ll have you banned”. “If you refuse to use my pronouns I’ll have you fired.” “If you say that there are only two genders I’ll drag you”. This is no way to solve problems in a free society. Let’s trans people be trans. And let people who think there are only two genders think that. Forcing a set of beliefs or values on people is exactly what we should be trying to avoid.
- disembiggen 4y ago
  >If you say that there are only two genders I’ll drag you is my drag not free speech too? If one insults me (or says something to me I consider insulting), I should be allowed to insult them right back, right?
  - listless 4y ago
    Yes. I’m just pointing out that what I see as the backlash against trans (which is often unhinged) is simply a response to trans activism, which is likewise unhinged. And that, suppressing the speech of either of those groups is a bad idea.
colechristensen 4y ago
It doesn't matter if words affect you. Threats are illegal, go ahead and prosecute. Disrespect is and should be legally protected. Government cannot, will not, and should not be in the position of making people like or be nice to you. People should be nice to each other but it is not the government's job to enforce this. Nobody's rights extend to government banning speech that isn't supportive. No speech suppresses anybody else's. Free speech isn't about "free speech for people who say things I support". I'm tired of authoritarians pretending to be liberal.
bigyikes 4y ago
>and taken to it's logical conclusion I should also not absorb anything in the article Well, yeah, if that’s what you choose to do. That’s the whole point: you can choose to absorb the information, or not. You can choose to take offense, or not.
lannisterstark 4y ago
>If you make declarative statements that villainize minority groups, you make others fear for their safety and it silences voices. That is a form of "violent speech", Not in the United States. Matal v Tam >>Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express "the thought that we hate." ---- remember, at one point it was considered 'harmful' be a majority whites for us browns/blacks to express our civil rights. Just because a majority goes "this is bad" doesn't mean it necessarily is.
tick_tock_tick 4y ago
> Some speech suppresses the speech of others. No, it doesn't. > it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table No, it's about making sure people can spew a continuous stream of whatever hateful crap they feel like day in and day out every day for their whole life. One of the big reasons I'm a fan of things like universal income/healthcare is because currently employment is too critical to surviving which forces people to censor their speech. Hopefully the social safety net can improve to the point where someone can be almost comically offensive every day without fear of starving. > If you make declarative statements that villainize minority groups, you make others fear for their safety and it silences voices That's an acceptable tradeoff for a free society.
throwawayacc6 4y ago
I think this article comes very close to saying "don't let words affect you", which is fundamentally impossible to ask anyone to do and taken to it's logical conclusion I should also not absorb anything in the article. I also think this article also ignores the fact that hateful people often use the language of free speech to justify their own behavior and to punish their critics. Everyday on the internet I see White people threatened, disrespected, or legislated out of existence... then the ensuing backlash in which people try to reassert the rights of White people... and then the backlash to the backlash is always "these neo-Nazi cons trying to cancel us are the real gulag runners". It's exhausting. Infuriating. Some speech suppresses the speech of others. And some people don't want to be taught that they are hateful. If you make declarative statements that villainize majority groups, you make others fear for their safety and it silences voices. That is a form of "violent speech", though that term sucks. Free speech isn't just about saying anything you want, it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table, and to do that you can't just let people get away with saying vile shit.
- freejazz 4y ago
  Just because it is literally possible to type a sentence, doesn't make it true... I'm not sure what point you think you are demonstrating past that.
  - throwawayacc6 4y ago
    You're almost there! This is an /r/selfawarewolves tier post.
    - freejazz 4y ago
      Oh, I get it. You think you are demonstrating that the post you are mocking is meaningless because you can artificially insert other words to it in an arbitrary fashion that renders it meaningless? Shocking that you are being smarmy about it, but I guess that comes with the territory of not realizing the pie is in your own face.
mafribe 4y ago
> maximizing the number of voices at the table The easiest way of doing so is to maximise the number of humans on the planet. Those who engage, and promote reproduction organ destruction whether surgical or chemical, do the exact opposite and decrease the number of voices -- in the long run to zero.
- breadbreadbread 4y ago
  this is the most disingenuous response i've ever seen
  - mafribe 4y ago
    > most disingenuous response i've ever seen Promoters of sex-deception and concomitant fertility destruction, typically seem to communicate in a way that is (1) a refusal to address substantial points, (2) adversarial hyperbole, and (3) refusal to engage in any kind rational argument that could lead to mutually beneficial truth-seeking and learning. I'm sure that you agree that the quoted sentence above confirms those patterns? Can I invite you to reflect on why we see this pattern?
wonderwonder 4y ago
"Everyday on the internet I see trans people threatened, disrespected, or legislated out of existence" Legislation in the US has actually made trans people vanish or are we using large amounts of hyperbole? People have been saying mean things about other groups for millennia, as long as its just words, its fine. I'm a jew, I see the neo nazi groups with banners or Kanye ranting and just laugh. Who cares? Now if they want to come at me with physical violence then that's something else. I'll respond in kind. I don't see many jews running around screaming that speech is violence, we just get on with it. Same for black people dealing with those same white supremacists. "don't let words affect you". Exactly! I am all for us as adults just not letting the words of people we will never meet affect us. I've sat down and had beers with open anti Semites and people with swastika tattoos while being very open about being a jew. Its fine, I had a good talk with them, nobody changed anyone's mind but we parted on good terms. I hope they find happiness. I in no way want them prosecuted for their beliefs or speech. Trans people are for some reason the only large visible group yelling that speech is violence and saying mean things about them should be illegal. And its primarily M2F trans people (in my experience), I don't really see F2M people doing it. I wonder if there is something related to the giving up of male physical strength that leads to demanding that society now protect you in all ways including your feelings. You're trans, cool, get on with it. Stop asking for special treatment. The only Nazis are actual Nazis. Let the downvotes commence.
- keerthiko 4y ago
  Surely you would feel very differently if you were born in a slightly different time in the not-so-distant past. How do you imagine the first "actual Nazis" came to the position of power where they could slaughter thousands of your community with impunity for nearly a generation? How do you imagine it couldn't happen again, if not in your lifetime, at some point in humanity's timeline? If not regarding Jews, regarding some new community? Do you really think it would be avoided simply by more people taking "don't let words affect you" to heart [ * ]? [ * ] (assuming, quite unreasonably, that that's actually something that could happen at a societal level)
  - wonderwonder 4y ago
bbwbsb 4y ago
I'm torn because on one hand, having been intimately acquainted with a trans person who suffered greatly, and having heard from them what their internal voice told them in duress (e.g., that they were "actually delusional", "trying to trick others", "convincing no one", and other harmful but thoroughly implanted negative self-talk), I would absolutely start a fight with someone for certain kinds of statements, especially in the presence of someone I expected had negative self-talk similar to what was being said about them. From that angle I agree that speech can be violent. I can also see it being exhausting, because I doubt there is an end to individuals willing to say such things. I could see that feeling like a Sisyphean trial. At the same time, I think most speech that comes across this way is the product of ignorance or unmet emotional needs, and if you listen to people that say hateful things they will often weaken their view as soon as they realize you plan to actually listen to them and understand how they feel. Because of this, I recognize my instinct to start a fight as a result of how I feel, and not necessarily a productive course of action, and often results in worse outcomes (people doubling down, taking an angry response as justification of their action, etc). I also find that this builds trust, which is necessary for good faith conversation. My real problem with 'speech as violence' comes down to the difference between moralizing and compassion; I believe that compassion will produce better outcomes. Further if it is about morality you have to decide the correct morality, and it is impossible to get actual agreement on that. If you did you would have someone disagreeing to test if you would allow them to think differently than you without attacking them. There are indeed people that say vile shit to hurt others intentionally, for various reasons from demotivating someone competing with them, to sadism, to bullying (which I find is often someone who believes 'bad people should be punished' and that someone has done something 'socially bad' so that it is 'up to them to correct it'). For example, When a sibling of mine wore something that might be associated with being gay, he received harsh criticism from another sibling I knew cared about him. The criticizing sibling had been bullied, and believed his statements would dissuade what he saw as a social misstep. It was a failure of compassion. The form of the criticism was also exactly what the criticized sibling had thought about himself. I've also found that sometimes when my first thought was 'wow this person is a terrible person', it turned out that they thought that other people thought there were a terrible person, and so they stopped trying to do things that might prevent that effect, causing more people to think it, causing them to care less, or possibly even say provocative things with resent. If you listen to such a person and sympathize with them - however hard it may be, even if you don't agree with them, it can completely break the script they are expecting to hear, and lacking a prepared response, you may get an actually vulnerable one. Really, I think as soon as morals come up, and rightness or wrongness, empathy has failed. And it is hard because empathizing with people that have different backgrounds and views is really hard. People will talk about empathy all day long, but I rarely see anyone really willing to empathize with someone who is narcissistic or abusive, someone who lacks all social skills as an adult and is smug that they are well paid in spite of it, or someone who believes radially different on any topic to really care about. Can any of us sympathize really with someone who thinks learning programming is a waste of time and we should all learn 'real skills' like how to read a balance sheet or run a meeting? Or someone that believes SOAP is the greatest thing that has even happened and people complaining about it just don't get it? That JavaScript is the most consistently designed language that has even existed and should have monuments built in its honor? That open-source software is a communist fad that harms markets and shouldn't be legal? For me, when someone plays music from their phone speakers on public transport it is very difficult for me to sympathize. When someone cuts my spouse off in traffic, they immediate cuss up a storm. When a relative makes a political statement that is a bit tasteless and you know they just skimmed a news article and have no idea what they are talking about, it can be difficult. But I think people get it backwards when they think it is difficult and it is all these peoples fault. Fault is a moral determination. Really, it is imaginary. It is a fiction that helps society run smoothly. I will share, to aid my point, an error I have made. The first is that when I was in HS, I littered soda cans, mostly to emphasize that I didn't care about rules or anything (what a silly time that was). Then one day I saw someone picking up trash, including something I had dropped that had blown aside. When I saw that, I felt really hurt, guilty and sad. To know that I had done that. To this day, I pick up every piece of trash I come across and carry it until I see a trash can. It was a bad thing to do, but if the person picking up the trash had come up to me and yelled at me, telling me I was a lazy piece of shit, that I didn't care about anyone else, etc. I think I would have had a very different experience, and a very different response. I sincerely believe, and hope, that many of these individuals who make these comments have the potential to be the ones that later go to the greatest efforts to repair damage they see themselves as causing. But for this to happen, I think they need to feel it as guilt (internally and based on empathy), instead of as shame (externally, and based on moral error). And for that to happen they need to feel heard, and they need to be engaged with emotionally.
lo_zamoyski 4y ago
There is a strange hypocrisy to your post. In my experience, I have seen respectful and compassionate critics of the very notion of transgenderism shouted down, ridiculed, attacked verbally, and so on merely for asking questions or pointing out what they see as problems or presuppositions they believe are incoherent. It is as if they are expected to shut up and accept without question the position you hold. Is that what you are proposing? Are you claiming that gender theory is beyond question? Do you require everyone to agree with its claims and play along? > Free speech isn't just about saying anything you want, it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table Would you agree to having blatantly, but shall we say genteel Nazi or white supremacist academics on campus? You would likely answer in the negative based on what you've written because you would, I infer, see their works as violent and threatening speech, speech that might also reduce the number of voices at the table. But that would make what is acceptable speech depend on what people find violent and threatening. But which people? Which table? In the case of gender theory, you acknowledge this concerns a minority. Are you suggesting that a minority of people who find criticism "violent" is enough to shutdown criticism? If not, are you suggesting that a majority of people who find criticism "violent" is enough to shutdown criticism? Is either of those acceptable? What exactly are you proposing here because it certainly seems like you are manipulatively trying to force your own speech norms on everyone else through the use of grievance. Should your sense of grievance become the basis of law or social norms? Imagine what would happen if we treated that kind of norm consistently. We couldn't, could we, and not just for practical reasons, but in principle. I would go further. Liberalism as the philosophical and even theological position that informs the constitution and the very founding of the United States is truly very fatally flawed. The very notion of liberal neutrality is extremely problematic. There is no such thing as a neutral position. And so what liberalism effectively does, in an intellectually dishonest way, is it presents its own position as neutral and therefore beyond criticism. "Oh, yes, well, liberalism can accommodate everything, it can tolerate all positions, and allows the brotherhood of man to live together in harmony". Yes, all positions...that subordinate themselves to liberal norms and conform to its rather fleshy expectations. Liberalism is a definite position and its tyranny rests to a great degree on the pretense of this public neutrality, that all else is a private footnote added to the purity of this accommodating 'neutrality'. At least the mullahs are more honest. (Btw, D. C. Schindler talks more about this in his book "The Politics of the Real" [0]. The arguments require some philosophical sophistication, but that's the point. Liberalism isn't the obvious truth. It's just the water we western fish have been swimming in and have formed habituated biases toward and favorable but vague associations with. There is much that is untenable with the liberal project, and as with many intellectual errors, it can take time for the abstract consequences to manifest in all their concrete and ugly glory.) [0] https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Real-D-C-Schindler/dp/1736506609 https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Real-D-C-Schindler/dp/173650...
TMWNN 4y ago
>I think this article comes very close to saying "don't let words affect you", which is fundamentally impossible to ask anyone to do Why? >Some speech suppresses the speech of others. No speech can ever suppress that of others, except in the literal sense of talking over someone. >it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table So, how do you feel about the developers of Hogwarts Legacy? How do you feel about those who post on Reddit or Facebook that they are playing it? How do you feel about game reviewers publishing evaluations? >and to do that you can't just let people get away with saying vile shit I think I got the answers to my questions.
- breadbreadbread 4y ago
  > Why? why are you compelled to respond to me? why do you listen to anyone? why speak at all? > No speech can ever suppress that of others Only if you believe that no one has ever changed their behavior after recieving a death threat. Or if you want a more subtle example, try talking to a minority group about microaggressions and what situations they feel safe to speak freely in. If you are in a minority group but don't feel oppressed in that way, I'm sure you have a peer who does. > how do you feel about the developers of Hogwarts Legacy? Truly a nonsequitor but since you asked nicely: the developers were paid to do a job, no shame in that. JKR is a bigot who filled that world with inescapable racism and the design lead ran a youtube channel that pushed some bigotted views about feminism and "sjws". Im too exhausted to care who plays it although personally think its easier on the conscience to not. Reviews are fine, but if you wanna talk about separating art and artist and media crit's place in that, its a long nuanced discussion I think that's my main frustration. No discussion of free speech is ever allowed to be nuanced. Disagreeing with Free Speech absolutism is impossible to argue with because to say that "sometimes bigotry should be discouraged" is seen as an affront to the idea of speech itself.
  - mikrotikker 4y ago
    > Only if you believe that no one has ever changed their behavior after recieving a death threat. That is weakness and the 2nd amendment is a tool to fight back and secure ones self against death threats. Get strapped, stand up and say "try it mother fucker". Defy your oppressor, or be crushed under their tyranny.
mikrotikker 4y ago
Respect is earned, not given.

gigibec 4y ago

[dead]

trieste92 4y ago

> Some speech suppresses the speech of others Isn't this exactly what you're trying to do here? > Free speech isn't just about saying anything you want, it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table Free speech is "about" whatever is in the first amendment > it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table Ahh yes, because the people who try to redefine "free speech" like what you're doing are definitely well known for promoting this /s

banannaise 4y ago
> Free speech is "about" whatever is in the first amendment It is very odd to assert that the morality of speech is completely, correctly, and undeniably established in a document written 250 years ago that defines the laws of only one country.
- kneebonian 4y ago
  It derives from philosophical thought and justification that rests on the idea that all men are created equal and that no one man is above another because of where or how they were born and that all men should be allowed to operate freely so long as they do not cause harm to others.
  - Xeoncross 4y ago
    Yeah, we can't have that. That thinking is going to cause some obvious issues.
- gazpachotron 4y ago
  [dead]
- trieste92 4y ago
  > morality of speech Where are you getting this morality business from? Free speech is how it's defined in law, in the USA that's the 1st Talking about "morality of speech" is just noise and deserves the quotation marks
  - lo_zamoyski 4y ago
    I do not agree with the OP's apparent presupposition that age somehow invalidates truth (without even giving us so much as an alternative and a basis for accepting it). However, the law is incomprehensible without morality. What on earth could you possibly take the law to be in the absence of morality? The natural law is the basis of morality and morality is the basis of law which is the particular and concrete determination of it in especially in matters concerning the common good. Yes, there is such a thing as immoral speech. Slander is an obvious example. Lies. But what should be subject to the law? That is a prudential question. And the 1st amendment is interpreted to some extent according to more or less prudential considerations.
- lannisterstark 4y ago
  Just because a document is written 250 years ago doesn't make it a 'bad' document. Why the fuck do I care what the laws in Australia are when I don't live in Australia. you should see how govts interpret the "morality" or "offending" clauses in nation-states like India and Egypt to give themselves more power and arrest dissidents.
disembiggen 4y ago
Free speech is "about" whatever is in the first amendment Lol, USAian moment, how about the other 7.7 billion of us?
- trieste92 4y ago
  I hope people elsewhere don't have the same bullshit pseudo debates we have in usa...

listless 4y ago

> Everyday on the internet I see trans people threatened, disrespected, or legislated out of existence... Granted that there is an overreaction happening but that seems largely in response to a rather hostile approach from that community. “If you deadname me I’ll have you banned”. “If you refuse to use my pronouns I’ll have you fired.” “If you say that there are only two genders I’ll drag you”. This is no way to solve problems in a free society. Let’s trans people be trans. And let people who think there are only two genders think that. Forcing a set of beliefs or values on people is exactly what we should be trying to avoid.

disembiggen 4y ago
>If you say that there are only two genders I’ll drag you is my drag not free speech too? If one insults me (or says something to me I consider insulting), I should be allowed to insult them right back, right?
- listless 4y ago
  Yes. I’m just pointing out that what I see as the backlash against trans (which is often unhinged) is simply a response to trans activism, which is likewise unhinged. And that, suppressing the speech of either of those groups is a bad idea.

colechristensen 4y ago

It doesn't matter if words affect you. Threats are illegal, go ahead and prosecute. Disrespect is and should be legally protected. Government cannot, will not, and should not be in the position of making people like or be nice to you. People should be nice to each other but it is not the government's job to enforce this. Nobody's rights extend to government banning speech that isn't supportive. No speech suppresses anybody else's. Free speech isn't about "free speech for people who say things I support". I'm tired of authoritarians pretending to be liberal.

bigyikes 4y ago

>and taken to it's logical conclusion I should also not absorb anything in the article Well, yeah, if that’s what you choose to do. That’s the whole point: you can choose to absorb the information, or not. You can choose to take offense, or not.

lannisterstark 4y ago

>If you make declarative statements that villainize minority groups, you make others fear for their safety and it silences voices. That is a form of "violent speech", Not in the United States. Matal v Tam >>Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express "the thought that we hate." ---- remember, at one point it was considered 'harmful' be a majority whites for us browns/blacks to express our civil rights. Just because a majority goes "this is bad" doesn't mean it necessarily is.

tick_tock_tick 4y ago

> Some speech suppresses the speech of others. No, it doesn't. > it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table No, it's about making sure people can spew a continuous stream of whatever hateful crap they feel like day in and day out every day for their whole life. One of the big reasons I'm a fan of things like universal income/healthcare is because currently employment is too critical to surviving which forces people to censor their speech. Hopefully the social safety net can improve to the point where someone can be almost comically offensive every day without fear of starving. > If you make declarative statements that villainize minority groups, you make others fear for their safety and it silences voices That's an acceptable tradeoff for a free society.

throwawayacc6 4y ago

I think this article comes very close to saying "don't let words affect you", which is fundamentally impossible to ask anyone to do and taken to it's logical conclusion I should also not absorb anything in the article. I also think this article also ignores the fact that hateful people often use the language of free speech to justify their own behavior and to punish their critics. Everyday on the internet I see White people threatened, disrespected, or legislated out of existence... then the ensuing backlash in which people try to reassert the rights of White people... and then the backlash to the backlash is always "these neo-Nazi cons trying to cancel us are the real gulag runners". It's exhausting. Infuriating. Some speech suppresses the speech of others. And some people don't want to be taught that they are hateful. If you make declarative statements that villainize majority groups, you make others fear for their safety and it silences voices. That is a form of "violent speech", though that term sucks. Free speech isn't just about saying anything you want, it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table, and to do that you can't just let people get away with saying vile shit.

freejazz 4y ago
Just because it is literally possible to type a sentence, doesn't make it true... I'm not sure what point you think you are demonstrating past that.
- throwawayacc6 4y ago
  You're almost there! This is an /r/selfawarewolves tier post.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    Oh, I get it. You think you are demonstrating that the post you are mocking is meaningless because you can artificially insert other words to it in an arbitrary fashion that renders it meaningless? Shocking that you are being smarmy about it, but I guess that comes with the territory of not realizing the pie is in your own face.

mafribe 4y ago

> maximizing the number of voices at the table The easiest way of doing so is to maximise the number of humans on the planet. Those who engage, and promote reproduction organ destruction whether surgical or chemical, do the exact opposite and decrease the number of voices -- in the long run to zero.

breadbreadbread 4y ago
this is the most disingenuous response i've ever seen
- mafribe 4y ago
  > most disingenuous response i've ever seen Promoters of sex-deception and concomitant fertility destruction, typically seem to communicate in a way that is (1) a refusal to address substantial points, (2) adversarial hyperbole, and (3) refusal to engage in any kind rational argument that could lead to mutually beneficial truth-seeking and learning. I'm sure that you agree that the quoted sentence above confirms those patterns? Can I invite you to reflect on why we see this pattern?

wonderwonder 4y ago

"Everyday on the internet I see trans people threatened, disrespected, or legislated out of existence" Legislation in the US has actually made trans people vanish or are we using large amounts of hyperbole? People have been saying mean things about other groups for millennia, as long as its just words, its fine. I'm a jew, I see the neo nazi groups with banners or Kanye ranting and just laugh. Who cares? Now if they want to come at me with physical violence then that's something else. I'll respond in kind. I don't see many jews running around screaming that speech is violence, we just get on with it. Same for black people dealing with those same white supremacists. "don't let words affect you". Exactly! I am all for us as adults just not letting the words of people we will never meet affect us. I've sat down and had beers with open anti Semites and people with swastika tattoos while being very open about being a jew. Its fine, I had a good talk with them, nobody changed anyone's mind but we parted on good terms. I hope they find happiness. I in no way want them prosecuted for their beliefs or speech. Trans people are for some reason the only large visible group yelling that speech is violence and saying mean things about them should be illegal. And its primarily M2F trans people (in my experience), I don't really see F2M people doing it. I wonder if there is something related to the giving up of male physical strength that leads to demanding that society now protect you in all ways including your feelings. You're trans, cool, get on with it. Stop asking for special treatment. The only Nazis are actual Nazis. Let the downvotes commence.

keerthiko 4y ago
Surely you would feel very differently if you were born in a slightly different time in the not-so-distant past. How do you imagine the first "actual Nazis" came to the position of power where they could slaughter thousands of your community with impunity for nearly a generation? How do you imagine it couldn't happen again, if not in your lifetime, at some point in humanity's timeline? If not regarding Jews, regarding some new community? Do you really think it would be avoided simply by more people taking "don't let words affect you" to heart [ * ]? [ * ] (assuming, quite unreasonably, that that's actually something that could happen at a societal level)
- wonderwonder 4y ago

bbwbsb 4y ago

I'm torn because on one hand, having been intimately acquainted with a trans person who suffered greatly, and having heard from them what their internal voice told them in duress (e.g., that they were "actually delusional", "trying to trick others", "convincing no one", and other harmful but thoroughly implanted negative self-talk), I would absolutely start a fight with someone for certain kinds of statements, especially in the presence of someone I expected had negative self-talk similar to what was being said about them. From that angle I agree that speech can be violent. I can also see it being exhausting, because I doubt there is an end to individuals willing to say such things. I could see that feeling like a Sisyphean trial. At the same time, I think most speech that comes across this way is the product of ignorance or unmet emotional needs, and if you listen to people that say hateful things they will often weaken their view as soon as they realize you plan to actually listen to them and understand how they feel. Because of this, I recognize my instinct to start a fight as a result of how I feel, and not necessarily a productive course of action, and often results in worse outcomes (people doubling down, taking an angry response as justification of their action, etc). I also find that this builds trust, which is necessary for good faith conversation. My real problem with 'speech as violence' comes down to the difference between moralizing and compassion; I believe that compassion will produce better outcomes. Further if it is about morality you have to decide the correct morality, and it is impossible to get actual agreement on that. If you did you would have someone disagreeing to test if you would allow them to think differently than you without attacking them. There are indeed people that say vile shit to hurt others intentionally, for various reasons from demotivating someone competing with them, to sadism, to bullying (which I find is often someone who believes 'bad people should be punished' and that someone has done something 'socially bad' so that it is 'up to them to correct it'). For example, When a sibling of mine wore something that might be associated with being gay, he received harsh criticism from another sibling I knew cared about him. The criticizing sibling had been bullied, and believed his statements would dissuade what he saw as a social misstep. It was a failure of compassion. The form of the criticism was also exactly what the criticized sibling had thought about himself. I've also found that sometimes when my first thought was 'wow this person is a terrible person', it turned out that they thought that other people thought there were a terrible person, and so they stopped trying to do things that might prevent that effect, causing more people to think it, causing them to care less, or possibly even say provocative things with resent. If you listen to such a person and sympathize with them - however hard it may be, even if you don't agree with them, it can completely break the script they are expecting to hear, and lacking a prepared response, you may get an actually vulnerable one. Really, I think as soon as morals come up, and rightness or wrongness, empathy has failed. And it is hard because empathizing with people that have different backgrounds and views is really hard. People will talk about empathy all day long, but I rarely see anyone really willing to empathize with someone who is narcissistic or abusive, someone who lacks all social skills as an adult and is smug that they are well paid in spite of it, or someone who believes radially different on any topic to really care about. Can any of us sympathize really with someone who thinks learning programming is a waste of time and we should all learn 'real skills' like how to read a balance sheet or run a meeting? Or someone that believes SOAP is the greatest thing that has even happened and people complaining about it just don't get it? That JavaScript is the most consistently designed language that has even existed and should have monuments built in its honor? That open-source software is a communist fad that harms markets and shouldn't be legal? For me, when someone plays music from their phone speakers on public transport it is very difficult for me to sympathize. When someone cuts my spouse off in traffic, they immediate cuss up a storm. When a relative makes a political statement that is a bit tasteless and you know they just skimmed a news article and have no idea what they are talking about, it can be difficult. But I think people get it backwards when they think it is difficult and it is all these peoples fault. Fault is a moral determination. Really, it is imaginary. It is a fiction that helps society run smoothly. I will share, to aid my point, an error I have made. The first is that when I was in HS, I littered soda cans, mostly to emphasize that I didn't care about rules or anything (what a silly time that was). Then one day I saw someone picking up trash, including something I had dropped that had blown aside. When I saw that, I felt really hurt, guilty and sad. To know that I had done that. To this day, I pick up every piece of trash I come across and carry it until I see a trash can. It was a bad thing to do, but if the person picking up the trash had come up to me and yelled at me, telling me I was a lazy piece of shit, that I didn't care about anyone else, etc. I think I would have had a very different experience, and a very different response. I sincerely believe, and hope, that many of these individuals who make these comments have the potential to be the ones that later go to the greatest efforts to repair damage they see themselves as causing. But for this to happen, I think they need to feel it as guilt (internally and based on empathy), instead of as shame (externally, and based on moral error). And for that to happen they need to feel heard, and they need to be engaged with emotionally.

lo_zamoyski 4y ago

There is a strange hypocrisy to your post. In my experience, I have seen respectful and compassionate critics of the very notion of transgenderism shouted down, ridiculed, attacked verbally, and so on merely for asking questions or pointing out what they see as problems or presuppositions they believe are incoherent. It is as if they are expected to shut up and accept without question the position you hold. Is that what you are proposing? Are you claiming that gender theory is beyond question? Do you require everyone to agree with its claims and play along? > Free speech isn't just about saying anything you want, it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table Would you agree to having blatantly, but shall we say genteel Nazi or white supremacist academics on campus? You would likely answer in the negative based on what you've written because you would, I infer, see their works as violent and threatening speech, speech that might also reduce the number of voices at the table. But that would make what is acceptable speech depend on what people find violent and threatening. But which people? Which table? In the case of gender theory, you acknowledge this concerns a minority. Are you suggesting that a minority of people who find criticism "violent" is enough to shutdown criticism? If not, are you suggesting that a majority of people who find criticism "violent" is enough to shutdown criticism? Is either of those acceptable? What exactly are you proposing here because it certainly seems like you are manipulatively trying to force your own speech norms on everyone else through the use of grievance. Should your sense of grievance become the basis of law or social norms? Imagine what would happen if we treated that kind of norm consistently. We couldn't, could we, and not just for practical reasons, but in principle. I would go further. Liberalism as the philosophical and even theological position that informs the constitution and the very founding of the United States is truly very fatally flawed. The very notion of liberal neutrality is extremely problematic. There is no such thing as a neutral position. And so what liberalism effectively does, in an intellectually dishonest way, is it presents its own position as neutral and therefore beyond criticism. "Oh, yes, well, liberalism can accommodate everything, it can tolerate all positions, and allows the brotherhood of man to live together in harmony". Yes, all positions...that subordinate themselves to liberal norms and conform to its rather fleshy expectations. Liberalism is a definite position and its tyranny rests to a great degree on the pretense of this public neutrality, that all else is a private footnote added to the purity of this accommodating 'neutrality'. At least the mullahs are more honest. (Btw, D. C. Schindler talks more about this in his book "The Politics of the Real" [0]. The arguments require some philosophical sophistication, but that's the point. Liberalism isn't the obvious truth. It's just the water we western fish have been swimming in and have formed habituated biases toward and favorable but vague associations with. There is much that is untenable with the liberal project, and as with many intellectual errors, it can take time for the abstract consequences to manifest in all their concrete and ugly glory.) [0] https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Real-D-C-Schindler/dp/1736506609 https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Real-D-C-Schindler/dp/173650...

TMWNN 4y ago

>I think this article comes very close to saying "don't let words affect you", which is fundamentally impossible to ask anyone to do Why? >Some speech suppresses the speech of others. No speech can ever suppress that of others, except in the literal sense of talking over someone. >it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table So, how do you feel about the developers of Hogwarts Legacy? How do you feel about those who post on Reddit or Facebook that they are playing it? How do you feel about game reviewers publishing evaluations? >and to do that you can't just let people get away with saying vile shit I think I got the answers to my questions.

breadbreadbread 4y ago
> Why? why are you compelled to respond to me? why do you listen to anyone? why speak at all? > No speech can ever suppress that of others Only if you believe that no one has ever changed their behavior after recieving a death threat. Or if you want a more subtle example, try talking to a minority group about microaggressions and what situations they feel safe to speak freely in. If you are in a minority group but don't feel oppressed in that way, I'm sure you have a peer who does. > how do you feel about the developers of Hogwarts Legacy? Truly a nonsequitor but since you asked nicely: the developers were paid to do a job, no shame in that. JKR is a bigot who filled that world with inescapable racism and the design lead ran a youtube channel that pushed some bigotted views about feminism and "sjws". Im too exhausted to care who plays it although personally think its easier on the conscience to not. Reviews are fine, but if you wanna talk about separating art and artist and media crit's place in that, its a long nuanced discussion I think that's my main frustration. No discussion of free speech is ever allowed to be nuanced. Disagreeing with Free Speech absolutism is impossible to argue with because to say that "sometimes bigotry should be discouraged" is seen as an affront to the idea of speech itself.
- mikrotikker 4y ago
  > Only if you believe that no one has ever changed their behavior after recieving a death threat. That is weakness and the 2nd amendment is a tool to fight back and secure ones self against death threats. Get strapped, stand up and say "try it mother fucker". Defy your oppressor, or be crushed under their tyranny.

mikrotikker 4y ago

Respect is earned, not given.