[HN Gopher] I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to th...
___________________________________________________________________
I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your
right to say it
Author : breck
Score : 107 points
Date : 2023-02-26 13:32 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (quoteinvestigator.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (quoteinvestigator.com)
| RavlaAlvar wrote:
| [flagged]
| mellosouls wrote:
| In recent years has become the rather less inspirational:
|
| "I disapprove of what you say and I will do what I can with a mob
| to ruin your reputation and career as an example to make sure
| nobody else says it"
| healsdata wrote:
| Can you help me understand what rights you'd take away from
| others to change this situation?
|
| 1. If everyone has free speech, then people are free to
| criticize the speech of others.
|
| 2. If everyone has free speech, others are free to publicize
| the things you said.
|
| 3. If everyone has free association, others have a right not to
| associate with you based on your speech.
| dnissley wrote:
| Whoa whoa whoa, why are we immediately jumping to solving
| this problem through legislation / talk of rights?
| healsdata wrote:
| I'm all ears for other idea that don't infringe on others'
| rights.
| greenhorn360 wrote:
| [flagged]
| gotoeleven wrote:
| https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-
| jk...
| jvanderbot wrote:
| Free speech (in the "I can say whatever I can get away
| with" sense) cuts both ways. If you disagree with a
| community, they will use their favorite language to cut you
| down. I disagree with that sense of free speech, as it does
| away with measured dialog around issues in favor of
| pitchforks.
| greenhorn360 wrote:
| She's spending millions of dollars funding anti trans
| political organizations. That's a bit beyond simple speech.
|
| Her life sure was ruined by that mob though. Such a shame
| she's poor now and no one is buying her new game.
|
| Do you have an example of this:
|
| 1.) Actually happening
|
| 2.) Happening because of only speech
| nicoburns wrote:
| I don't think JK Rowling is anti-trans. She just doesn't
| think that trans women ought to have the exact same set
| of rights as cis women. That's not anti-trans any more
| than thinking men and women ought to have different
| rights is anti-men.
| donocin wrote:
| [flagged]
| nicoburns wrote:
| You're really not helping the cause here by defining
| "woman" in such a way that trans women are unambiguously
| excluded. There's an important debate to be had here
| about the nature of gender and the role it ought to have
| in society. And we can't have that debate if people
| insist on using language that presumes the answer.
| donocin wrote:
| [flagged]
| dmix wrote:
| We also can't have a debate about defining women where
| even daring to ask the question brings about mobs.
|
| As much as the absolutist "men can never become women"
| crowd attempts to shut down these debates there's also
| the equally harmful groups who say that "anyone who says
| they are a woman is one and even questioning that makes
| you a transphobe". It's easier to dismiss the former as
| intolerant, but the latter is becoming the (only)
| socially accepted opinion on places like Reddit. Which is
| insidious for such a contentious topic.
|
| I personally don't see how we can solve this cultural
| issue without there being some very clear grey area in
| between.
| abduhl wrote:
| I don't think this is JK Rowling's position. JK Rowling
| doesn't think that trans women shouldn't have the exact
| same set of RIGHTS as cis women, she thinks that trans
| women shouldn't be able have the same set of societal
| privileges as cis women. This seems like a thin way to
| slice a hair, but I think the two ideas are distinct.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| I agree monetary donations are not speech, they are
| actions. A better example might have been Scott Adams'
| recent statements. In so far as I haven't heard of him
| funding anyone. I sympathize with the papers that dropped
| Dilbert, but it sets a horrible precedent to cease
| business relationships with people because of their
| political views (not actions).
| ghaff wrote:
| It's hardly a precedent. Companies have been shedding
| relationships with individuals, TV shows, other
| organizations for a very long time for expressing
| political and other views that alienate a sufficient
| percentage of their customer base such that the benefit
| of the relationship is no longer worth the cost.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| Yeah that is a fair point, nothing new.
| seiferteric wrote:
| Who is she funding?
| ouid wrote:
| Do you really find language like "chest feeding" to be a
| non-degrading way of talking about women? I can't imagine
| successfully defending that language to anyone, say 10
| years ago. I think you just missed the point where it
| became insane, instead of progressive, because the line
| was blurry.
| SamoyedFurFluff wrote:
| I want to ask, please read this question in good faith:
| why is chest feeding insane now, verses other polite
| terms established decades ago? What difference is it to
| cease making differentiations between ms/mrs(mz), or to
| call someone Chinese instead of chinaman, or calling
| someone African American instead of colored? Yeah it
| seems new, and therefore unusual/weird, but I don't know
| if I can identify a clear and rational rubric as to what
| makes new progressive terminology insane and older
| progressive terminology sane.
|
| (Also, I don't personally agree with "chest feeding"
| since breasts don't necessarily have anything to do with
| gender, men can have breasts. But like, if someone else
| wants to call their own child feeding activity chest
| feeding, what do I care? Also, I'm not feeding any kids
| witth mammary glands so I don't really know if I even get
| to be an arbiter of sane/insane terminology to refer to
| those activities.)
| ouid wrote:
| I think you will find that hyperfixation on calling
| people by the "correct term" for their race is also
| insane, but less insane, which is why I described the
| line as blurry.
|
| The benefit of changing the terms by which we express our
| fixation on race is that the old terms were largely
| associated with hateful speech, and the hope is that the
| new term might be less inflammatory. If you actually feel
| comfortable using someone's race as an adjective when
| referring to them, regardless of what form that adjective
| takes. I would suggest that you consider that more
| thoughtfully.
|
| in the case if removing the word woman from the lexicon,
| the people who are being appeased have a problem with
| whether or not they get/have to be identified as women.
| Not that woman is a hateful word, but that you might
| exclude someone from the category.
|
| This is different. It is true that arbitrary exclusion
| from categories is occasionally hateful, but it is not
| the case that people have been using breast feeding as a
| slur, and trying to retcon that to be so is obviously
| degrading to women who have not used it vitriolically,
| and do not consider it hate speech.
|
| In good faith, can you really not imagine the difference
| between telling someone not to use the word chinaman to
| refer to someone who doesnt want to be called a chinaman,
| and telling them not to refer to thenselves as a woman,
| because _someone else_ doesn 't want you to?
| idlewords wrote:
| Kathleen Stock is a good example, an academic philosopher
| run out of a job in 2021 and consistently harassed ever
| since for her philosophical stance on the relationship
| between sex and gender.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/28/sussex-
| profess...
| SamoyedFurFluff wrote:
| The article disagrees with your claim that she was "run
| out of" a job. It looks like she resigned after student
| criticism, _even though the university still wanted to
| continue employing her_. The outcry definitely has a
| negative effect on her mental health but I think calling
| it being "run out of" is a narrative spin on this
| article. She was publicly criticized and even though her
| employer fully supported her speech she resigned anyways.
| idlewords wrote:
| What do you think being run out of a job means? If a mob
| shows up at my house with pitchforks, I will leave
| irrespective of whether my landlord wants to continue
| renting to me.
|
| Read up on what happened to Stock, and what she goes
| through when trying to speak in public nowadays, and
| you'll see my description is factual.
| kredd wrote:
| I read the "citation needed" comment as "in real life
| people don't care, it's just chronically online people that
| rush from one boycott to another". Which I think applies to
| JK Rowling as well, since the new Harry Potter game is
| making a bank and supermajority of people simply don't
| care.
| klyrs wrote:
| Boycotting is an exercise of free association.
|
| Critique is an exercise of free speech.
|
| JK Rowling is rich af.
|
| Citation still needed.
| Georgelemental wrote:
| The high-profile "cancellation" cases like Rowling make a
| lot of headlines, but people like her will be fine, they
| have money and support. The real danger is when ordinary
| people lose their jobs for standing up to HR and DEI
| bureaucracy, univeristy reseachers get canned because their
| results contradict dogma, Colorado bakers get sued into the
| ground for living by their religious convictions,
| construction workers get fired for making an "OK" hand
| sign, etc
| SamoyedFurFluff wrote:
| Small note about the bakers: they haven't been sued "into
| the ground". In fact my understanding is that they're
| actually doing really well nowadays. They're still open
| with 4 stars on Yelp with over 200 reviews.
|
| I think we shouldn't twist narratives to argue against
| twisting narratives.
| logicalmonster wrote:
| "You don't need a citation for an opinion."
|
| --- Wayne Gretzky
| ouid wrote:
| Nothing except data benefits from citation. A citation in
| an argument means that you do not wish to defend the
| position.
| mdp2021 wrote:
| I see what you evidently did there, and I cheered!
|
| Nonetheless, to propose an opinion, you still need grounds.
| amalcon wrote:
| Best example I can come up with is Colin Kaepernick. This
| isn't even a great example, he's doing pretty well in the
| scheme of things. It also isn't satisfying to most people,
| since it cuts against the political undertone of the
| question.
| s9w wrote:
| [dead]
| tsimionescu wrote:
| If you take a look at historical media, the breadth of opinions
| you can find written today, especially if we include online
| media, is staggering compared to the past. For example,
| defending homosexuality as a legitimate life choice would have
| gotten you packed and sent away to the crazy house, and no
| paper would have ever written about this before the late 80s or
| so. Same with overt atheism in much public discourse, with
| respect for native rights, black rights, Irish and Italian
| rights and many others. Opposition to Israel used to be swiftly
| boycotted in any public forum. Opposition to the Vietnam War
| could get you in jail when it started. Communist sympathies
| too.
|
| Apart from overt racism (which you can still easily find
| online, even among pretty popular figures in New media),
| virtually no position that used to be expressed in public
| discourse has disappeared, and many many ideas that used to be
| unthinkable and definitely unspeakable are now common place.
|
| So where exactly is this terrible mob?
| tmn wrote:
| Right now they're having a fit over hogwarts legacy
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Who? The millions that have collectively payed 100+ million
| dollars to pay it? Or some handful of busy bodies that no
| one really cares about?
|
| There are even proeminent leftist streamers who have gotten
| into spats with JK Rowling that are still playing it
| publicly (Vaush, Hassan).
| klyrs wrote:
| > For example, defending homosexuality as a legitimate life
| choice would have gotten you packed and sent away to the
| crazy house, and no paper would have ever written about this
| before the late 80s or so.
|
| Quite to the contrary. The Institut fur Sexualwissenschaft
| [1] was a research institute dedicated to human sexuality.
| Histories have long been "cleansed" of records of gay and
| transgender people; look no further than the bible for
| evidence that homosexuality was quite normal in society a
| very long time ago. After all, there's no need to invent a
| rule against something that people don't want to do.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_f%C3%BCr_Sexualwis
| sen...
| tsimionescu wrote:
| I was thinking about American culture, though I probably
| exaggerated things there as well. Still, if we pretend I
| was talking about the 1880s, I think my point still stands.
|
| Also, sure - other cultures had different perspectives on
| sexuality. I don't think there is any argument to be made
| that biblical era jewish society was more respectful of
| Freedom of Speech than modern America or Europe, so I don't
| think this is very relevant in context.
| klyrs wrote:
| Fun facts in queer history... Public Universal Friend was
| a nonbinary religious leader in the 1700s.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Universal_Friend
| maxerickson wrote:
| Weird to bring reputation into it. The original formulation
| doesn't say that saying whatever should be from from social
| consequences.
| royaltheartist wrote:
| Seems like a lot of people who want to be heard but don't
| like it when people actually listen
| NewEntryHN wrote:
| Social consequences is a cute term for savage justice.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| We have always understood that there are consequences of
| unpopular speech that are detached from whether that speech
| is good or necessary or correct. It's why we characterize
| people as courageous who fight long, but ultimately
| justified or righteous battles in the popular sphere.
| Courageous in the face of what? This! The negative social
| consequences of unpopular speech.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| Savage justice is when somebody comes to your house and
| beats you to death with a tire iron. People calling JK
| Rowling a hateful bigot on Twitter and telling people to
| stop purchasing Harry Potter content isn't that.
| int_19h wrote:
| It's a cute term for freedom of association, which is a
| right even more fundamental than freedom of speech.
| Zagill wrote:
| No justice more savage than a bunch of people on Twitter
| saying mean things about you
| renewiltord wrote:
| That's also speech, and even though I disagree with it, I will
| defend it.
| lolinder wrote:
| It's the kind of speech that borders on the proverbial
| "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater".
| renewiltord wrote:
| Yes, that is also speech. Unfortunately, most free speech
| advocates are not of the "I disapprove of what you say but
| will defend it" variety. They are of the similar species "I
| disapprove of what you say and will apply my principles in
| an inconsistent manner to ensure that your speech is
| suppressed while speech I do not disapprove of which
| nonetheless violates the same principles is permitted"
| variety.
|
| Talk to any free speech advocate but those who preserve the
| purity of speech and you will rapidly find that they add
| epicycles for all sorts of things.
| peyton wrote:
| I disagree. The law pretty clearly draws a line at
| harassment.
| expazl wrote:
| Free speech does not mean free from consequences. Its perfectly
| understandable to want to protect the freedom that allows nazi
| sympathisers to speak about their hatred for the Jewish people,
| while still wanting for no-one to chose to do so, and also
| there to be social consequences for the people who do so.
|
| The anti-freedom of speech path would be to ban any pro nazi
| speech entirely.
| twblalock wrote:
| "Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences" can
| just as easily be used to justify imprisoning critics of the
| government as it can to justify shunning people. Not all
| consequences are justified.
|
| Plus, let's be honest -- most of the "consequences" of
| speech, like cancelling people, are not really targeted at
| the person being cancelled. They are really happening because
| people want to suppress _speech_ they don't like by scaring
| _other_ people into silence.
|
| Government is not the only source of oppression. We should be
| very careful about excusing social consequences for people
| speaking their mind, or we will lose free speech because of a
| cancel-culture mob mentality rather than because of
| government oppression. The end result is pretty much the same
| and we shouldn't let it happen.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| Is there no nuance left in the world? If we remove
| consequences from people who criticize the government, must
| we also remove consequences from people spreading Nazi
| rhetoric? If we eat bread, must we also eat shit?
|
| Free speech is not an ideal that we should strive for in
| itself but shorthand for a principle that helps promote
| stronger societies that help its members live longer. Any
| speech that goes against that basic goal is stupid to fight
| for. Eating is something that is not something we should
| strive for in itself but shorthand for fulfilling the
| nutritional needs of the body. Any eating that goes against
| that basic goal is stupid to promote.
| [deleted]
| sabarn01 wrote:
| I think the issue is that you have people that are trying to
| apply new norms via small group social pressure amplified via
| social media. We have some social norms for certain attitude
| that no one will tolerate in polite society, but those norms
| are well known. In the last five years a host of new norms
| have been created that are enforced by small groups that
| don't mesh with general societal consensus.
| jesusofnazarath wrote:
| [dead]
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| A lot of these quotes are actually inventions of translators or
| researchers.
|
| Another one that I'm pretty sure was not actually said by
| Aristotle (and that I love), is:
|
| _" We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an
| act, but a habit."_
| boredhedgehog wrote:
| I would differentiate between inventions and encapsulations.
| It's one thing to adorn any random idea with a famous name to
| give it more traction. But to summarize the thoughts of an
| influential thinker with a pithy saying, even if he didn't
| actually say it, is usually not harmful and a normal part of
| localization.
| divbzero wrote:
| Reminds me of this quote from another philosopher though I
| can't remember which one:
|
| " _It's not who I am underneath but what I do that defines me._
| "
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| _> "What you do speaks so loudly, I can't hear what you're
| saying."
|
| -Ralph Waldo Emerson_
| JieJie wrote:
| --Bruce Wayne
|
| https://phind.com/search?q=who+said%2C+"It's+not+who+I+am+un.
| ..
| [deleted]
| blindriver wrote:
| I've always been a free speech absolutist. I don't think there's
| any speech, including hate speech, that I would ban. If I don't
| like it, I can offer my own opinions and try to educate people,
| but banning speech outright is wrong.
|
| The problem that has occurred is that some people on the extremes
| now think "All the other people/children are so stupid that they
| will get tricked into believe all these lies. We should shut down
| that speech so that these poor idiots don't fall into this trap."
| This is thinking that I strongly disagree with. Some people may
| believe hate speech but I think that's a reflection of who they
| are, ie. they will probably believe it with or without the
| convincing. I personally believe that most people are smarter
| than this and banning speech based on "protect the children!" is
| a terrible excuse that both the left and right are using nowadays
| (more by the right a decade ago).
|
| There is no system better than complete free speech, because it
| allows the most amount of information to be passed back and forth
| and gives people the opportunity to decide for themselves.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I suspect the theory is if one controls others' speech, thereby
| one also controls their thoughts. Is this really true? How many
| people adjust their speech to fit in, _and_ change their
| thoughts to match?
| yibg wrote:
| It seems fundamentally it comes down to whether or not speech
| can directly cause harm. Canonical example of yelling fire and
| all that. But lately it's also been about misinformation, lies
| etc. should for example defamation be a thing, or fraud etc.
| WanderPanda wrote:
| I almost agree. But there seems to be speech that should be
| forbidden, like threats of physical violence. I would argue
| that just the threat of physical violence changes the expected
| value of the future and hence can force someone to alter their
| behavior. I think this is one of the few cases where "your
| freedom stops where the freedom of the other begins" actually
| applies. I would be interested if you would also argue against
| prohibiting this kind of speech
| xoa wrote:
| Ken White, a well known former prosecutor turned defense lawyer
| and first amendment law expert/speaker (amongst other things),
| did an interesting article towards the end of last year talking
| about the importance of being clear about terminology in these
| discussions ("In Defense Of Free Speech Pedantry" [0]). I think
| that's very important in these online debates because "freedom of
| speech" has become a somewhat overloaded that people can use to
| mean different things. I tend to think of "Free Speech"
| specifically in terms of what he calls Free Speech Rights (FSR),
| the actual legal rights afforded by the 1st Amendment, 14th
| Amendment and subsequent court rulings and precedent, with what
| people do with it and my own opinions a separate sphere. A lot of
| people though are bringing in what he terms Free Speech Culture
| and Speech Decency as well. Just because we legally _can_ do
| something doesn 't mean it's good to exercise that power. Norms
| sometimes should be challenged, but also are usually worth a bit
| of thought and discretion. And legal FSR apply to everyone and
| preserves a forever ongoing cycle of discussion and culture,
| that's part of the point, and in turn protect criticism and
| counter criticism, exclusion as well as inclusion. The right to
| speak necessarily entails the right to not speak.
|
| I don't know if his proposed terms will ultimately catch on and
| make the most sense, but I do think it's worth some effort in
| being more precise with our language because FSR vs FSC and SD
| involves extremely different applications of power and risk, and
| separating out the domains can help everyone think more clearly
| about the topic. In the case of this classic saying, it involves
| all of them in a compact manner. Someone can think speech is just
| plain wrong, disgusting and evil even, but not want to see force
| used upon the speaker or any other speaker for a variety of good
| reasons.
|
| ----
|
| 0: https://popehat.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-free-speech-
| ped...
| jawns wrote:
| I've been watching some First Amendment Auditing videos, and it
| is amazing the degree of ignorance there is not only among the
| public, but also public servants, including police officers,
| who should absolutely know that constitutionally protected
| activity can't be turned into a crime just because someone
| finds it unpalatable. In fact, that's precisely the reason why
| First Amendment protections exist. We wouldn't need them if
| there weren't speech, religions, journalists, or protests that
| some people didn't want.
|
| I understand your point about "just because you can doesn't
| mean you should," but on the other hand, we will never know
| whether constitutional protections have real force unless we
| see that they work for rights that other people would rather we
| not exercise.
| 0xcde4c3db wrote:
| Many police officers do know, they just see respect for
| rights as an impediment to their "real" job of enforcing
| order. The culture largely teaches them that they're in a war
| against criminals and that anything they do to win that war
| is justified [1].
|
| [1] https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/04/law-enforcements-
| warrio...
| thagsimmons wrote:
| My heart sinks when I see this sort of parochial US-centric
| definition of free speech. The vast majority of the world is
| not protected by and has no interest in US constitutional
| rights. The principles of free speech are universal, much more
| important and much broader than the US constitution. There are
| many ways to foster and promote free speech that has nothing to
| do with US law. Yes, we're often discussing US companies when
| this topic comes up, but you should realise that people outside
| the United States are not covered by US constitutional
| guarantees, and US companies don't treat us like we are. We
| must foster a discussion where the principles of free speech
| are seen to be important outside of this narrow, legalistic,
| US-centered sense.
| hodgesrm wrote:
| This is a fair point but any discussion of free speech should
| be grounded with examples of systems that help maintain it,
| of which the US constitutional regime is one. Not all such
| regimes have worked, as the French Revolution demonstrated
| starting 2 months after the adoption of the US constitution.
| [0, 1]
|
| So my question would be, what other practical examples would
| you introduce to the discussion?
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_
| Sta...
| thagsimmons wrote:
| Oh? How successful do you think the US constitutional
| mechanism has really been in protecting free speech? And by
| "free speech" here, I mean exactly the broader sense, not
| constrained by a narrow constitutionalist view. To take one
| facet of the question, consider the World Press Freedom
| Index:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
|
| The country I live in (New Zealand) has no constitutional
| free speech guarantees, and ranks 11th. The US ranks 42nd,
| behind East Timor, Jamaica, Slovakia, South Africa, and
| many other places I imagine your average American would not
| associate with free speech. Now, I have quibbles with the
| way the Press Freedom Index is assembled, and it only
| captures one narrow (but important) aspect of what we care
| about when we speak about free speech. That
| notwithstanding, my question to you is this: scanning down
| that list of countries, does it perhaps occur to you that
| the US may have something to learn from us, rather than the
| other way round?
| kurthr wrote:
| Wait until Rupert Murdoch sells "News" there.
|
| https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/jacinda-
| ardern-ru...
| bentley wrote:
| I always find it instructive to view these reports at the
| source. I developed this habit in 2018, when Reporters
| Without Borders (who maintain the Press Freedom Index)
| published a report of the six most dangerous countries
| for journalists: India, Yemen, Mexico, Syria,
| Afghanistan, and of course the United States. When I read
| the report, it described how in Mexico journalists are
| executed by cartels and organized crime, how journalists
| in Yemen die in prison due to mistreatment, how in Syria
| journalists were killed in airstrikes and taken hostage
| by Islamic militants, how in India Hindu nationalist mobs
| would run down journalists with trucks... and how in the
| US, six journalists were killed in one year: four
| murdered by a stalker angry at a 2011 story the newspaper
| had published (subsequently tried and found guilty of
| mass murder), and two killed by a falling tree.
|
| Being the midst of Donald Trump's presidency, of course,
| there were headlines all over the United States:
| "Reporters Without Borders ranks US among most dangerous
| countries for journalists!". The story was perfect
| clickbait, especially in that political environment.
|
| I'm not saying Reporters Without Borders is
| untrustworthy. But I'm skeptical of their rankings by
| default, because being overly pessimistic about the US is
| an easy way to get _lots_ of attention.
|
| Here's their report on the US's ranking in the Press
| Freedom Index:
|
| https://rsf.org/en/country/united-states
|
| Issues it lists:
|
| * Many media outlets are owned by the wealthy
|
| * Donald Trump denigrated the press
|
| * Local news outlets are declining
|
| * Polarization of media
|
| * Section 230 debates
|
| * Julian Assange
|
| * Citizens don't trust the media
|
| * Online harassment can harm journalists
|
| * Journalists face "an unprecedented climate of animosity
| and aggression during protests"
|
| I invite readers to compare these issues to the entries
| for other countries and judge whether they justify the
| US's ranking in this list.
| WalterBright wrote:
| > Donald Trump denigrated the press
|
| He absolutely did do that. But what he didn't do was
| suppress the press, jail the reporters, etc.
| bentley wrote:
| I don't think any of those bullets are strictly untrue.
| The question is whether combined they make the United
| States a relatively unfree country.
| int_19h wrote:
| I lived in Russia, New Zealand, Canada, and US. Of the
| four, US undoubtedly is the best at protecting
| controversial political speech, which to me feels like
| exactly what you want to prioritize if you want to
| maintain a free society.
| thagsimmons wrote:
| The US constitution protects controversial speech, in the
| sense that government punishment is not meted out to
| people who step out of line. The limits of this are
| immediately apparent when you ask if people functionally
| have the ability to speak freely from within US
| institutions of academia, journalism, or large
| corporations. I work with colleagues in all of these from
| all over the world, and nobody is more afraid of saying
| the wrong thing and having their lives ruined than
| Americans. The fear is palpable and ever-present. So
| again, how successful has the first amendment really been
| here? The frequent response to this is "freedom of speech
| is not freedom from consequences", which is exactly the
| kind of legalistic attitude we have to get away from.
| Real freedom of speech means exactly the ability to say
| controversial things without suffering disproportionate
| harm, and I just don't think the US is doing markedly
| better than the rest of the free world on this front.
| sabarn01 wrote:
| This is a fish don't know they are wet phenomena. Government
| protected free speech is taken for granted here that people
| cannot contemplate what it means for the rest of the world.
| JenrHywy wrote:
| I'm not sure if many people realize the the UNHCR has the
| International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[0],
| ratified by ~180 countries. Unlike the First Amendment, the
| preamble the the ICCPR makes it clear that it is concerned
| with the responsibilities of States _and citizens_ :
| Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal
| Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings
| enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear
| and want can only be achieved if conditions are created
| whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as
| well as his economic, social and cultural rights,
| Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the
| United Nations to promote universal respect for, and
| observance of, human rights and freedoms
| Realizing that the individual, having duties to other
| individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is
| under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and
| observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant
|
| Article 19 of the ICCPR deals with freedom of expression, and
| states: 1. Everyone shall have the right to
| hold opinions without interference. 2. Everyone shall
| have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall
| include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and
| ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally,
| in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any
| other media of his choice. 3. The exercise of the
| rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries
| with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore
| be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be
| such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a)
| For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
| (b) For the protection of national security or of public
| order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
|
| This frames freedom of expression as a positive right,
| whereas the First Amendment is about negative rights. Also in
| contrast to the First Amendment, the power to curtail these
| rights is explicitly given to law-makers, in a limited
| fashion. Non-legal restrictions on free expression constitute
| a violation of rights.
|
| [0] https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-
| mechanisms/instruments/...
| WalterBright wrote:
| There are fundamental rights of man. Government can recognize
| or abrogate those rights, but cannot _invent_ those rights.
|
| For example, if rights were invented by the government, there
| would be nothing about slavery that was wrong. If we say
| slavery violates the right to liberty, then we are saying
| that the right to liberty is _inherent_.
| diordiderot wrote:
| > There are fundamental rights of man
|
| Yeah, but not really.
|
| God is dead and such.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| > has no interest in US constitutional rights
|
| Not sure about that. I know friends outside the US who know
| more about US laws than their own countries' laws.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power
| thagsimmons wrote:
| Sorry, but this is just the kind of narrow parochialism I'm
| complaining about. I said "the vast majority of the world",
| and I stand by that - the idea that ordinary people in
| China, India, Africa, the Pacific and so on give one iota
| of a damn about US law is completely absurd. Furthermore,
| this attitude is a fantasy even within the Anglosphere - I
| live in New Zealand, and I bet not one person in 100 could
| give me a clear statement of what rights the 1st amendment
| guarantees and what its limits are, beyond the barest
| outline.
| int_19h wrote:
| It's a fantasy even in US. Witness all the people
| demanding that e.g. Facebook "respects their First
| Amendment rights".
| sourcecodeplz wrote:
| If I summarized what you said into one word: decency. Would
| that be okaysh?
| ecshafer wrote:
| I disagree with this idea, that we are talking about Free
| Speech Rights. When I see people say Free Speech, it is in the
| lens of the inalienable right that we all have. The US
| constitution does protect some specific scope of Free Speech,
| but any limitations legally are still infringements upon the
| Natural Right of Free Speech. Rights do not come from the
| Government, they are innate and natural. The government can
| merely infringe or protect those rights. A company or
| government infringing on those rights is unethical, because
| infringing upon any other's rights is unethical, regardless of
| what the US government says.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| > Rights do not come from the Government, they are innate and
| natural.
|
| I don't understand this philosophy. Who decides these rights?
| Wouldn't whatever rights that you consider to be innate and
| natural be the ones important through your own cultural lens?
| Isn't it possible others disagree with what rights one should
| be granted?
| nemo44x wrote:
| You're missing the entire point and it's important because
| it was completely novel at the time and still is really. It
| has nothing to do with the particular rights that our
| founders believed to be natural. But the idea that they
| aren't granted by a government. That government can only
| infringe on rights, not grant them and take them away, etc.
| like kings did forever or even today even in many western
| countries where the rights are limited.
| nailer wrote:
| > I tend to think of "Free Speech" specifically in terms of
| what he calls Free Speech Rights (FSR), the actual legal rights
| afforded by the 1st Amendment, 14th Amendment and subsequent
| court rulings and precedent, with what people do with it and my
| own opinions a separate sphere. A lot of people though are
| bringing in what he terms Free Speech Culture and Speech
| Decency as well.
|
| This is a very American take. Which might be reasonable as in
| the UK and Australia for example, the government has much more
| control of speech. But it feels odd, like when Americans
| generalise very odd things about 'white' and 'black' people
| they when only mean Americans.
|
| But I think even before the constitution, the _moral value_
| exists. And that 's the thing people all over the world have
| fought for.
|
| > Free Speech Culture and Speech Decency as well.
|
| I don't think the ethics/values of free speech are summarised
| by either of these terms.
|
| Rather I'll keep using 'free speech' to mean the moral value,
| and 'US constitutional law' to mean US constitutional law.
| nemo44x wrote:
| The UK and Australia will use violence against you if you say
| something in particular or write it down. Think about that.
| It's insane.
| trabant00 wrote:
| > Just because we legally can do something doesn't mean it's
| good to exercise that power.
|
| What does "good" and "bad" have to do with this? We have laws
| specifically so we are not at the mercy of moral judgement. We
| tried that already, it didn't work. If it's legal you either
| accept it or try change the law. Anything else is mob justice.
| klyrs wrote:
| You can legally share every last detail of the poop you just
| left in the toilet, pictures and all. If you choose to do
| that at the lunch table at work, nobody is obliged to remain
| seated with you. Ergo, sharing such details is not a good
| idea. Even though it is perfectly legal.
|
| Those co-workers who vacated the table are exercising their
| rights in walking away. Call that "mob justice" if you will.
| briantakita wrote:
| There's a difference between walking away & taping
| someone's mouth at the table. Walking away is freedom of
| association. Taping someone's mouth is censorship & a
| forced imposition or outright violence against a person.
| klyrs wrote:
| Is there a rash of mouth taping that I'm unaware of?
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Parent is trying to draw a parallel between mouth taping
| and censorship. The problem is that lunchroom scenarios
| aren't cleanly isomorphic to online scenarios.
| klyrs wrote:
| Okay. Let's say you like to share details of your
| bathroom escapades on a forum dedicated to 3d printing.
| The admins give you a few warnings and eventually kick
| you off, because nobody wants to hear that. I daresay
| that isn't "violence." It's still an exercise of free
| association where the forum moderators have decided your
| speech is "not good" despite being perfectly legal.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| The argument, as I understand it, is that disabling
| someone's ability to do speech is categorically
| censorship.
| klyrs wrote:
| Sure, call it censorship. I maintain that it's legally
| permissible to ban shit-posters for misconduct. I'd
| further argue that failing to ban shit-posters will
| dissuade 3d printing enthusiasts from using a particular
| forum, granting the shit-posters a _heckler 's veto_
| which is its own form of censorship.
| gadders wrote:
| How about murdering? See Charlie Hebdo, Samuel Paty etc.
| trabant00 wrote:
| Nobody is arguing people are obligated to sit and listen to
| the legal speech. Not even close.
| klyrs wrote:
| My comment illustrates Ken White's statement that
| prompted your question:
|
| > What does "good" and "bad" have to do with this?
|
| Happy to hear that you agree that there is a gulf between
| individuals' judgement and legal judgement.
|
| If you'll read more of Ken White, he also says that
| sometimes it's bad to exercise "cancel culture" even
| though it's legal to do so.
| glial wrote:
| It's legal for an adult to drink a handle of vodka every
| night. Doesn't mean it's a good idea. It's legal for you to
| tell your neighbor you hate them. Doesn't mean it's a good
| idea.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| This is disingenuous. Drinking vodka is not a
| constitutional right, it is just something that is not
| forbidden by law, so you are comparing 2 very different
| things. For any constitutional right people should be proud
| to show support and exercise it as much as possible,
| otherwise it is not a right, just a permission like
| drinking.
| chadash wrote:
| I think that this is a dangerous attitude that leads to more
| laws and the clawing away of rights.
|
| The supreme court explicitly held that people have the
| constitutional right to hold an anti-gay rally outside of
| military members' funerals [1]. I think that the vast
| majority of people (including the _overwhelming_ majority of
| people holding anti-gay views) would find this behavior
| atrocious and immoral. But it 's protected free speech.
|
| The problem though is that enough of this kind of stuff
| happens and laws begin to change. Sure, it's one crazy group
| in this case, but if this sort of behavior were prevalent
| enough, peoples' views on free speech would change. Sure,
| this is an extreme example, since something specifically
| mentioned in the constitution is very hard to change. But
| there are plenty of examples of laws that only exist in
| response to some idiot(s) who decided to ruin it for everyone
| else (as a very simple example, I no longer have the right to
| buy more than one pack of Sudafed at a time where I live...
| they didn't just dream that law up out of thin air).
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps#Alito's_di
| sse...
| UncleMeat wrote:
| This would be a much more compelling argument if I believed
| that homophobic politicians, judges, and groups will defend
| the speech rights of gay people. Instead what I see is a
| pattern of right wing groups leveraging the courts to
| protect their own right to hate while _also_ leveraging the
| courts to oppress groups they hate. Standing up for the
| Nazi 's right to march in my town won't cause those Nazis
| to stand up for my right to march in my town.
| trabant00 wrote:
| The idea was useful in the past when humanity was still
| experimenting with different ideas about morality, forms of
| government, religion, philosophy, etc.
|
| Now that we have settled all that there is no need any more to
| allow wrong think and wrong speech. /S
|
| In seriousness though, this fight is not new at all. The fact
| that somebody felt the need to state that quote means the same
| debate existed back then.
| belltaco wrote:
| > Voltaire? Francois-Marie Arouet? S. G. Tallentyre? Evelyn
| Beatrice Hall? Ignazio Silone? Douglas Young? Norbert Guterman?
|
| There was no online social media back then.
| bedhead wrote:
| [flagged]
| tomrod wrote:
| Content-wise, I'm surprised to hear "woke" being applied to
| right-wing Americans. I guess it makes sense with the book
| bannings, attacks on public education, refusal to govern as a
| coalition, and more.
| jimjimjim wrote:
| to the death? really? What about your family? your dependents?
| Sorry love, it looks like you'll have to pay the mortgage.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| not his own death, of course.
| fromseashore wrote:
| [dead]
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| This has always been my view of speech. I believe that every
| human being has The right to speak their mind without fear of
| government reprisal.
|
| I wish it also meant a right to speak your mind free from the
| judgment of your employer, or university, but that is a slippery
| slope. Just because I will defend a person's right to speak their
| mind no matter what, does not mean I have to listen to it, or
| agree with it.
|
| I wrestle with this, because if I had an opinion, pick any social
| issue, I don't think an employer should be allowed to fire me
| because of that.
|
| However, we have freedom of association, and a business may not
| want to associate with someone who has opinions counter to their
| own.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| What does it mean to speak your mind? Does lying count? Is it
| your right to lie under oath?
| alldayeveryday wrote:
| > we have freedom of association, and a business may not want
| to associate with someone who has opinions counter to their
| own.
|
| Yes and no. Take the Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake
| for a gay couple. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled in the
| baker's favor on the grounds that forcing him to bake the cake
| would violate his religious freedoms. I wonder, if the baker
| had refused purely as a personal preference not to do business
| with gay couples (freedom of association), would the court have
| ruled differently? As far as I know the Supreme Court has not
| yet weighed in on such a question.
| drewbeck wrote:
| > However, we have freedom of association, and a business may
| not want to associate with someone who has opinions counter to
| their own.
|
| I think this part is why there's so much angst about this these
| days: businesses have captured a huge part of our commons and
| our support systems, pieces that might have been (or could be)
| the purview of government at other times. If we're all paying
| dues to BigCorp in order to live, is it fair to say "businesses
| can choose to not associate with whomever they want"?
| livueta wrote:
| This line of thought always reminds me of Marsh v. Alabama:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
|
| > a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent
| the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk
| even though the sidewalk was part of a privately-owned
| company town
|
| Are we at that point of broad-spectrum BigCo dominance yet?
| I'd say probably not, but sometimes it just seems like a
| matter of time.
| ghaff wrote:
| >a business may not want to associate with someone who has
| opinions counter to their own
|
| I'm not sure it's so much that exactly as businesses don't want
| employees who make a lot of other employees uncomfortable or
| who hold loud (whether deliberately or because social media
| made something go viral) opinions or make stupid jokes in
| public that get associated with the company and cause PR
| issues.
|
| The fact is that if someone employs/sponsors/advertises
| with/etc. you they can and will cut ties fast if you embarrass
| them.
| eddieroger wrote:
| > However, I understand we have freedom of association, and a
| business may not want to associate with someone who has
| opinions counter to their own.
|
| That's really the heart of it, isn't it? Forget employer for a
| moment - if you said something really offensive to one of your
| friends, and they decided to stop being your friend, you'd be
| upset, but should they be allowed to no longer be your friend?
| Of course they should. People get to choose with whom they
| associate, and companies (who are not people, but that's a
| different post) get to choose who they hire, because those
| people are a reflection of them. Freedom of speech isn't
| freedom of consequences.
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| It is. There is no freedom from consequences, unless you are
| a politician maybe. I think if America continues on its
| current path, people will increase exclusive association into
| "us versus them."
|
| I don't think that will help us in the long term.
| leereeves wrote:
| There's also the freedom to criticize and choose not to
| associate with a company that fires people for expressing
| their opinion.
| bbarnett wrote:
| This is actually key, and I think the primary part here
| should be, as long as there is sufficient competition in
| the marketplace.
|
| Look at Google. Now try to never ever touch code they
| touch, information they curated a bit, or anything they do.
| Good luck with that!
|
| Try your best, you will be tainted. Somehow. Someway.
|
| A key example? Try to email people, without
| Google/Gmail/Workplace bring the result often.
|
| Google is the de facto monopoly of many things, and you are
| _forced_ to touch them, even if you try not to.
|
| So in such a case, well... I don't know. But there is no
| choice.
| puffoflogic wrote:
| > Freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences.
|
| Freedom from consequences is the only possible thing freedom
| of speech could be, other than not having your mouth sewn
| shut.
|
| What you meant to say was, _what we value_ is freedom of
| speech from government consequences, not private actors. And
| that is a value judgement, not definitional. The incorrect
| statement you used is spread by people trying to hide the
| former as the latter.
| ghaff wrote:
| Well, in the US, "Freedom of speech" is often used in the
| context of the US constitution so, while it is indeed
| freedom from consequences, it's freedom from consequences
| in the narrow sense of freedom from the consequence of the
| government using its police power to imprison you for
| saying something.
|
| ADDED: In other situations the degree of saying whatever
| you want is very context-dependent and also dependent on
| what consequences you're willing to suffer.
| [deleted]
| Georgelemental wrote:
| How far do you take freedom of association though? Should a
| company be able to discriminate based on race? Refuse to hire
| women unless they have sex with the CEO? Etc...
| Jcowell wrote:
| > Should a company be able to discriminate based on race?
|
| Question like these are pointless since they're already
| solved. The American Law system already said no at the
| highest point possible.
| int_19h wrote:
| It didn't, though. It's perfectly legal to discriminate,
| just not in a public setting. Say, if you have a coffee
| shop, you can't just refuse to serve non-white customers.
| But if you have a private coffee club, its membership can
| be restricted to whites only - and the club can then have
| a coffee shop that serves only its members.
|
| This seems like a reasonable compromise to me -
| accommodations are inclusive by default so you don't have
| to worry about whether a random store owner has a problem
| with your gender, race, religion etc. Yet people who want
| to exclude others from their spaces still have the
| ability to do so, subject only to social disapproval.
| nostromo wrote:
| But that's the point. Employers are already quite limited
| in how they can disassociate with employees.
|
| You can divorce someone because they didn't want to have
| sex with you. And you can decide not to be friends with
| people of a certain race. But employers do not have those
| rights under US law.
|
| So it would also seem fine if you also couldn't be fired
| due to political beliefs. We already have a framework for
| dealing with these issues.
| livueta wrote:
| I've always thought the whole 'protected categories'
| thing was made a little odd by the inclusion of religion,
| given the obvious nexus between religious beliefs and
| political positions, e.g. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.
| Political opinions receiving protection iff colored by a
| religious belief is pretty asymmetric. To maintain
| logical consistency, either both or neither.
| torstenvl wrote:
| Just to be clear, the implications of what you're
| suggesting would be the immediate legalization of anti-
| Semitism in the workplace. Are you _sure_ that 's better?
| UncleMeat wrote:
| That's not true. There are a very small number of
| protected attributes that you cannot discriminate against
| as an employer. Everything else is fair game.
| [deleted]
| tomohelix wrote:
| The problem comes when the very act of non-association with
| someone effectively silences them.
|
| If everyone is allowed to speak through a megaphone, except
| people with certain ideologies because the megaphone maker
| refuses to do business with them, then you can argue that is
| a form of censorship, or at least, have the effect of
| censorship.
|
| This can happen to anything and anyone, regardless of whether
| such ideologies are correct or not. What we would end up with
| are echo chambers. And I sincerely believe that those are the
| cause of many social issues right now.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Are all views valid and should be listened to? In order to
| ensure free speech do we all have to thoughtfully engage
| with white supremacists or pederasts? Seems to me free
| speech is my having a choice who I associate with as well.
| tomohelix wrote:
| Not all views is valid. And nobody should be forced to
| associate with someone they don't like.
|
| But I don't consider corporations "people". And they
| should not have the prerogative to choose what views they
| will amplify.
|
| That is what I meant by non-association can become
| censorship. A person can't do that. But a large
| corporation providing a public service can.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Ah, OK - I missed that you were talking about
| corporations. So can we rephrase this by saying that
| Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube should be fine with white
| supremacists and people who argue for pederasty on their
| platforms? I struggle with this at the extremes.
| tomohelix wrote:
| There are hate speech laws they can follow. That should
| cover the extremes. And if they don't, then it is the
| failure of the legislation.
|
| Just like how you can't go to walmart and insult everyone
| you see. It would actually be illegal to retaliate
| against those people. But call the cops and they can be
| dealt with.
|
| At least with the laws, there is more checks and
| balances. It isn't perfect, but it is better than giving
| private entities massive power to control opinions.
| klyrs wrote:
| If the law should cover it all, then what is their right
| to filter spam based upon?
| tomohelix wrote:
| >At least with the laws, there is more checks and
| balances.
|
| I rather consent to regulations by an entity that I can
| influence and beholden to me (in principle) than one that
| is profit driven.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| So, no spam filtering.
| nostromo wrote:
| Freedom of speech is also the freedom to hear and read
| any viewpoint you'd like to hear or read.
|
| The problem currently is that there is broad censorship
| for many views and even if you actively want to research
| an issue, you'll only be presented with one half of the
| story because large tech and media corporations work in
| concert to block certain points of view.
| throwaway1777 wrote:
| Yeah all too often people forget the first amendment applies to
| the government not to companies or ordinary people.
| ralusek wrote:
| Freedom of speech is an ethic, the first amendment applies to
| political bodies.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Question really is what counts as association?
|
| Is being partnered and prominently showing branding for example
| such thing?
|
| Or what about being able to buy things and services from?
|
| Later is actually more critical point. Let's take some minority
| group. We generally think that discriminating against them for
| being member of group is wrong and should be illegal. But what
| if we took stance that we do not discriminate against the
| group, but against those that voice they should have equal
| rights? Entirely fine surely for many people now? Effect would
| be same, other one is just due to their speech.
| roody15 wrote:
| Quote sadly has not held up will in the last couple decades. We
| are now led by a louder more extreme minority that aggressively
| police's discussion points.
|
| For example I am mostly liberal and was a fan of Bernie Sanders.
| However in my personal case I don't believe transgender and
| gender identity roles are something that should be pressed on
| still developing minors.
|
| The problem here is you may agree or not agree but the point I am
| making is just my view on this equals bigot / hater .. etc. Any
| deviation from a strict all or nothing approach is silenced
| through bullying and harassment.
|
| No room or in there is not even any desire for real discussion
| ... it is just accept these things as "truth" or be labeled some
| form of hater.
|
| It wasn't so long ago that real discussion still happened on
| platforms like reddit and others ...now it is curated to the
| point of nonsense.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| > The problem here is you may agree or not agree but the point
| I am making is just my view on this equals bigot / hater
|
| Yes, some beliefs are inherently bigoted and hateful. The
| people holding those beliefs often don't see it that way.
| Slaveowners often thought they were doing the right thing for
| black people. I see no reason why presenting your beliefs about
| trans people in a kind way should make your beliefs land any
| softer. I see no reason to discuss these beliefs with you, as
| they bring nothing new to the table that has not been discussed
| before.
| greenhorn360 wrote:
| So you want to raise children without gender?
| omgomgomgomg wrote:
| Well, I sometimes wish I was born an eagle because I like
| travelling, flying and chasing the sun.
|
| I am not going to try to have a surgery to make it happen.
|
| There is nobody with no gender, there are rarities with
| natural double gender features, but strictly speaking, nature
| assigns a gender during early pregnancy.
|
| All the ideas about gender changes occur to people later on
| and based on personal feelings/factors. The mind is something
| that develops by education and experience, not genetic urges
| as far I am aware.
|
| If schools and parents would educate kids saying theres no
| such thing like gender and you get to choose and society lets
| the promoters of such go rampant, I imagine this would not
| lead to a net positive outcome.
| simonsaysso wrote:
| You are using gender to mean both sex and gender. You are
| assigned a biological sex by... biology. You get to choose
| your own gender.
| flangola7 wrote:
| There are nonbinary people, such as myself. Public
| Universal Friend is another notable nonbinary person from
| history.
| bauruine wrote:
| I'm from Switzerland so I may get "gender" wrong but yeah
| that is the progressive take here since the 2000s or so. That
| just means that you shouldn't force gender stereotypes on
| children. Let boys play with Barbies and wear pink if the
| like it and stuff like that. But nobody thought about their
| gender because of this, they are still boys. Nowadays, at
| least from what I read online, it feels like your gender
| depends on these sterotypes and if you don't conform to them
| you're trans.
| kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote:
| That sound you hear is OPs point flying over your head
| omgomgomgomg wrote:
| I agree with you, same for religion imposed on kids, it plain
| brainwashing. Religion has a few good things like the ten
| commandments at least, though.
|
| Pushing gender identity on teenagers who do not even know how
| to urinate in a straight line and had no sexual intercourse yet
| is just plain wrong, always will be.The teens do not come up
| with these things themselves usually its often an external
| influence by highly irresponsible people pushing theit agenda.
| To me this is more controversial than the abortion issue.
|
| And thats right, I will openly oppose anyone who claims
| otherwise and I will certainly not die on any hill defending
| that.
|
| I can agree to disagree and that is that.
|
| All these who did the gender changes recently appear to be
| still unhappy and frustrated. Show me the success stories.
|
| This is nothing new by the way, there have been a number of
| thai boys for example undergoing hormone therapy and gender
| change more than 25 years ago, they often would work in
| prostitution. The difference is, they perhaps liked the idea
| and did it for sexualbor monetary reasons and came up with the
| idea independently, not via social media.
| klyrs wrote:
| > However in my personal case I don't believe transgender and
| gender identity roles are something that should be pressed on
| still developing minors.
|
| I don't think those things should be pressed on developing
| minors either. But I see people of all stripes dressing their
| boys in pants and their girls in skirts; blue for boys, pink
| for girls; encouraging boys to hang with boys and play with
| "boy things" and girls to hang with girls and play with "girl
| things" and romanticizing cross-gender interactions between
| children as young as a day old. I don't think we should be
| forcing these norms on children of this age.
|
| But I suspect that what you're actually saying is that we
| should not tolerate transgender expression in children. Which,
| I submit, violates the rights of that child to express
| themselves.
|
| And, by the way, freedom of speech includes the freedom to
| respond to deplorable speech with criticism and even shunning.
| If somebody thinks that you're a bigot or a hater, will you
| defend their rights to say so?
| omgomgomgomg wrote:
| I do not know if you habe children, but this is for good
| reason.
|
| Children are brutal when it comes to peer pressure and such.
| They do not engage in white lies, they say it as they think
| it is.
|
| If you send your boy in a pink mini dress to school, you will
| not be doing him a favour.
|
| There should be some rules on how humans present themselves
| when in public and in groups. I mean, if society would be
| such that ypu could walk down the city center naked with all
| reproductional organs exposed with nothing but a kkk t shirt,
| this simply would not find acceptance.
|
| In summary, kids minds and kid environments like school are
| fertile grounds for bullying under peer pressure etc. It is
| good if a school promotes freedom of expression and
| tolerance, but some very vocal minority groups want
| everything yesterday and are pushing it down everyones
| throats.
|
| Having had a close family member losing 5 years of his life
| and his savings to a fortuneteller crook has made me realize
| that people with too much of an open mind, in a crisis
| situation, will believe the most ridiculous coping strategies
| told to them by others. Kids are often insecure and easy to
| influence, I think they should be kept away from people
| promoting irreversible things like gender changes. Cigarettes
| , gambling and alcohol are forbidden to be promoted to
| minors, so should be this.
| nailer wrote:
| > But I see people of all stripes dressing their boys in
| pants and their girls in skirts; blue for boys, pink for
| girls; encouraging boys to hang with boys and play with "boy
| things" and girls to hang with girls and play with "girl
| things" and romanticizing cross-gender interactions between
| children as young as a day old. I don't think we should be
| forcing these norms on children of this age.
|
| I don't think we should be either. But asides from the well
| known differences in brain size and white / grey matter
| ratios which I'm sure you're already with, I encourage you to
| visit your local Lesbian Mother's Group where I am sure you
| will find many parents who absolutely believe in year-0 of
| sex differences and who, based on my sister's experiences,
| are often very surprised about how boys and girls act.
|
| > But I suspect that what you're actually saying is that we
| should not tolerate transgender expression in children.
|
| There is no reason to say this. Many people against gender
| theory are former 'tomboys' that are healthy adults, don't
| conform to gender stereotypes, and are glad that breast
| binding, hormones and cosmetic surgery weren't foisted on
| them as children.
| klyrs wrote:
| Local Lesbian Mother here. What do you mean by "healthy
| adults"?
| [deleted]
| nailer wrote:
| > > Many people against gender theory are former
| 'tomboys' that are healthy adults, don't conform to
| gender stereotypes, and are glad that breast binding,
| hormones and cosmetic surgery weren't foisted on them as
| children.
|
| > What do you mean by "healthy adults"?
|
| By healthy adults I mean they don't feel any need to
| conform to gender stereotypes, and are glad that breast
| binding, hormones and cosmetic surgery weren't foisted on
| them as children.
|
| Edit reply due to rate limit: yes I edited because I
| realised I'd already written this in the comment you were
| replying to, you just hadn't bothered to read the comment
| before replying. I wanted to highlight how foolish you
| were. I hope you understand now.
|
| And yes mutilating one's body is harming it, I have no
| qualms in telling you this in a very direct non-quiet
| fashion. Stop encouraging people to wreck their bodies.
| klyrs wrote:
| I see you edited from:
|
| > Comfortable as the sex they were born with, acting
| however they like, without harming their bodies.
|
| > I would have thought that was clear but if you were
| asking genuinely there's your answer.
|
| Yeah. It was clear to me that you were using "healthy" to
| assert that transgender people who transition are
| "unhealthy." That surgery is "harm." Your later edit
|
| > > > Many people against gender theory are former
| 'tomboys' that are healthy adults, don't conform to
| gender stereotypes, and are glad that breast binding,
| hormones and cosmetic surgery weren't foisted on them as
| children.
|
| > By healthy adults I mean they don't feel any need to
| conform to gender stereotypes, and are glad that breast
| binding, hormones and cosmetic surgery weren't foisted on
| them as children.
|
| shows that you understand your initial statement to be a
| dog whistle, and that upon reflection, you decided not to
| say the quiet part loud.
|
| The topic here is about principles and rights of free
| speech. You've swerved into a debate about the legitimacy
| of transgender existence. I'm not here for that debate;
| you can keep yammering if you like.
| gyaru wrote:
| I'm not sure why you're bothering replying to someone
| who's misgendering someone in their previous comment?
| try_the_bass wrote:
| > shows that you understand your initial statement to be
| a dog whistle, and that upon reflection, you decided not
| to say the quiet part loud.
|
| You seem to be making some very strong assumptions about
| intent [E] and have been since your first response in
| this thread. As an outside observer, those assumptions
| don't seem supported by the conversation up to this
| point.
|
| Instead of assuming this person is strongly biased and
| bigoted, perhaps can you instead assume they simply did
| not make the point they were trying to make as clearly as
| they would have liked, and thus revised their statement
| accordingly?
|
| Something something positive intent and the like.
| Assuming negative intent when there's very little signal
| to support that assumption speaks more to your own
| prejudices and biases than anything else.
| klyrs wrote:
| > Something something positive intent and the like
|
| Trust, but verify. It's one thing to recognize a dog
| whistle and flip out. It's quite another thing to hear a
| dog whistle, ask for elaboration, and nope out when
| negative intent is revealed.
| Ralfp wrote:
| I agree with parent poster in their assumptions. Few
| posts up @nailer repeats anti-trans talking point that
| originated from 4chan.
| jancsika wrote:
| > Any deviation from a strict all or nothing approach is
| silenced through bullying and harassment.
|
| I don't agree, so let's test my hypothesis right here!
|
| I come armed only with a _single_ , short article about trans
| desistance that was aimed a general audience, let's have a
| short but real discussion. Before that I was tabula rasa.
|
| IIRC the researcher Thomas Steensma quoted in the piece
| produced both of these results in the same set of published
| papers:
|
| 1. There is a high likelihood that some number of patients in
| his clinic will no longer identify as trans when they are older
|
| 2. There is a set of predictors which can be used to help
| identify minors in his clinic who will persist as trans when
| they are older
|
| Reading between the lines, it also appears this is one of the
| more conservative researchers-- i.e., his clinic waits to
| socially transition kids longer than other clinics do.
|
| Even so, what I read is that a) the guidelines for diagnosing
| gender dysphoria have become more stringent/accurate over the
| past few decades, and b) more research will reveal more
| predictors for persistence.
|
| Given that, your position at the very least is under-specified.
| You could be saying that you favor waiting to do social
| transitioning per this clinician's guidelines. Or, you could be
| arguing that you want the predictors and indicators fleshed out
| more before you'd be comfortable with the kinds of treatments
| these clinics provide. Or, you could mean that you reject (out
| of hand or otherwise) the research on these predictors and/or
| the accompanying body of research.
|
| All of those positions invite differing qualities of
| argumentation. And again, I've only read a _single_ article
| here, so you may very well be privy to knowledge that would
| sway me in a different direction. But unless that single
| article was complete bunk, it appears that both the diagnosis
| of and treatment for gender dysphoria has improved over the
| past few decades, and that at least a part of the treatment is
| social transition where the costs and benefits of those who
| persist and desist need to be weighed.
|
| With my incredibly small amount of knowledge in this area,
| _zero_ of this particular treatment option for everyone who is
| a minor certainly seems excessive. If that is indeed your
| position, then what is the evidence for it and why aren 't
| experts in the field taking that evidence into account?
|
| In any case, I believe I have fulfilled the requirements for at
| least a single anecdatum that shows lack of bullying/harassment
| for your stated position.
|
| [1]: https://www.kqed.org/futureofyou/441784/the-controversial-
| re...
| trieste92 wrote:
| > why aren't experts in the field taking that evidence into
| account?
|
| Money. Build your entire career around treatments for trans
| minors, and without them you have no career
| UncleMeat wrote:
| This argument is facile, as it can be used against
| _everything_.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| I'm not sure I understand your position. Do you believe there
| any possible opinion is legitimate, and that there is nothing
| that someone could believe in that should get them labeled a
| hater and socially ostracized? Should we feel a need to become
| friends with klansmen to prove that we are open minded?
|
| And if not, then how do you draw the line? If there are people
| who find your own opinion abhorrent or othering or whatever and
| wish not to associate or discuss with you, by what authority
| are they wrong? Do you personally feel the need to debate every
| opinion you hear? How many times should you defend your own
| opinion before it becoming acceptable not to want to discuss it
| again?
|
| And just to engage a little bit with your particular opinion, I
| for one am immediately suspicious of any argument that says
| "non-sexual non-violent behavior X is acceptable, but not
| around children". Of course, I am open to the idea that in
| principle you may have some compelling arguments that I haven't
| heard before. However, I don't think it's very likely, so my
| prior would be that you are indeed not very trans friendly. If
| I were trans, I would be quite inclined to avoid you because of
| that, and very disinclined to debate this particular point with
| you in any setting where a more hostile discussion might
| reflect poorly on me (say, in the workplace). I don't think
| this reasoning is overly emotional or thought-ending. It's a
| rational way to respond to speech that may become
| confrontational.
| roody15 wrote:
| Identity formation is an complex and fascinating subject in
| human development. As an educator and father of three can
| also chime in with my own personal experience.
|
| I believe that many (if not most) people do not have a fully
| formed identity around gender or around sexuality by the age
| of 15-16.
|
| So asking questions to this group on whether they identity as
| this or that may actually cause some psychological harm
| because they are still in the process of forming an identity
| on multiple fronts.
|
| Imagine being a 15 year young women just out of middle
| school. You are extremely uncomfortable with you're body,
| appearance and just now discovering things of a sexual
| nature. This period is difficult for many regardless of
| sexual orientation or gender.
|
| Now imagine going into your freshman english class and the
| first question asked by your teacher is introduce yourself
| and your preferred pronoun. This may seem progressive and
| tolerant but consider it may also be harmful to minors at
| this stage of development.
|
| Now as an adult if you feel you may have gender dysmorphia
| and start to identify as a deferent gender than birth .. by
| all means. In this case I am fully supportive and want people
| to feel comfortable and find happiness, I also believe we
| live in a mostly free society so as an adult this is
| absolutely within your rights.
|
| If you read this far I thank you and am fine is you disagree.
| Just my thought is my perspective (and many others) as a
| father of three girls and educator for 20 years should allow
| for some nuisance in discussion.
|
| My issue is not wether you and I agree on this topic as I
| assume you have your own valid perspective and experience ..
| my issue is that this topic is put off limits in many cases
| and it's an all or nothing acceptance on supporting trans
| rights and what that entails.
| [deleted]
| tsimionescu wrote:
| > my issue is that this topic is put off limits in many
| cases and it's an all or nothing acceptance on supporting
| trans rights and what that entails.
|
| I understand your concern, and I think your perspective is
| actually non-discriminatory.
|
| But I'm still curious how you think the line should be
| drawn. If I said I think race mixing is a bad idea (to be
| very clear, I absolutely don't hold this opinion), do you
| think it would be fair for people to avoid discussing with
| me?
| Spivak wrote:
| Where it gets complicated is dealing with dog whistles. Because
| you're not actually expressing an opinion that liberals
| disagree with. No one wants a kid who expresses some gender
| nonconformity to be pressured into identifying as trans or
| transitioning. The liberal position is and always has been such
| things should be made available to everyone with appropriate
| medical and psychiatric supervision.
|
| But in our shirty new world online discourse the game is now to
| say something that is obviously true "kids shouldn't be forced
| to transition" but then actually mean something else "kids
| shouldn't be allowed to transition" and then introduce
| legislation to that effect. So if you go on the internet and
| say these kinds of things that no one really disagrees with
| like it's a hot take then people pick up pretty fast what you
| mean. The people caught it the crossfire are unfortunately
| those folks who actually hold the literal opinion that got
| appropriated because bigots realized it they could use it as a
| whistle.
| nailer wrote:
| Kids shouldn't be allowed to transition. They can't get
| tattoos or join the military, they're not in a position to
| have elective surgery that may irreparably damage their body.
| This isn't bigoted and shame on anyone that thinks it is.
| flangola7 wrote:
| You can't say something bigoted and then try to add a
| disclaimer and somehow make it magically not big bigoted.
| Leave pediatric medicine up to the pediatric doctors.
|
| I have a niece who is transitioning and it's attitudes like
| this that endanger her wellbeing.
| nailer wrote:
| Doctors, particularly psychologists who are familiar with
| autogynophilia, are often forbidden from speaking by
| gender theorists who have no medical training.
| flangola7 wrote:
| Forbidden? Under what law?
|
| Not to mention, a few cherry picked oddball psychologists
| does not a consensus make. There are civil engineers that
| will say 9/11 was a thermite inside job and physicians
| that say crystals have healing powers. That doesn't mean
| they are right or even represent the scientific
| community's broad consensus.
|
| I also suspect most of the people spreading transphobic
| messages have never had a close openly trans friend,
| partner, or family member.
| violat wrote:
| > I also suspect most of the people spreading transphobic
| messages have never had a close openly trans friend,
| partner, or family member.
|
| Many gender-critical women are those who have experienced
| the trans phenomenon via a man in their life deciding
| that he is now a woman, and observing first hand the
| misogyny in his expression of what he thinks makes him a
| woman. The accounts of transwidows (women whose husbands
| transitioned) are particularly depressing and painful to
| read, as their marriage breaks down while he transforms
| himself into an offensive caricature of womanhood.
| Spivak wrote:
| This one touches a nerve because of how frustrating it is
| that the internet learned a new big word and it spread
| like wildfire among people who have an axe to grind
| against trans folks.
|
| Sorry for the 50 minute video but there's basically
| nothing I can write that will explain and deconstruct
| this better than an actual trans woman.
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6czRFLs5JQo
| violat wrote:
| Yet, many transwomen self-identify as having
| autogynephilia.
|
| There's even a subreddit for it: AskAGP.
| Spivak wrote:
| Transitioning != Surgery
|
| You have to be 18 for GRS or 16 if you have very very long
| standing documented history of debilitating dysphoria. It
| is the same for top surgery and any other cosmetic
| procedures. HRT isn't until puberty.
|
| Kids transitioning is name, pronouns, clothes, and where
| they stand in boy girl boy girl lines at school.
|
| I swear ever time I talk to people about these issues at
| events or whatever people will go on long rants and end
| with me being like yep, not only go I agree but that's how
| it currently works.
|
| Like the accommodation that trans kids/teens want with
| locker rooms is single person stalls so they don't have to
| change in front of their classmates or awkwardly maneuver
| around a toilet but the rhetoric you see is completely
| opposite of that.
|
| Genuinely, I am sorry and what or whoever made you feel
| like you were bigoted or transphobic for basically agreeing
| with WPATH standards.
| nailer wrote:
| Kim Petras began taking hormones as a 12 year old and had
| surgery when he was 16.
|
| Young girls are being encouraged to bind their breasts
| which also causes damage.
| Spivak wrote:
| Yes, at 12, when puberty starts and got GRS at 16 because
| of the aforementioned long documented history of
| dysphoria which is the minimum.
|
| The only thing trans guys are encouraged to do is if they
| bind to do it safely.
| nailer wrote:
| Excellent, glad we're agreed on the facts, and for the
| record I think these are awful things to do to a 12 and
| later 16 year old boy that doesn't feel he's 'manly'
| enough.
| Spivak wrote:
| I think ultimately this is where we're gonna have to
| agree to disagree because to me, someone who works with
| trans people all the time, this is a gross
| mischaracterization of what it means to be trans.
| Manliness or womanliness has nothing to do with it, I
| know trans women who are super butch and do metalwork and
| know trans men who are femboys. The "wrongness" trans
| people feel their whole lives and the distress it causes
| (dysphoria) runs through to the very core. The most
| commonly reported age where trans people "know" is 5-6
| well before they have any idea about what being a boy or
| girl even means.
|
| Differentiating between "boy who is gnc" and "trans girl"
| is why every part of this process has multiple
| safeguards. And the reason why this matters and why the
| trans community doesn't just say "whatever just make them
| wait until 18" is because going on HRT in early
| adolescence means they will grow up virtually
| indistinguishable from a cis person and get to live a
| much happier and safer life. What $10 pills can do at 14
| costs $50-$75k or is just impossible later.
| nailer wrote:
| I know in the US there's around 150K minimum for
| transition so there's definitely opportunity for perverse
| incentives. In the UK they talked about having multiple
| safeguards too before the Tavistock Clinic was shut down
| for harming children by 'gender reaffirmation'.
|
| A foul smelling surgical hole isn't "virtually
| indistinguishable" from a vagina. It is nonsense to say
| so.
| Ralfp wrote:
| A foul smelling surgical hole isn't "virtually
| indistinguishable" from a vagina.
|
| A single reddit post that was then amplified by 4chan is
| not indicative of all neovaginas, but its indicative of
| your information sources and ability to curate them.
|
| There are thousands of people who underwent this
| procedure and are both happy and don't report same
| issues.
|
| Also, images for results of those surgeries are available
| on Google for anyone to judge themselves how "foul" those
| results are.
| oopol wrote:
| [dead]
| ragemach wrote:
| [flagged]
| omgomgomgomg wrote:
| They absolutelly should not. Nobody is fit for conrracting
| while underage. I would go as far and invoke my own freedom
| of speech and say kids should not be allowed to be targeted
| by any dog whistling or promot material period Wonder how
| tolerant these folks would be with my view.
| nopelane wrote:
| The term "transition" as used here is a euphemism that covers
| interfering with a child's puberty in a way that is likely to
| sterilize them for life if the treatment persists, and
| surgical destruction of breasts, and in some cases, genitals.
|
| I think most people, understanding the reality of this in
| stark terms, would be dead against children transitioning.
| trieste92 wrote:
| > The term "transition" as used here is a euphemism that
| covers interfering with a child's puberty in a way that is
| likely to sterilize them for life if the treatment
| persists, and surgical destruction of breasts, and in some
| cases, genitals.
|
| > I think most people, understanding the reality of this in
| stark terms, would be dead against children transitioning.
|
| The only reason why this hasn't been outright banned for
| minors yet is because older voters don't know what's
| happening.
|
| It's funny, I see a NYT article that literally just repeats
| these things out loud so that everyone can see what's
| happening, and then they get attacked for just describing
| what's happening
|
| What's being done right now is so damning, no criticism is
| necessary. Only visibility. The people who want to hide
| facts from the public can only do this for so long
| trieste92 wrote:
| > but then actually mean something else "kids shouldn't be
| allowed to transition" and then introduce legislation to that
| effect.
|
| Minors aren't capable of consent. The treatments have
| permanent side effects and lead to sterilization. One of the
| drugs used to aid in "transitioning" is lupron, which is also
| used to sterilize sex offenders
|
| The only reason why any of this is allowed to happen is
| because the general population doesn't see what's happening.
| Criticism or "explanations" aren't necessary, all that's
| needed is visibility so that everyone can see what's being
| done and vote accordingly
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| > Minors aren't capable of consent.
|
| Which is why the permission of their parents acts as a
| limit on what they're able to agree to, in this case as in
| all others.
|
| > The treatments have permanent side effects
|
| Yes, that's the point.
|
| > lead to sterilization. One of the drugs used to aid in
| "transitioning" is lupron, which is also used to sterilize
| sex offenders
|
| This is _pure_ bad faith fear mongering. It doesn 't matter
| what else the drugs could do. Titanium is used in missiles,
| chemotherapy drugs can be used for euthenasia. None of
| those are what we're talking about, so talk about what
| we're talking about not some other unrelated thing.
|
| > The only reason why any of this is allowed to happen is
| because the general population doesn't see what's
| happening.
|
| There's no "general population" this is being slyly pushed
| on. People are making decisions within their families. Each
| individual is making choices with medical consideration and
| the guidance and, if a minor, ultimately the permission of
| their families and doctors.
|
| "Allowed" is a telling choice of words though! You're
| advocating for a state-enforced limit on what people are
| _allowed_ to choose for themselves.
|
| ---
|
| And additionally, and very seriously, wake the fuck up and
| pay attention. The anti-trans moral panic is the tip of the
| spear of fascism in north america. You had a clean chance
| to see that and change course last year when Putin
| explicitly used anti-LGBT reasoning as part of his
| justification for the invasion of ukraine! Look at what
| Orban is up to, what comes along with this rhetoric. _Look
| at what you are being used to accomplish_.
| renewiltord wrote:
| People are allowed to call you bigot or hater. That's freedom
| of speech. Even if you disagree with it.
| Oras wrote:
| These days you can offend people by saying anything. Talking to
| people became kind of a mine field.
|
| Such quotes are close to fiction.
| greenhorn360 wrote:
| Like saying what? I dont feel like this talking to hardly
| anyone
| antirez wrote:
| I friend of mine used to say: I disapprove of what you say, but I
| would kill myself to avoid hearing it again.
| SapporoChris wrote:
| I always heard it as: "I disapprove of what you say but I will
| defend to the death your right to go fuck yourself"
| maybeitshim wrote:
| "I disapprove of what you say but i will defend to the death your
| right to say it"
|
| Hahaha this reminds of a Romanian politician who had returned to
| Romania after the revolution and wanted to become president. He
| was recognizable by his style of wearing a bowtie amongst a sea
| of ties. He used to utter this same quote to the people but it
| fell on deaf ears because people wanted products not rights. He
| never won and is all but forgotten even in the country he wanted
| to steer in the _right_ direction.
| archon1410 wrote:
| The politician referred to here is Ion Ratiu.[1][2][3]
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_Ra%C8%9Biu [2]
| https://transylvaniantours.com/ion-ratiu/ [3]
| https://www.reddit.com/r/Romania/comments/9m3sds/voiam_s%C4%...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-26 23:00 UTC)