Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech • Hacker News Board

Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

#471

Post by cbnotfromthere » Sat, May 01, 2021, 3:41 PM UTC

shoemakersteve wrote: post #447

cbnotfromthere wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Probably because one of those two is a religious statement, while another one is a political statement." Why would biological facts be considered "political statements"? (assuming gender = biological sex, which is the usual usage from regular talk to identity papers throughout the world).

Judging from the last sentence, it seems like you're aware that the word "gender" as it's used nowadays often doesn't refer to biological sex, especially in the context of gender identity/expression. Setting aside the semantic argument, is there even anyone out there saying "there are more than two genders", and actually mean biological sex? What would they even mean by that? From what I can tell, anyone saying "ther…

Well, I am certainly aware of such usage (gender != sex), however I find it highly tricky because the interchangeable use of the words gender and sex is an established situation for the last 100-200 years (simple example: identity cards / passports / corresponding forms).

The whole point of any expression is that (by definition) is subject to the decision (one may say the whims) of the person doing that expressing. On the other hand, sex is set in stone, no psychological change and no surgery can change it.

While you may not have heard anyone saying they are gender fluid as a result of their chromosomes, I counter with the fact that one of the most common claim of the genderfluid people and their advocates is that "sex is a spectrum", which has basically the same meaning.

Moreover, there are educated university professors which publicly claim Homo sapiens have more than just 2 genders https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ij80qmJPhOc

For the record, I couldn't care less who people have sex with and what sex they believe they belong to

Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

#472

Post by klmadfejno » Mon, May 03, 2021, 5:48 PM UTC

em-bee wrote: post #469

klmadfejno wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you seem to suggest that disagreeing with an opinion requires me to reject the person as a whole. That's not what I said. The difference is whether you see an difference of opinion or something that is so ideologically different that you can not tolerate their opinion. > there is no virtue in objecting to someone elses religion. that's just pure intolerance, which is something that needs to be eliminated. And socia…

so ideologically different that you can not tolerate their opinion that still doesn't require me to stay away from them. if there is an opinion so bad that it actually is intolerable, (which the kkk obviously represents) then it is on us to do something about it. none of that affects whether i ought to socialize with these people or not. it only affects why. if my goal is to change them then i should be allowed to do…

> that still doesn't require me to stay away from them. if there is an opinion so bad that it actually is intolerable, (which the kkk obviously represents) then it is on us to do something about it. none of that affects whether i ought to socialize with these people or not. it only affects why. if my goal is to change them then i should be allowed to do that.

That's up to you then. Shunning occurs on various levels.

If you want to talk to someone in the KKK to discuss the merits of their opinions, be my guest. If you want to employ KKK members, I'm leaving your team. If I'm your manager, I might even fire you for making such a boneheaded decision.

Giving everyone legitimacy is a childish idea easily abused by bad faith actors.

Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

#473

Post by filoleg » Mon, May 03, 2021, 9:26 PM UTC

akomtu wrote: post #451

filoleg wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>a dude wearing a t-shirt with an upside down pentagram would be protected by the tree speech amendment, while a dude with a t-shirt saying that there are only two genders would be fired on the spot and blacklisted in all major organizations. Probably because one of those two is a religious statement, while another one is a political statement. Which makes sense, given that religious affiliation is a protected group…

In other words, if you were a judge and we're presented with a range of offenders wearing tshirts with "two genders", "satan church", "flat earth" and "vaccine hoax" logos, you'd selectively label them as political, religious, unscientific and "dangerous disinformation" and issue sentences accordingly? If that's the case, this isn't different from how the inquisition operated long ago, except that they would praise t…

> if you were a judge and we're presented with a range of offenders wearing tshirts with "two genders", "satan church", "flat earth" and "vaccine hoax" logos, you'd selectively label them as political, religious, unscientific and "dangerous disinformation" and issue sentences accordingly?

No, I would label them all as "political" except the satan church one. Because the satan church tshirt you mentioned doesn't make any kind of a statement aside from signaling belonging to or support of a religious group.

However, if the satan church tshirt made an additional statement (after "satan church") like "abortions should be legal", I would count it as a political statement as well.

"Flat earth" is just as much of a political statement as "Spherical earth" is (science and validity aside). You can get fired for either without much legal repercussions for the employer. Whether you get fired or not for wearing that tshirt is fully up to how your boss feels about it.

To put it simply, "protected class/speech" doesn't mean that you can wrap any statement inside of it and you are protected from getting fired. Especially if that statement you wrapped inside goes directly against another protected class (e.g., if you had a christian church tshirt that said "islam is a fake religion"), then I bet you are gonna get fired extremely fast, and saying "religion is a protected class" won't help you much there.

Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

#474

Post by em-bee » Tue, May 04, 2021, 9:49 AM UTC

klmadfejno wrote: post #472

em-bee wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so ideologically different that you can not tolerate their opinion that still doesn't require me to stay away from them. if there is an opinion so bad that it actually is intolerable, (which the kkk obviously represents) then it is on us to do something about it. none of that affects whether i ought to socialize with these people or not. it only affects why. if my goal is to change them then i should be allowed to do…

> that still doesn't require me to stay away from them. if there is an opinion so bad that it actually is intolerable, (which the kkk obviously represents) then it is on us to do something about it. none of that affects whether i ought to socialize with these people or not. it only affects why. if my goal is to change them then i should be allowed to do that. That's up to you then. Shunning occurs on various levels.…

i don't know how you connect talking to someone with hiring them. those are entirely different actions.

i might hire them after they renounce their kkk membership. are you ok with that?

where i am from, discrimination based on political opinions is illegal. on the other hand, political activism by employees is also not allowed. so i probably could hire someone who is not already known for their kkk membership, and you would not be allowed to fire me for that. they are allowed to stay as long as they are not becoming active. that scenario is unlikely to happen though because hiring friends is considered a form of corruption and strongly frowned upon. qualifications only.

but let's be clear. i am not giving someone legitimacy just by talking to them.