You are free to speak and exercise your freedom of speech no one really disputes that. You are not, however, anywhere guaranteed or granted the liberty to a platform for your dialog. That is the problem that we are encountering today, people are thinking that there are attacks to freedom of speech and confusing that with the freedom of an establishment to defend their property from damages. I think we can all agree that art is a medium for free speech but if you graffiti private property without the permission of the owner of said property than the owner of that property has the right to remove the graffiti. Likewise the operator of a website has the same right to remove content they may consider damaging to the value of their property. The only thing that the first amendment provides you with is freedom from prosecution by the government for statements you make. It does not preserve the right to defame, demean, or slander others or their property or to damage the property in a way contrary to the desires of the owner of that property. No one is stopping you though from making your own platform to spread your own message. Although it is also the right of those you may purchase services from to terminate those services if they feel that it devalues their property. For instance if a dns provider decides that website is offensive it is their prerogative to terminate services as a private owner. Same with any content provider, isp, hosting service or social media website. No where in the law does anything grant you an unlimited ability to say anything you want in a private forum and any private forum is entitled to moderating the content on its properties. I wish people would stop conflating free speech as some sort of absolute. It is not. The only case where a platform must provide services outside of the strictest sense of an intended audience is in through US Code Titles that may be applicable by law such ADA accessibilities (these codes are of course regional and may not apply outside the region in which that service is provided).
Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive
571–580 of 606 posts
Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive
#572Earlier quoted context omitted.
You probably missed what i meant with "self-identified", in context of an online community. A better analogy than the one you provided: If someone comes to an online community and announces that they are cisgendered and must be referred in way X, i don't want to work with them, either. This isn't a question of gender, race or sexuality. Its a question about not being self-absorbed prick that forces everyone around th…
I think I love you.
Thanks, but i don't wish for fanboys or a cult around my person.
Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive
#573Earlier quoted context omitted.
Radio protocol is extremely specific. As is medical terminology. If they're required to use a term for a person, but haven't been briefed on what term to use, then I think there are bigger problems there and "political correctness" is not the problem. Basic communication is. They will also not be penalised for using the wrong term when there's no briefing on what the correct term is. If they can't remember what term…
I don't understand. Why does it matter if it's a specific communication protocol? If you have to filter your language when you're in a life and death situation with a potentially dangerous person who has used needles lying around, you've used up precious processing power that could otherwise be used to keep yourself safe and the sick person alive. For the record - I checked with them - and they told me they were aske…
> For the record - I checked with them - and they told me they were asked to take a test to check if they harbored "unknown biases". They were then sent to diversity and inclusion training, and came out totally confused about what to do and say, but they were assured that the hospital and the ambulance services were monitoring comms and wouldn't look favorably on "potentially offensive" terms.
The tragedy of that is that IATs don't even measure what they purport to or, generally, work: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/174569161986379...
Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive
#574Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course - and thank you for asking. One of my friends is a paramedic who primarily works in ambulances in LA. One day, he arrives at a scene after a passer-by called 911. A homeless man is lying on the street on top of garbage and cardboard boxes. There is urine and feces everywhere - it's a bad situation - and there are used needles lying next to the man. The man is obviously in medical distress, and is unable to…
In Germany we have a similar phenomena too. Hard to translate, but unemployed people are now called employment-searching people for example. I get it, there are some people that think they are lazy, instead almost everyone wants to get a job. The terms are constructed to counter these prejudices, but unemployed people actually feel more discriminated against because of the blatant paternalism from academics that have…
Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive
#575Earlier quoted context omitted.
You probably missed what i meant with "self-identified", in context of an online community. A better analogy than the one you provided: If someone comes to an online community and announces that they are cisgendered and must be referred in way X, i don't want to work with them, either. This isn't a question of gender, race or sexuality. Its a question about not being self-absorbed prick that forces everyone around th…
> If someone comes to an online community and announces that they are cisgendered and must be referred in way X, i don't want to work with them, either. This literally happens all of the time, though? It's the 'default'. If you called a cisgendered man 'she' or a cisgendered woman 'he', they would likely politely correct you in the same way anyone else would. The only way you'd avoid that is by collectively referring…
> This literally happens all of the time, though? It's the 'default'.
No. Our conversation is a good example of that. The default is to state your business, not your sexual identity or race.
Normal people don't want to be judged by their skin color or sexuality or things like that, this is why they don't lay it out.
Stop taking sexual identity so seriously - its not central to anything.
> People experiencing gender dysphoria is not a driving force in engaging in this kind of behavior
I say, craving validation is the connecting factor. If you have different experiences with that, so it be.
> I have friends who have dealt with such issues and do not behave in the way you claim.
No one of the trans people i had relationships with acted in this way, either.
But in online communities around open source software, there are always a few black sheep that turn really emotional if you accidentally don't "respect their identity", and this includes alot of otherwise innocent behavior.
Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive
#576Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did not believe those things due to an algorithm, I believed those things because I was never exposed to anything outside of my "bubble". People in my City tend not to leave especially if they are poor. Exposure to the real world had a painful destructive effect, and if I had clung back into my safe little cubby hole I would have done so swiftly. -- I believe "both sides" is important; but you're right that people…
There's a concept known as steelmanning - most people aren't good at arguing their case, but their case usually has some kind of merit. You steelman an argument by trying to build the strongest, most defensible form of an opponent's argument, read it charitably and presume good faith and tgen try to take it down. That usually involves understanding why a stance forms and its emotional truth, and engaging with that ha…
Nice, thanks very much for the pointer- I had never heard of this before I will look into it. :)
Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive
#577Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If someone comes to an online community and announces that they are cisgendered and must be referred in way X, i don't want to work with them, either. This literally happens all of the time, though? It's the 'default'. If you called a cisgendered man 'she' or a cisgendered woman 'he', they would likely politely correct you in the same way anyone else would. The only way you'd avoid that is by collectively referring…
> This literally happens all of the time, though? It's the 'default'. No. Our conversation is a good example of that. The default is to state your business, not your sexual identity or race. Normal people don't want to be judged by their skin color or sexuality or things like that, this is why they don't lay it out. Stop taking sexual identity so seriously - its not central to anything. > People experiencing gender d…
> No. Our conversation is a good example of that. The default is to state your business, not your sexual identity or race.
Is it? You started your conversation literally around identity, and claiming you chose to avoid people based on that identity. Regardless if they self-identify or not, you're the one that brought identity into this debate. The fact that you seem to choose to downplay sexual identity is rather funny, considering I'm willing to bet if you went out of your way to refer to a cisgender man or a woman as the opposite gender they would eventually get angry. So claiming it's not 'central' is bullshit.
> I say, craving validation is the connecting factor. If you have different experiences with that, so it be.
People want to be identified as who they are. Not sure how this is controversial. If you're talking to someone named John and you keep referring to him as Johnny when he says he doesn't want to be called Johnny, that's 'craving validation' by your argument. Remembering 'John wants to be called by John and not Johnny' is about as difficult as 'Remembering [Person] wants to be called by She and not He'.
> But in online communities around open source software, there are always a few black sheep that turn really emotional if you accidentally don't "respect their identity", and this includes alot of otherwise innocent behavior.
Yes, there are always a few assholes in open source development. This isn't exclusive to transgender people, I've met my fair share of cisgender people that turn emotional if you don't follow their rules. Does that mean I should start avoiding cisgender people all together?
Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive
#578Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This literally happens all of the time, though? It's the 'default'. No. Our conversation is a good example of that. The default is to state your business, not your sexual identity or race. Normal people don't want to be judged by their skin color or sexuality or things like that, this is why they don't lay it out. Stop taking sexual identity so seriously - its not central to anything. > People experiencing gender d…
> No. Our conversation is a good example of that. The default is to state your business, not your sexual identity or race. Is it? You started your conversation literally around identity, and claiming you chose to avoid people based on that identity. Regardless if they self-identify or not, you're the one that brought identity into this debate. The fact that you seem to choose to downplay sexual identity is rather fun…
You might come from a social environment where people are much more fragile than in my environment.
I tried to outline a specific behaviour that predominantly comes from self-identifying transgender people. If you haven't experienced these behaviours, we won't find a common ground there.
Yes, there are always some difficult people. There are red flags to watch out for, and "self-defining as trans" is one of them. Putting much emphasis on your sexual identity is also a red flag in general.
Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive
#579Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No. Our conversation is a good example of that. The default is to state your business, not your sexual identity or race. Is it? You started your conversation literally around identity, and claiming you chose to avoid people based on that identity. Regardless if they self-identify or not, you're the one that brought identity into this debate. The fact that you seem to choose to downplay sexual identity is rather fun…
You might come from a social environment where people are much more fragile than in my environment. I tried to outline a specific behaviour that predominantly comes from self-identifying transgender people. If you haven't experienced these behaviours, we won't find a common ground there. Yes, there are always some difficult people. There are red flags to watch out for, and "self-defining as trans" is one of them. Put…
It's funny that you claim I come from a social environment where people are 'more fragile' when I consider it simply basic respect to call people what they want. It seems like you managed to completely ignore my John / Johnny example as well, so I think it's becoming clearer that you're not really here to debate in good faith.
Also personally, one of the red flags I find in difficult people is those that choose to stereotype an entire group. Usually they'll end up causing further problems down the line by not wanting to work as a team or ostracizing said members they stereotype.
Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive
#580Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might come from a social environment where people are much more fragile than in my environment. I tried to outline a specific behaviour that predominantly comes from self-identifying transgender people. If you haven't experienced these behaviours, we won't find a common ground there. Yes, there are always some difficult people. There are red flags to watch out for, and "self-defining as trans" is one of them. Put…
It's funny that you claim I come from a social environment where people are 'more fragile' when I consider it simply basic respect to call people what they want. It seems like you managed to completely ignore my John / Johnny example as well, so I think it's becoming clearer that you're not really here to debate in good faith. Also personally, one of the red flags I find in difficult people is those that choose to st…
Do you know why i ignored it? Like, when im with other adults, the tone is much harsher sometimes, especially when we are drunk. So you need to have the skin for that, which is generally a useful trait in life. So i assumed your argument featuring a fragile cis man was due to a lack of social experience.
Did i stereotype an entire group? I explicitly stated that i have problems with a specific behaviour from a part of a group, and explicitly told that parts of the group don't exhibit this behaviour. You ignored that.
I said that i was leaving communities due to this behaviour. I'm the one leaving, not the transgender people. I'm, at most, ostracizing myself.
And then you come and go accuse me of arguing in bad faith. Seriously. You are just looking for something to get offended about.