3 ms·

I love freedom. There is also currently a lot of precedent for saying there are wrong ways that people talk. Twitter is full of conversations where one person i

I love freedom. There is also currently a lot of precedent for saying there are wrong ways that people talk. Twitter is full of conversations where one person is criticising the other for using a word the wrong way ( and I don't mean grammar ) or using a particular word, or having a particular idea.

Joe-Z 9y ago
>There is also currently a lot of precedent for saying there are wrong ways that people talk. No there is not. People are people and there have always been bigots and assholes. Just because now we have the technical means to shut everybody down who acts or talks that way does not mean that we should. Can't you see how your well-intentioned ideal of 'talk nicely to each other' is actually an oppressing view by itself? Burying your head in the sand won't solve any problems.
- projectant 9y ago
  First, that things have "always been" one way does not mean they should remain so. And "people are people" is not excuse for bad behaviour. People can choose to be good or bad. Second, there are a really big bunch of clear rules about how to talk and the things it is okay to say and think that are being worked out right now. It doesn't equate with talking "nice". I'll give some examples: - Use the name and pronoun and non-binary person requests you use, [1] - Don't ask a transgender person what their "real name" is. [2] - Stop Using Diminutives [3] - Do not say racism is over because we have a black president. [4] - Don't say #AllLiveMatter, nor that you can where whatever you want, nor that black culture is disrespecting women [5] - Don't think reverse racism is a thing [6] - Don't say things that suggest physical contact or simulated physical contact [7] - Do not say, “Hey baby,” or “Hi cutie.” [8] - Acknowledge your privilege [9] - Do not center yourself, tone police or victim blame [10] For twitter examples of people policing ways of talking and thinking ( but bearing that burden without legislative support ), see: and [11], and [12] for some examples, and see [13] for it beginning to happen with the help of law enforcement at the intersection with civilian-enabled speech policing. This is not fascism because this was created by the American and UK left, these are the same people who railed against Trump, drive changes in the civil rights and social justice movements, and love freedom. This group clearly has the best chance of contributing significantly to the debate about rules and laws for right and wrong ways for people to think and talk. If you go against that, you're pretty much in the wrong. And they've already making progress on getting this accepted across society. What I'm saying is that, the work is currently being done without legislative backing, and starting a formal, whole-society debate by beginning to introduce legislation is, I believe, the right way forward. [1]: https://www.transequality.org/issues/resources/understanding-non-binary-people-how-to-be-respectful-and-supportive https://www.transequality.org/issues/resources/understanding... [2]: https://www.glaad.org/transgender/allies https://www.glaad.org/transgender/allies [3]: https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/07/5-ways-men-can-respect-women/ https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/07/5-ways-men-can-respect-... [4]: http://msmagazine.com/blog/2013/08/23/99-ways-to-respect-black-women/ http://msmagazine.com/blog/2013/08/23/99-ways-to-respect-bla... [5]: https://www.theodysseyonline.com/things-white-people-stop-saying https://www.theodysseyonline.com/things-white-people-stop-sa... [6]: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/melody-moezzi/ten-things-white-people-n_b_9765436.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/melody-moezzi/ten-things-whit... [7]: https://geekfeminism.org/about/code-of-conduct/ https://geekfeminism.org/about/code-of-conduct/ [8]: http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/resources/male-allies/how-to-talk-to-women/ http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/resources/male-allies/ho... [9]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-lawrence/how-to-be-a-better-ally-in-2017_b_13932312.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-lawrence/how-to-be... [10]: http://www.guidetoallyship.com/#the-work-of-allyship http://www.guidetoallyship.com/#the-work-of-allyship [11]: https://twitter.com/search?q=thanks%20for%20mansplaining&src=typd https://twitter.com/search?q=thanks%20for%20mansplaining&src... [12]: https://twitter.com/search?q=check%20your%20privilege&src=typd https://twitter.com/search?q=check%20your%20privilege&src=ty... [13]: https://twitter.com/search?q=racism%20report%20%40metpoliceuk&src=typd&lang=en https://twitter.com/search?q=racism%20report%20%40metpoliceu...
  - Joe-Z 9y ago
    >starting a formal, whole-society debate by beginning to introduce legislation is, I believe, the right way forward. No it is not. Expecting everyone to know every way in which a person might get offended is just unrealistic. People, even the most well-intentioned ones, will make mistakes. So if someone does make a mistake just tell them what they did wrong and move on with your life. Trust me I know people from "the left" and the amount people got into feminism in the last years is just crazy. Now, I'm all for women's rights and also agree with the points you listed, but for fuck's sake, give people a break. Dealing with racism and sexism is a process that takes patience and just forcing a thought-police on everyone will sure as hell not make anything better. Society can only move so fast as the slowest ones can keep up. We're pretty off-topic by now, so this will be my last statement in this thread, but feel free to respond. Have a nice weekend!
    - projectant 9y ago
      > No it is not. It really is. How else can we move forward without discussing these things as a collective? It's no good if just one group decides the rules for everybody. Laws need to reflect society's norms. > just unrealistic. I'm sorry but I don't accept that we ought to abandon progress because it seems unrealistic. Self landing reusable rockets seemed unrealistic. International flight seemed unrealistic. Even progress on women's or PoC's issues seemed unrealistic. If you're okay with letting people get hurt while things proceed at the natural, ambling pace of society, or whatever, because it's too hard to do otherwise, I get that, but I'm not okay with that. I think we have a duty to make things better for people. And there's no way to do that unilaterally, it has to be inclusive of the diversity of our societies, and build on the work that everyone before us has done, otherwise we're just reinforcing the existing power structures and narratives. This kind of legislation, supporting the work people are already doing in their lives and online on places like Twitter, and Reddit, etc, would be ground breaking. And it's really not off topic, because it's the exact same type of legislation as deciding, as a society, which materials, or speech, or narrative are too harmful to be consumed or propagated. Material and speech that supports oppression and structural disadvantage is harmful, isn't it? As is material and speech that supports terrorism and violence. Maybe these things don't affect the majority, or happen all the time, but that's sort of the point. I understand it's not easy, I understand the hassle, I understand the gut instinct to avoid anything that seems to impinge upon freedom, but some of our seeming "freedoms" are actually based on unsustainable practices, such as when our "freedom" to express a particular idea, only reinforces oppression, or normalizes violence, that ultimately hold everyone back. And policing some forms of speech, or narrative, or information as unacceptable helps make a free and just society. We shouldn't tolerate everything, especially not things that harm us. Take an example from biology, cells have walls for a reason, they are permeable, but they don't just let everything in. I agree things move slowly. But that's why strong efforts are needed. And I also agree that so many people have become involved in this work, and I think that's why legislation needs to take some of the burden. I mean, the groundswell is an indication of a norm, no? And thank you for giving your consent for me to reply here, but as this is not just a conversation between you and me, I don't think that's appropriate nor required, because other people are reading and interested in what we say. It was good to talk! And I respect the way you made your points. I think they are a good way to live, but probably not a good way to progress society.

Joe-Z 9y ago

>There is also currently a lot of precedent for saying there are wrong ways that people talk. No there is not. People are people and there have always been bigots and assholes. Just because now we have the technical means to shut everybody down who acts or talks that way does not mean that we should. Can't you see how your well-intentioned ideal of 'talk nicely to each other' is actually an oppressing view by itself? Burying your head in the sand won't solve any problems.

projectant 9y ago
First, that things have "always been" one way does not mean they should remain so. And "people are people" is not excuse for bad behaviour. People can choose to be good or bad. Second, there are a really big bunch of clear rules about how to talk and the things it is okay to say and think that are being worked out right now. It doesn't equate with talking "nice". I'll give some examples: - Use the name and pronoun and non-binary person requests you use, [1] - Don't ask a transgender person what their "real name" is. [2] - Stop Using Diminutives [3] - Do not say racism is over because we have a black president. [4] - Don't say #AllLiveMatter, nor that you can where whatever you want, nor that black culture is disrespecting women [5] - Don't think reverse racism is a thing [6] - Don't say things that suggest physical contact or simulated physical contact [7] - Do not say, “Hey baby,” or “Hi cutie.” [8] - Acknowledge your privilege [9] - Do not center yourself, tone police or victim blame [10] For twitter examples of people policing ways of talking and thinking ( but bearing that burden without legislative support ), see: and [11], and [12] for some examples, and see [13] for it beginning to happen with the help of law enforcement at the intersection with civilian-enabled speech policing. This is not fascism because this was created by the American and UK left, these are the same people who railed against Trump, drive changes in the civil rights and social justice movements, and love freedom. This group clearly has the best chance of contributing significantly to the debate about rules and laws for right and wrong ways for people to think and talk. If you go against that, you're pretty much in the wrong. And they've already making progress on getting this accepted across society. What I'm saying is that, the work is currently being done without legislative backing, and starting a formal, whole-society debate by beginning to introduce legislation is, I believe, the right way forward. [1]: https://www.transequality.org/issues/resources/understanding-non-binary-people-how-to-be-respectful-and-supportive https://www.transequality.org/issues/resources/understanding... [2]: https://www.glaad.org/transgender/allies https://www.glaad.org/transgender/allies [3]: https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/07/5-ways-men-can-respect-women/ https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/07/5-ways-men-can-respect-... [4]: http://msmagazine.com/blog/2013/08/23/99-ways-to-respect-black-women/ http://msmagazine.com/blog/2013/08/23/99-ways-to-respect-bla... [5]: https://www.theodysseyonline.com/things-white-people-stop-saying https://www.theodysseyonline.com/things-white-people-stop-sa... [6]: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/melody-moezzi/ten-things-white-people-n_b_9765436.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/melody-moezzi/ten-things-whit... [7]: https://geekfeminism.org/about/code-of-conduct/ https://geekfeminism.org/about/code-of-conduct/ [8]: http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/resources/male-allies/how-to-talk-to-women/ http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/resources/male-allies/ho... [9]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-lawrence/how-to-be-a-better-ally-in-2017_b_13932312.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-lawrence/how-to-be... [10]: http://www.guidetoallyship.com/#the-work-of-allyship http://www.guidetoallyship.com/#the-work-of-allyship [11]: https://twitter.com/search?q=thanks%20for%20mansplaining&src=typd https://twitter.com/search?q=thanks%20for%20mansplaining&src... [12]: https://twitter.com/search?q=check%20your%20privilege&src=typd https://twitter.com/search?q=check%20your%20privilege&src=ty... [13]: https://twitter.com/search?q=racism%20report%20%40metpoliceuk&src=typd&lang=en https://twitter.com/search?q=racism%20report%20%40metpoliceu...
- Joe-Z 9y ago
  >starting a formal, whole-society debate by beginning to introduce legislation is, I believe, the right way forward. No it is not. Expecting everyone to know every way in which a person might get offended is just unrealistic. People, even the most well-intentioned ones, will make mistakes. So if someone does make a mistake just tell them what they did wrong and move on with your life. Trust me I know people from "the left" and the amount people got into feminism in the last years is just crazy. Now, I'm all for women's rights and also agree with the points you listed, but for fuck's sake, give people a break. Dealing with racism and sexism is a process that takes patience and just forcing a thought-police on everyone will sure as hell not make anything better. Society can only move so fast as the slowest ones can keep up. We're pretty off-topic by now, so this will be my last statement in this thread, but feel free to respond. Have a nice weekend!
  - projectant 9y ago
    > No it is not. It really is. How else can we move forward without discussing these things as a collective? It's no good if just one group decides the rules for everybody. Laws need to reflect society's norms. > just unrealistic. I'm sorry but I don't accept that we ought to abandon progress because it seems unrealistic. Self landing reusable rockets seemed unrealistic. International flight seemed unrealistic. Even progress on women's or PoC's issues seemed unrealistic. If you're okay with letting people get hurt while things proceed at the natural, ambling pace of society, or whatever, because it's too hard to do otherwise, I get that, but I'm not okay with that. I think we have a duty to make things better for people. And there's no way to do that unilaterally, it has to be inclusive of the diversity of our societies, and build on the work that everyone before us has done, otherwise we're just reinforcing the existing power structures and narratives. This kind of legislation, supporting the work people are already doing in their lives and online on places like Twitter, and Reddit, etc, would be ground breaking. And it's really not off topic, because it's the exact same type of legislation as deciding, as a society, which materials, or speech, or narrative are too harmful to be consumed or propagated. Material and speech that supports oppression and structural disadvantage is harmful, isn't it? As is material and speech that supports terrorism and violence. Maybe these things don't affect the majority, or happen all the time, but that's sort of the point. I understand it's not easy, I understand the hassle, I understand the gut instinct to avoid anything that seems to impinge upon freedom, but some of our seeming "freedoms" are actually based on unsustainable practices, such as when our "freedom" to express a particular idea, only reinforces oppression, or normalizes violence, that ultimately hold everyone back. And policing some forms of speech, or narrative, or information as unacceptable helps make a free and just society. We shouldn't tolerate everything, especially not things that harm us. Take an example from biology, cells have walls for a reason, they are permeable, but they don't just let everything in. I agree things move slowly. But that's why strong efforts are needed. And I also agree that so many people have become involved in this work, and I think that's why legislation needs to take some of the burden. I mean, the groundswell is an indication of a norm, no? And thank you for giving your consent for me to reply here, but as this is not just a conversation between you and me, I don't think that's appropriate nor required, because other people are reading and interested in what we say. It was good to talk! And I respect the way you made your points. I think they are a good way to live, but probably not a good way to progress society.