3 ms·

> Do you imagine these people responding to "I don't agree with that" with claims that they are being harassed? Sadly yes. The logic works as follows: If you

> Do you imagine these people responding to "I don't agree with that" with claims that they are being harassed? Sadly yes. The logic works as follows: If you don't agree with me (let's say on gay marriage), you're saying my belief is invalid. The things I believe constitute my identity; therefore you are attacking my identity and thus existentially threatening me. On some forums this kind of disagreement is grounds for banning, no matter how politely expressed or well reasoned.

eeeuo 8y ago
Okay, but you've now moved the goal posts from "mere dissent is harassment" to "people suggesting that I deserve fewer human rights than them is harassment" which, well, yeah. Arguments containing a premise that the other side is a lesser human generally don't go well. I don't think that is unique to this situation.
- rustler 8y ago
  To be clear: my company offers a maternity benefit that's more generous than their paternity benefit. I want to change that. If you offer any disagreement, then you are imputing I deserve fewer human rights, saying I am a "lesser human" than you, and thus you are harassing me. Correct? Nevermind which side is right: mere disagreement is harassment.
  - eeeuo 8y ago
    You provided a specific example of a topic with existential importance. I responded to it. I do not think you can make an argument against gay marriage which treats all sexualities equally, by very definition. If you feel you have an argument about why the government should deny homosexuals the right to marriage, but that does not treat homosexuals as lesser than heterosexual people, I'm all ears!
    - rustler 8y ago
      > I do not think you can make an argument against gay marriage which treats all sexualities equally, by very definition. How can I reasonably be expected share my argument, if by your own criteria I'll be guilty of harassment if you disagree? That's the stifling effect of "disagreement is harassment". Think about it. By your criteria, discussion can't even happen if anyone's rights are at stake. Yet any meaningful disagreement will involve someone's rights - what is the extent of a right, and under what conditions can it be circumscribed. All of this talk is now off limits. Maybe you should try to make sure you can win these arguments instead of preemptively banning them. PS: I'm really not interested in gay marriage. As I said it's just an example of suppressing debate. Compare to how Red evangelicals will invite atheists to publicly debate evolution, which I think is more constructive. I can give more examples of Blue debate-silencing through harassment claims but this seems sufficient illustrative.
      - eeeuo 8y ago
        I encouraged you to make the argument and said "I'm all ears". That hardly seems like preemptively banning your argument. I am genuinely interested, please indulge us with your argument.
        rustler 8y ago
        "You can say what you like, but if I don't agree then you've harassed me." You can't have it both ways.
        eeeuo 8y ago
        I don't think that dissent is harassment. I think a very narrow segment of speech is harassment, namely that people deserve less because of their religion, race, gender or sexuality. I'm surprised you view this as contentious.
        rustler 8y ago
        I don't think that's well-defined enough to unilaterally shut down debate. What if my religion tells me I can't work 6 months out of the year, and I need the same job protection Christians get for not working on Christmas and Easter? What if I'm asexual and I'm denied the tax benefits married people get? You're saying not only are these claims automatically granted, but that just discussing them is a punishable offense. Also why is "religion, race, gender or sexuality" the holy quartet? Why not ageism, ablism, lookism, or my rights as a short person? Why are those open to debate while the others aren't?

eeeuo 8y ago

Okay, but you've now moved the goal posts from "mere dissent is harassment" to "people suggesting that I deserve fewer human rights than them is harassment" which, well, yeah. Arguments containing a premise that the other side is a lesser human generally don't go well. I don't think that is unique to this situation.

rustler 8y ago
To be clear: my company offers a maternity benefit that's more generous than their paternity benefit. I want to change that. If you offer any disagreement, then you are imputing I deserve fewer human rights, saying I am a "lesser human" than you, and thus you are harassing me. Correct? Nevermind which side is right: mere disagreement is harassment.
- eeeuo 8y ago
  You provided a specific example of a topic with existential importance. I responded to it. I do not think you can make an argument against gay marriage which treats all sexualities equally, by very definition. If you feel you have an argument about why the government should deny homosexuals the right to marriage, but that does not treat homosexuals as lesser than heterosexual people, I'm all ears!
  - rustler 8y ago
    > I do not think you can make an argument against gay marriage which treats all sexualities equally, by very definition. How can I reasonably be expected share my argument, if by your own criteria I'll be guilty of harassment if you disagree? That's the stifling effect of "disagreement is harassment". Think about it. By your criteria, discussion can't even happen if anyone's rights are at stake. Yet any meaningful disagreement will involve someone's rights - what is the extent of a right, and under what conditions can it be circumscribed. All of this talk is now off limits. Maybe you should try to make sure you can win these arguments instead of preemptively banning them. PS: I'm really not interested in gay marriage. As I said it's just an example of suppressing debate. Compare to how Red evangelicals will invite atheists to publicly debate evolution, which I think is more constructive. I can give more examples of Blue debate-silencing through harassment claims but this seems sufficient illustrative.
    - eeeuo 8y ago
      I encouraged you to make the argument and said "I'm all ears". That hardly seems like preemptively banning your argument. I am genuinely interested, please indulge us with your argument.
      - rustler 8y ago
        "You can say what you like, but if I don't agree then you've harassed me." You can't have it both ways.
        eeeuo 8y ago
        I don't think that dissent is harassment. I think a very narrow segment of speech is harassment, namely that people deserve less because of their religion, race, gender or sexuality. I'm surprised you view this as contentious.
        rustler 8y ago
        I don't think that's well-defined enough to unilaterally shut down debate. What if my religion tells me I can't work 6 months out of the year, and I need the same job protection Christians get for not working on Christmas and Easter? What if I'm asexual and I'm denied the tax benefits married people get? You're saying not only are these claims automatically granted, but that just discussing them is a punishable offense. Also why is "religion, race, gender or sexuality" the holy quartet? Why not ageism, ablism, lookism, or my rights as a short person? Why are those open to debate while the others aren't?