3 ms·
I think LGBT deconversion programs are a form of violence. Imagine being forced to go through a "introvert deconversion" program where you have to read essays
by dwaltrip 8y ago
I think LGBT deconversion programs are a form of violence.
Imagine being forced to go through a "introvert deconversion" program where you have to read essays and do exercises that are designed to "help" you become an extrovert and shed your "shameful" and "perverted" introvert ways. LGBT deconversion is a far worse version of this.
- deogeo 8y agoMany programs could be seen as a form of violence if you're forced to go through with them.
- dwaltrip 8y agoOk, imagine your introvert friend was somehow persuaded to voluntarily go through said program. How would feel about that?
- deogeo 8y agoNot good, nor would I feel good about them going through this LGBT 'conversion' app. But I'd feel even worse about helping further normalize corporate censorship.
- dwaltrip 8y agoFair enough, that is entirely different question. I didn't intend to make any implications about that. I should have made that more clear.
- cameldrv 8y agoPeople do this all the time. Look at Toastmasters. Now, forcing someone that was highly introverted to go to Toastmasters would not be a nice thing to do. Strongly pressuring them to go when they didn't want to would also not be very nice, but that doesn't mean that Google should ban the Toastmasters app. Living in a free society means that not everyone has the same ideas about values or psychology or religion. These things will be debated long after we're all dead. Until every disagreement is resolved, the best solution we've come up with is tolerance. If someone is doing something voluntarily that's not significantly hurting you, even if you don't think it's a good idea for them, you're usually better off shutting up and ignoring it. The last people I want making these decisions is the company that makes my mobile phone operating system for god's sake.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- cco 8y agoI think your definition would make the word violence less useful. Your definition removes what makes violence a unique and useful word, i.e. that it involves physical force with the intent to hurt someone. There are better, more accurate, words to use than violence. Quick note: I'm reading your post in the most charitable light and giving you the benefit of the doubt, a less charitable reading would be that you're ok knowingly coopting a word because along with it comes a whole host of legal and ethical implications that you want to bring to bear on something that you don't like and you know that it isn't violence. I don't think you are doing this but noting it for others that may be.
- azinman2 8y agoYes, for example, abuse.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- dwaltrip 8y agoI can see where you are coming from. I went along with that word choice because it does a good job of capturing the severity of the harm, which I think is important. I'm sure there is a better word. Perhaps my sibling comment's suggestion of "abusive" is a good one. Something like "very harmful", while potentially suitable, feels rather vague and uninspiring.
- zzzcpan 8y ago> Imagine being forced to go through a "introvert deconversion" program where you have to read essays and do exercises that are designed to "help" you become an extrovert There are such programs and exercises. They are just not called that.
- dwaltrip 8y agoYou snipped out the part about treating the introversion as a shameful, perverted thing.