3 ms·

JP's claim that a relatively straightforward and insignificant anti-discrimination law resulted in "compelled speech" was part of a FUD campaign in which he cla

JP's claim that a relatively straightforward and insignificant anti-discrimination law resulted in "compelled speech" was part of a FUD campaign in which he claimed that misgendering students would result in imprisonment. In reality, it does not criminalize anything, does not make using pronouns other than the ones someone prefers hate speech, and doesn't even apply to universities at all. Describing JP as "refusing to roll over and engage in "compelled speech"." is inherently endorsing his position.

dbtx 7y ago
> Describing ... is inherently endorsing his position. Well, 'inherently' isn't even necessary... it's a bit obvious that I agreed with his take on a problem... > In reality, it does not criminalize anything ...which you're saying didn't exist. Admittedly, I didn't stay on top of that whole thing, just got wind of it back when I had a FTJ and didn't follow up on it. As a USAian who doesn't even vote I would've had to really want to know how it turned out. So I should probably do some homework. But I did see lots of the Internet start insisting on ${good_behavior} toward ${list_of_protected_statuses} in the meantime, and it was irritating. Those social contracts are also poorly written IMO-- they'll only stop expanding when people stop inventing new ways to be different and stop inventing new ways to be horrible toward those who are different. They are not a solution. Well then offer something better, you'll say. Pull your head completely out of your ass and treat everyone the way you expect to be treated. "I dunno, it's up there pretty far..." --Joe North, after he asked what it would take for us to go back to being friends like a few years before, when we were sort-of-occasionally drinking buddies, so I told him this