5 ms·

If you can have political discussion as long as you have the right opinions, that's not really a discussion is it? It's "affirm you agree with my political beli

If you can have political discussion as long as you have the right opinions, that's not really a discussion is it? It's "affirm you agree with my political beliefs or be fired". And a few parallels - what do you do about the person who's afraid of being shot if the government comes to take their guns (and thus is going to be uncomfortable with opinions leaning that way), or the person who's afraid of their kids being shot at school (and thus is going to be uncomfortable with opinions leaning towards fewer restrictions on guns)? You can't satisfy both of them without banning discussion, and a lot of issues are like that.

pjc50 7y ago
Gun ownership is not a "protected characteristic", because it's not something intrinsic to the person. Your example discusses risks and statements about the future, but not questions of identity and personhood.
- tomp 7y ago
  Religion isn't intrinsic to the person but is a protected characteristic so in reality the line isn't where you claim it is.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Also, while characteristics defined by biology or history are not choices, identity to a large extent is.
  - DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
    > Religion isn't intrinsic to the person ... Interestingly, even that statement takes a particular religious stance. Some branches of Christianity hold that a person does not choose to be Christian, but rather is chosen by God to be a Christian [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_grace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_grace
- ThrowawayR2 7y ago
  > "Gun ownership is not a "protected characteristic", because it's not something intrinsic to the person. Your example discusses risks and statements about the future, but not questions of identity and personhood." Identity is whatever a person decides it is, according to progressive doctrine, therefore it's not intrinsic to the person either. There's no objective identity-o-meter.
kelnos 7y ago
I think we're all conflating social and political opinions here. If you aren't comfortable with gay people, then that's super lame, and we're probably not going to be friends, but I wouldn't want to try to get you fired. However, if you support denying equal rights to gay people, then I don't want to be associated with you in any way. So I don't see some things as political issues at all; they have political components, and extend into politics, but they start somewhere else: I see them as human rights issues, and issues around empathy. If you're going to deny someone their existence, and are arrogant enough to proclaim that your lived experience is the be-all, end-all of everything, and that your exclusionary way of life should be enshrined in law, then I frankly just don't think you're a good person. And that has nothing to do with politics. (To stop the expected rejoinder: no, this isn't a way to justify things like pedophilia. Everyone should be able to live their life they way they want to, but the key component is: as long as they aren't hurting anyone else in the process. Gay rights doesn't hurt anyone else. Pedophilia does.) Regarding guns, I've had many productive discussions with people who own guns and staunchly support the 2nd Amendment. (My personal view is that 2A should be repealed, and we should have strict licensing and training requirements around gun ownership.) I don't know that I've changed anyone's mind, but I do feel like I understand some people better, and vice versa. With a few people I just hit an impasse; then I agree to disagree, and get on with my day. And regardless, there's plenty of room for common ground there, too. Most of the gun owners I know think it's ridiculous how easy it is to get hold of a gun, and support more restrictions and requirements. Some even agree with me that "assault style" weapons should be restricted to gun ranges (or banned entirely) and not sold to the general public. And I've fired guns at ranges before and totally get how fun it can be. I'm generally skeptical of self-defense arguments, and think defense-from-government-tyranny arguments are laughable, but there's still plenty of common ground and productive discussion to be had.
- manigandham 7y ago
  "deny someone their existence" This is one of the most overused, vague and inaccurate arguments. Nobody is denied from existing. These kind of extreme claims cause more friction than any actual discussion of the issue at hand.

pjc50 7y ago

Gun ownership is not a "protected characteristic", because it's not something intrinsic to the person. Your example discusses risks and statements about the future, but not questions of identity and personhood.

tomp 7y ago
Religion isn't intrinsic to the person but is a protected characteristic so in reality the line isn't where you claim it is.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Also, while characteristics defined by biology or history are not choices, identity to a large extent is.
- DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
  > Religion isn't intrinsic to the person ... Interestingly, even that statement takes a particular religious stance. Some branches of Christianity hold that a person does not choose to be Christian, but rather is chosen by God to be a Christian [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_grace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_grace
ThrowawayR2 7y ago
> "Gun ownership is not a "protected characteristic", because it's not something intrinsic to the person. Your example discusses risks and statements about the future, but not questions of identity and personhood." Identity is whatever a person decides it is, according to progressive doctrine, therefore it's not intrinsic to the person either. There's no objective identity-o-meter.

kelnos 7y ago

I think we're all conflating social and political opinions here. If you aren't comfortable with gay people, then that's super lame, and we're probably not going to be friends, but I wouldn't want to try to get you fired. However, if you support denying equal rights to gay people, then I don't want to be associated with you in any way. So I don't see some things as political issues at all; they have political components, and extend into politics, but they start somewhere else: I see them as human rights issues, and issues around empathy. If you're going to deny someone their existence, and are arrogant enough to proclaim that your lived experience is the be-all, end-all of everything, and that your exclusionary way of life should be enshrined in law, then I frankly just don't think you're a good person. And that has nothing to do with politics. (To stop the expected rejoinder: no, this isn't a way to justify things like pedophilia. Everyone should be able to live their life they way they want to, but the key component is: as long as they aren't hurting anyone else in the process. Gay rights doesn't hurt anyone else. Pedophilia does.) Regarding guns, I've had many productive discussions with people who own guns and staunchly support the 2nd Amendment. (My personal view is that 2A should be repealed, and we should have strict licensing and training requirements around gun ownership.) I don't know that I've changed anyone's mind, but I do feel like I understand some people better, and vice versa. With a few people I just hit an impasse; then I agree to disagree, and get on with my day. And regardless, there's plenty of room for common ground there, too. Most of the gun owners I know think it's ridiculous how easy it is to get hold of a gun, and support more restrictions and requirements. Some even agree with me that "assault style" weapons should be restricted to gun ranges (or banned entirely) and not sold to the general public. And I've fired guns at ranges before and totally get how fun it can be. I'm generally skeptical of self-defense arguments, and think defense-from-government-tyranny arguments are laughable, but there's still plenty of common ground and productive discussion to be had.

manigandham 7y ago
"deny someone their existence" This is one of the most overused, vague and inaccurate arguments. Nobody is denied from existing. These kind of extreme claims cause more friction than any actual discussion of the issue at hand.