3 ms·

> sex, race, and sexual orientation You're going to have a hard time convicing me that any of these are mutable. While the presentation of sex and sexual orien

> sex, race, and sexual orientation You're going to have a hard time convicing me that any of these are mutable. While the presentation of sex and sexual orientation may be mutable (someone can be female passing or straight passing) their orientation or sex itself is not. Similarly while someone can be white passing or codeswitch, their race itself cannot be changed. Mutability of presentation doesn't make the underlying thing mutable. Nor does something being a social construct make it mutable. To put it concretely, if I'm bisexual, just because I can date only opposite-gendered people doesn't mean that I'm straight. Similarly, just because race is in many ways socially constructed doesn't mean that I can stop being black or white or whatever, at least not without convincing society to change its definitions.

rukittenme 6y ago
I'm not the one making the argument. Other people are. And you are missing the point. Let me ask you a question. Should your comment be censored? > You're going to have a hard time convicing me that any of these are mutable. Hate speech (and violence). > While the presentation of sex and sexual orientation may be mutable (someone can be female passing or straight passing) their orientation or sex itself is not. Transphobic. Homophobic. > Similarly while someone can be white passing or codeswitch, their race itself cannot be changed. Racist. > doesn't mean that I can stop being black or white or whatever, at least not without convincing society to change its definitions. ... proving my point? They're not objective criteria. Which means you aren't censoring "immutable characteristics". You're censoring political speech. Opinion and group identity are mutable and they are the basis for hate speech definitions. --- If you don't think you've made three hateful statements in one comment then you haven't been paying attention. This is where the political debate is. If you're ignorant of it then you have no business appointing censors.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  If you assume the censor is grossly incompetent and overreaching then they don't need a rule against hate speech, they can just label everything spam. And good fucking luck if you try to make a site where spam is never deleted.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > I'm not the one making the argument. Other people are. And you are missing the point. No, you're here, right now, making the argument. > If you don't think you've made three hateful statements in one comment then you haven't been paying attention. You're going to have to do more than type the word "racist" or "transphobic" to explain why the things I've said are transphobic or racist. I'm quite aware of the words I chose and the groups I chose. If you have a legitimate grievance as to why my statements were transphobic or homophobic, please explain. But short of that I have to believe you aren't commenting in good faith. > Opinion and group identity are mutable Sure. But the characteristics that people can pick to identify people as an out-group aren't. Once society has picked a definition of white, I can't stop myself from being under that definition. And while you're correct that it may, with time, be possible to change society's opinion on what is good or bad, in the meantime it harms a bunch of people discriminated against for things they have no control over. To those people, the characteristics society cares about are immutable. So until society has progressed to the point that we don't give a shit what someone's race is (and don't tie it to a skin color or whatnot), and don't want to discriminate against people who are attracted to people of the same sex, we should prevent hate speech based on the immutable characteristics of race and sexual orientation.
  - rukittenme 6y ago
    I think you and I are arguing on different levels and its leading to a confused discussion. So lets move from the abstract to the concrete. I don't know your opinion on trans-people. I'm sure it is a fair and compassionate position. Please don't think I'm criticizing you or your beliefs on trans-people. I'm challenging your belief that hate speech can be objectively enforced. Nothing else. Sex is defined as: > either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions. You said: > While the presentation of sex and sexual orientation may be mutable (someone can be female passing or straight passing) their orientation or sex itself is not. Your thesis therefore is: > A trans-person can adopt the form of a male or female but can not actually become a male or female. It is impossible for that person to assume the reproductive function of the opposite sex. The characteristic is immutable. Your argument for enforcing hate speech regulations is: > public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a group based on immutable characteristics. The statement "trans-women are not female" is not hate speech under your definition. Correct? If so you are in an interesting position. You have a direct line of communication to our censor. I would encourage you to post on your company's discussion board "it is not possible for a trans-person to change their sex". Or "trans-women are not female". Or "sex-change operations can not change a person's sex". Be realistic with me. Can you imagine a scenario where those comments are received as plainly as "I prefer Warren over Sanders" or something similarly political but demure. Can you imagine a world where a significant fraction of the Bay Area would call you a transphobe and a bigot for those statements? Can you imagine a world where you keep your job after saying that? Surely politics enters your company's discussion board from time to time. Would those statements fit well within the political discussion that takes place within your company? I'm not asking rhetorically. I'm looking for your honest insight into the beliefs and attitudes of the people you work with and for. Finally my argument: > You can define hate-speech however you like. Enforcement of it will always depend on the attitudes of the group enforcing speech. The group enforcing the speech are your co-workers. Can you guarantee they will adhere to your strict definition of hate speech? Can you guarantee it will always be applied fairly and with restraint? Can you guarantee there will be appropriate appeals and review processes? If not how can you support censorship this close to the margins? > > If you truly believe that this sort of censorship can be carried out effectively and with restraint: prove it. Make the post and I'll read about it on the evening news. --- Disclaimer: I have not and will not share my opinion of trans issues on this forum. Please do not interpret anything I've said as argument for or against trans rights.

rukittenme 6y ago

I'm not the one making the argument. Other people are. And you are missing the point. Let me ask you a question. Should your comment be censored? > You're going to have a hard time convicing me that any of these are mutable. Hate speech (and violence). > While the presentation of sex and sexual orientation may be mutable (someone can be female passing or straight passing) their orientation or sex itself is not. Transphobic. Homophobic. > Similarly while someone can be white passing or codeswitch, their race itself cannot be changed. Racist. > doesn't mean that I can stop being black or white or whatever, at least not without convincing society to change its definitions. ... proving my point? They're not objective criteria. Which means you aren't censoring "immutable characteristics". You're censoring political speech. Opinion and group identity are mutable and they are the basis for hate speech definitions. --- If you don't think you've made three hateful statements in one comment then you haven't been paying attention. This is where the political debate is. If you're ignorant of it then you have no business appointing censors.

Dylan16807 6y ago
If you assume the censor is grossly incompetent and overreaching then they don't need a rule against hate speech, they can just label everything spam. And good fucking luck if you try to make a site where spam is never deleted.
joshuamorton 6y ago
> I'm not the one making the argument. Other people are. And you are missing the point. No, you're here, right now, making the argument. > If you don't think you've made three hateful statements in one comment then you haven't been paying attention. You're going to have to do more than type the word "racist" or "transphobic" to explain why the things I've said are transphobic or racist. I'm quite aware of the words I chose and the groups I chose. If you have a legitimate grievance as to why my statements were transphobic or homophobic, please explain. But short of that I have to believe you aren't commenting in good faith. > Opinion and group identity are mutable Sure. But the characteristics that people can pick to identify people as an out-group aren't. Once society has picked a definition of white, I can't stop myself from being under that definition. And while you're correct that it may, with time, be possible to change society's opinion on what is good or bad, in the meantime it harms a bunch of people discriminated against for things they have no control over. To those people, the characteristics society cares about are immutable. So until society has progressed to the point that we don't give a shit what someone's race is (and don't tie it to a skin color or whatnot), and don't want to discriminate against people who are attracted to people of the same sex, we should prevent hate speech based on the immutable characteristics of race and sexual orientation.
- rukittenme 6y ago
  I think you and I are arguing on different levels and its leading to a confused discussion. So lets move from the abstract to the concrete. I don't know your opinion on trans-people. I'm sure it is a fair and compassionate position. Please don't think I'm criticizing you or your beliefs on trans-people. I'm challenging your belief that hate speech can be objectively enforced. Nothing else. Sex is defined as: > either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions. You said: > While the presentation of sex and sexual orientation may be mutable (someone can be female passing or straight passing) their orientation or sex itself is not. Your thesis therefore is: > A trans-person can adopt the form of a male or female but can not actually become a male or female. It is impossible for that person to assume the reproductive function of the opposite sex. The characteristic is immutable. Your argument for enforcing hate speech regulations is: > public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a group based on immutable characteristics. The statement "trans-women are not female" is not hate speech under your definition. Correct? If so you are in an interesting position. You have a direct line of communication to our censor. I would encourage you to post on your company's discussion board "it is not possible for a trans-person to change their sex". Or "trans-women are not female". Or "sex-change operations can not change a person's sex". Be realistic with me. Can you imagine a scenario where those comments are received as plainly as "I prefer Warren over Sanders" or something similarly political but demure. Can you imagine a world where a significant fraction of the Bay Area would call you a transphobe and a bigot for those statements? Can you imagine a world where you keep your job after saying that? Surely politics enters your company's discussion board from time to time. Would those statements fit well within the political discussion that takes place within your company? I'm not asking rhetorically. I'm looking for your honest insight into the beliefs and attitudes of the people you work with and for. Finally my argument: > You can define hate-speech however you like. Enforcement of it will always depend on the attitudes of the group enforcing speech. The group enforcing the speech are your co-workers. Can you guarantee they will adhere to your strict definition of hate speech? Can you guarantee it will always be applied fairly and with restraint? Can you guarantee there will be appropriate appeals and review processes? If not how can you support censorship this close to the margins? > > If you truly believe that this sort of censorship can be carried out effectively and with restraint: prove it. Make the post and I'll read about it on the evening news. --- Disclaimer: I have not and will not share my opinion of trans issues on this forum. Please do not interpret anything I've said as argument for or against trans rights.