3 ms·
> We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. All fine and good, but the authors need to specificall
by recursivedoubts 6y ago
> We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences.
All fine and good, but the authors need to specifically say what topics good faith disagreement can be had on or this is just special pleading on behalf of their particular point on the ideological spectrum.
- slowmovintarget 6y agoDon't you have that backward? If they had to specify the topics, then that would be special pleading. As it is, they're making a case for the default position; "general pleading" so to speak.
- cosmiccatnap 6y agoWell one of their viewpoints is that trans people are fake so...I think when your belief system is built to hurt someone else's personal life choices we can somewhat safely invalidate you. Nobody is stopping her from free speech is the point, they are simply upset that people don't agree with their bigotry and the irony of course is they feel persecuted for how they feel and what they believe which is exactly the point they don't get from the side being critical of them.