6 ms·

Generally extreme ones. You can be politically on the right and espouse views such as "lower taxes, smaller government, less regulation" but spilling over into

Generally extreme ones. You can be politically on the right and espouse views such as "lower taxes, smaller government, less regulation" but spilling over into racism is what would be termed "wrong". The right are not at risk of being deplatformed,the racist right is.

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
That is a very narrow view. Take, for example, transgenders in women's sport. Do they have an unfair biological advantage over natural women? Are you a transphobe if you think so? Should you be cancelled and deplatformed if you think so? With so many potentially offensible groups, and with offense definition shifting so often, are you sure that something totally ok now won't deplatform you in 5 years?
- cmeacham98 6y ago
  I have never seen somebody cancelled for an opinion similar to "Transgender women have an inherent advantage in women's sports due to the biological advantage of their body producing testosterone." I have seen people disagree with this opinion, but never call it immoral or transphobic. What I _have_ seen people get (correctly) called a transphobe for is the opinion "Transgender women should not be in women's sports because they are men."
  - tux1968 6y ago
    > I have never seen somebody cancelled for an opinion similar to "Transgender women have an inherent advantage in women's sports due to the biological advantage of their body producing testosterone." So should a human born as a woman who happens to naturally have higher testosterone than is typical in other women, be excluded from women's sport? Of course not. > "Transgender women should not be in women's sports because they are men." Really? That's offensive? The reason they have higher testosterone is because they are men. That doesn't mean we should stand in their way of living however they want, or demean them in any way. But we should not have to lie about their biological constitution as being the reason we deem it unfair. It's not their level of testosterone that makes it unfair, it's because they come by that level of testosterone by way of being a man... if a woman naturally has the same level of testosterone, it would be fair and she shouldn't be excluded. Maybe the answer is just doing away with all gender based distinctions, have no sports leagues separated on the basis of gender at all. Of course, that has its own problems.
    - celticninja 6y ago
      I guess with that specific statement it would depend on context. In a civil discussion it would be fine, however if you posted it on a trans athletes forum it would be offensive. You have sought out someone who would likely be offended in order to make that statement. As part of a debate etc it is a perfectly fine statement to debate/discuss.
      - tux1968 6y ago
        These are thorny issues, and for the record I do want everyone to live a happy and productive life as free from injustice as possible. But from my perspective the accusations of racism, transphobia, and sexism are thrown around way too loosely today, without the attention to context that you recommend. Even when the context is inappropriate and the language is inflammatory, it may just be socially inept rather than hate filled malice.
    - cmeacham98 6y ago
      > Really? That's offensive? Yes, intentionally misgendering a trans person is offensive and transphobic??? > The reason they have higher testosterone is because they are men. This is needlessyly pedantic. My comment doesn't include the detail of _why_ they have increased testortorone because it is obvious. Really, what I meant to express was something like "because their biological sex is male" but writing that is awkward and the most obvious/common interpretation of "because they are men" is transphobic.
      - tux1968 6y ago
        > "because their biological sex is male" but writing that is awkward and the most obvious/common interpretation of "because they are men" is transphobic. This is needlessyly pedantic.
        cmeacham98 6y ago
        Disagree. "Trans women are men", in a similar vein to using he/his to refer to trans women, is a tactic used by bigots to indicate that they believe trans women are not "real women" and should be universally treated by society as men. When writing my comment I don't want to have to insert several sentences explaining the nuance that I understand and respect the gender of trans women, but that this is one of those rare cases where we might need to treat them as their biological sex, because that is what determines things about their physical body, and their physical body is what matters right now. As such, I intentionally avoid vague phrases commonly used by transphobes today.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    > What I _have_ seen people get (correctly) called a transphobe for is the opinion "Transgender women should not be in women's sports because they are men." Arguing that women should be excluded from women's sport is untenable. The respectful position isn't "trans women are a special type of women where they get the pronoun but none of the privileges". It is "you're a woman".
    - konjin 6y ago
      Womb bearers needs special protections that former penis bearers do not need.
      - celticninja 6y ago
        This sort of comment is transphobic. It adds nothing to the conversation and is made just to demean a group of peeople you dislike.
        konjin 6y ago
        This sort of comment is sexist. It adds nothing to the conversation and is made just to demean a group of people you dislike.
    - cmeacham98 6y ago
      I disagree. What about a situation where a cisgendered man prefers having sex with people that also have dicks? Typically, we would call this person gay, which we interpret as "men who have sex with men". However, this person would want to have sex with cis men and trans women, not because they're transphobic, but because their preference is based on the person's physical body. My point with the example is that there are rare cases where treating everyone (including trans people) as their biological sex is warranted because we are talking about situations where their sex explicitly matters (i.e. usually something related to their physical body). As to whether or not it makes sense in sports? I don't know, I haven't put much thought into it. But I don't think arguing either perspective is inherently transphobic or disrespectful.
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
  The narrow view is the intention I think. They want to “allow right wing views” as long as they are the milk toast “well we just disagree about how much money the government should get, the acceptable options are A LOT and MORE”. When it really gets into it, totally reasonable positions that one side just doesn’t want to hear suddenly become “racist” or “extreme”. And to the latter part - no. No one ever thinks their views will be the wrong ones. This lack of foresight seems to be a recent thing in my opinion.
- celticninja 6y ago
  I understand your point. I am not for or against here, I am providing context. Yes it is a slippery slope argument, however it is almost unique to the United States due to free speech being enshrined in the constitution. Elsewhere free speech come with the caveat "don't be a dick", so you can say what you want e.g trans women should not compete in women's sport, but abusing trans women athletes is not acceptable.and yes societies views could change and even your inoccous statement could become a problem, but if social views have changed shouldn't you reasses your own views? Also good internet hygiene would resolve this issue. delete your tweets every so often, comments etc. Nothing good ever came from resurrecting a 5year old tweet.
  - xwolfi 6y ago
    Well it's not just don't be a dick, it's also "think of the consequence at every level" ! So if for instance in France I wanted to say "it's important to discuss the possibility the holocaust was an american manipulation", I m not a dick, maybe it s true it s important to discuss it, but you still have to shut the fuck up and think very deeply abt why you think that has to be said. Most places free speech is defended, just challenged more. For instance the guy who dared say "for me, Islam is a stupid religion", got challenged in court for years but eventually prevailed: you can express your opinion of a religion. Just be sure that had to be said, cause it s gonna get expensive.
    - fallingknife 6y ago
      So if you say something unpopular, but legal, expect to be harassed by the government? Sounds great!
- user-the-name 6y ago
  That is a very popular topic among the far right. I guess that is just a completely random coincidence, and nothing at all to do with it being hateful.
nomdep 6y ago
Even not working for free for someone "against racism" (and/or beign a little religious) is enough these days, like when some people try to cancel Chris Pratt for not doing a fundraising for Biden. https://www.deseret.com/indepth/2020/10/19/21523754/chris-pratt-avengers-fundraiser-for-joe-biden-and-twitter-denounced-him-christian-faith https://www.deseret.com/indepth/2020/10/19/21523754/chris-pr...
- user-the-name 6y ago
  So he was kicked off Youtube for this?

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago

That is a very narrow view. Take, for example, transgenders in women's sport. Do they have an unfair biological advantage over natural women? Are you a transphobe if you think so? Should you be cancelled and deplatformed if you think so? With so many potentially offensible groups, and with offense definition shifting so often, are you sure that something totally ok now won't deplatform you in 5 years?

cmeacham98 6y ago
I have never seen somebody cancelled for an opinion similar to "Transgender women have an inherent advantage in women's sports due to the biological advantage of their body producing testosterone." I have seen people disagree with this opinion, but never call it immoral or transphobic. What I _have_ seen people get (correctly) called a transphobe for is the opinion "Transgender women should not be in women's sports because they are men."
- tux1968 6y ago
  > I have never seen somebody cancelled for an opinion similar to "Transgender women have an inherent advantage in women's sports due to the biological advantage of their body producing testosterone." So should a human born as a woman who happens to naturally have higher testosterone than is typical in other women, be excluded from women's sport? Of course not. > "Transgender women should not be in women's sports because they are men." Really? That's offensive? The reason they have higher testosterone is because they are men. That doesn't mean we should stand in their way of living however they want, or demean them in any way. But we should not have to lie about their biological constitution as being the reason we deem it unfair. It's not their level of testosterone that makes it unfair, it's because they come by that level of testosterone by way of being a man... if a woman naturally has the same level of testosterone, it would be fair and she shouldn't be excluded. Maybe the answer is just doing away with all gender based distinctions, have no sports leagues separated on the basis of gender at all. Of course, that has its own problems.
  - celticninja 6y ago
    I guess with that specific statement it would depend on context. In a civil discussion it would be fine, however if you posted it on a trans athletes forum it would be offensive. You have sought out someone who would likely be offended in order to make that statement. As part of a debate etc it is a perfectly fine statement to debate/discuss.
    - tux1968 6y ago
      These are thorny issues, and for the record I do want everyone to live a happy and productive life as free from injustice as possible. But from my perspective the accusations of racism, transphobia, and sexism are thrown around way too loosely today, without the attention to context that you recommend. Even when the context is inappropriate and the language is inflammatory, it may just be socially inept rather than hate filled malice.
  - cmeacham98 6y ago
    > Really? That's offensive? Yes, intentionally misgendering a trans person is offensive and transphobic??? > The reason they have higher testosterone is because they are men. This is needlessyly pedantic. My comment doesn't include the detail of _why_ they have increased testortorone because it is obvious. Really, what I meant to express was something like "because their biological sex is male" but writing that is awkward and the most obvious/common interpretation of "because they are men" is transphobic.
    - tux1968 6y ago
      > "because their biological sex is male" but writing that is awkward and the most obvious/common interpretation of "because they are men" is transphobic. This is needlessyly pedantic.
      - cmeacham98 6y ago
        Disagree. "Trans women are men", in a similar vein to using he/his to refer to trans women, is a tactic used by bigots to indicate that they believe trans women are not "real women" and should be universally treated by society as men. When writing my comment I don't want to have to insert several sentences explaining the nuance that I understand and respect the gender of trans women, but that this is one of those rare cases where we might need to treat them as their biological sex, because that is what determines things about their physical body, and their physical body is what matters right now. As such, I intentionally avoid vague phrases commonly used by transphobes today.
- roenxi 6y ago
  > What I _have_ seen people get (correctly) called a transphobe for is the opinion "Transgender women should not be in women's sports because they are men." Arguing that women should be excluded from women's sport is untenable. The respectful position isn't "trans women are a special type of women where they get the pronoun but none of the privileges". It is "you're a woman".
  - konjin 6y ago
    Womb bearers needs special protections that former penis bearers do not need.
    - celticninja 6y ago
      This sort of comment is transphobic. It adds nothing to the conversation and is made just to demean a group of peeople you dislike.
      - konjin 6y ago
        This sort of comment is sexist. It adds nothing to the conversation and is made just to demean a group of people you dislike.
  - cmeacham98 6y ago
    I disagree. What about a situation where a cisgendered man prefers having sex with people that also have dicks? Typically, we would call this person gay, which we interpret as "men who have sex with men". However, this person would want to have sex with cis men and trans women, not because they're transphobic, but because their preference is based on the person's physical body. My point with the example is that there are rare cases where treating everyone (including trans people) as their biological sex is warranted because we are talking about situations where their sex explicitly matters (i.e. usually something related to their physical body). As to whether or not it makes sense in sports? I don't know, I haven't put much thought into it. But I don't think arguing either perspective is inherently transphobic or disrespectful.
SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
The narrow view is the intention I think. They want to “allow right wing views” as long as they are the milk toast “well we just disagree about how much money the government should get, the acceptable options are A LOT and MORE”. When it really gets into it, totally reasonable positions that one side just doesn’t want to hear suddenly become “racist” or “extreme”. And to the latter part - no. No one ever thinks their views will be the wrong ones. This lack of foresight seems to be a recent thing in my opinion.
celticninja 6y ago
I understand your point. I am not for or against here, I am providing context. Yes it is a slippery slope argument, however it is almost unique to the United States due to free speech being enshrined in the constitution. Elsewhere free speech come with the caveat "don't be a dick", so you can say what you want e.g trans women should not compete in women's sport, but abusing trans women athletes is not acceptable.and yes societies views could change and even your inoccous statement could become a problem, but if social views have changed shouldn't you reasses your own views? Also good internet hygiene would resolve this issue. delete your tweets every so often, comments etc. Nothing good ever came from resurrecting a 5year old tweet.
- xwolfi 6y ago
  Well it's not just don't be a dick, it's also "think of the consequence at every level" ! So if for instance in France I wanted to say "it's important to discuss the possibility the holocaust was an american manipulation", I m not a dick, maybe it s true it s important to discuss it, but you still have to shut the fuck up and think very deeply abt why you think that has to be said. Most places free speech is defended, just challenged more. For instance the guy who dared say "for me, Islam is a stupid religion", got challenged in court for years but eventually prevailed: you can express your opinion of a religion. Just be sure that had to be said, cause it s gonna get expensive.
  - fallingknife 6y ago
    So if you say something unpopular, but legal, expect to be harassed by the government? Sounds great!
user-the-name 6y ago
That is a very popular topic among the far right. I guess that is just a completely random coincidence, and nothing at all to do with it being hateful.

nomdep 6y ago

Even not working for free for someone "against racism" (and/or beign a little religious) is enough these days, like when some people try to cancel Chris Pratt for not doing a fundraising for Biden. https://www.deseret.com/indepth/2020/10/19/21523754/chris-pratt-avengers-fundraiser-for-joe-biden-and-twitter-denounced-him-christian-faith https://www.deseret.com/indepth/2020/10/19/21523754/chris-pr...

user-the-name 6y ago
So he was kicked off Youtube for this?