4 ms·

Just for clarification, I'm not vimy. But further more, he didn't say he wanted to mock people, but the concept of "non-binary" as presently accepted in our so

Just for clarification, I'm not vimy. But further more, he didn't say he wanted to mock people, but the concept of "non-binary" as presently accepted in our society (and presumably related concepts around gender identity) because he concludes it is nonsense. Pksebben is not arguing with vimy about whether the concept of "non-binary" is meaningful or coherent; Pksebben is merely making the accusation that vimy is rationalizing his desire to mock other people. If I say you have an incoherent view of the world, and you claim that I only think that because I'm a mean person who wants to hurt people, then I'm not going to find you persuasive.

onion2k 5y ago
he didn't say he wanted to mock people, but the concept of "non-binary" as presently accepted in our society You can't separate the two things though. Mocking a belief is the same as mocking people who hold that belief. If someone says "I am a man" and someone else says "Men don't exist" then it's entirely fair to say the second person is attacking the first. They are. Maybe that's OK under the guises of free speech though. You can't then also say that the first person should be free to say what they want without acknowledging that the second group should be able to call them out for it (aka cancel them). There's no reasonable way for the first person to have the freedom to say what they like without the second group also being able to say what they like. Cancelling just means that the first person is scared of the consequences of the second person being upset. Well, tough luck. If you're scared of the consequences of your actions then you don't get to do those actions.
- ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago
  You can separate the two things, most people are multidimensional. I have a lot of friends that I respect who hold abhorrent beliefs. You can say that the first person should be free to say whatever they want, and that the people affected by it should be able to say whatever they want, that's completely irrelevant to the issue. Cancelling means someone losing their financial safety and that of their family for expressing their opinion. If your response to this is "tough luck", I'd say you're showing a lot of privilege, and lack of empathy that'd get you cancelled if expressed about one of the hot button social issues. You cannot both claim there is free speech (the principle) and that it's fine that people get fired for what they say, it is fundamentally incompatible.
  - d_e_solomon 5y ago
    > Cancelling means someone losing their financial safety and that of their family for expressing their opinion. If your response to this is "tough luck", I'd say you're showing a lot of privilege, and lack of empathy that'd get you cancelled if expressed about one of the hot button social issues. Tell a racist joke at work, and there are good odds you'll get fired. Tell a sexist joke at work, and odds are good, you'll get fired. Are you going to argue that freedom of speech should prevent you from being fired for telling a racist or sexist jokes?
    - ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago
      Three points with regards to that scenario you laid out. First, I won't be fired. If I make such a joke around colleagues who know me, they'll probably take me apart and tell me they found it hurtful and I'll apologize and it'll end there. If I do it around someone who feels more strongly about it, I'll have to have a serious talk with people I know and who know me in HR and in my hierarchy, who value my contributions, understand the larger context of the person that I am and my personal circumstances, yet recognize I did something inappropriate that needs to be addressed and corrected, and importantly with whom I have a contract enforced by the state. That's a whole lot more nuance, maturity and sanity than getting a hundred thousand people calling for your job online because you made a joke. Second, the way you behave at work and outside of work are not equivalent. If I'm just some lambda employee, no reasonable person should assume I speak for my company when I express myself on a non-professional public platform. Third, nobody holds the ultimate truth about what is sexist, racist and to a larger extent right and wrong wrt current social and political issues. That's the nature of social and political issues, there are two sides, one is not good and the other evil. If your job depends on complying with online zealots representing a single extremist side of an issue, you are in essence forbidding some political opinions.
      - d_e_solomon 5y ago
        Sure, there's process at most jobs for disciplining employees - but there are generally still consequences for speech that is racist, sexist, and so on. If a company doesn't enforce those standards, they will probably find their legal bills becoming very expensive. Ergo, there are consequences for speech in the workplace. If an employee takes part in a KKK rally, should their employer turn a blind eye towards it if they find out? If a person advocates for killing gay people online, should their employer ignore it? If the employer ignores it, then there is a good chance that black people or gay people won't work for them. Why? Because gay people won't feel safe working next to someone who advocates their death.
- golergka 5y ago
  > Mocking a belief is the same as mocking people who hold that belief. So, do you defend defend creationists with the same vigor when their beliefs are being mocked?
  - onion2k 5y ago
    I'm saying mocking creationism is the same as mocking creationists, sure. I'm not defending them though. They can defend themselves if they want. They don't need my help.
    - golergka 5y ago
      Why the difference?
      - jl6 5y ago
        Not OP and not agreeing with this, but I believe the purported difference is that some beliefs are granted the status of identity, which makes them in some sense sacrosanct. The (faulty) chain of logic goes: 1. You are challenging my belief. 2. This belief is about part of who I am. 3. Therefore you are challenging me and/or my existence.
        leereeves 5y ago
        If it's about "challenging me and/or my existence", why is acceptable to make jokes about, say, bald people? Why hasn't Chris Rock been cancelled?
        ModernMech 5y ago
        > I believe the purported difference is that some beliefs are granted the status of identity, which makes them in some sense sacrosanct. The (faulty) chain of logic goes: In the case of mocking, I would say there's no difference between the two. Mocking either creationists or nonbinary people is mean-spirited and a wrong thing to do. In fact, I've always had quite a problem with Richard Dawkins for this very reason. But I'm not going to say that either one should be deplatformed or anything like that. When it comes to laws then there is a big difference between the two. In the case of creationists, no one is creating laws restricting creationists from participating in public life. It's true that people have an issue with creationists teaching creationism as fact, but that's a different matter entirely. However, on the other side what we see are laws against certain people existing in public places. That's what we mean by "challenging me and/or my existence." It's not, "You can't talk about creationism here". Instead it's, "You can't be here if you believe in creationism", which I don't think is a law anywhere. And yet in the past many people have passed such laws against minorities of all kinds restricting them using attributes they can't change about themselves. This is what you perceive as "granted the status of identity, which makes them in some sense sacrosanct". While it's true that being a Christian and believing in creationism is in some sense an immutable property of one's self identity, at the same time no one is passing laws barring Christians from bathrooms because the Catholic Church has a problem with harboring pedophiles.
- tome 5y ago
  > If you're scared of the consequences of your actions then you don't get to do those actions. I’m pretty sure you don’t actually believe that.

onion2k 5y ago

he didn't say he wanted to mock people, but the concept of "non-binary" as presently accepted in our society You can't separate the two things though. Mocking a belief is the same as mocking people who hold that belief. If someone says "I am a man" and someone else says "Men don't exist" then it's entirely fair to say the second person is attacking the first. They are. Maybe that's OK under the guises of free speech though. You can't then also say that the first person should be free to say what they want without acknowledging that the second group should be able to call them out for it (aka cancel them). There's no reasonable way for the first person to have the freedom to say what they like without the second group also being able to say what they like. Cancelling just means that the first person is scared of the consequences of the second person being upset. Well, tough luck. If you're scared of the consequences of your actions then you don't get to do those actions.

ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago
You can separate the two things, most people are multidimensional. I have a lot of friends that I respect who hold abhorrent beliefs. You can say that the first person should be free to say whatever they want, and that the people affected by it should be able to say whatever they want, that's completely irrelevant to the issue. Cancelling means someone losing their financial safety and that of their family for expressing their opinion. If your response to this is "tough luck", I'd say you're showing a lot of privilege, and lack of empathy that'd get you cancelled if expressed about one of the hot button social issues. You cannot both claim there is free speech (the principle) and that it's fine that people get fired for what they say, it is fundamentally incompatible.
- d_e_solomon 5y ago
  > Cancelling means someone losing their financial safety and that of their family for expressing their opinion. If your response to this is "tough luck", I'd say you're showing a lot of privilege, and lack of empathy that'd get you cancelled if expressed about one of the hot button social issues. Tell a racist joke at work, and there are good odds you'll get fired. Tell a sexist joke at work, and odds are good, you'll get fired. Are you going to argue that freedom of speech should prevent you from being fired for telling a racist or sexist jokes?
  - ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago
    Three points with regards to that scenario you laid out. First, I won't be fired. If I make such a joke around colleagues who know me, they'll probably take me apart and tell me they found it hurtful and I'll apologize and it'll end there. If I do it around someone who feels more strongly about it, I'll have to have a serious talk with people I know and who know me in HR and in my hierarchy, who value my contributions, understand the larger context of the person that I am and my personal circumstances, yet recognize I did something inappropriate that needs to be addressed and corrected, and importantly with whom I have a contract enforced by the state. That's a whole lot more nuance, maturity and sanity than getting a hundred thousand people calling for your job online because you made a joke. Second, the way you behave at work and outside of work are not equivalent. If I'm just some lambda employee, no reasonable person should assume I speak for my company when I express myself on a non-professional public platform. Third, nobody holds the ultimate truth about what is sexist, racist and to a larger extent right and wrong wrt current social and political issues. That's the nature of social and political issues, there are two sides, one is not good and the other evil. If your job depends on complying with online zealots representing a single extremist side of an issue, you are in essence forbidding some political opinions.
    - d_e_solomon 5y ago
      Sure, there's process at most jobs for disciplining employees - but there are generally still consequences for speech that is racist, sexist, and so on. If a company doesn't enforce those standards, they will probably find their legal bills becoming very expensive. Ergo, there are consequences for speech in the workplace. If an employee takes part in a KKK rally, should their employer turn a blind eye towards it if they find out? If a person advocates for killing gay people online, should their employer ignore it? If the employer ignores it, then there is a good chance that black people or gay people won't work for them. Why? Because gay people won't feel safe working next to someone who advocates their death.
golergka 5y ago
> Mocking a belief is the same as mocking people who hold that belief. So, do you defend defend creationists with the same vigor when their beliefs are being mocked?
- onion2k 5y ago
  I'm saying mocking creationism is the same as mocking creationists, sure. I'm not defending them though. They can defend themselves if they want. They don't need my help.
  - golergka 5y ago
    Why the difference?
    - jl6 5y ago
      Not OP and not agreeing with this, but I believe the purported difference is that some beliefs are granted the status of identity, which makes them in some sense sacrosanct. The (faulty) chain of logic goes: 1. You are challenging my belief. 2. This belief is about part of who I am. 3. Therefore you are challenging me and/or my existence.
      - leereeves 5y ago
        If it's about "challenging me and/or my existence", why is acceptable to make jokes about, say, bald people? Why hasn't Chris Rock been cancelled?
      - ModernMech 5y ago
        > I believe the purported difference is that some beliefs are granted the status of identity, which makes them in some sense sacrosanct. The (faulty) chain of logic goes: In the case of mocking, I would say there's no difference between the two. Mocking either creationists or nonbinary people is mean-spirited and a wrong thing to do. In fact, I've always had quite a problem with Richard Dawkins for this very reason. But I'm not going to say that either one should be deplatformed or anything like that. When it comes to laws then there is a big difference between the two. In the case of creationists, no one is creating laws restricting creationists from participating in public life. It's true that people have an issue with creationists teaching creationism as fact, but that's a different matter entirely. However, on the other side what we see are laws against certain people existing in public places. That's what we mean by "challenging me and/or my existence." It's not, "You can't talk about creationism here". Instead it's, "You can't be here if you believe in creationism", which I don't think is a law anywhere. And yet in the past many people have passed such laws against minorities of all kinds restricting them using attributes they can't change about themselves. This is what you perceive as "granted the status of identity, which makes them in some sense sacrosanct". While it's true that being a Christian and believing in creationism is in some sense an immutable property of one's self identity, at the same time no one is passing laws barring Christians from bathrooms because the Catholic Church has a problem with harboring pedophiles.
tome 5y ago
> If you're scared of the consequences of your actions then you don't get to do those actions. I’m pretty sure you don’t actually believe that.