3 ms·

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.
  - jl6 5y ago
    Who is passing laws restricting nonbinary people from participating in public life?
    - ModernMech 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_non-binary_people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_non-bin... In particular, there is a very strong conservative movement in the US dedicated to the idea there are exactly two genders, and they are very intent on legislating as such, just as they legislated gay people from participating in public institutions such as marriage.
      - jl6 5y ago
        I see no examples in that article of laws restricting nonbinary people from participating in public life, and somewhat the opposite (recognition of nonbinary as a protected characteristic under anti-discrimination laws).
        ModernMech 5y ago
        It's amazing to me that same-sex marriage was legalized just in 2015 by the slimmest of margins (a decision that wouldn't have been made by the current court, and is vowed to be legislated away by the GOP), we're on the cusp of a new moral panic regarding transgendered people, and you're still requesting to be spoon feed proof that this discrimination exists, even after I already spoon fed it to you. Here's another spoonful: https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/15/politics/anti-transgender-legislation-2021/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/15/politics/anti-transgender-leg...
        jl6 5y ago
        You seem to be equating nonbinary and transgender. I’m quite aware of the state of play on transgender bathroom bills and sports inclusion, but I’m really genuinely unaware of any legislation that would prevent nonbinary people from participating in things like marriage (we’re taking about legislation aren’t we? Not discrimination in general?)

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.
- jl6 5y ago
  Who is passing laws restricting nonbinary people from participating in public life?
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_non-binary_people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_non-bin... In particular, there is a very strong conservative movement in the US dedicated to the idea there are exactly two genders, and they are very intent on legislating as such, just as they legislated gay people from participating in public institutions such as marriage.
    - jl6 5y ago
      I see no examples in that article of laws restricting nonbinary people from participating in public life, and somewhat the opposite (recognition of nonbinary as a protected characteristic under anti-discrimination laws).
      - ModernMech 5y ago
        It's amazing to me that same-sex marriage was legalized just in 2015 by the slimmest of margins (a decision that wouldn't have been made by the current court, and is vowed to be legislated away by the GOP), we're on the cusp of a new moral panic regarding transgendered people, and you're still requesting to be spoon feed proof that this discrimination exists, even after I already spoon fed it to you. Here's another spoonful: https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/15/politics/anti-transgender-legislation-2021/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/15/politics/anti-transgender-leg...
        jl6 5y ago
        You seem to be equating nonbinary and transgender. I’m quite aware of the state of play on transgender bathroom bills and sports inclusion, but I’m really genuinely unaware of any legislation that would prevent nonbinary people from participating in things like marriage (we’re taking about legislation aren’t we? Not discrimination in general?)