5 ms·
> You completely skipped my point. Progressives have treated this topic this way because there is no compromise position. Isn't the compromise position to tole
by throwawaylinux 4y ago
> You completely skipped my point. Progressives have treated this topic this way because there is no compromise position.
Isn't the compromise position to tolerate everybody's own personal words and definitions? That certainly used to be the progressive position, at least up to about a decade ago.
- slg 4y agoYour "own personal words and definitions" don't matter. That is inconsequential to most trans people's live. What does impact them is the government. What definitions will they use?
- throwawaylinux 4y agoThe thread is about private people and groups speaking to one another, that is what my comment pertains to.
- slg 4y agoI don’t understand your point then. If the Babylon Bee can use their own definitions, so can Twitter. What grounds does that leave to object to a suspension based off Twitter’s definition?
- throwawaylinux 4y agoI don't understand how your question relates to my point. The compromise position is that you tolerate people's personal definitions and words, e.g., you would not demand they be punished for having or using them. I'm not saying there is some legal "grounds" you could use to bar somebody from being intolerant of what you say or think, you just asked what a compromise position would be, and tolerance is one and it's what the progressive position was for a long time.
- slg 4y agoOk, I’m glad we agree that the Babylon Bee should stop complaining about how other people define these words.
- throwawaylinux 4y agoWe don't agree on that. Pretty disingenuous and infantile that you claim that's the conclusion of my comment now, wasn't it? Do you want to actually have a conversation about this or just come up with some vapid "gotcha"? It's fundamental to democracy and a healthy public discourse that people be allowed to voice their opinions including disagreements. It's quite extremist to believe that people who disagree with us must stop talking about it. That is not what tolerance means. What's the end game? Ban and censor and silence until nobody complains, disagrees, speaks out, or satirizes The Truth™ ?
- slg 4y agoI already said I don't understand your viewpoint. You seem to be saying the Babylon Bee is free to challenge progressives', USA Today's, and Twitter's definitions of these words. However, you also seem to be saying that neither progressives nor Twitter can challenge the Babylon Bee's definition. The everyone should just be tolerant of other people's definitions solution kind of relies on everyone being tolerant of other people's definitions.
- throwawaylinux 4y agoRead what I actually said, instead of making up these infantile strawmen that have nothing to do with what I wrote. You have no cheap "gotcha" here.
- slg 4y agoI already said twice that I didn't understand whatever point you were trying to make. If you "want to actually have a conversation" like you say, you could try either directly addressing my comment or at least rephrasing and expanding on your point. You said everyone should be tolerant of everyone else's definitions. Doesn't everyone include progressive, conservatives, USA Today, Twitter, and the Babylon Bee? If so, aren't you suggesting they should all stop complaining about the definitions the other groups use?