5 ms·
(At the risk of having my comment turn gray) The entire concept of "hate speech", the concept of "dead naming", anyone who thinks "words are violence" and there
by indy 3y ago
(At the risk of having my comment turn gray) The entire concept of "hate speech", the concept of "dead naming", anyone who thinks "words are violence" and therefore retaliation with physical violence is justified.
These are all forms of attack upon free speech and there have been instances of these in universities for the past decade.
- nsajko 3y agoI agree that "dead naming" and other LGBT-related concepts are anti-intellectual, but it's not clear that any of your examples are at all related to free speech. A part of the problem is that "free speech" is mostly a buzzword, having no clear definition or meaning, except through case law.
- indy 3y agoI think my examples are very clearly related to free speech. They are all examples of excuses or intimidation used to prevent people from speaking.
- kaba0 3y agoYou can speak, but attacking that other person by deliberately using something they don’t prefer is just inhumane. It’s not a difficult concept.
- indy 3y agoGod I wish I had enough privilege to consider using an unpreferred name as "inhumane"
- kaba0 3y agoBasic human decency doesn’t exist when you are poor or have not enough food, or what? I swear it’s the same people who couldn’t stand wearing a tiny cloth in front of their mouth because “mY FreEDOm”, endangering every other person. A little empathy goes a long way.
- indy 3y ago"inhumane" means something, not showing enough empathy doesn't mean you flip over to "inhumane". I swear it's the same people who think not using preferred pronouns is "literally genocide".
- dmbche 3y agoHow is that antiintellectual? I must misunderstand - do you mean we should dead name people? I'm confused.
- nsajko 3y agoI'm referring to the tendency to try to forbid any mention of a person's former name. I don't mind using someone's preferred name, I mind the historical revisionism each time someone comes out of the closet. Similarly with forcing people to use preferred pronouns, I don't mind calling someone by their preferred name or pronoun in general, but courtesy has limits. Furthermore, imposing linguistic changes on other people is literally Orwellian.
- djur 3y agoHow is "deadnaming" an attack on free speech? It's always been considered discourteous to refer to people by a name they don't go by.
- indy 3y ago"deadnaming" someone is enough to get you banned from a number of social media sites, or to have stories about the "deadnamed" censored from news sites.
- djur 3y agoIt's always been common for online communities to ban people for being intentionally rude. I think we're still in the process of figuring out the preferred etiquette for historical references to people who changed their names, but that will settle before long.
- cubefox 3y agoSo you call social media censorship "etiquette" now. That's one way to make it sound nicer. Here is a novel concept: You don't have to follow people you don't like on social media. Your "etiquette" seems to be just an attempt to legitimize censorship.
- djur 3y agoOnline communities are well within their rights to limit their membership to people willing to follow their rules of conduct. That's freedom of association, which is as fundamental a right as freedom of speech.
- cubefox 3y agoA social networking site is not an online community. As I said, you select whom you follow. Basically you chose your own "community" out of a countless number of possible communities. There is no need for censorship, since you chose yourself whom to follow.
- dmbche 3y agoSo you are angry that you can't freely talk about killing n** and Jews or call trans people things they ask you not to call them to by without getting sued for damages? Just to make sure what is the crux of your issue with free speech here.