3 ms·
I 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
by nsajko 3y ago
I 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.