[HN Gopher] I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to th... ___________________________________________________________________ I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it Author : breck Score : 107 points Date : 2023-02-26 13:32 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (quoteinvestigator.com) (TXT) w3m dump (quoteinvestigator.com) | RavlaAlvar wrote: | [flagged] | mellosouls wrote: | In recent years has become the rather less inspirational: | | "I disapprove of what you say and I will do what I can with a mob | to ruin your reputation and career as an example to make sure | nobody else says it" | healsdata wrote: | Can you help me understand what rights you'd take away from | others to change this situation? | | 1. If everyone has free speech, then people are free to | criticize the speech of others. | | 2. If everyone has free speech, others are free to publicize | the things you said. | | 3. If everyone has free association, others have a right not to | associate with you based on your speech. | dnissley wrote: | Whoa whoa whoa, why are we immediately jumping to solving | this problem through legislation / talk of rights? | healsdata wrote: | I'm all ears for other idea that don't infringe on others' | rights. | greenhorn360 wrote: | [flagged] | gotoeleven wrote: | https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the- | jk... | jvanderbot wrote: | Free speech (in the "I can say whatever I can get away | with" sense) cuts both ways. If you disagree with a | community, they will use their favorite language to cut you | down. I disagree with that sense of free speech, as it does | away with measured dialog around issues in favor of | pitchforks. | greenhorn360 wrote: | She's spending millions of dollars funding anti trans | political organizations. That's a bit beyond simple speech. | | Her life sure was ruined by that mob though. Such a shame | she's poor now and no one is buying her new game. | | Do you have an example of this: | | 1.) Actually happening | | 2.) Happening because of only speech | nicoburns wrote: | I don't think JK Rowling is anti-trans. She just doesn't | think that trans women ought to have the exact same set | of rights as cis women. That's not anti-trans any more | than thinking men and women ought to have different | rights is anti-men. | donocin wrote: | [flagged] | nicoburns wrote: | You're really not helping the cause here by defining | "woman" in such a way that trans women are unambiguously | excluded. There's an important debate to be had here | about the nature of gender and the role it ought to have | in society. And we can't have that debate if people | insist on using language that presumes the answer. | donocin wrote: | [flagged] | dmix wrote: | We also can't have a debate about defining women where | even daring to ask the question brings about mobs. | | As much as the absolutist "men can never become women" | crowd attempts to shut down these debates there's also | the equally harmful groups who say that "anyone who says | they are a woman is one and even questioning that makes | you a transphobe". It's easier to dismiss the former as | intolerant, but the latter is becoming the (only) | socially accepted opinion on places like Reddit. Which is | insidious for such a contentious topic. | | I personally don't see how we can solve this cultural | issue without there being some very clear grey area in | between. | abduhl wrote: | I don't think this is JK Rowling's position. JK Rowling | doesn't think that trans women shouldn't have the exact | same set of RIGHTS as cis women, she thinks that trans | women shouldn't be able have the same set of societal | privileges as cis women. This seems like a thin way to | slice a hair, but I think the two ideas are distinct. | galangalalgol wrote: | I agree monetary donations are not speech, they are | actions. A better example might have been Scott Adams' | recent statements. In so far as I haven't heard of him | funding anyone. I sympathize with the papers that dropped | Dilbert, but it sets a horrible precedent to cease | business relationships with people because of their | political views (not actions). | ghaff wrote: | It's hardly a precedent. Companies have been shedding | relationships with individuals, TV shows, other | organizations for a very long time for expressing | political and other views that alienate a sufficient | percentage of their customer base such that the benefit | of the relationship is no longer worth the cost. | galangalalgol wrote: | Yeah that is a fair point, nothing new. | seiferteric wrote: | Who is she funding? | ouid wrote: | Do you really find language like "chest feeding" to be a | non-degrading way of talking about women? I can't imagine | successfully defending that language to anyone, say 10 | years ago. I think you just missed the point where it | became insane, instead of progressive, because the line | was blurry. | SamoyedFurFluff wrote: | I want to ask, please read this question in good faith: | why is chest feeding insane now, verses other polite | terms established decades ago? What difference is it to | cease making differentiations between ms/mrs(mz), or to | call someone Chinese instead of chinaman, or calling | someone African American instead of colored? Yeah it | seems new, and therefore unusual/weird, but I don't know | if I can identify a clear and rational rubric as to what | makes new progressive terminology insane and older | progressive terminology sane. | | (Also, I don't personally agree with "chest feeding" | since breasts don't necessarily have anything to do with | gender, men can have breasts. But like, if someone else | wants to call their own child feeding activity chest | feeding, what do I care? Also, I'm not feeding any kids | witth mammary glands so I don't really know if I even get | to be an arbiter of sane/insane terminology to refer to | those activities.) | ouid wrote: | I think you will find that hyperfixation on calling | people by the "correct term" for their race is also | insane, but less insane, which is why I described the | line as blurry. | | The benefit of changing the terms by which we express our | fixation on race is that the old terms were largely | associated with hateful speech, and the hope is that the | new term might be less inflammatory. If you actually feel | comfortable using someone's race as an adjective when | referring to them, regardless of what form that adjective | takes. I would suggest that you consider that more | thoughtfully. | | in the case if removing the word woman from the lexicon, | the people who are being appeased have a problem with | whether or not they get/have to be identified as women. | Not that woman is a hateful word, but that you might | exclude someone from the category. | | This is different. It is true that arbitrary exclusion | from categories is occasionally hateful, but it is not | the case that people have been using breast feeding as a | slur, and trying to retcon that to be so is obviously | degrading to women who have not used it vitriolically, | and do not consider it hate speech. | | In good faith, can you really not imagine the difference | between telling someone not to use the word chinaman to | refer to someone who doesnt want to be called a chinaman, | and telling them not to refer to thenselves as a woman, | because _someone else_ doesn 't want you to? | idlewords wrote: | Kathleen Stock is a good example, an academic philosopher | run out of a job in 2021 and consistently harassed ever | since for her philosophical stance on the relationship | between sex and gender. | | https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/28/sussex- | profess... | SamoyedFurFluff wrote: | The article disagrees with your claim that she was "run | out of" a job. It looks like she resigned after student | criticism, _even though the university still wanted to | continue employing her_. The outcry definitely has a | negative effect on her mental health but I think calling | it being "run out of" is a narrative spin on this | article. She was publicly criticized and even though her | employer fully supported her speech she resigned anyways. | idlewords wrote: | What do you think being run out of a job means? If a mob | shows up at my house with pitchforks, I will leave | irrespective of whether my landlord wants to continue | renting to me. | | Read up on what happened to Stock, and what she goes | through when trying to speak in public nowadays, and | you'll see my description is factual. | kredd wrote: | I read the "citation needed" comment as "in real life | people don't care, it's just chronically online people that | rush from one boycott to another". Which I think applies to | JK Rowling as well, since the new Harry Potter game is | making a bank and supermajority of people simply don't | care. | klyrs wrote: | Boycotting is an exercise of free association. | | Critique is an exercise of free speech. | | JK Rowling is rich af. | | Citation still needed. | Georgelemental wrote: | The high-profile "cancellation" cases like Rowling make a | lot of headlines, but people like her will be fine, they | have money and support. The real danger is when ordinary | people lose their jobs for standing up to HR and DEI | bureaucracy, univeristy reseachers get canned because their | results contradict dogma, Colorado bakers get sued into the | ground for living by their religious convictions, | construction workers get fired for making an "OK" hand | sign, etc | SamoyedFurFluff wrote: | Small note about the bakers: they haven't been sued "into | the ground". In fact my understanding is that they're | actually doing really well nowadays. They're still open | with 4 stars on Yelp with over 200 reviews. | | I think we shouldn't twist narratives to argue against | twisting narratives. | logicalmonster wrote: | "You don't need a citation for an opinion." | | --- Wayne Gretzky | ouid wrote: | Nothing except data benefits from citation. A citation in | an argument means that you do not wish to defend the | position. | mdp2021 wrote: | I see what you evidently did there, and I cheered! | | Nonetheless, to propose an opinion, you still need grounds. | amalcon wrote: | Best example I can come up with is Colin Kaepernick. This | isn't even a great example, he's doing pretty well in the | scheme of things. It also isn't satisfying to most people, | since it cuts against the political undertone of the | question. | s9w wrote: | [dead] | tsimionescu wrote: | If you take a look at historical media, the breadth of opinions | you can find written today, especially if we include online | media, is staggering compared to the past. For example, | defending homosexuality as a legitimate life choice would have | gotten you packed and sent away to the crazy house, and no | paper would have ever written about this before the late 80s or | so. Same with overt atheism in much public discourse, with | respect for native rights, black rights, Irish and Italian | rights and many others. Opposition to Israel used to be swiftly | boycotted in any public forum. Opposition to the Vietnam War | could get you in jail when it started. Communist sympathies | too. | | Apart from overt racism (which you can still easily find | online, even among pretty popular figures in New media), | virtually no position that used to be expressed in public | discourse has disappeared, and many many ideas that used to be | unthinkable and definitely unspeakable are now common place. | | So where exactly is this terrible mob? | tmn wrote: | Right now they're having a fit over hogwarts legacy | tsimionescu wrote: | Who? The millions that have collectively payed 100+ million | dollars to pay it? Or some handful of busy bodies that no | one really cares about? | | There are even proeminent leftist streamers who have gotten | into spats with JK Rowling that are still playing it | publicly (Vaush, Hassan). | klyrs wrote: | > For example, defending homosexuality as a legitimate life | choice would have gotten you packed and sent away to the | crazy house, and no paper would have ever written about this | before the late 80s or so. | | Quite to the contrary. The Institut fur Sexualwissenschaft | [1] was a research institute dedicated to human sexuality. | Histories have long been "cleansed" of records of gay and | transgender people; look no further than the bible for | evidence that homosexuality was quite normal in society a | very long time ago. After all, there's no need to invent a | rule against something that people don't want to do. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_f%C3%BCr_Sexualwis | sen... | tsimionescu wrote: | I was thinking about American culture, though I probably | exaggerated things there as well. Still, if we pretend I | was talking about the 1880s, I think my point still stands. | | Also, sure - other cultures had different perspectives on | sexuality. I don't think there is any argument to be made | that biblical era jewish society was more respectful of | Freedom of Speech than modern America or Europe, so I don't | think this is very relevant in context. | klyrs wrote: | Fun facts in queer history... Public Universal Friend was | a nonbinary religious leader in the 1700s. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Universal_Friend | maxerickson wrote: | Weird to bring reputation into it. The original formulation | doesn't say that saying whatever should be from from social | consequences. | royaltheartist wrote: | Seems like a lot of people who want to be heard but don't | like it when people actually listen | NewEntryHN wrote: | Social consequences is a cute term for savage justice. | giraffe_lady wrote: | We have always understood that there are consequences of | unpopular speech that are detached from whether that speech | is good or necessary or correct. It's why we characterize | people as courageous who fight long, but ultimately | justified or righteous battles in the popular sphere. | Courageous in the face of what? This! The negative social | consequences of unpopular speech. | UncleMeat wrote: | Savage justice is when somebody comes to your house and | beats you to death with a tire iron. People calling JK | Rowling a hateful bigot on Twitter and telling people to | stop purchasing Harry Potter content isn't that. | int_19h wrote: | It's a cute term for freedom of association, which is a | right even more fundamental than freedom of speech. | Zagill wrote: | No justice more savage than a bunch of people on Twitter | saying mean things about you | renewiltord wrote: | That's also speech, and even though I disagree with it, I will | defend it. | lolinder wrote: | It's the kind of speech that borders on the proverbial | "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater". | renewiltord wrote: | Yes, that is also speech. Unfortunately, most free speech | advocates are not of the "I disapprove of what you say but | will defend it" variety. They are of the similar species "I | disapprove of what you say and will apply my principles in | an inconsistent manner to ensure that your speech is | suppressed while speech I do not disapprove of which | nonetheless violates the same principles is permitted" | variety. | | Talk to any free speech advocate but those who preserve the | purity of speech and you will rapidly find that they add | epicycles for all sorts of things. | peyton wrote: | I disagree. The law pretty clearly draws a line at | harassment. | expazl wrote: | Free speech does not mean free from consequences. Its perfectly | understandable to want to protect the freedom that allows nazi | sympathisers to speak about their hatred for the Jewish people, | while still wanting for no-one to chose to do so, and also | there to be social consequences for the people who do so. | | The anti-freedom of speech path would be to ban any pro nazi | speech entirely. | twblalock wrote: | "Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences" can | just as easily be used to justify imprisoning critics of the | government as it can to justify shunning people. Not all | consequences are justified. | | Plus, let's be honest -- most of the "consequences" of | speech, like cancelling people, are not really targeted at | the person being cancelled. They are really happening because | people want to suppress _speech_ they don't like by scaring | _other_ people into silence. | | Government is not the only source of oppression. We should be | very careful about excusing social consequences for people | speaking their mind, or we will lose free speech because of a | cancel-culture mob mentality rather than because of | government oppression. The end result is pretty much the same | and we shouldn't let it happen. | lern_too_spel wrote: | Is there no nuance left in the world? If we remove | consequences from people who criticize the government, must | we also remove consequences from people spreading Nazi | rhetoric? If we eat bread, must we also eat shit? | | Free speech is not an ideal that we should strive for in | itself but shorthand for a principle that helps promote | stronger societies that help its members live longer. Any | speech that goes against that basic goal is stupid to fight | for. Eating is something that is not something we should | strive for in itself but shorthand for fulfilling the | nutritional needs of the body. Any eating that goes against | that basic goal is stupid to promote. | [deleted] | sabarn01 wrote: | I think the issue is that you have people that are trying to | apply new norms via small group social pressure amplified via | social media. We have some social norms for certain attitude | that no one will tolerate in polite society, but those norms | are well known. In the last five years a host of new norms | have been created that are enforced by small groups that | don't mesh with general societal consensus. | jesusofnazarath wrote: | [dead] | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | A lot of these quotes are actually inventions of translators or | researchers. | | Another one that I'm pretty sure was not actually said by | Aristotle (and that I love), is: | | _" We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an | act, but a habit."_ | boredhedgehog wrote: | I would differentiate between inventions and encapsulations. | It's one thing to adorn any random idea with a famous name to | give it more traction. But to summarize the thoughts of an | influential thinker with a pithy saying, even if he didn't | actually say it, is usually not harmful and a normal part of | localization. | divbzero wrote: | Reminds me of this quote from another philosopher though I | can't remember which one: | | " _It's not who I am underneath but what I do that defines me._ | " | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | _> "What you do speaks so loudly, I can't hear what you're | saying." | | -Ralph Waldo Emerson_ | JieJie wrote: | --Bruce Wayne | | https://phind.com/search?q=who+said%2C+"It's+not+who+I+am+un. | .. | [deleted] | blindriver wrote: | I've always been a free speech absolutist. I don't think there's | any speech, including hate speech, that I would ban. If I don't | like it, I can offer my own opinions and try to educate people, | but banning speech outright is wrong. | | The problem that has occurred is that some people on the extremes | now think "All the other people/children are so stupid that they | will get tricked into believe all these lies. We should shut down | that speech so that these poor idiots don't fall into this trap." | This is thinking that I strongly disagree with. Some people may | believe hate speech but I think that's a reflection of who they | are, ie. they will probably believe it with or without the | convincing. I personally believe that most people are smarter | than this and banning speech based on "protect the children!" is | a terrible excuse that both the left and right are using nowadays | (more by the right a decade ago). | | There is no system better than complete free speech, because it | allows the most amount of information to be passed back and forth | and gives people the opportunity to decide for themselves. | WalterBright wrote: | I suspect the theory is if one controls others' speech, thereby | one also controls their thoughts. Is this really true? How many | people adjust their speech to fit in, _and_ change their | thoughts to match? | yibg wrote: | It seems fundamentally it comes down to whether or not speech | can directly cause harm. Canonical example of yelling fire and | all that. But lately it's also been about misinformation, lies | etc. should for example defamation be a thing, or fraud etc. | WanderPanda wrote: | I almost agree. But there seems to be speech that should be | forbidden, like threats of physical violence. I would argue | that just the threat of physical violence changes the expected | value of the future and hence can force someone to alter their | behavior. I think this is one of the few cases where "your | freedom stops where the freedom of the other begins" actually | applies. I would be interested if you would also argue against | prohibiting this kind of speech | xoa wrote: | Ken White, a well known former prosecutor turned defense lawyer | and first amendment law expert/speaker (amongst other things), | did an interesting article towards the end of last year talking | about the importance of being clear about terminology in these | discussions ("In Defense Of Free Speech Pedantry" [0]). I think | that's very important in these online debates because "freedom of | speech" has become a somewhat overloaded that people can use to | mean different things. I tend to think of "Free Speech" | specifically in terms of what he calls Free Speech Rights (FSR), | the actual legal rights afforded by the 1st Amendment, 14th | Amendment and subsequent court rulings and precedent, with what | people do with it and my own opinions a separate sphere. A lot of | people though are bringing in what he terms Free Speech Culture | and Speech Decency as well. Just because we legally _can_ do | something doesn 't mean it's good to exercise that power. Norms | sometimes should be challenged, but also are usually worth a bit | of thought and discretion. And legal FSR apply to everyone and | preserves a forever ongoing cycle of discussion and culture, | that's part of the point, and in turn protect criticism and | counter criticism, exclusion as well as inclusion. The right to | speak necessarily entails the right to not speak. | | I don't know if his proposed terms will ultimately catch on and | make the most sense, but I do think it's worth some effort in | being more precise with our language because FSR vs FSC and SD | involves extremely different applications of power and risk, and | separating out the domains can help everyone think more clearly | about the topic. In the case of this classic saying, it involves | all of them in a compact manner. Someone can think speech is just | plain wrong, disgusting and evil even, but not want to see force | used upon the speaker or any other speaker for a variety of good | reasons. | | ---- | | 0: https://popehat.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-free-speech- | ped... | jawns wrote: | I've been watching some First Amendment Auditing videos, and it | is amazing the degree of ignorance there is not only among the | public, but also public servants, including police officers, | who should absolutely know that constitutionally protected | activity can't be turned into a crime just because someone | finds it unpalatable. In fact, that's precisely the reason why | First Amendment protections exist. We wouldn't need them if | there weren't speech, religions, journalists, or protests that | some people didn't want. | | I understand your point about "just because you can doesn't | mean you should," but on the other hand, we will never know | whether constitutional protections have real force unless we | see that they work for rights that other people would rather we | not exercise. | 0xcde4c3db wrote: | Many police officers do know, they just see respect for | rights as an impediment to their "real" job of enforcing | order. The culture largely teaches them that they're in a war | against criminals and that anything they do to win that war | is justified [1]. | | [1] https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/04/law-enforcements- | warrio... | thagsimmons wrote: | My heart sinks when I see this sort of parochial US-centric | definition of free speech. The vast majority of the world is | not protected by and has no interest in US constitutional | rights. The principles of free speech are universal, much more | important and much broader than the US constitution. There are | many ways to foster and promote free speech that has nothing to | do with US law. Yes, we're often discussing US companies when | this topic comes up, but you should realise that people outside | the United States are not covered by US constitutional | guarantees, and US companies don't treat us like we are. We | must foster a discussion where the principles of free speech | are seen to be important outside of this narrow, legalistic, | US-centered sense. | hodgesrm wrote: | This is a fair point but any discussion of free speech should | be grounded with examples of systems that help maintain it, | of which the US constitutional regime is one. Not all such | regimes have worked, as the French Revolution demonstrated | starting 2 months after the adoption of the US constitution. | [0, 1] | | So my question would be, what other practical examples would | you introduce to the discussion? | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_ | Sta... | thagsimmons wrote: | Oh? How successful do you think the US constitutional | mechanism has really been in protecting free speech? And by | "free speech" here, I mean exactly the broader sense, not | constrained by a narrow constitutionalist view. To take one | facet of the question, consider the World Press Freedom | Index: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index | | The country I live in (New Zealand) has no constitutional | free speech guarantees, and ranks 11th. The US ranks 42nd, | behind East Timor, Jamaica, Slovakia, South Africa, and | many other places I imagine your average American would not | associate with free speech. Now, I have quibbles with the | way the Press Freedom Index is assembled, and it only | captures one narrow (but important) aspect of what we care | about when we speak about free speech. That | notwithstanding, my question to you is this: scanning down | that list of countries, does it perhaps occur to you that | the US may have something to learn from us, rather than the | other way round? | kurthr wrote: | Wait until Rupert Murdoch sells "News" there. | | https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/jacinda- | ardern-ru... | bentley wrote: | I always find it instructive to view these reports at the | source. I developed this habit in 2018, when Reporters | Without Borders (who maintain the Press Freedom Index) | published a report of the six most dangerous countries | for journalists: India, Yemen, Mexico, Syria, | Afghanistan, and of course the United States. When I read | the report, it described how in Mexico journalists are | executed by cartels and organized crime, how journalists | in Yemen die in prison due to mistreatment, how in Syria | journalists were killed in airstrikes and taken hostage | by Islamic militants, how in India Hindu nationalist mobs | would run down journalists with trucks... and how in the | US, six journalists were killed in one year: four | murdered by a stalker angry at a 2011 story the newspaper | had published (subsequently tried and found guilty of | mass murder), and two killed by a falling tree. | | Being the midst of Donald Trump's presidency, of course, | there were headlines all over the United States: | "Reporters Without Borders ranks US among most dangerous | countries for journalists!". The story was perfect | clickbait, especially in that political environment. | | I'm not saying Reporters Without Borders is | untrustworthy. But I'm skeptical of their rankings by | default, because being overly pessimistic about the US is | an easy way to get _lots_ of attention. | | Here's their report on the US's ranking in the Press | Freedom Index: | | https://rsf.org/en/country/united-states | | Issues it lists: | | * Many media outlets are owned by the wealthy | | * Donald Trump denigrated the press | | * Local news outlets are declining | | * Polarization of media | | * Section 230 debates | | * Julian Assange | | * Citizens don't trust the media | | * Online harassment can harm journalists | | * Journalists face "an unprecedented climate of animosity | and aggression during protests" | | I invite readers to compare these issues to the entries | for other countries and judge whether they justify the | US's ranking in this list. | WalterBright wrote: | > Donald Trump denigrated the press | | He absolutely did do that. But what he didn't do was | suppress the press, jail the reporters, etc. | bentley wrote: | I don't think any of those bullets are strictly untrue. | The question is whether combined they make the United | States a relatively unfree country. | int_19h wrote: | I lived in Russia, New Zealand, Canada, and US. Of the | four, US undoubtedly is the best at protecting | controversial political speech, which to me feels like | exactly what you want to prioritize if you want to | maintain a free society. | thagsimmons wrote: | The US constitution protects controversial speech, in the | sense that government punishment is not meted out to | people who step out of line. The limits of this are | immediately apparent when you ask if people functionally | have the ability to speak freely from within US | institutions of academia, journalism, or large | corporations. I work with colleagues in all of these from | all over the world, and nobody is more afraid of saying | the wrong thing and having their lives ruined than | Americans. The fear is palpable and ever-present. So | again, how successful has the first amendment really been | here? The frequent response to this is "freedom of speech | is not freedom from consequences", which is exactly the | kind of legalistic attitude we have to get away from. | Real freedom of speech means exactly the ability to say | controversial things without suffering disproportionate | harm, and I just don't think the US is doing markedly | better than the rest of the free world on this front. | sabarn01 wrote: | This is a fish don't know they are wet phenomena. Government | protected free speech is taken for granted here that people | cannot contemplate what it means for the rest of the world. | JenrHywy wrote: | I'm not sure if many people realize the the UNHCR has the | International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[0], | ratified by ~180 countries. Unlike the First Amendment, the | preamble the the ICCPR makes it clear that it is concerned | with the responsibilities of States _and citizens_ : | Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal | Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings | enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear | and want can only be achieved if conditions are created | whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as | well as his economic, social and cultural rights, | Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the | United Nations to promote universal respect for, and | observance of, human rights and freedoms | Realizing that the individual, having duties to other | individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is | under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and | observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant | | Article 19 of the ICCPR deals with freedom of expression, and | states: 1. Everyone shall have the right to | hold opinions without interference. 2. Everyone shall | have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall | include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and | ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, | in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any | other media of his choice. 3. The exercise of the | rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries | with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore | be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be | such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) | For respect of the rights or reputations of others; | (b) For the protection of national security or of public | order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. | | This frames freedom of expression as a positive right, | whereas the First Amendment is about negative rights. Also in | contrast to the First Amendment, the power to curtail these | rights is explicitly given to law-makers, in a limited | fashion. Non-legal restrictions on free expression constitute | a violation of rights. | | [0] https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments- | mechanisms/instruments/... | WalterBright wrote: | There are fundamental rights of man. Government can recognize | or abrogate those rights, but cannot _invent_ those rights. | | For example, if rights were invented by the government, there | would be nothing about slavery that was wrong. If we say | slavery violates the right to liberty, then we are saying | that the right to liberty is _inherent_. | diordiderot wrote: | > There are fundamental rights of man | | Yeah, but not really. | | God is dead and such. | cscurmudgeon wrote: | > has no interest in US constitutional rights | | Not sure about that. I know friends outside the US who know | more about US laws than their own countries' laws. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power | thagsimmons wrote: | Sorry, but this is just the kind of narrow parochialism I'm | complaining about. I said "the vast majority of the world", | and I stand by that - the idea that ordinary people in | China, India, Africa, the Pacific and so on give one iota | of a damn about US law is completely absurd. Furthermore, | this attitude is a fantasy even within the Anglosphere - I | live in New Zealand, and I bet not one person in 100 could | give me a clear statement of what rights the 1st amendment | guarantees and what its limits are, beyond the barest | outline. | int_19h wrote: | It's a fantasy even in US. Witness all the people | demanding that e.g. Facebook "respects their First | Amendment rights". | sourcecodeplz wrote: | If I summarized what you said into one word: decency. Would | that be okaysh? | ecshafer wrote: | I disagree with this idea, that we are talking about Free | Speech Rights. When I see people say Free Speech, it is in the | lens of the inalienable right that we all have. The US | constitution does protect some specific scope of Free Speech, | but any limitations legally are still infringements upon the | Natural Right of Free Speech. Rights do not come from the | Government, they are innate and natural. The government can | merely infringe or protect those rights. A company or | government infringing on those rights is unethical, because | infringing upon any other's rights is unethical, regardless of | what the US government says. | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | > Rights do not come from the Government, they are innate and | natural. | | I don't understand this philosophy. Who decides these rights? | Wouldn't whatever rights that you consider to be innate and | natural be the ones important through your own cultural lens? | Isn't it possible others disagree with what rights one should | be granted? | nemo44x wrote: | You're missing the entire point and it's important because | it was completely novel at the time and still is really. It | has nothing to do with the particular rights that our | founders believed to be natural. But the idea that they | aren't granted by a government. That government can only | infringe on rights, not grant them and take them away, etc. | like kings did forever or even today even in many western | countries where the rights are limited. | nailer wrote: | > I tend to think of "Free Speech" specifically in terms of | what he calls Free Speech Rights (FSR), the actual legal rights | afforded by the 1st Amendment, 14th Amendment and subsequent | court rulings and precedent, with what people do with it and my | own opinions a separate sphere. A lot of people though are | bringing in what he terms Free Speech Culture and Speech | Decency as well. | | This is a very American take. Which might be reasonable as in | the UK and Australia for example, the government has much more | control of speech. But it feels odd, like when Americans | generalise very odd things about 'white' and 'black' people | they when only mean Americans. | | But I think even before the constitution, the _moral value_ | exists. And that 's the thing people all over the world have | fought for. | | > Free Speech Culture and Speech Decency as well. | | I don't think the ethics/values of free speech are summarised | by either of these terms. | | Rather I'll keep using 'free speech' to mean the moral value, | and 'US constitutional law' to mean US constitutional law. | nemo44x wrote: | The UK and Australia will use violence against you if you say | something in particular or write it down. Think about that. | It's insane. | trabant00 wrote: | > Just because we legally can do something doesn't mean it's | good to exercise that power. | | What does "good" and "bad" have to do with this? We have laws | specifically so we are not at the mercy of moral judgement. We | tried that already, it didn't work. If it's legal you either | accept it or try change the law. Anything else is mob justice. | klyrs wrote: | You can legally share every last detail of the poop you just | left in the toilet, pictures and all. If you choose to do | that at the lunch table at work, nobody is obliged to remain | seated with you. Ergo, sharing such details is not a good | idea. Even though it is perfectly legal. | | Those co-workers who vacated the table are exercising their | rights in walking away. Call that "mob justice" if you will. | briantakita wrote: | There's a difference between walking away & taping | someone's mouth at the table. Walking away is freedom of | association. Taping someone's mouth is censorship & a | forced imposition or outright violence against a person. | klyrs wrote: | Is there a rash of mouth taping that I'm unaware of? | kelseyfrog wrote: | Parent is trying to draw a parallel between mouth taping | and censorship. The problem is that lunchroom scenarios | aren't cleanly isomorphic to online scenarios. | klyrs wrote: | Okay. Let's say you like to share details of your | bathroom escapades on a forum dedicated to 3d printing. | The admins give you a few warnings and eventually kick | you off, because nobody wants to hear that. I daresay | that isn't "violence." It's still an exercise of free | association where the forum moderators have decided your | speech is "not good" despite being perfectly legal. | kelseyfrog wrote: | The argument, as I understand it, is that disabling | someone's ability to do speech is categorically | censorship. | klyrs wrote: | Sure, call it censorship. I maintain that it's legally | permissible to ban shit-posters for misconduct. I'd | further argue that failing to ban shit-posters will | dissuade 3d printing enthusiasts from using a particular | forum, granting the shit-posters a _heckler 's veto_ | which is its own form of censorship. | gadders wrote: | How about murdering? See Charlie Hebdo, Samuel Paty etc. | trabant00 wrote: | Nobody is arguing people are obligated to sit and listen to | the legal speech. Not even close. | klyrs wrote: | My comment illustrates Ken White's statement that | prompted your question: | | > What does "good" and "bad" have to do with this? | | Happy to hear that you agree that there is a gulf between | individuals' judgement and legal judgement. | | If you'll read more of Ken White, he also says that | sometimes it's bad to exercise "cancel culture" even | though it's legal to do so. | glial wrote: | It's legal for an adult to drink a handle of vodka every | night. Doesn't mean it's a good idea. It's legal for you to | tell your neighbor you hate them. Doesn't mean it's a good | idea. | AdrianB1 wrote: | This is disingenuous. Drinking vodka is not a | constitutional right, it is just something that is not | forbidden by law, so you are comparing 2 very different | things. For any constitutional right people should be proud | to show support and exercise it as much as possible, | otherwise it is not a right, just a permission like | drinking. | chadash wrote: | I think that this is a dangerous attitude that leads to more | laws and the clawing away of rights. | | The supreme court explicitly held that people have the | constitutional right to hold an anti-gay rally outside of | military members' funerals [1]. I think that the vast | majority of people (including the _overwhelming_ majority of | people holding anti-gay views) would find this behavior | atrocious and immoral. But it 's protected free speech. | | The problem though is that enough of this kind of stuff | happens and laws begin to change. Sure, it's one crazy group | in this case, but if this sort of behavior were prevalent | enough, peoples' views on free speech would change. Sure, | this is an extreme example, since something specifically | mentioned in the constitution is very hard to change. But | there are plenty of examples of laws that only exist in | response to some idiot(s) who decided to ruin it for everyone | else (as a very simple example, I no longer have the right to | buy more than one pack of Sudafed at a time where I live... | they didn't just dream that law up out of thin air). | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps#Alito's_di | sse... | UncleMeat wrote: | This would be a much more compelling argument if I believed | that homophobic politicians, judges, and groups will defend | the speech rights of gay people. Instead what I see is a | pattern of right wing groups leveraging the courts to | protect their own right to hate while _also_ leveraging the | courts to oppress groups they hate. Standing up for the | Nazi 's right to march in my town won't cause those Nazis | to stand up for my right to march in my town. | trabant00 wrote: | The idea was useful in the past when humanity was still | experimenting with different ideas about morality, forms of | government, religion, philosophy, etc. | | Now that we have settled all that there is no need any more to | allow wrong think and wrong speech. /S | | In seriousness though, this fight is not new at all. The fact | that somebody felt the need to state that quote means the same | debate existed back then. | belltaco wrote: | > Voltaire? Francois-Marie Arouet? S. G. Tallentyre? Evelyn | Beatrice Hall? Ignazio Silone? Douglas Young? Norbert Guterman? | | There was no online social media back then. | bedhead wrote: | [flagged] | tomrod wrote: | Content-wise, I'm surprised to hear "woke" being applied to | right-wing Americans. I guess it makes sense with the book | bannings, attacks on public education, refusal to govern as a | coalition, and more. | jimjimjim wrote: | to the death? really? What about your family? your dependents? | Sorry love, it looks like you'll have to pay the mortgage. | quickthrower2 wrote: | not his own death, of course. | fromseashore wrote: | [dead] | Overtonwindow wrote: | This has always been my view of speech. I believe that every | human being has The right to speak their mind without fear of | government reprisal. | | I wish it also meant a right to speak your mind free from the | judgment of your employer, or university, but that is a slippery | slope. Just because I will defend a person's right to speak their | mind no matter what, does not mean I have to listen to it, or | agree with it. | | I wrestle with this, because if I had an opinion, pick any social | issue, I don't think an employer should be allowed to fire me | because of that. | | However, we have freedom of association, and a business may not | want to associate with someone who has opinions counter to their | own. | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | What does it mean to speak your mind? Does lying count? Is it | your right to lie under oath? | alldayeveryday wrote: | > we have freedom of association, and a business may not want | to associate with someone who has opinions counter to their | own. | | Yes and no. Take the Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake | for a gay couple. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled in the | baker's favor on the grounds that forcing him to bake the cake | would violate his religious freedoms. I wonder, if the baker | had refused purely as a personal preference not to do business | with gay couples (freedom of association), would the court have | ruled differently? As far as I know the Supreme Court has not | yet weighed in on such a question. | drewbeck wrote: | > However, we have freedom of association, and a business may | not want to associate with someone who has opinions counter to | their own. | | I think this part is why there's so much angst about this these | days: businesses have captured a huge part of our commons and | our support systems, pieces that might have been (or could be) | the purview of government at other times. If we're all paying | dues to BigCorp in order to live, is it fair to say "businesses | can choose to not associate with whomever they want"? | livueta wrote: | This line of thought always reminds me of Marsh v. Alabama: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama | | > a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent | the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk | even though the sidewalk was part of a privately-owned | company town | | Are we at that point of broad-spectrum BigCo dominance yet? | I'd say probably not, but sometimes it just seems like a | matter of time. | ghaff wrote: | >a business may not want to associate with someone who has | opinions counter to their own | | I'm not sure it's so much that exactly as businesses don't want | employees who make a lot of other employees uncomfortable or | who hold loud (whether deliberately or because social media | made something go viral) opinions or make stupid jokes in | public that get associated with the company and cause PR | issues. | | The fact is that if someone employs/sponsors/advertises | with/etc. you they can and will cut ties fast if you embarrass | them. | eddieroger wrote: | > However, I understand we have freedom of association, and a | business may not want to associate with someone who has | opinions counter to their own. | | That's really the heart of it, isn't it? Forget employer for a | moment - if you said something really offensive to one of your | friends, and they decided to stop being your friend, you'd be | upset, but should they be allowed to no longer be your friend? | Of course they should. People get to choose with whom they | associate, and companies (who are not people, but that's a | different post) get to choose who they hire, because those | people are a reflection of them. Freedom of speech isn't | freedom of consequences. | Overtonwindow wrote: | It is. There is no freedom from consequences, unless you are | a politician maybe. I think if America continues on its | current path, people will increase exclusive association into | "us versus them." | | I don't think that will help us in the long term. | leereeves wrote: | There's also the freedom to criticize and choose not to | associate with a company that fires people for expressing | their opinion. | bbarnett wrote: | This is actually key, and I think the primary part here | should be, as long as there is sufficient competition in | the marketplace. | | Look at Google. Now try to never ever touch code they | touch, information they curated a bit, or anything they do. | Good luck with that! | | Try your best, you will be tainted. Somehow. Someway. | | A key example? Try to email people, without | Google/Gmail/Workplace bring the result often. | | Google is the de facto monopoly of many things, and you are | _forced_ to touch them, even if you try not to. | | So in such a case, well... I don't know. But there is no | choice. | puffoflogic wrote: | > Freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences. | | Freedom from consequences is the only possible thing freedom | of speech could be, other than not having your mouth sewn | shut. | | What you meant to say was, _what we value_ is freedom of | speech from government consequences, not private actors. And | that is a value judgement, not definitional. The incorrect | statement you used is spread by people trying to hide the | former as the latter. | ghaff wrote: | Well, in the US, "Freedom of speech" is often used in the | context of the US constitution so, while it is indeed | freedom from consequences, it's freedom from consequences | in the narrow sense of freedom from the consequence of the | government using its police power to imprison you for | saying something. | | ADDED: In other situations the degree of saying whatever | you want is very context-dependent and also dependent on | what consequences you're willing to suffer. | [deleted] | Georgelemental wrote: | How far do you take freedom of association though? Should a | company be able to discriminate based on race? Refuse to hire | women unless they have sex with the CEO? Etc... | Jcowell wrote: | > Should a company be able to discriminate based on race? | | Question like these are pointless since they're already | solved. The American Law system already said no at the | highest point possible. | int_19h wrote: | It didn't, though. It's perfectly legal to discriminate, | just not in a public setting. Say, if you have a coffee | shop, you can't just refuse to serve non-white customers. | But if you have a private coffee club, its membership can | be restricted to whites only - and the club can then have | a coffee shop that serves only its members. | | This seems like a reasonable compromise to me - | accommodations are inclusive by default so you don't have | to worry about whether a random store owner has a problem | with your gender, race, religion etc. Yet people who want | to exclude others from their spaces still have the | ability to do so, subject only to social disapproval. | nostromo wrote: | But that's the point. Employers are already quite limited | in how they can disassociate with employees. | | You can divorce someone because they didn't want to have | sex with you. And you can decide not to be friends with | people of a certain race. But employers do not have those | rights under US law. | | So it would also seem fine if you also couldn't be fired | due to political beliefs. We already have a framework for | dealing with these issues. | livueta wrote: | I've always thought the whole 'protected categories' | thing was made a little odd by the inclusion of religion, | given the obvious nexus between religious beliefs and | political positions, e.g. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. | Political opinions receiving protection iff colored by a | religious belief is pretty asymmetric. To maintain | logical consistency, either both or neither. | torstenvl wrote: | Just to be clear, the implications of what you're | suggesting would be the immediate legalization of anti- | Semitism in the workplace. Are you _sure_ that 's better? | UncleMeat wrote: | That's not true. There are a very small number of | protected attributes that you cannot discriminate against | as an employer. Everything else is fair game. | [deleted] | tomohelix wrote: | The problem comes when the very act of non-association with | someone effectively silences them. | | If everyone is allowed to speak through a megaphone, except | people with certain ideologies because the megaphone maker | refuses to do business with them, then you can argue that is | a form of censorship, or at least, have the effect of | censorship. | | This can happen to anything and anyone, regardless of whether | such ideologies are correct or not. What we would end up with | are echo chambers. And I sincerely believe that those are the | cause of many social issues right now. | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | Are all views valid and should be listened to? In order to | ensure free speech do we all have to thoughtfully engage | with white supremacists or pederasts? Seems to me free | speech is my having a choice who I associate with as well. | tomohelix wrote: | Not all views is valid. And nobody should be forced to | associate with someone they don't like. | | But I don't consider corporations "people". And they | should not have the prerogative to choose what views they | will amplify. | | That is what I meant by non-association can become | censorship. A person can't do that. But a large | corporation providing a public service can. | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | Ah, OK - I missed that you were talking about | corporations. So can we rephrase this by saying that | Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube should be fine with white | supremacists and people who argue for pederasty on their | platforms? I struggle with this at the extremes. | tomohelix wrote: | There are hate speech laws they can follow. That should | cover the extremes. And if they don't, then it is the | failure of the legislation. | | Just like how you can't go to walmart and insult everyone | you see. It would actually be illegal to retaliate | against those people. But call the cops and they can be | dealt with. | | At least with the laws, there is more checks and | balances. It isn't perfect, but it is better than giving | private entities massive power to control opinions. | klyrs wrote: | If the law should cover it all, then what is their right | to filter spam based upon? | tomohelix wrote: | >At least with the laws, there is more checks and | balances. | | I rather consent to regulations by an entity that I can | influence and beholden to me (in principle) than one that | is profit driven. | UncleMeat wrote: | So, no spam filtering. | nostromo wrote: | Freedom of speech is also the freedom to hear and read | any viewpoint you'd like to hear or read. | | The problem currently is that there is broad censorship | for many views and even if you actively want to research | an issue, you'll only be presented with one half of the | story because large tech and media corporations work in | concert to block certain points of view. | throwaway1777 wrote: | Yeah all too often people forget the first amendment applies to | the government not to companies or ordinary people. | ralusek wrote: | Freedom of speech is an ethic, the first amendment applies to | political bodies. | Ekaros wrote: | Question really is what counts as association? | | Is being partnered and prominently showing branding for example | such thing? | | Or what about being able to buy things and services from? | | Later is actually more critical point. Let's take some minority | group. We generally think that discriminating against them for | being member of group is wrong and should be illegal. But what | if we took stance that we do not discriminate against the | group, but against those that voice they should have equal | rights? Entirely fine surely for many people now? Effect would | be same, other one is just due to their speech. | roody15 wrote: | Quote sadly has not held up will in the last couple decades. We | are now led by a louder more extreme minority that aggressively | police's discussion points. | | For example I am mostly liberal and was a fan of Bernie Sanders. | However in my personal case I don't believe transgender and | gender identity roles are something that should be pressed on | still developing minors. | | The problem here is you may agree or not agree but the point I am | making is just my view on this equals bigot / hater .. etc. Any | deviation from a strict all or nothing approach is silenced | through bullying and harassment. | | No room or in there is not even any desire for real discussion | ... it is just accept these things as "truth" or be labeled some | form of hater. | | It wasn't so long ago that real discussion still happened on | platforms like reddit and others ...now it is curated to the | point of nonsense. | UncleMeat wrote: | > The problem here is you may agree or not agree but the point | I am making is just my view on this equals bigot / hater | | Yes, some beliefs are inherently bigoted and hateful. The | people holding those beliefs often don't see it that way. | Slaveowners often thought they were doing the right thing for | black people. I see no reason why presenting your beliefs about | trans people in a kind way should make your beliefs land any | softer. I see no reason to discuss these beliefs with you, as | they bring nothing new to the table that has not been discussed | before. | greenhorn360 wrote: | So you want to raise children without gender? | omgomgomgomg wrote: | Well, I sometimes wish I was born an eagle because I like | travelling, flying and chasing the sun. | | I am not going to try to have a surgery to make it happen. | | There is nobody with no gender, there are rarities with | natural double gender features, but strictly speaking, nature | assigns a gender during early pregnancy. | | All the ideas about gender changes occur to people later on | and based on personal feelings/factors. The mind is something | that develops by education and experience, not genetic urges | as far I am aware. | | If schools and parents would educate kids saying theres no | such thing like gender and you get to choose and society lets | the promoters of such go rampant, I imagine this would not | lead to a net positive outcome. | simonsaysso wrote: | You are using gender to mean both sex and gender. You are | assigned a biological sex by... biology. You get to choose | your own gender. | flangola7 wrote: | There are nonbinary people, such as myself. Public | Universal Friend is another notable nonbinary person from | history. | bauruine wrote: | I'm from Switzerland so I may get "gender" wrong but yeah | that is the progressive take here since the 2000s or so. That | just means that you shouldn't force gender stereotypes on | children. Let boys play with Barbies and wear pink if the | like it and stuff like that. But nobody thought about their | gender because of this, they are still boys. Nowadays, at | least from what I read online, it feels like your gender | depends on these sterotypes and if you don't conform to them | you're trans. | kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote: | That sound you hear is OPs point flying over your head | omgomgomgomg wrote: | I agree with you, same for religion imposed on kids, it plain | brainwashing. Religion has a few good things like the ten | commandments at least, though. | | Pushing gender identity on teenagers who do not even know how | to urinate in a straight line and had no sexual intercourse yet | is just plain wrong, always will be.The teens do not come up | with these things themselves usually its often an external | influence by highly irresponsible people pushing theit agenda. | To me this is more controversial than the abortion issue. | | And thats right, I will openly oppose anyone who claims | otherwise and I will certainly not die on any hill defending | that. | | I can agree to disagree and that is that. | | All these who did the gender changes recently appear to be | still unhappy and frustrated. Show me the success stories. | | This is nothing new by the way, there have been a number of | thai boys for example undergoing hormone therapy and gender | change more than 25 years ago, they often would work in | prostitution. The difference is, they perhaps liked the idea | and did it for sexualbor monetary reasons and came up with the | idea independently, not via social media. | klyrs wrote: | > However in my personal case I don't believe transgender and | gender identity roles are something that should be pressed on | still developing minors. | | I don't think those things should be pressed on developing | minors either. But I see people of all stripes dressing their | boys in pants and their girls in skirts; blue for boys, pink | for girls; encouraging boys to hang with boys and play with | "boy things" and girls to hang with girls and play with "girl | things" and romanticizing cross-gender interactions between | children as young as a day old. I don't think we should be | forcing these norms on children of this age. | | But I suspect that what you're actually saying is that we | should not tolerate transgender expression in children. Which, | I submit, violates the rights of that child to express | themselves. | | And, by the way, freedom of speech includes the freedom to | respond to deplorable speech with criticism and even shunning. | If somebody thinks that you're a bigot or a hater, will you | defend their rights to say so? | omgomgomgomg wrote: | I do not know if you habe children, but this is for good | reason. | | Children are brutal when it comes to peer pressure and such. | They do not engage in white lies, they say it as they think | it is. | | If you send your boy in a pink mini dress to school, you will | not be doing him a favour. | | There should be some rules on how humans present themselves | when in public and in groups. I mean, if society would be | such that ypu could walk down the city center naked with all | reproductional organs exposed with nothing but a kkk t shirt, | this simply would not find acceptance. | | In summary, kids minds and kid environments like school are | fertile grounds for bullying under peer pressure etc. It is | good if a school promotes freedom of expression and | tolerance, but some very vocal minority groups want | everything yesterday and are pushing it down everyones | throats. | | Having had a close family member losing 5 years of his life | and his savings to a fortuneteller crook has made me realize | that people with too much of an open mind, in a crisis | situation, will believe the most ridiculous coping strategies | told to them by others. Kids are often insecure and easy to | influence, I think they should be kept away from people | promoting irreversible things like gender changes. Cigarettes | , gambling and alcohol are forbidden to be promoted to | minors, so should be this. | nailer wrote: | > But I see people of all stripes dressing their boys in | pants and their girls in skirts; blue for boys, pink for | girls; encouraging boys to hang with boys and play with "boy | things" and girls to hang with girls and play with "girl | things" and romanticizing cross-gender interactions between | children as young as a day old. I don't think we should be | forcing these norms on children of this age. | | I don't think we should be either. But asides from the well | known differences in brain size and white / grey matter | ratios which I'm sure you're already with, I encourage you to | visit your local Lesbian Mother's Group where I am sure you | will find many parents who absolutely believe in year-0 of | sex differences and who, based on my sister's experiences, | are often very surprised about how boys and girls act. | | > But I suspect that what you're actually saying is that we | should not tolerate transgender expression in children. | | There is no reason to say this. Many people against gender | theory are former 'tomboys' that are healthy adults, don't | conform to gender stereotypes, and are glad that breast | binding, hormones and cosmetic surgery weren't foisted on | them as children. | klyrs wrote: | Local Lesbian Mother here. What do you mean by "healthy | adults"? | [deleted] | nailer wrote: | > > Many people against gender theory are former | 'tomboys' that are healthy adults, don't conform to | gender stereotypes, and are glad that breast binding, | hormones and cosmetic surgery weren't foisted on them as | children. | | > What do you mean by "healthy adults"? | | By healthy adults I mean they don't feel any need to | conform to gender stereotypes, and are glad that breast | binding, hormones and cosmetic surgery weren't foisted on | them as children. | | Edit reply due to rate limit: yes I edited because I | realised I'd already written this in the comment you were | replying to, you just hadn't bothered to read the comment | before replying. I wanted to highlight how foolish you | were. I hope you understand now. | | And yes mutilating one's body is harming it, I have no | qualms in telling you this in a very direct non-quiet | fashion. Stop encouraging people to wreck their bodies. | klyrs wrote: | I see you edited from: | | > Comfortable as the sex they were born with, acting | however they like, without harming their bodies. | | > I would have thought that was clear but if you were | asking genuinely there's your answer. | | Yeah. It was clear to me that you were using "healthy" to | assert that transgender people who transition are | "unhealthy." That surgery is "harm." Your later edit | | > > > Many people against gender theory are former | 'tomboys' that are healthy adults, don't conform to | gender stereotypes, and are glad that breast binding, | hormones and cosmetic surgery weren't foisted on them as | children. | | > By healthy adults I mean they don't feel any need to | conform to gender stereotypes, and are glad that breast | binding, hormones and cosmetic surgery weren't foisted on | them as children. | | shows that you understand your initial statement to be a | dog whistle, and that upon reflection, you decided not to | say the quiet part loud. | | The topic here is about principles and rights of free | speech. You've swerved into a debate about the legitimacy | of transgender existence. I'm not here for that debate; | you can keep yammering if you like. | gyaru wrote: | I'm not sure why you're bothering replying to someone | who's misgendering someone in their previous comment? | try_the_bass wrote: | > shows that you understand your initial statement to be | a dog whistle, and that upon reflection, you decided not | to say the quiet part loud. | | You seem to be making some very strong assumptions about | intent [E] and have been since your first response in | this thread. As an outside observer, those assumptions | don't seem supported by the conversation up to this | point. | | Instead of assuming this person is strongly biased and | bigoted, perhaps can you instead assume they simply did | not make the point they were trying to make as clearly as | they would have liked, and thus revised their statement | accordingly? | | Something something positive intent and the like. | Assuming negative intent when there's very little signal | to support that assumption speaks more to your own | prejudices and biases than anything else. | klyrs wrote: | > Something something positive intent and the like | | Trust, but verify. It's one thing to recognize a dog | whistle and flip out. It's quite another thing to hear a | dog whistle, ask for elaboration, and nope out when | negative intent is revealed. | Ralfp wrote: | I agree with parent poster in their assumptions. Few | posts up @nailer repeats anti-trans talking point that | originated from 4chan. | jancsika wrote: | > Any deviation from a strict all or nothing approach is | silenced through bullying and harassment. | | I don't agree, so let's test my hypothesis right here! | | I come armed only with a _single_ , short article about trans | desistance that was aimed a general audience, let's have a | short but real discussion. Before that I was tabula rasa. | | IIRC the researcher Thomas Steensma quoted in the piece | produced both of these results in the same set of published | papers: | | 1. There is a high likelihood that some number of patients in | his clinic will no longer identify as trans when they are older | | 2. There is a set of predictors which can be used to help | identify minors in his clinic who will persist as trans when | they are older | | Reading between the lines, it also appears this is one of the | more conservative researchers-- i.e., his clinic waits to | socially transition kids longer than other clinics do. | | Even so, what I read is that a) the guidelines for diagnosing | gender dysphoria have become more stringent/accurate over the | past few decades, and b) more research will reveal more | predictors for persistence. | | Given that, your position at the very least is under-specified. | You could be saying that you favor waiting to do social | transitioning per this clinician's guidelines. Or, you could be | arguing that you want the predictors and indicators fleshed out | more before you'd be comfortable with the kinds of treatments | these clinics provide. Or, you could mean that you reject (out | of hand or otherwise) the research on these predictors and/or | the accompanying body of research. | | All of those positions invite differing qualities of | argumentation. And again, I've only read a _single_ article | here, so you may very well be privy to knowledge that would | sway me in a different direction. But unless that single | article was complete bunk, it appears that both the diagnosis | of and treatment for gender dysphoria has improved over the | past few decades, and that at least a part of the treatment is | social transition where the costs and benefits of those who | persist and desist need to be weighed. | | With my incredibly small amount of knowledge in this area, | _zero_ of this particular treatment option for everyone who is | a minor certainly seems excessive. If that is indeed your | position, then what is the evidence for it and why aren 't | experts in the field taking that evidence into account? | | In any case, I believe I have fulfilled the requirements for at | least a single anecdatum that shows lack of bullying/harassment | for your stated position. | | [1]: https://www.kqed.org/futureofyou/441784/the-controversial- | re... | trieste92 wrote: | > why aren't experts in the field taking that evidence into | account? | | Money. Build your entire career around treatments for trans | minors, and without them you have no career | UncleMeat wrote: | This argument is facile, as it can be used against | _everything_. | tsimionescu wrote: | I'm not sure I understand your position. Do you believe there | any possible opinion is legitimate, and that there is nothing | that someone could believe in that should get them labeled a | hater and socially ostracized? Should we feel a need to become | friends with klansmen to prove that we are open minded? | | And if not, then how do you draw the line? If there are people | who find your own opinion abhorrent or othering or whatever and | wish not to associate or discuss with you, by what authority | are they wrong? Do you personally feel the need to debate every | opinion you hear? How many times should you defend your own | opinion before it becoming acceptable not to want to discuss it | again? | | And just to engage a little bit with your particular opinion, I | for one am immediately suspicious of any argument that says | "non-sexual non-violent behavior X is acceptable, but not | around children". Of course, I am open to the idea that in | principle you may have some compelling arguments that I haven't | heard before. However, I don't think it's very likely, so my | prior would be that you are indeed not very trans friendly. If | I were trans, I would be quite inclined to avoid you because of | that, and very disinclined to debate this particular point with | you in any setting where a more hostile discussion might | reflect poorly on me (say, in the workplace). I don't think | this reasoning is overly emotional or thought-ending. It's a | rational way to respond to speech that may become | confrontational. | roody15 wrote: | Identity formation is an complex and fascinating subject in | human development. As an educator and father of three can | also chime in with my own personal experience. | | I believe that many (if not most) people do not have a fully | formed identity around gender or around sexuality by the age | of 15-16. | | So asking questions to this group on whether they identity as | this or that may actually cause some psychological harm | because they are still in the process of forming an identity | on multiple fronts. | | Imagine being a 15 year young women just out of middle | school. You are extremely uncomfortable with you're body, | appearance and just now discovering things of a sexual | nature. This period is difficult for many regardless of | sexual orientation or gender. | | Now imagine going into your freshman english class and the | first question asked by your teacher is introduce yourself | and your preferred pronoun. This may seem progressive and | tolerant but consider it may also be harmful to minors at | this stage of development. | | Now as an adult if you feel you may have gender dysmorphia | and start to identify as a deferent gender than birth .. by | all means. In this case I am fully supportive and want people | to feel comfortable and find happiness, I also believe we | live in a mostly free society so as an adult this is | absolutely within your rights. | | If you read this far I thank you and am fine is you disagree. | Just my thought is my perspective (and many others) as a | father of three girls and educator for 20 years should allow | for some nuisance in discussion. | | My issue is not wether you and I agree on this topic as I | assume you have your own valid perspective and experience .. | my issue is that this topic is put off limits in many cases | and it's an all or nothing acceptance on supporting trans | rights and what that entails. | [deleted] | tsimionescu wrote: | > my issue is that this topic is put off limits in many | cases and it's an all or nothing acceptance on supporting | trans rights and what that entails. | | I understand your concern, and I think your perspective is | actually non-discriminatory. | | But I'm still curious how you think the line should be | drawn. If I said I think race mixing is a bad idea (to be | very clear, I absolutely don't hold this opinion), do you | think it would be fair for people to avoid discussing with | me? | Spivak wrote: | Where it gets complicated is dealing with dog whistles. Because | you're not actually expressing an opinion that liberals | disagree with. No one wants a kid who expresses some gender | nonconformity to be pressured into identifying as trans or | transitioning. The liberal position is and always has been such | things should be made available to everyone with appropriate | medical and psychiatric supervision. | | But in our shirty new world online discourse the game is now to | say something that is obviously true "kids shouldn't be forced | to transition" but then actually mean something else "kids | shouldn't be allowed to transition" and then introduce | legislation to that effect. So if you go on the internet and | say these kinds of things that no one really disagrees with | like it's a hot take then people pick up pretty fast what you | mean. The people caught it the crossfire are unfortunately | those folks who actually hold the literal opinion that got | appropriated because bigots realized it they could use it as a | whistle. | nailer wrote: | Kids shouldn't be allowed to transition. They can't get | tattoos or join the military, they're not in a position to | have elective surgery that may irreparably damage their body. | This isn't bigoted and shame on anyone that thinks it is. | flangola7 wrote: | You can't say something bigoted and then try to add a | disclaimer and somehow make it magically not big bigoted. | Leave pediatric medicine up to the pediatric doctors. | | I have a niece who is transitioning and it's attitudes like | this that endanger her wellbeing. | nailer wrote: | Doctors, particularly psychologists who are familiar with | autogynophilia, are often forbidden from speaking by | gender theorists who have no medical training. | flangola7 wrote: | Forbidden? Under what law? | | Not to mention, a few cherry picked oddball psychologists | does not a consensus make. There are civil engineers that | will say 9/11 was a thermite inside job and physicians | that say crystals have healing powers. That doesn't mean | they are right or even represent the scientific | community's broad consensus. | | I also suspect most of the people spreading transphobic | messages have never had a close openly trans friend, | partner, or family member. | violat wrote: | > I also suspect most of the people spreading transphobic | messages have never had a close openly trans friend, | partner, or family member. | | Many gender-critical women are those who have experienced | the trans phenomenon via a man in their life deciding | that he is now a woman, and observing first hand the | misogyny in his expression of what he thinks makes him a | woman. The accounts of transwidows (women whose husbands | transitioned) are particularly depressing and painful to | read, as their marriage breaks down while he transforms | himself into an offensive caricature of womanhood. | Spivak wrote: | This one touches a nerve because of how frustrating it is | that the internet learned a new big word and it spread | like wildfire among people who have an axe to grind | against trans folks. | | Sorry for the 50 minute video but there's basically | nothing I can write that will explain and deconstruct | this better than an actual trans woman. | | https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6czRFLs5JQo | violat wrote: | Yet, many transwomen self-identify as having | autogynephilia. | | There's even a subreddit for it: AskAGP. | Spivak wrote: | Transitioning != Surgery | | You have to be 18 for GRS or 16 if you have very very long | standing documented history of debilitating dysphoria. It | is the same for top surgery and any other cosmetic | procedures. HRT isn't until puberty. | | Kids transitioning is name, pronouns, clothes, and where | they stand in boy girl boy girl lines at school. | | I swear ever time I talk to people about these issues at | events or whatever people will go on long rants and end | with me being like yep, not only go I agree but that's how | it currently works. | | Like the accommodation that trans kids/teens want with | locker rooms is single person stalls so they don't have to | change in front of their classmates or awkwardly maneuver | around a toilet but the rhetoric you see is completely | opposite of that. | | Genuinely, I am sorry and what or whoever made you feel | like you were bigoted or transphobic for basically agreeing | with WPATH standards. | nailer wrote: | Kim Petras began taking hormones as a 12 year old and had | surgery when he was 16. | | Young girls are being encouraged to bind their breasts | which also causes damage. | Spivak wrote: | Yes, at 12, when puberty starts and got GRS at 16 because | of the aforementioned long documented history of | dysphoria which is the minimum. | | The only thing trans guys are encouraged to do is if they | bind to do it safely. | nailer wrote: | Excellent, glad we're agreed on the facts, and for the | record I think these are awful things to do to a 12 and | later 16 year old boy that doesn't feel he's 'manly' | enough. | Spivak wrote: | I think ultimately this is where we're gonna have to | agree to disagree because to me, someone who works with | trans people all the time, this is a gross | mischaracterization of what it means to be trans. | Manliness or womanliness has nothing to do with it, I | know trans women who are super butch and do metalwork and | know trans men who are femboys. The "wrongness" trans | people feel their whole lives and the distress it causes | (dysphoria) runs through to the very core. The most | commonly reported age where trans people "know" is 5-6 | well before they have any idea about what being a boy or | girl even means. | | Differentiating between "boy who is gnc" and "trans girl" | is why every part of this process has multiple | safeguards. And the reason why this matters and why the | trans community doesn't just say "whatever just make them | wait until 18" is because going on HRT in early | adolescence means they will grow up virtually | indistinguishable from a cis person and get to live a | much happier and safer life. What $10 pills can do at 14 | costs $50-$75k or is just impossible later. | nailer wrote: | I know in the US there's around 150K minimum for | transition so there's definitely opportunity for perverse | incentives. In the UK they talked about having multiple | safeguards too before the Tavistock Clinic was shut down | for harming children by 'gender reaffirmation'. | | A foul smelling surgical hole isn't "virtually | indistinguishable" from a vagina. It is nonsense to say | so. | Ralfp wrote: | A foul smelling surgical hole isn't "virtually | indistinguishable" from a vagina. | | A single reddit post that was then amplified by 4chan is | not indicative of all neovaginas, but its indicative of | your information sources and ability to curate them. | | There are thousands of people who underwent this | procedure and are both happy and don't report same | issues. | | Also, images for results of those surgeries are available | on Google for anyone to judge themselves how "foul" those | results are. | oopol wrote: | [dead] | ragemach wrote: | [flagged] | omgomgomgomg wrote: | They absolutelly should not. Nobody is fit for conrracting | while underage. I would go as far and invoke my own freedom | of speech and say kids should not be allowed to be targeted | by any dog whistling or promot material period Wonder how | tolerant these folks would be with my view. | nopelane wrote: | The term "transition" as used here is a euphemism that covers | interfering with a child's puberty in a way that is likely to | sterilize them for life if the treatment persists, and | surgical destruction of breasts, and in some cases, genitals. | | I think most people, understanding the reality of this in | stark terms, would be dead against children transitioning. | trieste92 wrote: | > The term "transition" as used here is a euphemism that | covers interfering with a child's puberty in a way that is | likely to sterilize them for life if the treatment | persists, and surgical destruction of breasts, and in some | cases, genitals. | | > I think most people, understanding the reality of this in | stark terms, would be dead against children transitioning. | | The only reason why this hasn't been outright banned for | minors yet is because older voters don't know what's | happening. | | It's funny, I see a NYT article that literally just repeats | these things out loud so that everyone can see what's | happening, and then they get attacked for just describing | what's happening | | What's being done right now is so damning, no criticism is | necessary. Only visibility. The people who want to hide | facts from the public can only do this for so long | trieste92 wrote: | > but then actually mean something else "kids shouldn't be | allowed to transition" and then introduce legislation to that | effect. | | Minors aren't capable of consent. The treatments have | permanent side effects and lead to sterilization. One of the | drugs used to aid in "transitioning" is lupron, which is also | used to sterilize sex offenders | | The only reason why any of this is allowed to happen is | because the general population doesn't see what's happening. | Criticism or "explanations" aren't necessary, all that's | needed is visibility so that everyone can see what's being | done and vote accordingly | giraffe_lady wrote: | > Minors aren't capable of consent. | | Which is why the permission of their parents acts as a | limit on what they're able to agree to, in this case as in | all others. | | > The treatments have permanent side effects | | Yes, that's the point. | | > lead to sterilization. One of the drugs used to aid in | "transitioning" is lupron, which is also used to sterilize | sex offenders | | This is _pure_ bad faith fear mongering. It doesn 't matter | what else the drugs could do. Titanium is used in missiles, | chemotherapy drugs can be used for euthenasia. None of | those are what we're talking about, so talk about what | we're talking about not some other unrelated thing. | | > The only reason why any of this is allowed to happen is | because the general population doesn't see what's | happening. | | There's no "general population" this is being slyly pushed | on. People are making decisions within their families. Each | individual is making choices with medical consideration and | the guidance and, if a minor, ultimately the permission of | their families and doctors. | | "Allowed" is a telling choice of words though! You're | advocating for a state-enforced limit on what people are | _allowed_ to choose for themselves. | | --- | | And additionally, and very seriously, wake the fuck up and | pay attention. The anti-trans moral panic is the tip of the | spear of fascism in north america. You had a clean chance | to see that and change course last year when Putin | explicitly used anti-LGBT reasoning as part of his | justification for the invasion of ukraine! Look at what | Orban is up to, what comes along with this rhetoric. _Look | at what you are being used to accomplish_. | renewiltord wrote: | People are allowed to call you bigot or hater. That's freedom | of speech. Even if you disagree with it. | Oras wrote: | These days you can offend people by saying anything. Talking to | people became kind of a mine field. | | Such quotes are close to fiction. | greenhorn360 wrote: | Like saying what? I dont feel like this talking to hardly | anyone | antirez wrote: | I friend of mine used to say: I disapprove of what you say, but I | would kill myself to avoid hearing it again. | SapporoChris wrote: | I always heard it as: "I disapprove of what you say but I will | defend to the death your right to go fuck yourself" | maybeitshim wrote: | "I disapprove of what you say but i will defend to the death your | right to say it" | | Hahaha this reminds of a Romanian politician who had returned to | Romania after the revolution and wanted to become president. He | was recognizable by his style of wearing a bowtie amongst a sea | of ties. He used to utter this same quote to the people but it | fell on deaf ears because people wanted products not rights. He | never won and is all but forgotten even in the country he wanted | to steer in the _right_ direction. | archon1410 wrote: | The politician referred to here is Ion Ratiu.[1][2][3] | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_Ra%C8%9Biu [2] | https://transylvaniantours.com/ion-ratiu/ [3] | https://www.reddit.com/r/Romania/comments/9m3sds/voiam_s%C4%... ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-02-26 23:00 UTC)