Except the person argued about what IS fine, not what WAS considered fine in the past. The person is literally arguing that we ought to be able to misgender people. They claim it is morally righteous to misgender trans people. Their reasoning is that people are only labeling misgendering as hate speech because they disagree with it, not because it is actually hate speech.
I provided good reasons as to why misgendering and promoting the conservative gender ideology that causes it is harmful, debunking their argument that the perspective is being labeled only due to disagreement. Let’s look back at their original argument.
That’s all fine and dandy until people change the definition of those words to suit their needs. Then all speech they disagree with is hate speech. Which has already happened.
The argument that hate speech laws could be used frivolously to silence those who disagree is a valid hypothetical concern. Where this person fucks up is by claiming things are already being labeled as hate speech even when they aren’t. This is suspect because there aren’t many places that seriously outlaw hate speech, and most of those places have yet to overstep the law in any real way.
In places like the US where people are at best, socially shunned for hate speech, it’s uncommon for people to falsely claim bigotry on a large scale. Usually when a false claim is made, the falsehood is in the description of events, not the moral principle being applied to.
When another poster pushes back, the person claims the conservative gender ideology isn’t hateful and is deemed as such because people disagree with it, and argument I showed to be lacking. It is hateful because it inherently promotes hate and discrimination. You’re trying to run interference for the poster by misunderstanding the moral principle that they appealed to.
They did not appeal to the idea that words get changed to make you look wrong for using the old definition. This would be like if “to flame” was understood to mean criticize, but everyone forgot that usage and then you said “we should flame that guy.” You meant something reasonable but people didn’t understand you. That’s what you claim is the problem when you say:
People change the definition of words and if you still use that words you are treated as a bigot and worse.
The poster claimed that the old definition is actually good and should still be used. I pointed out how that the old definition is problematic, even by the logic of the past. It excludes and includes people it shouldn’t which results in real harm. I laid out the real harm done by those definitions, allowing the poster to make an informed decision on whether to still hold that definition. If they still choose to insist on that old definition that harms a group of people for characteristics they didn’t choose, then they are a bigot. Harming a group for innate characteristics is bigotry.
TLDR: You ironically moved the goalposts and misunderstood what the poster was arguing. I did not prove them right in any way.
This is ridiculous, really. It does feel as if you were bots going aggressively off on a tangent with no connection to the content or context.
Or you are simply unwilling/unable to make a distinction between different levels of communication.
Do you agree that sometimes things were fine to say in the past and now they are considered hate speech?
That was the topic of the discussion.
To prevent you and others from getting caught up in and endless loop of being triggered, I will provide another example instead:
In the past it was okay to address a woman as “Fräulein X” when she was unmarried. And as “Frau X” when she was married (in German). No one cared about that, now, many people will considered it rude an bigoted and call you a sexist when doing it anyway.
Now that I think about it I feel it’s actually quite easy to find a few examples, and the question to the original poster to provide an example was seemingly just bait so you all can get enraged for a bit. And everyone who didn’t participate in the overall outrage, you generously consider and treat as a bigot you have to correct as well.
Do you agree that sometimes things were fine to say in the past and now they are considered hate speech?
That was the topic of the discussion.
That wasn’t the topic of discussion. This was my entire point. You’re the one who changed the argument into something it wasn’t. The person claimed things were being labeled as hate speech ONLY because people disagreed with them. They were not arguing that things were simply rendered offensive. They argued that things were WRONGLY rendered hate speech to silence good arguments.
We were not going off on a tangent, you are.
What I don’t know for certain is whether or not you’re trying to defend bigotry, or if you just didn’t understand the discussion. I suspect it’s a bit of both. You saw this person having their bigotry getting revealed, and then due to enlightened centrism brainrot, you changed the argument in your head into something that was reasonable. This was done to maintain your worldview that the larger trans/hate speech debate is fought between two sides that have reasonable concerns.
The fact is, in this debate, one side is just morally wrong. The rejection of trans people will cause material harm to vulnerable people, while accepting trans people will cause almost no real harm to anyone. It can be reasonably argued that hate speech laws could be weaponized against the people they were supposed to protect, but no one here made those arguments effectively. In fact, most of the time this argument isn’t made effectively, because the people using the argument are really just in favor of hate speech.
You tried to misrepresent someone’s bad argument, not shift to what could have been a good argument.
You did prove them right, though. It was fine to say a woman is someone with a vagina and a man is someone with a penis in the past and now you consider this hate speech.
So, their point is correct. People change the definition of words and if you still use that words you are treated as a bigot and worse.
Now quote to me please where I, in my post to which you reacted, tried to defend bigotry.
Especially in which form I said something so bigoted, that it’s okay to call me an asshole, someone with brainrot, a transphobe and someone who defends hate speech.
You assume all kinds of things about me, from a simple post. And fall into hateful rhetoric simply for me not jumping when everyone was supposed to jump, apparently.
It’s almost as if this was bait to get someone to say anything you can deliberately get outraged by to then start hurling insults. No matter discussing in good faith or perhaps asking back first. No, you immediately assumed I was a bigot with “centrism brainrot”.
Ok, I’ll show you where you defend bigotry. You defend it by trying to misrepresent a bigoted argument as I stated before. You call into question whether or not the argument is bigoted:
It was fine to say a woman is someone with a vagina and a man is someone with a penis in the past and now you consider this hate speech.
So, their point is correct. People change the definition of words and if you still use that words you are treated as a bigot and worse.
The phrase, “People change the definition of words and if you still use that words you are treated as a bigot and worse.” States that a person is treated as a bigot, not that they are a bigot. You refocus the person called a “bigot” as the victim.
Worse still, you state that they are called a bigot for simply not using new definitions. The issue isn’t so much that they don’t use new definitions, it’s that they use definitions that justify and reinforce bigotry. They use harmful and hateful definitions, and are thus doing bigoted things. I tried not to essentialize them as a bigot, but I did point out how using that definition is bigoted.
A person said something bigoted, I pointed out why it was bigoted. In that original response I didn’t even call them a bigot. I said they were helping bigots by using that argument.
I have also not called you a bigot, just speculated on what you may think. I didn’t even speculate that you’re a bigot, just that you are wrong. If you think I used “hateful rhetoric” by saying you had brainrot, I’m not sorry. People getting called out for defending harmful arguments in the milquetoast way I did isn’t something to be ashamed of.
You keep positioning people who make or defend harmful arguments as the victim, and I frankly have no more time for it. The victims are the people harmed by these arguments, not the people who get rightly criticized for perpetuating it. I care more about the thousands of trans people who are getting denied lifesaving treatment because of anti trans laws. I care more about the people who get bullied or murdered for being queer. I don’t think you getting downvoted and feeling guilty matters compared to the real harmful ideas you’re protecting.
This is such a truckload of virtue signaling. It seems like more and more people jump on this train and it’s borderline fascist. I did make a tongue in cheek comment on how you proved this person correct (something you didn’t even address at all) and you try to frame me because of that comment as someone in the vicinity of bullies and murderes.
In reality, you are the bullies. Everyone who does not walk on egg shells all the time is a hateful bigot that needs to be stomped out immediately. At the same time, I don’t see you comment on misogynistic memes or any other of the bigotry that’s rife on this site. But dare everyone who doesn’t raise their fist when you say so. They better be ready to be insulted.
Except the person argued about what IS fine, not what WAS considered fine in the past. The person is literally arguing that we ought to be able to misgender people. They claim it is morally righteous to misgender trans people. Their reasoning is that people are only labeling misgendering as hate speech because they disagree with it, not because it is actually hate speech.
I provided good reasons as to why misgendering and promoting the conservative gender ideology that causes it is harmful, debunking their argument that the perspective is being labeled only due to disagreement. Let’s look back at their original argument.
The argument that hate speech laws could be used frivolously to silence those who disagree is a valid hypothetical concern. Where this person fucks up is by claiming things are already being labeled as hate speech even when they aren’t. This is suspect because there aren’t many places that seriously outlaw hate speech, and most of those places have yet to overstep the law in any real way.
In places like the US where people are at best, socially shunned for hate speech, it’s uncommon for people to falsely claim bigotry on a large scale. Usually when a false claim is made, the falsehood is in the description of events, not the moral principle being applied to.
When another poster pushes back, the person claims the conservative gender ideology isn’t hateful and is deemed as such because people disagree with it, and argument I showed to be lacking. It is hateful because it inherently promotes hate and discrimination. You’re trying to run interference for the poster by misunderstanding the moral principle that they appealed to.
They did not appeal to the idea that words get changed to make you look wrong for using the old definition. This would be like if “to flame” was understood to mean criticize, but everyone forgot that usage and then you said “we should flame that guy.” You meant something reasonable but people didn’t understand you. That’s what you claim is the problem when you say:
The poster claimed that the old definition is actually good and should still be used. I pointed out how that the old definition is problematic, even by the logic of the past. It excludes and includes people it shouldn’t which results in real harm. I laid out the real harm done by those definitions, allowing the poster to make an informed decision on whether to still hold that definition. If they still choose to insist on that old definition that harms a group of people for characteristics they didn’t choose, then they are a bigot. Harming a group for innate characteristics is bigotry.
TLDR: You ironically moved the goalposts and misunderstood what the poster was arguing. I did not prove them right in any way.
This is ridiculous, really. It does feel as if you were bots going aggressively off on a tangent with no connection to the content or context.
Or you are simply unwilling/unable to make a distinction between different levels of communication.
Do you agree that sometimes things were fine to say in the past and now they are considered hate speech? That was the topic of the discussion.
To prevent you and others from getting caught up in and endless loop of being triggered, I will provide another example instead: In the past it was okay to address a woman as “Fräulein X” when she was unmarried. And as “Frau X” when she was married (in German). No one cared about that, now, many people will considered it rude an bigoted and call you a sexist when doing it anyway.
Now that I think about it I feel it’s actually quite easy to find a few examples, and the question to the original poster to provide an example was seemingly just bait so you all can get enraged for a bit. And everyone who didn’t participate in the overall outrage, you generously consider and treat as a bigot you have to correct as well.
That wasn’t the topic of discussion. This was my entire point. You’re the one who changed the argument into something it wasn’t. The person claimed things were being labeled as hate speech ONLY because people disagreed with them. They were not arguing that things were simply rendered offensive. They argued that things were WRONGLY rendered hate speech to silence good arguments.
We were not going off on a tangent, you are.
What I don’t know for certain is whether or not you’re trying to defend bigotry, or if you just didn’t understand the discussion. I suspect it’s a bit of both. You saw this person having their bigotry getting revealed, and then due to enlightened centrism brainrot, you changed the argument in your head into something that was reasonable. This was done to maintain your worldview that the larger trans/hate speech debate is fought between two sides that have reasonable concerns.
The fact is, in this debate, one side is just morally wrong. The rejection of trans people will cause material harm to vulnerable people, while accepting trans people will cause almost no real harm to anyone. It can be reasonably argued that hate speech laws could be weaponized against the people they were supposed to protect, but no one here made those arguments effectively. In fact, most of the time this argument isn’t made effectively, because the people using the argument are really just in favor of hate speech.
You tried to misrepresent someone’s bad argument, not shift to what could have been a good argument.
This is my post you reacted to:
Now quote to me please where I, in my post to which you reacted, tried to defend bigotry.
Especially in which form I said something so bigoted, that it’s okay to call me an asshole, someone with brainrot, a transphobe and someone who defends hate speech.
You assume all kinds of things about me, from a simple post. And fall into hateful rhetoric simply for me not jumping when everyone was supposed to jump, apparently.
It’s almost as if this was bait to get someone to say anything you can deliberately get outraged by to then start hurling insults. No matter discussing in good faith or perhaps asking back first. No, you immediately assumed I was a bigot with “centrism brainrot”.
Ok, I’ll show you where you defend bigotry. You defend it by trying to misrepresent a bigoted argument as I stated before. You call into question whether or not the argument is bigoted:
The phrase, “People change the definition of words and if you still use that words you are treated as a bigot and worse.” States that a person is treated as a bigot, not that they are a bigot. You refocus the person called a “bigot” as the victim.
Worse still, you state that they are called a bigot for simply not using new definitions. The issue isn’t so much that they don’t use new definitions, it’s that they use definitions that justify and reinforce bigotry. They use harmful and hateful definitions, and are thus doing bigoted things. I tried not to essentialize them as a bigot, but I did point out how using that definition is bigoted.
A person said something bigoted, I pointed out why it was bigoted. In that original response I didn’t even call them a bigot. I said they were helping bigots by using that argument.
I have also not called you a bigot, just speculated on what you may think. I didn’t even speculate that you’re a bigot, just that you are wrong. If you think I used “hateful rhetoric” by saying you had brainrot, I’m not sorry. People getting called out for defending harmful arguments in the milquetoast way I did isn’t something to be ashamed of.
You keep positioning people who make or defend harmful arguments as the victim, and I frankly have no more time for it. The victims are the people harmed by these arguments, not the people who get rightly criticized for perpetuating it. I care more about the thousands of trans people who are getting denied lifesaving treatment because of anti trans laws. I care more about the people who get bullied or murdered for being queer. I don’t think you getting downvoted and feeling guilty matters compared to the real harmful ideas you’re protecting.
This is such a truckload of virtue signaling. It seems like more and more people jump on this train and it’s borderline fascist. I did make a tongue in cheek comment on how you proved this person correct (something you didn’t even address at all) and you try to frame me because of that comment as someone in the vicinity of bullies and murderes.
In reality, you are the bullies. Everyone who does not walk on egg shells all the time is a hateful bigot that needs to be stomped out immediately. At the same time, I don’t see you comment on misogynistic memes or any other of the bigotry that’s rife on this site. But dare everyone who doesn’t raise their fist when you say so. They better be ready to be insulted.