That’s the problem with platforms that offshoot for free speech reasons.
I want to be able to say eat the rich and luigi magione was right.
Others want to spout hate in all forms.
Then people begin to argue these are the save of you should tolerate intolerance. Which you should never do
I want to be able to say eat the rich and luigi magione was right.
You can. [email protected] & [email protected]
You just can’t advocate for violence.
Can someone recommend me a new instance and how to move my account?
The left is getting killed on the trans sports issue (which I believe is a completely manufactured issue) because we haven’t talked about it enough to iron out a reasonable position.
The general pop is not accepting of trans people in professional sports. I don’t think that will change anytime soon but trans people playing school sports is far more accepted and I think its a much more convincing to fight on the issue of trans people participating in school sports for fun and social reasons. It draws away from the shit narrative that trans people are trying to compete at the highest level and I don’t think anyone can reasonably argue against it since casual sport commonly mixes gender.
It’s a non issue. Professional and high level competitive sports like international council and Olympics addressed this YEARS ago. With data and research to support their current positions and recommendedations.
Its a non issue but its still something on peoples minds thanks to right wingers constantly bringing it up and writing policy on it. Normally id say its fine to ignore it but since they’ve written policy on it left wingers need to reverse that and get protections in place.
Hopefully in my part of the world the challenges based on discrimination and rights violation go through. Once that reinforces that no, you can’t do these things, it becomes a closed topic.
You can’t logically argue your way out of bigotry. They don’t care whether they’re actually correct or not about trans issues. They already wanted to harm us and remove us from society where possible, and will find any reason to do so. See: the bathroom debates.
I’d rather people just stood up for us at all than act like they need to make good points in order for us to exist. You’re all playing kickball and we’re the ball.
Its not about presenting a logical argument. I think at this point we’ve seen that doesnt work. Its about presenting an emotionally convincing argument. Shifting the focus to causal sports is more likely to convince the average person that its fine. This does two things it prevents the conversation shifting to extreme examples and it plants the seed for conversations about trans participation in competitive sport.
You can’t give an inch is the issue. Not only because we’re talking about fundamental human rights (trans people should just accept not being permitted to engage in sports?) but because it only shifts the Overton window onto the next thing with arguments now strengthened by capitulation.
If you permit transphobes the position that trans women are dangerous in sports it becomes easier to point to that and say “see, they are also dangerous in [new domain of contention], the progressives even agree!
My point is that you arent giving up on that point you’re avoiding it. Its not a popular point and if you try to argue it you lose in the minds of the average person. By avoiding the issue and talking about stronger examples like Trans people being humans who want to play sport to make friends and have fun you get a much stronger position to argue from.
I usually point out that the Olympics have allowed trans contenders since 2004, and if it was the cheat code it’s asserted to be, the entire Chinese and Russian teams would be trans people. That usually gets people thinking “huh, maybe this is some bull”
My issue is that that is a good argument and should be convincing it doesnt convince people. When they hear that they hand wave it then get swayed by a more emotional argument of a random example of a trans women doing well in a sport. I’ve been watching how right wingers do media and there is a tatic i think should be co op’d. Basically if they try and say “trans people shouldnt be allowed in sports because a trans boxer broke someones nose” You just completely ignore that and say “the legislation prevented a trans person from playing in causal after school netball team how the fuck is that fair.” Then hopefully they take the bait and response to what you’ve said and everyone watching forgets the 1st point and hangs on the 2nd point which is fair easier to defend because it makes sense to people emotionally.
People really want free speech until they don’t.
If someone’s being a prick, just clown on them. They are entitled to speak their opinion, regardless of how stupid it is. Social ostracization will always be worse than anything moderation can do anyways.
The tolerant must not tolerate the intolerant
There is no objective truth; you can’t say someone who is intolerant is objectively incorrect, because in their worldview they are correct. Yes, there are bigots in the world, but taking away their right to speak is a theft of their basic human rights, and the issue is not a question of tolerance, the issue is that by silencing someone for their intolerant worldview you are righteously proclaiming your worldview as correct. I wouldn’t want my morals righteously applied onto other people; because I don’t believe my morals are objectively correct. That doesn’t mean I’m not gonna confront someone if they something I don’t jive with, it just means that I do not think they should lose their right to an opinion just because its “wrong”
this is a privately-owned space on the internet, not a hall of Congress. “Freedom of speech” literally does not exist here.
There are also some “opinions” which simply should not be tolerated; see the Paradox of Tolerance.
