Little Greta comes clean

[oxmixmudd]

What did I say the first time? Free speech = everything should be protected if it's only verbal. If you want to cry fire in movie theater, you should be allowed to do it. But if anyone gets hurt, you pay the legal consequences. It makes everything simple that way. No gray areas, no slippery slopes, no one person or group of people determining want language is acceptable or protected and what isn't. FYI, my father was black.

There can't be unlimited free speech. And that kind of perverse speech wasn't the intent to start with. The intent is to prevent the government from forcefully shutting up it's critics.

[seanD]

There can't be unlimited free speech. And that kind of perverse speech wasn't the intent to start with. The intent is to prevent the government from forcefully shutting up it's critics.

There could be unlimited free speech, but there won't be for obvious reasons. We can at least make an attempt to keep speech as free as long as God will allow it to last.

[DivineOb]

What did I say the first time? Free speech = everything should be protected if it's only verbal. If you want to cry fire in movie theater, you should be allowed to do it. But if anyone gets hurt, you pay the legal consequences. It makes everything simple that way. No gray areas, no slippery slopes, no one person or group of people determining want language is acceptable or protected and what isn't. FYI, my father was black.

Ok, let's drop the ethnicity thing (I'm 100% white BTW, so now we're even). I get the point you were trying to make but I would encourage you to think through whether it really makes sense to legalize death threats, bomb threats, libel / slander, fake ransom demands, bomb making guides, copyrighted materials, 3d printable gun designs etc. It does make things simpler if anything goes but I don't think it leads to the kind of society most of us would want to live in.

[seer]

My only argument with seer was that it seems to be just a matter of his being rude and disrespectful to someone he just doesn't like being that he was perfectly fine with calling Donna by her preferred name.

I wasn't being rude, I was being accurate with Christopher. And that was because Chris demanded compliance and Donna did not.

[seer]

Then give us a straight answer Tass, should the force of law be used for those who refuse to use specific pro-nouns?



No, I think Christ is a historic person as related in the New Testament, and arguably the single most influential person in human history.


But we can prove that Chris is not a woman. You can not demonstrate that Christ is not a historic figure.

is

That is nonsense Tass, you attack religion at every turn even when it has nothing to do with political questions like our many discussions on the Philosophy board. And it seems that you would have no problem using the law to force the delusional use of pro-nouns. More double standards.

[Sparko]

In general I agree.

It only becomes an issue when a particular person is being subjected to repeated insults in vastly greater volume and frequency than others. People being picked on and bullied in such a way is harmful to them and has measurable negative consequences - e.g. much worse health outcomes (chronic stress, heart attacks, strokes), or drives them to drink or to drugs or suicide at much higher rates than non-bullied people. The saying 'sticks and stones my break my bones, but names will never hurt me' is empirically false.

For that reason it's reasonable for schools to attempt to limit bullying. For that reason it's reasonable for society to attempt to limit bullying toward adults who are at risk of it. That's why I think hate-speech laws can have a place, because people in minority groups might be picked on and insulted on a daily basis by everyone they interact with. If instead we can give these people are relatively normal life free of abnormally large amount of bullying, for a relatively low price of having a law banning nastiness toward them, that seems like a large net social gain for a relatively low social cost.

Kind of like the way the democrats treat conservatives? Calling us deplorables, racists, fascists, Nazis, etc?

[mossrose]

Did you know that it is against the law in Canada to not refer to someone by their chosen gender's gender or name.

A BC father was hauled into court recently for refusing to refer to his child by the name and gender forced upon the child by the stepmother.

That's a thread around here somewhere.

So, hate-speech here includes gender shifting pronouns.

[oxmixmudd]

Did you know that it is against the law in Canada to not refer to someone by their chosen gender's gender or name.

A BC father was hauled into court recently for refusing to refer to his child by the name and gender forced upon the child by the stepmother.

That's a thread around here somewhere.

So, hate-speech here includes gender shifting pronouns.

We agree that case is bizarre and an indication of something fundamentally wrong with the current direction of thought on these issues.

[mossrose]

We agree that case is bizarre and an indication of something fundamentally wrong with the current direction of thought on these issues.

We have Trudeau to thank for personkind jokes and the current hate speech laws.

[Teallaura]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're white.

That's racist, DO.

[mossrose]

This thread has sure devolved from the topic of the hypocrisy of the enviro-fanatics.

[rogue06]

This thread has sure devolved from the topic of the hypocrisy of the enviro-fanatics.

That's never happened before

[DivineOb]

That's racist, DO.

Care to elaborate?

[mossrose]

That's never happened before

Yeah!

[Teallaura]

Care to elaborate?

Seems self evident - making assumptions about someone's race because of the person's views as if skin color dictated thought.