Anyway, octopus, didn’t we just have this same discussion earlier this month?
Thank you for answering my question.
Nobody can force you to think a certain way.
As to speaking in public: do you object to people whose perceptions of what they think biological reality is include that they are convinced that everyone with dark skin is biologically inferior to those with white skin being discouraged from addressing dark skinned people accordingly?
This is true.
That doesn’t follow.
The first few people to reject slavery were more moral than the last few to favor it.
Somebody who rejected it on the first Tuesday of June in 1867 wasn’t necessarily more moral than someone who did so on the last Thursday of July in 1867, sure. But there are limits.
So a religion is free to do what it wants as long as it doesn’t violate YOUR interpretation of human rights?
Isn’t that at odds with this?
Either those two statements contradict each other or you’re saying that what is or isn’t a human rights violation is subject to your interpretation while also saying that others don’t get to make those same interpretations.
You are dishonestly conflating two things. Bad crow!
Well, you could have answered my fucking question…
Which you could have done above instead of whining about it.
It is a confusing set of statements, to be honest, because how is it we determine rights to begin with? I don’t take the expansive view that some do that there is a right to housing for example. So there are going to be conflicting sets of what is considered a human right. It’s almost redundant for me to state that I believe people are free to live as they wish up until the point they violate other’s rights. So the whole facade of the promotion of human rights in a de-facto might makes right world requires a bit of wishful thinking/double-think.
So if I have the ideological view that blacks are subhuman inferiors and so call them monkey N–grs, then nobody has a right to be bothered and I shouldn’t be sanctioned in any way.
We had a choice about this message board. We could either have a board where transgendered people felt welcome, or we could have a board where bigoted TERF’s could offend them with impunity. We couldn’t have it both ways. It was decided that the former group was preferred.
I’m thinking more objective. Like if someone is measured with a ruler to be 5’ and they identify as 6’ 5" my eyes aren’t lying if I see them as 5’. Now gender identity being a manifestation of a brain state is vastly more complicated to objectively measure and right now society is coming to grips with that. People don’t know what’s in another person’s brain. At least now we don’t. So we take them at their word. How language reflects that is naturally in flux.
That is different than expressing the concept that a given class of people are subhuman.
As far as I can tell, your only objection on this topic is that you are being compelled to behave respectfully toward other people, and you would rather arrive at the decision to treat people with respect on your own.
Are you a child?
That’s a stupid question. Forced displays of conformity strike me as undesirable. It’s scary that you disagree.
Then why are you right-wing? Forced displays of conformity are a central tenet of conservatism in general and definitely the current authoritarian American right.
Much of the strength of the current pushback against misgendering (in society, not just here) is a reaction to an active pogrom by the right against LGBT people, fed by propagandists such as Christopher Rufo (who brought us the “groomers” slur, among other things) and manifesting itself in actual legislation across the country restricting not just what can be said where and to whom but imposing severe consequences for those who break those laws (which are, please note, a lot more serious than a Mod note). What “forced displays of conformity” have you seen or been subjected to that matches that?
Or are you too busy being sad about being asked to be a decent human being (which you seem to think you are, all evidence to the contrary) and use someone’s preferred pronouns to concern yourself with the suffering of and literal attacks on transgender people?
How are they forced? “Forced” implies threat of force if you disobey. Being suspended from a message board is not a use of force. Using a message board is a private transaction – if you want to use a private message board, you have to obey the board’s rules. You are free to criticize private transactions if you wish, but you’re being factually inaccurate when you use words like “forced”.
How is this statement different from: “Racism strikes me as undesirable. It’s scary that you disagree.” Specifically, as a tactic to “shut down debate.”
Jon Stewart many years ago said something that’s stuck with me, which (paraphrased) is “we did a really good job following the civil rights movement of convincing everyone that racism is bad. The problem now is that we haven’t been able to convince people what racism is.”
And I think the eugenics argument laid out above is apt. Can you imagine the SDMB circa 1910 having to entertain posters who genuinely believed that negros were a subspecies of human? And any debate about whether or not African-Americans should have rights devolved into a “free and open discussion” about whether or not they were even people? It would be a miserable place to exist, and black people wouldn’t stick around. I would have 100% been on board with banning that line of thought, solely in the interest of improving the environment here. Is that a “forced display of conformity?” Is it scary that people might be OK with that? Would eugenics advocates have resorted to bitching about a “hive mind” unwilling to engage in free and fair discussion?
Back when same sex marriage was actually being debated, the opponents also didn’t like being forced to think that these sham marriages were legitimate. They ‘knew’ that these unions weren’t real marriages, that they diluted the concept of marriage, and any change was simply liberals forcing them to think differently about their own perceptions of reality.
It’s only been 7 years since Obergfell, and you realize just how much of a non-issue it really is, how your opposition to same sex unions was overruled and it truly didn’t impact you in any way. Do you feel bad that your opinion on this issue (and so many others like you) prevented uncounted decent law abiding Americans from accessing the benefits of marriage? Do you think, maybe, you were simply wrong to oppose the idea at the beginning?
Now you’re resistant to a new thing the liberals are asking of you, it’s a burden you’re not interested in taking on. It violates your perception of reality, again. However, what is being asked is to:
- use a particular pronoun
- not try to kick someone out of facilities based on your personal perception of them
7 years after this ideological compulsion is forced upon you, I’m going to bet you also say it isn’t that troublesome, because the request is so small.
The people who think that it’s basic biology that “black” people are less intelligent than “white” people are talking about a brain state. Intelligence is a brain state and is indeed complicated to objectively measure.
And your answer appears to me to be dodging the question.
What’s with the drive by religiophobia? AFAICT none of the transphobes in this thread are using religion to justify their bigotry. Not really cool to pop into the thread just to use rude and disrespectful language toward a group of people you dislike who have nothing to do with the actual thread topic. But theists seem to be the only group the SDMB doesn’t feel deserving of protection from hate speech.
Eh, to be fair, theists want to be a martyr. Just look at this post here that you just made, going out of your way to stick yourself into the conversation in order to be able to claim victimhood. And not just victimhood for yourself, but for all theists.
Seriously, if you thought that was hate speech, then you live in a very, very, very safe protected place, where all the edges are smoothed, and all the corners rounded over. Almost as if theists are the ones who set the rules that everyone else needs to live by, and don’t give the slightest fuck about their desires to not have to live by your beliefs. Just as long as you are coddled and comforted. When, “Oh, someone on a messagebaord said something about how they find my beliefs to be boring” is “hate speech”, then you need some serious recalibration.
But, to be clear, you are saying that transphobia is not, never has been, and never will be justified by religious belief?
No, of course not, but I am saying that someone who thinks humans are going to colonize the galaxy by living in hollowed out asteroids really has little room to make fun of anyone else’s beliefs.
Obviously there is a great deal of religiously motivated transphobia in American society, but as far as I can tell none of the transphobes here fall into that category, hence why I felt AH’s post was off topic as well as being gratuitously offensive.
I would say that categorically, no, it can’t be. Because there is no justification for it.
People will try to justify it through religious belief though…