...will the board consider explicit transphobia hate-speech?

[Atamasama]

@MrDibble

Oh, I’m sure they would be. Working forces, as it were. Wearing their badges.

But are you gonna do what they told ya?

[MrDibble]

@Atamasama

But are you gonna do what they told ya?

Come on!

[thorny_locust]

@Max_S

I don’t think I have to choose between defending people’s right to offend minorities and defending minorities.

Sometimes you do, though.

If people can’t go outside their metaphorical door without being attacked: I don’t think it’s possible to defend the attackers and the attacked at the same time.

And if the conversation’s happening in your own social circle: sometimes you have to pick a side. Because refusing to do so has the effect of siding with the attackers.

[Jragon]

@thorny_locust

Sometimes you do, though.

If people can’t go outside their metaphorical door without being attacked: I don’t think it’s possible to defend the attackers and the attacked at the same time.

And if the conversation’s happening in your own social circle: sometimes you have to pick a side. Because refusing to do so has the effect of siding with the attackers.

It’s known as the Paradox of Tolerance from Karl Popper’s “The Open Societies and Its Enemies”

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them[…]

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”

[Max_S]

@thorny_locust

Sometimes you do, though.

If people can’t go outside their metaphorical door without being attacked: I don’t think it’s possible to defend the attackers and the attacked at the same time.

And if the conversation’s happening in your own social circle: sometimes you have to pick a side. Because refusing to do so has the effect of siding with the attackers.

Sorry, I must have missed this post.

Those situations where I must choose between defending those who would offend minorities and the minorities themselves are the situations where one side acts with malice or insincerity; in other words, where one side abandons reason and refuses to even consider opposing arguments, and preemptively declares them deceptive, and incites the people to answer such arguments against their position with violence. And as the concept of liberty is the solution to the paradox of freedom, the concept of good-faith is the solution to the paradox of tolerance.

~Max