sean99
pfm Member
There's reason to be hopeful - we did eventually settle our differences when it came to beliefs about deities for which nobody has the slightest shred of proof, and we now accept and value each others' opinions on the matter.
Open letter denouncing the "restriction of debate".
- Thread starter Joe Hutch
- Start date
There's reason to be hopeful - we did eventually settle our differences when it came to beliefs about deities for which nobody has the slightest shred of proof, and we now accept and value each others' opinions on the matter.
Part of the problem as I see it is that there's too much focus on "the optics"* rather than the substance of any position, to the point that being seen to identify with the right group has become more important than making things better. At least one signatory was okay with signing the letter when she saw that some big-name progressives were signing, but then felt not okay when she saw that some conservative commentators had also done so: that says to me (whether true or not) that she was only looking for a bandwagon, and didn't care about the issue at all.
Just because two trains are stopped in the same station at the same time, it doesn't mean that they're going to the same destination.
__
* A stupid phrase. Personally, I find that when I can't focus on the optics anymore, it's time to leave the pub.
Just because two trains are stopped in the same station at the same time, it doesn't mean that they're going to the same destination.
__
* A stupid phrase. Personally, I find that when I can't focus on the optics anymore, it's time to leave the pub.
sean99
pfm Member
I think I'm ambivalent. I'm a strong proponent of free speech, then I catch Trump's latest on the news and doubts are sown.
Seeker_UK
Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans
Or more likely, doesn't agree with stifling debate when it's their POV being stifled. The other way, however, fair game.
Re: EVDW, seems to be a case of emotional reasoning - I feel it therefore it must be true - which is a growing trend, especially in the US.
Arkless Electronics
Trade: Amp design and repairs.
That's about the crux of it... in this thread the nature of debate is up for debate but no one dares say what they really think about some issues....
Until maybe 10 years ago I would have been an advocate of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (all the best Voltaire quotes turn out not to be!). No longer though.... which then has me a little confused and frustrated over my own "partisanship" on free speech!
I would seek to close down far right speech, white supremacist sites, Nazi views, anything Trump says etc etc as being patently offensive, divisive, hateful etc and to me it beggars belief that the likes of facebook and twitter will host such things. I am also hugely against the BBC etc platforming such people and views. I made an official complaint against the BBC for hosting blatant far right speech on their HYS platform... It was rejected! So long as they use terms such as "10th generation British" to mean white British and don't actually say "White British deserve priority in the NHS" they get away with it!
My confusion arises I guess in that to me holding such far right and white supremacist views is so patently wrong that I would seek to shut them down... but there are other subjects where I see grey areas that I feel are ripe for debate.... BUT there are other people who would say that these subjects are just as black and white/right and wrong to them as the far right issue is to me! It all becomes very subjective...
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Article 10 of the Human Rights Act is the one about the right to free speech. Like most of the human rights it sets out, they are not absolute. They are qualified in that they can be limited or restricted in the interests of a democratic society. Its why the hate speech laws, and libel laws don't fall foul of the HRA, for example. So you can, legitimately, limit the rights of somebody to utter far right or hate speech, on the basis that it will lead to consequences which are bad for society as a whole. You just have to guard against any limits being found to be discriminatory in ways which are not 'necessary and proportionate' in the interests of a democratic society.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Yup, goes to my point in post #10
Tony L
Administrator
As I see it she tried to say something remarkably complex, nuanced and emotional in 140 characters or less on Twitter and then got trolled/cyber-stalked by a lot of people for whom 140 characters or less is more than enough to express their daily rage. She clearly hasn’t handled this whole thing at all well, not least by trying to say something complex, nuanced and emotional, let alone controversial, on Twitter.
FWIW on the things I do understand, e.g. politics, Brexit etc etc she is a sharp, formidable and very funny poster. I haven’t got the slightest clue about the whole LGBT identity thing so I just work on not being a dick/fascist and leave it at that. I’m a liberal/libertarian and hate any form of authoritarianism/dictatorship so people self-identifying or whatever doesn’t bother me in the slightest. Live and let live, let others make their choices etc. Freedom of expression is a fine thing IMHO. FWIW I felt her long response linked upthread was very good even allowing for some inevitable revisionism. I just don’t understand why she dug-in to the extent she did in the first place.
eternumviti
Insufficient privileges to reply.
You see this very differently from your side of the debate than I do from mine. There are a small number of people here who are constantly poised to pounce at the slightest hint of any transgression, often one completely fabricated by them.
I don’t like the idea of people self identifying as female so they can access certain places, it always seems to be blokes with beards
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
I suppose it’s inevitable that we perceive these things differently, really. And perhaps what you perceive as pouncing, I perceive as an expression of the huge frustration of the remain side for the lack of what might be thought of as tangible benefits from the leave side. There’s a strong sense that leave side has been played, and is now doubling down, regardless. I do acknowledge however, that some remainers don’t make it easy for the other side to resile from their previously held position, so at least some of that doubling- down is self-inflicted.
However, to continue to rebut your, and Brian’s point, I do think that anybody with anything meaningful to say can and should say it, not least because so little of what is said by leave side does seem to be meaningful. I mean this with no disrespect to you, EV, as I view your position as principled, albeit misguided from my perspective. But Colin and his ilk just regurgitate, undigested, soundbites and factoids which amount to little, and surely not enough to have justified the momentous decision that has been taken. So I can overlook a little of the pouncing, as I empathise with the frustration that gave rise to it. I might wish it were a little different, however.
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
Right, that's it, you're banned.
@Woodface - I think that is a red-herring argument, but the world being as big as it is, there will definitely be one abusive man who'll try it. I personally don't see why anyone would declare themselves as "female" while continuing to act and appear completely masculine - what would be the point?
On the more general point, I have an intense dislike of people who get angry on behalf of other people, as if those people didn't have their own voice and their own opinions. I suspect that those who piled opprobrium on J.K. Rowling cared a lot less about debating the difficult subject of how to accommodate the frictions between our own rights and those of others, than they cared about being seen to take the right-on position. Twitter is home to sloganeers, and there's nothing more worthless than slogans in addressing a complex issue.
For whatever it's worth (and I know it's very little), I am a staunch defender of everyone's right to not live their life in misery, whatever its cause.
I don't see happiness as relative or finite, and denying someone the right to express the person they feel that they really are is condemning them to a life of misery. However, on the subject of trans rights, like J.K. Rowling, I do have reservations about the rush to push young children into transition, something that I think reveals an unhealthy desire for quick fixes and enforcing a very polarized, stereotyped view of what it is to be "male" or "female". Hard dichotomies are the refuge of lazy thinkers*, and I worry that a well meaning effort to help people has fallen into the trap of taking the simplest answer as the right one. Not everyone sits at the extremes of the gender spectrum: I've a friend, a gay woman, who often presents herself in a very masculine manner, but she doesn't want to be male - that persona is one part of a more complex identity. We've spoken about it a bit over the years, and it took her a long time to get to that place, but she said that had she gone down the route of surgical reassignment, she would be deeply unhappy now. I worry that in today's environment, her young teenage equivalent would be encouraged to take that same step at an age when she hadn't yet formed her personality.
On the more general point, I have an intense dislike of people who get angry on behalf of other people, as if those people didn't have their own voice and their own opinions. I suspect that those who piled opprobrium on J.K. Rowling cared a lot less about debating the difficult subject of how to accommodate the frictions between our own rights and those of others, than they cared about being seen to take the right-on position. Twitter is home to sloganeers, and there's nothing more worthless than slogans in addressing a complex issue.
For whatever it's worth (and I know it's very little), I am a staunch defender of everyone's right to not live their life in misery, whatever its cause.
I don't see happiness as relative or finite, and denying someone the right to express the person they feel that they really are is condemning them to a life of misery. However, on the subject of trans rights, like J.K. Rowling, I do have reservations about the rush to push young children into transition, something that I think reveals an unhealthy desire for quick fixes and enforcing a very polarized, stereotyped view of what it is to be "male" or "female". Hard dichotomies are the refuge of lazy thinkers*, and I worry that a well meaning effort to help people has fallen into the trap of taking the simplest answer as the right one. Not everyone sits at the extremes of the gender spectrum: I've a friend, a gay woman, who often presents herself in a very masculine manner, but she doesn't want to be male - that persona is one part of a more complex identity. We've spoken about it a bit over the years, and it took her a long time to get to that place, but she said that had she gone down the route of surgical reassignment, she would be deeply unhappy now. I worry that in today's environment, her young teenage equivalent would be encouraged to take that same step at an age when she hadn't yet formed her personality.
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
It also gives some weight to the idea that people who argue thusly are 'snowflakes' who can't bear to hear anything that makes them feel 'unsafe' or 'uncomfortable', as opposed to hearing something with which they are free to agree or disagree.
An analogous argument surrounds issues of 'body-shaming'. There's no doubt that being overweight/obese poses serious health problems and can dramatically shorten life expectancy. But getting that message across often leads to accusations of 'body fascism'. I see nothing wrong in getting the health message across loud and clear, on the understanding that no-one can or should be forced to eat healthily.
There are no right or wrong feelings but trouble starts when people let feelings solely guide their interpretation of reality. Subjective interpretation replaces critical thinking. This does not include the faux outragers who generate offence to bully or coerce others into submission.
Half the battle in terms of health outcomes is the messaging IMO.
Half the battle in terms of health outcomes is the messaging IMO.
Well, here is what the president of the “Human Rights Campaign” organizations said. She is “trafficking in harmful lies at a time when the trans community is facing unspeakable violence. Twenty-six trans and gender non-confirming people were killed in 2019 in the U.S.. ... If she won’t listen to trans advocates about the harm she is causing, she does not deserve her platform.”
This illustrates the point behind the original letter. If you disagree with me you hate me, therefore you are guilty of hate speech, therefore you must be de-platformed. Or have a fatwa declared against you if you are Salman Rushdie. Or be blacklisted for opposing the Vietnam War like Noam Chomsky. Or be accused of anti-semitism if you are opposed to the current boundaries of Israel.
https://www.hrc.org/blog/hrc-president-alphonso-david-responds-to-j.k.-rowlings-latest-transphobic-b
I'm disappointed by that. Not wholly unsurprised, but disappointed. Also strange to see HRC use such a low-ball estimate for murders of trans people (just multiplying the 0.58% of the US population who identify as trans by the 16,000 murders last year gives a probable 92 victims, before we consider the disproportionately high number of trans people engaged in sex work, an occupation that carries a very high risk of being murdered)
