Twitter agrees to Elon Musk buyout, a reminder we're on Mastodon

Quoting: namikoNobody can stop you from being gay, lesbian, bi, trans, whatever else. Nobody can stop you from expressing yourself in any way you please.

I'm not sure if you're from the US or not or follow the politics here, but Missouri is banning trans affirming care for individuals up to the age of 25. So yeah conservatives are indeed trying to stop even adults from being trans. Conservatives fought forever to stop gay marriage and I imagine now that they have a solid hold on the supreme court and that the culture war is a central part of their identity I bet it's going to come up again. Not to mention you have everyday gay couples with children getting harassed in the real world and accused of stealing children, because of the prevalent grooming narrative. So yeah people are very much being stopped from expressing themselves from fear of retaliation of bigots or the laws put in place by bigots.

Quoting: namikoIf you can't unplug from the virtual square, you're missing out on what life really means. I'd rather a million online strangers hate me so long as my family and friends do not, because they can't stop me from being who I am outside of the screen.

It's great if you're in the position to be able to disconnect and not have any of this affect you personally. Not everyone is so lucky and all this hate and misinformation have very dire real world consequences for people. It's not just people having their feelings hurt online.

Quoting: namikoStart at the bottom if you want to affect change in a meaningful way that isn't limited to scoring internet points.

It's not just about internet points. Conservatives have weaponized misinformation and are using it to stigmatize the groups of people they don't like and push for legislation that impacts these groups negatively, while letting their hate mob put the fear into the marginalized groups forcing themselves into the closet to protect themselves.

Quoting: Theodis...

If you don't have political aspirations to change the status quo, then that's as good as giving up. You're assuming helplessness to a situation when you're likely not whatsoever. If this is a worthy cause to you, you need to sacrifice to make what you want happen. That may mean putting a potential target on you and your loved ones. That may mean people will be unhappy with you. That may mean you become a political dissident and end up arrested or stigmatized unjustly.

Hasn't this already happened enough times in the world's history that we can see a pattern? The ones who never give up despite the massive odds against them tend to win.

"But THIS side did THAT!" kinds of comments are not a solution for anyone. Nor are they an opening to dialogue or negotiation. It's railing against "the other side". It feels good and powerful in the moment. But it doesn't win any hearts and minds that weren't already agreeing, so the usefulness is limited.

I want people to talk to one another like fellow human beings again. No more blaming, no more accusations, but really speaking and understanding one another. Maybe that's a pipe dream, especially online, but it's definitely worth fighting for, in a small, limited way.

Think about people as people, instead of your enemy. It wasn't always like this.

Quoting: Mountain Man

Quoting: Kithop...let's be honest, here: the 'free speech' being championed, even if it doesn't purport to be, on the surface, invariably becomes a vehicle for hate of anyone 'other'.

Let's be honest, here: a lot of what is decried as "hate speech" is simply whatever opinion a liberal happens to disagree with. It's like the whole "microaggression" and "white privilege" nonsense where you can be condemned as guilty no matter what you do or say.

You know, when you stop sorting out all the little labels, the L's vs the G's and the B's and the T's and the Q's, the aros and the aces and whatever, it's actually very simple:
What liberals (of which I am not one, incidentally, I'm a radical leftist) disagree with is the idea that everyone isn't equal. So every single one of these "whatever opinions" the liberals are disagreeing with that constitute hate speech are about bashing someone for existing because you want to say their group is bad or inferior by nature.
So yes, I can see conservatives getting frustrated; first it's not OK to trash talk Jews for being Jews, then it's bad to go after blacks for being blacks, then sexism started being bad in the 70s, suddenly in the late 90s you can't bash gays any more, now these trans people one never even heard of before about the oughts are already not OK to beat up before people even really got into the swing of doing it, we only got maybe 15 years of open season on Muslims out of 9/11, and sheesh, won't the dang liberals let us go after anybody?

Well, no. One wouldn't think this would be very controversial in the US, where you supposedly "hold these truths to be self-evident . . ." All people are created equal. You can go after people for being assholes, because it's their choice to be an asshole. You can't go after people for just being the kind of people they are and minding their own business. And by "minding their own business" I do not mean pretending for the benefit of the close-minded majority that they are more like that majority than they really are, I mean being as open about what they are as straight males are open about what they are.

I do agree, the whole microaggression thing is a bit silly.
The concept of white privilege on the other hand is no doubt misused sometimes, but it's not like it's not a real thing. As a white, even in Canada let alone the US, there is stuff I can do and expectations I can have that a black or an indigenous person cannot. Whether it's not having to be too afraid upon meeting a police officer, or knowing I will get the going rate on a mortgage instead of a higher rate, or generally being able to walk around, say downtown, without looking over my shoulder, or having people naturally pay attention when I talk. And despite all the squalling one hears from white right wingers about supposed reverse discrimination, in the real world, when they do studies, they still find that people with black-sounding names, with the exact same qualifications and exact same resume, are less likely to get interviews or jobs. Being white gives me stuff; it's not my fault, and I may not notice that stuff because it's normal stuff that frankly everyone should have, but I have the stuff and certain groups don't, and that makes the stuff a privilege.

The problem with liberals is not that they believe in equality for all categories of people, or even that they believe in enforcing some level of civility. They occasionally overdo the latter, but it's not a huge issue. The problem is that they are never willing to put their money where their mouth is. They want to say blacks are equal, they don't want anyone saying anything bad about blacks, but they also aren't willing to do anything to arrange for blacks to have decent schooling or decent neighbourhoods or decent jobs or not all be sent to jail for whatever trivial offences can be dug up. They want there to be rich and poor, and they're perfectly happy for groups which are currently structurally made more poor on average to stay that way--as long as it's not actually legally proscribed for at least a few people in those groups to scramble to the top of the heap.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 2 August 2022 at 2:50 am UTC

Incidentally, on the question of censorship on social media or gaming chat or such, conservatives are rather hoist on their own petard: From a conservative point of view, free speech is something the government has to concede to you. Conservatives view private property as sacrosanct. So for instance, they're always trying to say that shopkeepers should be allowed to deny service to gays or anyone else they hate, because it's their shop and they can do what they want.

But all these platforms conservatives want free speech on are private property. If the government ran social media, there would be a conservative leg to stand on in insisting they should allow free speech, but since it's private property, the conservative position should be "Their place, their rules, if you don't like it you can leave their property". Note that that's not what I believe, 'cause I'm a radical leftist, but it's what conservatives should believe.

Conservatives in any case don't actually believe in free speech. They muzzle it all the time when they get the chance; cf. "critical race theory". What they believe is that conservatives should be able to say all their stuff, and nobody else should. You can tell by the way conservatives are always bitching that people disagreeing with them on the internet constitutes violation of their free speech--it's generally obvious the modern conservative conception of free speech involves nobody else being able to have it.

Quoting: Purple Library Guy...it's generally obvious the modern conservative conception of free speech involves nobody else being able to have it.

The irony here is that this comment comes after two lengthy rants about what you think conservatives shouldn't be allowed to say.

Quoting: Mountain Man

Quoting: Purple Library Guy...it's generally obvious the modern conservative conception of free speech involves nobody else being able to have it.

The irony here is that this comment comes after two lengthy rants about what you think conservatives shouldn't be allowed to say.

It's not ironic at all. Conservatives make a huge kafuffle about free speech being their total main thing and how absolute it should be. I believe in balancing speech rights with other rights in a sane way, with those other rights including positive economic and social rights like say to adequate shelter or education. When someone who professes to believe in balancing different rights tries to balance different rights, that's just consistent.

When someone who professes to believe in absolute free speech in practice routinely muzzles it, that's ironic. And the thing is, conservatives don't even pretend to support many other rights--private property for rich people, maybe, or the right to shoot people--so if they don't even genuinely support the one right they pretend to be massively passionate about, do they actually stand for anything positive at all?

Quoting: Purple Library Guy... it's generally obvious the modern conservative conception of free speech involves nobody else being able to have it.

I don't care what you choose to say or where you choose to do so, you should be allowed to say it without any arbitrary limitations. So long as that speech doesn't cause physical harm to someone else, it should be permitted.

Quoting: namiko

Quoting: Purple Library Guy... it's generally obvious the modern conservative conception of free speech involves nobody else being able to have it.

I don't care what you choose to say or where you choose to do so, you should be allowed to say it without any arbitrary limitations. So long as that speech doesn't cause physical harm to someone else, it should be permitted.

As purple, I don't agree with you (there's other important harm), but it's at least a consistent standpoint.
Just the other day I saw someone thinking they would be defending freedom by forbidding gender aware speech by law.


Last edited by Eike on 2 August 2022 at 5:03 pm UTC

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Mountain Man

Quoting: Purple Library Guy...it's generally obvious the modern conservative conception of free speech involves nobody else being able to have it.

The irony here is that this comment comes after two lengthy rants about what you think conservatives shouldn't be allowed to say.

It's not ironic at all. Conservatives make a huge kafuffle about free speech being their total main thing and how absolute it should be. I believe in balancing speech rights with other rights in a sane way, with those other rights including positive economic and social rights like say to adequate shelter or education. When someone who professes to believe in balancing different rights tries to balance different rights, that's just consistent.

When someone who professes to believe in absolute free speech in practice routinely muzzles it, that's ironic. And the thing is, conservatives don't even pretend to support many other rights--private property for rich people, maybe, or the right to shoot people--so if they don't even genuinely support the one right they pretend to be massively passionate about, do they actually stand for anything positive at all?

In other words, you are opposed to freedom of speech because you wish to place arbitrary limits on what others are allowed to say.

Quoting: EikeAs purple, I don't agree with you (there's other important harm), but it's at least a consistent standpoint.
Just the other day I saw someone thinking they would be defending freedom by forbidding gender aware speech by law.

Are they in a position to make their wishes happen on a governmental level or not? A lot of inflammatory words from people in general can be safely ignored unless this person has the power to implement change you're against.

That's why I was suggesting actively trying to make changes to laws in the first place. If it's disturbing you, DO something about it instead of worrying that people say or believe things antithetical to your beliefs, since those people will always exist. It's turning something you can't do anything about into something you could possibly change for the better.