I see where you are going with that, and I follow. But what about when we get into healthcare that can be perceived as queer-specific?
Say, when a doctor refuses to do proper STD screenings for a gay man, refuses to prescribe PrEP or PEP, or refuses to authorize checks on hormone levels?
All taken from experiences me and my friends have had, by the way.
Being a member of a protected class is not some kind of trump card you can play to get whatever you want from whomever you want it.
Never said it was.
The rest of your comment is similarly meaningless. You must have misunderstood me. The service would, and could, be denied because they are asking for a Nazi-themed service. Being a Nazi is a choice, not an immutable trait, nor a protected class.
Nowhere have I said that gay people shouldn't be denied service for any reason, only that they shouldn't be denied service because they're gay.
How are you feeling about your statement right now?
Exactly the same as before you made your utterly irrelevant comment.
There is a fundamental difference between immutable traits, such as race, gender, sexuality, and physical ability, and political beliefs. So your comparison to "something you strongly disagree with" is not fitting analogy.
Your beliefs will of course outrage some people that have opposing ones, but they are yours and they should be protected no matter what they are or how wild or somber they are.
We aren't talking about "beliefs". We're talking about actions. Discrimination is an action.
It is only when you actively start harming people or directly denying human rights is when it becomes an issue…
And denying people goods and services based on who they are is harming them. So it is an issue.
You can’t make someone do things against their beliefs, just as you wouldn’t want to be made to do things against your own.
We can and we do, all the time. That's part of living in society.
If it’s a business where you sit down individually with each client and work out custom goods and services and pricing, then it’s less “owner sells things” and more “clients contract owner for XYZ”, and at that point, I’d tend to agree that it’s a two way street, that both parties must agree to terms.
But how can I hear “diverse opinion” if X opinions are banned/blocked/moderated in the first place?
There is no space where all opinions are welcome. It simply does not exist. Some opinions are going to force out others.
If you run a space where Nazi opinions are okay to speak, you can't really expect to hear Jewish opinions. Or opinions of PoC or queer people or disabled people and so on and so on.
So most places do the calculations. You can ban this one view. And in return an entire spectrum of views becomes more welcome.
Bigotry is a painfully simple, painfully shallow, and painfully boring viewpoint. It is almost completely one-dimensional, simplifiable to the idea that the "other" is inferior or dangerous and is to be shunned or feared. It is a viewpoint that we all already know, one we have all already heard. Banning it loses us almost nothing, and in return we gain so, so many more valuable insights.
Is it the fault of the principle of free speech, or the legion of stupid people being allowed to talk freely?
I'm not talking about "the principal of free speech". I'm pushing back on the foolish assertion that moderation leads to echo chambers for lazy and dull minds. When exactly the opposite is true.
I'm saying that if you want to hear diverse opinions, a free-for-all is a bad idea. Because that free-for-all leads to echo chambers.
You probably want restrictions because it would never apply to you. Denying you talking about stuff that doesn’t phase you, is easy.
No no, don't make stupid assumptions about me so that you don't have to confront my point.
What if that platform bans opinions that you happen to have?
Most of them do. Your assumptions are wrong.
Sure, if you point at 4chan or similar…free speech attracts shitnuggets and end up being an echo chamber. But that’s the fault of us humans being crap, and not free speech being inherently bad.
I never said free speech was inherently bad. Try responding to what I wrote, not what you imagined that I wrote.
I personally prefer spaces where everyone can voice any shit. Censorship is for lazy minds and a dull audience. IMHO.
I always find this take to be remarkably short-sighted.
Because if you actually want to hear diverse opinions, you have to cultivate a space where diverse people, with diverse experiences, feel free to speak.
Pretty much every space that tolerates open bigotry becomes deeply unpleasant for the targets of that bigotry. Which means those people tend to leave.
Which in turn means that those spaces soon turn into the dullest echo chamber, populated only by people unaffected the bigotry. Sure no views were censored. You just harass everybody different off the platform. The net effect is the same.
You can't just block someone doxxing you. And it's a lot different when it's not one person, or even a handful of people, but thousands of people who are sincerely furious with you because of things they've convinced themselves that you have done.
There is a difference between simple prejudice, and prejudice that is backed by systemic power.
Both are bad of course. But one has the ability to ruin your day, while the other has the ability to ruin your life.
In most progressive theory, racism is explicitly about power, not merely individual prejudice. That isn't a new definition of racism, but it is a different definition than most of us learn when we are younger.
No topic has ever gotten me into more D&D arguments than saying that a 10th level fighter should be able to fall off an airship, hit the ground and not immediately splat, but rather limp away from it after tanking the 20d6 damage.
I want a squad of Dwarven Fighters to be able to leap off of the same airship and do a three-point landing, because what the hell would Dwarves need parachutes for?!
I take small umbrage with the idea that you cannot support LGBTQ people and vote in a way that doesn't support your personal beliefs.
I don't care.
You cannot vote to make someone's life measurably worse, and claim to support them.
That's not my "personal beliefs", this is people's lives and wellbeing.
We are all of us paradoxical and hypocritical.
That is fair. And that is why I pity this person. And why I'm not talking about Leopards Eating People's Faces. This person was clearly troubled.
That doesn't change what I'm saying though. I'm not trying to morally judge this individual with what I'm saying. All I am saying is that the net effect of the actions of someone who votes Republican, is not supportive of LGBT people, regardless of their personal beliefs.
Maybe they weren't pro-republican they were anti-democrat. I don't fucking know.
That's worse. You understand how that's worse, right?
This one person could have been very pro-trans and yet still support the Republican agenda in every other way.
Human rights are pretty much a deal-breaker. Or at least they should be.
Plus, we don't know if they were pro-trans or LGBTQ, all that we know is that they were not publically anti-trans.
You have misinterpreted my comment. I'm not trying to judge this person.
I'm making a general statement that it is not possible to support a demographic while simultaneously voting to take away their legal recognitions and protections.
But it's not just "an issue". We are talking about a demographic and their legal recognition. No I'm sorry but we cannot agree to disagree on something so fundamental as equal treatment of people.
I feel pity for this person, they deserved better.
That said. You cannot be supportive of LGBT people, and vote for the Republican party. Republicans are quite openly hostile to LGBT people, both in rhetoric and in policy. You can't say you are supportive of a group while voting to strip them of their legal recognitions and protections.
Eh. If the wizard can conjure it, the rogue should be able to dodge it.
I know it makes my GM twitch whenever my rogue or monk would dodge an explosion. But we have to disillusion ourselves of the ridiculous notion that martial characters have to obey the laws of physics.
darq @ darq @kbin.social Posts 0Comments 513Joined 2 yr. ago
More baseless accusations, without addressing anything I said.