66

There is no true free speech for anyone who's gender critical anymore. The above statement, which I'm sure we've all read countless times by now, assures that anyone writing critically against the gender cult could be targeted for harassment (online and offline), and might end up cancelled and out of a job. All this for speaking their mind, for having the 'wrong thought'.

How did this mantra gain such traction? How can there even be such a thing as a 'wrong thought'? If your speech has consequences, then it's clearly not free. TRAs even use the word 'deplatform' to describe what they're doing against adverseries. They use the excuse that when someone is 'a bigot' they can do whatever is needed to silence this person. However, in these cases, the word 'bigot' is never clearly defined. It's just anyone who disagrees with or criticises them. Therefore JK Rowling is called a bigot for writing clearly and compassionately, without any bigoted ideas whatsoever.

Freedom of speech should be free, meaning that every word, every thought should be permissable. An idea should be met with well thought out criticism, but not dogpiling or harassment. And a thought should be met with another thought, and not mantras.

Maybe TRAs don't like freedom of thought, because they have so few thoughts themselves.

There is no true free speech for anyone who's gender critical anymore. The above statement, which I'm sure we've all read countless times by now, assures that anyone writing critically against the gender cult could be targeted for harassment (online and offline), and might end up cancelled and out of a job. All this for speaking their mind, for having the 'wrong thought'. How did this mantra gain such traction? How can there even be such a thing as a 'wrong thought'? If your speech has consequences, then it's clearly not free. TRAs even use the word 'deplatform' to describe what they're doing against adverseries. They use the excuse that when someone is 'a bigot' they can do whatever is needed to silence this person. However, in these cases, the word 'bigot' is never clearly defined. It's just anyone who disagrees with or criticises them. Therefore JK Rowling is called a bigot for writing clearly and compassionately, without any bigoted ideas whatsoever. Freedom of speech should be free, meaning that every word, every thought should be permissable. An idea should be met with well thought out criticism, but not dogpiling or harassment. And a thought should be met with another thought, and not mantras. Maybe TRAs don't like freedom of thought, because they have so few thoughts themselves.

53 comments

If your speech has consequences, then it's clearly not free.

I used to be one of those people that said "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" but I'm on your side on this now. I used to be fine with it when people were getting fired for saying REALLY RACIST and stupid shit (you all remember the AIDS lady?) But nowadays seeing multiple GC people get fired for mildly bucking against gender ideology (like the teacher and assistant principal from Oregon) makes me rethink even that. That could easily be me. Saying stupid (or unpopular) shit online shouldn't get anyone fired, as long as they're not actually threatening doxxing or stalking someone. And the threat of losing your livelihood is enough to get most people to shut up when they otherwise wouldn't- so no, it wouldn't really be "free" speech.

That woman wasn’t intending to make a “black people have AIDS hurr durr” joke, she was trying to make a social-justicey dark humour reference to the fact that white populations are better protected. The book “So You’ve been Publicly Shamed” has a chapter about her.

The joke was a bad idea in the first place and it was TERRIBLY executed, but she didn’t deserve what happened to her.

She really didn't. A single dumb joke should never lead to someone losing their job, and intention should matter.