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

I agree, but you have to understand that it was liberals and leftists who created this situation. There are various important points I disagree with conservatives on but they are nonetheless the ones who’ve born the brunt of this unofficial censorship for years. The left needs to take responsibility for the environment they’ve created.

[–] Roseelesbian 1 points Edited

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

THIS. So many people these day equate words with actions. Actions have consequences, words should not.

Just like Noonefromnowhere used as an example, the closest you should get to a 'consequence' for something you say is the response from others because they also have free speech.

"Free speech is the cornerstone to every right we have"

[–] Tnetennba -2 points Edited

Being forced to silence and censor yourself and only say "constructive" or "nice" things is NOT freedom of speech.

You're literally arguing against it.

I'm sorry your feelings got hurt, but people do have the right to say whatever they want. I oppose any restrictions because it opens the door to a very slippery slope.

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.

These are contradictory sentences. Should it all be permissible or should people only respond the way you want them to? Make up your mind.

[–] [Deleted] 1 points Edited

I thought you were using 'you' in the general term when I first read your post, so I didn't reply, but you're arguing against me?

You're literally arguing against [free speech].

How? And where did I get my feelings hurt that I'm writing about here?

[ETA: I wrote: "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."] These are contradictory sentences. Should it all be permissible or should people only respond the way you want them to? Make up your mind.

What is contradictory about it? Dogpiling and harassment is wrong. But replying with well thought out criticism is a good way to counter something you don't agree with. Well thought out criticism is never the same as dogpiling or harassing someone.

You need to realize that I'm quoting TRAs in the header, and then arguing against this idea that it's OK to silence people.

(Edited: Added my own quote, and added an important 'don't' that somehow got lost in the mix.)

I think because a lot of people have been so blatantly racist, or sexist, and harassing others.

When someone says this phrase - they are a Authoritarian left - meaning - they believe someone powerful should be forcing people to comply with their vision of society.

The response to this is simple.

Freedom of Speech has limits, not consequences, in a society that values free speech. People who make this argument never seem to acknowledge that freedom of speech has limits.

I think misogynists will use any rationale to justify suppressing women's speech. Let's say that we win this battle, and no longer have to worry about being cancelled as racists. Well, the next time, they'll just try to cancel us for being anti-free speech.

"He can say whatever he wants!"

"He can, and I am allowed to respond."

"That's just a facist dogwhistle. You're trying to harrass him out of work!"

"What? I'm just pointing out-"

"STFU, FERF!"

[–] sarahsmile 15 points Edited

It only incentivizes what I see as the silent majority withdrawing from public life. Want to scrutinize everything I say? Fine. I won’t speak. I am middle-aged with three kids and a steady job (for now!). I will not engage with these people as I don’t have to. I will dissuade my kids from engaging with these people. At some point, they will stand alone as they continue to alienate reasonable people.

It's the disproportionality. "Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" needs to be PROPORTIONAL. I write an editorial that is pro-GC? Consequence should be someone writes a response editorial that is anti-GC and some readers dislike me. NOT death threats, harrassment, attempts to have me fired, etc.

A group of radfems march with "transwomen are men" signs? By all means, countermarch with "transwomen are women" signs or "radfems are bigots" or whatever. But again, death threats, harrassment, attempts to have me fired, etc., are well past disproportional.

There seems to be a subset that reads "consequences" as "punishment", which is definitely a definition it gets in colloquial speech, particularly around parenting "if you do X instead of what I want, there will be consequences" where the parent is definitely threatening punishment. But these kids have grown up without nuance to that word, and don't understand it just means "stuff that happens after the action" That's the consequence. They are neutral. The consequences of washing my hair is that my hair is clean, but also wet. The consequences of sleeping late might be that you are better rested, but might also be that you are late for work.

Exactly this.

I have clear memories of when "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" first started taking off in online spaces over a decade ago. It meant exactly what you wrote, and I even typed it myself a few times. It never meant to harass the person, contact their job, contact their family and friends, send death and rape threats, etc. It just meant you can expect a response, because "freedom of speech."

It was used a lot in response to commenters who didn't like people debating them in the comments. They would post their opinion, get pushback with comments offering the opposing side's argument, and then act like they were persecuted and claim, "I'm allowed to have an opinion! Freedom of speech!" This led to other commenters pointing out that they can also have an opinion, and that you can't expect "freedom of speech" to mean that you can say something without any kind of pushback. It was most often seen with conservative commenters, I can't lie.

What's funny is that the genderists are doing exactly what the conservative commenters in this situation were doing. They refuse to hear dissent, so they think that any dissenting reply is an attempt to "silence" them. e.g. "You're saying I don't exist!!!" and "My existence will not be debated!!!" Meanwhile, they are actually silencing people's opinions by banning them out of subreddits, communities, pages, and eventually completely off of Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, etc.

I have a feeling that some of this relates to the theory that a lot of genderists/TRAs are old school MRAs and conservatives who have learned to troll the left by using "leftist tactics." They're doing a great job, because they've completely destroyed the left and made them look like fools for believing in this anti-science nonsense.

[–] Jem 4 points

Recently a young wokie brought up the freedom from consequences thing to me so I'm glad to see this thread. I knew it didn't really hold up but couldn't think of why in the moment. Good points! I'll keep them in mind.

It's so totalitarian. I blame the internet, and internet access on the phone. It's the best brain-washing device ever invented.

[–] sarahsmile 8 points Edited

It also extends to thought. They legitimately demand that we WANT them in our spaces, celebrate them, etc. Any evidence to the contrary incenses them all the more.

[–] no- 31 points

It's even more evil considering that, in America, having a job is tied to health care insurance. So, Americans have too much to lose and can't risk getting cancelled.

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.

Look up "Holy Land Hummus" - Palestinian immigrant family built up a food business. The adults weren't that internet saavy, so they were unaware back in 2012 their 14 year old daughter was posting things like "Bring Hitler back" and using the N-word. It's all "edge lord" teenager stuff - which no one really cared enough to report to twitter and get it taken down back then. Somewhere along the way she grew up and realized it was inappropriate. She was working for her family's company in 2020.

In 2020 - someone dug it up, and her father's company lost all their contracts, had to shut down their factory, and let go most their employees.

It's the whole "two wrongs don't make a right" and "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" in my opinion.

Maybe a better response to "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" is just "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - but I suppose that would be written off as a conservative attitude, even though I'm liberal/left and atheist.

Wow, that poor family :(

It's the whole "two wrongs don't make a right" and "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" in my opinion.

Yes, that's a perfect way to put it!

In 2020 - someone dug it up, and her father's company lost all their contracts, had to shut down their factory, and let go most their employees.

not to mention that this company hired mostly other Arab immigrants. so this Palestinian immigrant who started a local business’s life gets destroyed and dozens of other immigrants are fired and lose their livelihoods and healthcare even though the man literally did nothing wrong, it was his daughter. and this is counted as a win for the progressive left. blocked and reported (which I know is a controversial podcast here) recently did an episode about this insanity and also analyzed the NPR coverage that painted the man as an evil bigot.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - but I suppose that would be written off as a conservative attitude,

I always associate a more punative attitude as being the more conservative one. I'm curious why you think this would be written off as conservative?

This might be a good example of horseshoe theory...

"Eye for an eye" is a biblical term - it's considered a fair punishment from the old testament, but Jesus preaches against it. I read this as "let people walk all over you" which I don't endorse either.

"“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you."

Because conservatives are the ones taking the role of “free speech warrior” now.

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.

Saying stupid (or unpopular) shit online shouldn't get anyone fired, as long as they're not actually threatening doxxing or stalking someone.

I agree with you, but I also think this includes Justine Sacco. Her joke was inapppropriate and stupid, but should've been treated as an inappropriate and stupid joke, and not a reason for anyone to dogpile on or harass her, or make her lose her job. Lindsay Stone is another example of someone making a dumb, insenstive joke and then becoming the victim of an online witch trial. It's telling that these things mostly happen to women.

It's telling that these things mostly happen to women.

Hmm 🤔

Yeah, I agree with you about Sacco nowadays. Maybe it's just because I'm older, but now I can't imagine my life being turned upside down like that just because I said something offensive on twitter. I hate that it happened to her, her company should have just said that their employees are allowed to be dumb on their own time and left it at that. And to fire her when she was flying so she'd be bombarded with the messages the second her plane touched down in a foreign country...yeesh, can't imagine the distress that would actually cause.

Load more (4 comments)