[–] BondiBlue [OP] 13 points Edited

A different article from the Toronto Star arguing in favor of Jordan Peterson being banned from the Twitter platform, because so-called "deadnaming" is "hateful". The author claims to be a free-speech maximalist but with exceptions. Note that he (it's always a he) says that "trans people" and "mental health experts" have declared that so-called "deadnaming" is harmful. Never mentions feminists, detransitioners, or anyone else (including gender-critical physicians!) questioning the validity of "trans" ideology. He just takes it as a fact that the very concept of "trans" even exists at all.

In which case he's not a real free-speech maximalist but another TRA who uncritically accepts pseudoscience as fact and is OK with people being shunned for calling it out as such. If Ellen doesn't like what Peterson said, just block him. It's that simple. He never called for Ellen to be beat up or killed. I don't like Peterson but the site shouldn't be banning people for saying "Cassius Clay" or "Reginald Dwight" either. If unstable TIPs kill themselves because someone said their birth name, that's their problem, not anyone else's. We are not here to be everyone's therapist.

EDIT: oh, and of course, they turned the comments off because they know people are going to pile on the columnist for this weaksauce argument.

Free speech for me, but not for thee

[–] BondiBlue [OP] 11 points Edited

For all those people with the "it costs you nothing to be kind" well, two can play at that game: it costs TRAs and TIPs nothing to just not read Peterson or JKR or not watch Gervais or Chappelle. The block button is there for a reason if they're so fragile, but no: they not only don't want to read Peterson or JKR's statements, they don't want anyone else to read them either. That's why they hate the concept of the marketplace of ideas: they know they can't compete with a superior product over their inferior one. So they want a monopoly.

Their argument is that somehow even the slightest "transphobia" dominos into them being murdered.

"Hate speech" is when you disagree with their opinion on something.

I’ve come full circle on this. In my youth I leaned libertarian so I was 100% for free speech. Over the years I became libfem -> leftist and thought that maybe there were limits, like nazis or racists. Anti feminists seemed to amass armies of followers and it was very annoying. I never actually campaigned to get anyone “canceled” but I can’t say I felt much sympathy when it happened.

But that’s the thing. It’s all well and good when it’s not you. I say fuck it, let everyone speak freely *. Even people I hate.

*I still think threats of violence ie “I will kill/rape/bomb/beat you” should be treated as threats and not “free speech”. But people aren’t really canceled for that stuff, now are they? 🤔

I did the exact same thing. Was a free speech absolutist, spent a few years waffling/being on the fence between "maybe hate speech should be banned" and my previous free speech absolutism, and back to being pro-free speech. The reason why I waffled for a few years instead of committing wholly to banning some things was that I figured it was better to know what your "enemies" or "haters" really think of you rather than legally force people to all say the same things and never know what people really believe. So I am still going with that reasoning, but now I'm more committed because I know what it's like to have my freedom curtailed for the most innocent expressions (of reality, no less).

If people are forced to perform wokeness and aren't allowed to say what they really think, that actually puts "queers" in greater danger, because they could end up in a crowd or neighbourhood full of people who they think are safe to be around, but are actually neonazis/far right extremists who will pound them into the pavement. Why would you force people to pretend to like you, even people who might want to kill you? Wouldn't you want to know about the threat? Logic escapes them, I suppose. That and they live terminally online cushy lives.

a lot of people think they are absolutely for free speech. easy to believe until your limit is tested. absolving oneself of the moral quibble by labelling all that uncomfortable stuff as the vaguely defined "hate speech" ain't it tho.