• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

Hercules56 said:
So unless someone goes beyond legal and common sense limits upon Free Speech, I have no right to criticize the content of their speech??
Click to expand...

Oh, so you were just criticizing their speech as "dangerous" and "inciting violence" but they can't say the same about misgendering someone? That is somehow a step towards "fascism and communism"?
 
Donal said:
Oh, so you were just criticizing their speech as "dangerous" and "inciting violence" but they can't say the same about misgendering someone? That is somehow a step towards "fascism and communism"?
Click to expand...

So now we only have the right to criticize speech if we deem it to be dangerous or inciting violence? Otherwise I should shut my trap?
 
Hercules56 said:
So unless someone goes beyond legal and common sense limits upon Free Speech, I have no right to criticize the content of their speech??
Click to expand...

Hercules56 said:
So now we only have the right to criticize speech if we deem it to be dangerous or inciting violence? Otherwise I should shut my trap?
Click to expand...

No, you are welcome to make pretty much any argument you want on this forum. However, this is a skeptics forum.

You have not:

-Shown that anyone's freedom of speech is being violated
-That anyone has been harmed by an LGBT+ group using semantically incorrect definitions of violence
-That the college itself is even enforcing this student groups standards

We're down to "slippery slope" arguments. That because a group of college kids is (wrongly) calling pronoun usage potentially violent speech that this will "rub off" and we'll all be going to jail/fined for not using preferred pronouns. And then another poster (not you), is claiming this will lead to kids getting surgery or something. With no evidence whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
Gets called out for slippery sloping and doubles down on even more silly slippery sloping.

Save my time - which of the links posted is either:
a) legislative texts
b) local ordinance
c) binding or even relevant in any shape or form

Or are you claiming that those texts are violent and should be censored? I really don't follow the logic here. By your standards the claim "Whiteness is violence" is fine - might be wrong or not - statements truth value is not really relevant unless being correct is a moral imperative but making the claim is a totally valid and fine position to take since it is not or cannot be divisive/insulting or violent - so what is the problem with it?
 
lobosrul5 said:
No, you are welcome to make pretty much any argument you want on this forum. However, this is a skeptics forum.

You have not:

-Shown that anyone's freedom of speech is being violated
-That anyone has been harmed by an LGBT+ group using semantically incorrect definitions of violence
-That the college itself is even enforcing this student groups standards

We're down to "slippery slope" arguments. That because a group of college kids is (wrongly) calling pronoun usage potentially violent speech that this will "rub off" and we'll all be going to jail/fined for not using preferred pronouns. And then another poster (not you), is claiming this will lead to kids getting surgery or something. With no evidence whatsoever.
Click to expand...
It is disturbing to be ridiculed like this. I will post another link here, to add to the Scott Newgent link. Then I will make the effort to transcribe some salient sentences in support of the extreme danger to kids and youth by the use of pronouns.

https://youtu.be/dHqDGVRzoGk
 
lobosrul5 said:
We're down to "slippery slope" arguments. That because a group of college kids is (wrongly) calling pronoun usage potentially violent speech that this will "rub off" and we'll all be going to jail/fined for not using preferred pronouns.
Click to expand...
The proper response to some college kids using "violence" to denote the infliction of psychic injury rather than physical injury is to note the distinction and just move on.

That said, there are actual cases wherein people have been punished for misgendering other people.
 
Last edited:
alfaniner said:
I guess I'm old and just don't get it, but in what situation would one use a person's preferred third-person pronouns in front of them?
Click to expand...

In fairness, there are a number of not uncommon usage scenarios. For example, when introducing people, you might say, "This is Ted. He's my neighbor," or "This is Sally. She was my classmate in highschool."

But most pronoun usage won't be in the presence of the person being referred to.
 
Blank said:
Gets called out for slippery sloping and doubles down on even more silly slippery sloping.

Save my time - which of the links posted is either:
a) legislative texts
b) local ordinance
c) binding or even relevant in any shape or form

Or are you claiming that those texts are violent and should be censored? I really don't follow the logic here. By your standards the claim "Whiteness is violence" is fine - might be wrong or not - statements truth value is not really relevant unless being correct is a moral imperative but making the claim is a totally valid and fine position to take since it is not or cannot be divisive/insulting or violent - so what is the problem with it?
Click to expand...

I think it's an absurd and insane abuse of the real phenomenon called "violence".
 
Hercules56 said:
So unless someone goes beyond legal and common sense limits upon Free Speech, I have no right to criticize the content of their speech??
Click to expand...

In another thread, you said that unless you were an "authorized" speaker you can only sit and listen and have no right to vocalize your opposition to what they say.
 
mumblethrax said:
Neither do most trans people. What's the relevance?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure most trans people in the west today subscribe to the school of thought that misgendering someone behind their back is indeed a hate crime, in principle if not (yet) in law.

I know my employer considers it an infraction of their code of conduct to misgender a co-worker, even without their knowledge.
 
theprestige said:
I'm pretty sure most trans people in the west today subscribe to the school of thought that misgendering someone behind their back is indeed a hate crime, in principle if not (yet) in law.

I know my employer considers it an infraction of their code of conduct to misgender a co-worker, even without their knowledge.
Click to expand...

Your boss not wanting you to create a hostile work environment says very little about the status of hate crime law in this country.
 
theprestige said:
I'm pretty sure most trans people in the west today subscribe to the school of thought that misgendering someone behind their back is indeed a hate crime, in principle if not (yet) in law.
Click to expand...
Not really sure what it means for something to be a hate crime in principle, and if you think misgendering someone will ever be a hate crime, you don't understand what a hate crime is. But what's your evidence for this? How did you arrive at being "pretty sure" that most trans people subscribe to this "school of thought"?

I mean, I work with two trans people, and neither one of them has ever done anything remotely like running around demanding that everyone not misgender them or it's a hate crime. I think you might be making the error of assuming that the loudest voices represent the majority.

I know my employer considers it an infraction of their code of conduct to misgender a co-worker, even without their knowledge.
Click to expand...
Ok. That's not treating misgendering people as a hate crime, and it doesn't require subscribing to any "school of thought" beyond "trans people should not be discrimnated against." It's the usual attempt to prevent a hostile work environment from developing. I don't see what the problem is supposed to be with that. It's a million miles away from the caricature you presented earlier, which in turn had nothing to do with the chain of posts that led to Zig opining about the narcissism involved in hoping that people don't misgender you.
 
Thermal said:
Words can easily constitute assault, which is what I mean about it being in the right ballpark. Ballparks are rather large by definition.
Click to expand...

No, words cannot constitute assault. Words can constitute harassment, they can constitute threats and intimidation, but they cannot constitute assault on their own.
 
Thermal said:
Serious question: do you believe that someone could imply imminent violence by using misgendering words?
Click to expand...

No, I do not believe that to be true. Someone who intentionally uses sex-based pronouns might ALSO use OTHER language that implies imminent violence, but the pronouns themselves are not sufficient.
 
Emily's Cat said:
No, words cannot constitute assault. Words can constitute harassment, they can constitute threats and intimidation, but they cannot constitute assault on their own.
Click to expand...

In most states, if not all, they can. Assault is generally to put someone in fear of imminent threat. Battery is actually doing it.

Source: the ******* judge who sat there in his black robes explaining it to me as I sat in the ******* defendants seat charged with assault, not having touched a soul, even by the plaintiffs account.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom