Hacker News Reader

I’m not inverting is meaning, I just have a broader definition of what things constitute violent acts of suppression of beliefs. I see this misunderstanding constantly online, that hate speech, *phobia, and *ism is an expression of belief rather than an act of violence that suppresses the speech of the group being targeted.

Here, let’s talk about the person who literally replied to your post. Quoting it since I’m sure they will, rightfully, get banned.

> Btw, tolerance, like democracy is just a bulls$##t concept. Would you like to be tolerant of the neo-trans man going to the same toilet as your teenage daughters??? [wawjgreen] [1]

This is hate speech. This is not an expression of belief or rational argument. It’s not even an argument at all, it’s just an emotional appeal to transphobia with the goal of changing your perception of trans women to that of man who is out to sexually assault teen girls, and a direct call to not tolerate them (i.e suppress their speech). Couldn’t have asked for a better example to just fall into the thread.

In contrast, someone expressing a belief or making an actual argument like, “I know that not allowing trans men and women to use the bathroom that matches their gender will cause them dysphoria, but as a matter of public policy here is why I think bathroom bills are necessary…” is not transphobia and is speech that should be tolerated.

[1] And also take a moment to appreciate an IRL instance of accidental-ally. Obviously we don’t want trans men in the women’s restroom.

How does the comment that you reference suppresses the speech of the group being targeted, in and of itself?

Let’s talk about what this hate speech in particular does. And hey, we have another one! More meat for the grinder. Quoting it in case it gets deleted.

> answer me: would you be comfortable if a MAN who says he thinks he is a woman went to the same toilet as your teenage daughters!? cowards downvote, if you are right, come debate me.

Let’s break it down, the imagery here is pretty simple. In both comments “neo-trans man” and “MAN” are front loaded and used with a lot of emphasis, they’re trying prime an image in your brain of a big scary hulking man and trying to get you to associate that image with trans women. Trans women are scary, trans women are dangerous. It’s a cute trick, because it’s actually misandry leveraged against trans women.

Next, “thinks he’s a woman” is also pretty simple. Using “he” in this context serves to keep the previous image fresh in your mind, remember we’re taking about a bad bad man here. And the whole thing characterizes trans women as delusional, unhinged, or “mentally ill.” Just like the first one, this actually leverages ableism against trans women.

And “same toilets as your teenage daughters”, hopefully this one is obvious. Now that we’ve established that trans women are mentally unstable dangerous hulking men we need to paint a picture of the consequences of that. Our victim, someone small, young, weak, defenseless and sympathetic (relying on misogyny here). Our location, somewhere people feel vulnerable and exposed in just the manner that points to sexual assault. Finally! We have an instance of direct transphobia — the fear that trans women are rapists dressing up as women to attack them when they’re vulnerable, and that they’re pedo groomers. Two for one special!

So let’s circle back, how does this suppress speech. Because it’s not a gun pointed at someone with the threat of pulling the trigger if they speak. It’s suppressing speech by way of character assassination and marginalization. The former is a way of discrediting anything they say because who would take anything a mentally unhinged monstrous rapist says seriously when they ask for “equal rights” — “yeah equal rights to diddle kids you sick freak.” And the latter by way of reach. Speech is pretty ineffective when you have no one to speak to and nobody wants to associate with monsters.

You might already know that all this leads to is actual transphobes expressing actual transphobia in whatever is the closest way that is tolerated. Right now, in the real world, the saying "biology says there are only two genders", despite not being true, is tolerated so that's what the transphobes say, and anyone who's been following this knows it's just a generic expression of transphobia, just as much as "trans men are women" or "trans people shouldn't have the right to use bathrooms"

Words are not violence by definition. Please stop abusing language to create inferences which don't work.

Someone else's words don't justify your use of force/violence. If you think they do, your values are broken and you're simply another authoritarian tyrant trying to crush the ethnic/cultural/religious/ideological group you don't like. Everyone in history has weak excuses for their tyranny like this. --

Also note that it's trivially easy to short-circuit your argument just by someone saying you're being white-phobic or misandric. Well, now you get to explain why _this_ "whateverphobic" statement is "violence" which demands a violent response, but _that_ "whateverphobic" isn't.

Ultimately you've just defined your beliefs as not violent, and others' as violent and denied the very legitimacy of any thoughts beside your own. Perfect authoritarian tyrant behavior.

> Words are not violence by definition

Of course not, a crowbar isn’t a weapon until it’s used as such. I swear, entire generations have been set back when it comes to making progress on this due to that sticks and stones nonsense. It is ridiculous the idea that words somehow live in some abstract plane of existence unable to affect the real world if you just ignore them and that people don’t use words to achieve real life outcomes that hurt others.

> Also note that it's trivially easy to short-circuit your argument just by someone saying you're being white-phobic or misandric. Well, now you get to explain why _this_ "whateverphobic" statement is "violence" which demands a violent response, but _that_ "whateverphobic" isn't.

This isn’t the gotcha you think it is. Hate speech regardless of its target, including white men, is violence. You’re confusing the “prejudice plus power” definition of institutional racism with hate speech.

> Ultimately you've just defined your beliefs as not violent, and others' as violent.

I have not, in fact my position is entirely belief independent. Picking some generally agreed upon abhorrent views as example — if you want to write a missive about how people of dark skin are genetically inferior, that women are weak and a functioning society requires that they submit themselves to men, your findings that homosexuality is a disease and should be treated as one rather than accepted I’m not going to stop you because the beliefs themselves aren’t hate speech.

> I see this misunderstanding constantly online - honestly it's hideous to see people twisting Popper's pro-free-speech message into an excuse to crush those they misunderstand or disagree with. Literally inverting his meaning.

Yeah, it really is sad to see people so eager to embrace authoritarian sensibilities like this. The paradox of tolerence has seemingly become a buzzword without meaning, perverted beyond its original intent; a simple facade that enables people to feel self-justified about their own intolerance while still allowing them to claim progressive ideals.

"One of the peculiar phenomena of our time is the renegade Liberal. Over and above the familiar Marxist claim that ‘bourgeois liberty’ is an illusion, there is now a widespread tendency to argue that one can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods. If one loves democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means. And who are its enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but those who ‘objectively’ endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines. In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought."

- George Orwell, "Freedom of the Press" (1945)

Note that this predates Popper's paradox.

why are you all so hell-bent on glorifying Popper (pooper). He was just a moron with an agenda.

Btw, tolerance, like democracy is just a bulls$##t concept. Would you like to be tolerant of the neo-trans man going to the same toilet as your teenage daughters???

answer me: would you be comfortable if a MAN who says he thinks he is a woman went to the same toilet as your teenage daughters!? cowards downvote, if you are right, come debate me.

Would you be comfortable if you saw Buck Angel walking into the toilet where your teenage daughter was?

P.S. the reason people don't bother debating people like you, is that it's usually like playing chess with a pigeon and they know this.