Hacker News Reader

Comment by jzb | Hacker News Reader

If we want a "liberal, intellectual society" we absolutely have to consider some speech "violence."

To use one current example: The people pushing the idea of trans people as "groomers" is violence. It is not an intellectual debate, it's not necessary to entertain in order to preserve free thought, etc.

The goal of that speech is to other trans people and it endangers them. Tolerance of that kind of speech ensures that trans people cannot participate equally in society when there's no consequences for trying to stoke hate and encourage stochastic terrorism.

At some point, if we cannot agree that things like that are unacceptable I don't see how we ever move forward.

View on HN

Yes some people employ terms to other people based on religious belief or skin color, should it be acceptable to "other" people by calling them Christofacist? Or suggesting that we should #killallmen?

Why should prefixing a proposal with the phrase "trans" suddenly allow one to invalidate other people's rights?

And before you say that is extreme, hypothetical or doesn't count because it comes from a position of power my own ancestors were driven out of their homes in 4 states and had an extermination order issued against them by the state of Missouri based on people abusing free speech against them.

For context, we belong to the same religion, or at least, your ancestors and I do.

> should it be acceptable to "other" people by calling them Christofacist?

Yes. The whole point even in your example is freedom of religion. Denying anyone freedom of or from religion is inherently wrong from both a religious perspective and a secular perspective.

If someone is behaving in that manner, then they should be called out by both people inside and outside of their religion.

> Or suggesting that we should #killallmen?

I would agree that this is bad. I think most people across most political belief's - including the vast majority of leftists I know - would call this bad.

> Why should prefixing a proposal with the phrase "trans" suddenly allow one to invalidate other people's rights?

It doesn't, though the phrase "To those on top, equality feels like oppression" comes to mind.

> > Why should prefixing a proposal with the phrase "trans" suddenly allow one to invalidate other people's rights?

> It doesn't, though the phrase "To those on top, equality feels like oppression" comes to mind.

The rights of women to enjoy female-only spaces, for their safety and dignity, is being invalidated in the name of so-called "trans rights", whereby a subset of males who demand access to such spaces, entirely disregarding women's boundaries, are being granted access.

This isn't equality, this is male dominance over women.

And yet again, same as it always is, this is oppression of women to meet the demands and desires of males.

Here's a pretty good refutation of people using feminism as backing for <racism|homophobia|transphobia>

https://feministkilljoys.com/2015/02/15/you-are-oppressing-u...

Actual data disagreeing with your position on this specific situation:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z (https://sci-hub.st/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007...)

That aside, I was more referring to people's ability to just... live their life.

Whether being murdered like Brianna Ghey a few days ago, or "just" being unable to access relevant medical care, there's lots of issues with things that cis people can just take for granted.

> The people pushing the idea of trans people as "groomers" is violence.

I never heard that one before, but it sounds awful similar to the idea that men are all at risk of being pedophiles and should not be allowed to work in places near children.

The idea that all men are inherently dangerous and need to be removed in certain areas and contexts is a fairly common held viewed. Is it that any less of violence than people who view trans people as inherently dangerous? Personally I view both believes to be intolerant and discriminating, but I doubt I will live long enough to see a society where we can move beyond such views.

No, its not. If someone punches you in the face, that's violence. If I say "hey, you're a groomer" that's not violence. You can tell the difference because one causes physical pain and the other doesn't. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

From a legal perspective, sure.

From an ethical perspective? You'd be hard pressed to argue that point.

Normalization of ridiculous rhetoric like calling LGBT folks groomers is leading towards more and more hate crimes towards those people, as well as helping push for regulations against adults being able to opt into their own health care and make decisions about their bodies[0].

[0] https://abcnews.go.com/US/new-bill-ban-gender-confirming-car...

Who gets the power to decide what is ethical and to then ban what they deem unethical? Elected officials? Academics? Who do we give that level of power too? You? Me? Biden? Trump? I understand that saying negative things about people is not a nice thing to do and can cause emotional pain, I just think that the consequences of removing free speech are far worse and leads to a place where suddenly people you voted against have unlimited power.

> Who do we give that level of power too? You? Me? Biden? Trump?

Society as a whole, via the sort of discourse that we're having now.

Freedom of speech comes with other people having the right/responsibility to also have freedom of association and reject the sort of speech that is found to be intolerable.

Note that in this specific instance, it is not a case of legally unavailable speech, but a case which is more likely to result in ostracism of those who use it - which is the system working as intended.

100% agree that objectionable speech should not be free of social ramifications. My only concern is with government restrictions on speech.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com