vnth93

I guess it is equivalent in some ways. In modern society we don't really see religion as fundamental to personhood, or perhaps not to the extent of gender. And many would argue that a person do not choose their gender, although since I'm also not religious, I can't tell if religious people see themselves as "choosing" their religion or not.

As for respectful disagreement, far as I can tell, concerning pronouns, if people see discussion as tantamount to disrespect, it is often because they believe that the overwhelming majority of people who insist on pronouns should be taken in good faith. There will always be people who use discussion as an excuse to in fact disrespect. It is a difficult issue and I really don't know what to think.

Apparently the person was concerned that this would allow people to control any narrative they want. For example he suggested that nobody should have to be obligated to acknowledged him as, say, a Christian. I genuinely dont know if this is a good equivalence.

Sorry but I'm going to have to ask for the basis of your claim here. It is wellknown that autistic people's lack of selfawareness is varying and inconsistent and how much they can overcome this depends heavily on how much help they received. Normal people misread the intentions of each other on a regular basis yet are somehow experts on the autistic mind?

I'm not aware that practicing radical self-censorship for the sake of conformity is the current standard of social justice, and, as far as I can tell, numerous forms of injustice were at one point or another deemed socially acceptable.

Even justifiable concerns are just exactly that, justifiable concerns. If anything, it is the society that cannot behave however it wants but has an obligation to uphold justice. It needs to have a fair legal system as opposed to mob justice and to punish only genuine criminals as opposed to merely people with criminal reputation.

But you do to judge what people with any given type of mental health issue can and cannot do.

If he had the capacity to comprehend any of this he wouldn't be the sort of person who talked about the Knight of Hot Ladies at work. Unless Garrett somehow turned out to be a some kind of medical expert, his opinion on Stallman is about valid as Stallman's on anyone else.

If his logic didnt matter, shouldnt he be condemned for only being inappropriate or hostile? Yet it seems that his current reputation among the public at large is that of an actual paedophilia/rape apologist. Whether he actually was or not, this lack of concern for subtleties is the very reason why "societal censure" should only be the authority on matters relating to politeness and not criminality.

Are people campaigning against moderate use of sugar or the pervasiveness of sugary products? In some way the drug analogy is also true concerning the dosage and manner of which the two were commercialized and not just the reward mechanic. There is nothing particularly noteworthy about the consumption of the coca leaves as the various indigenous groups had done for centuries. Coca tea is still being drank is certain places. It is only a problem after the British discovered how to profit tremendously from the extracted alkaloid.