Almost as if the threat of criminal prosecution is all we need for those who break the social contract for their own personal gain and self aggrandizement to rescind their shitty views and cower in a corner pissing themselves.
Take your TERF bullshit and shove it all the way up inside your butthole.
She isn’t facing a criminal prosecution.
She could, this is not a civil lawsuit. This is a criminal complaint, the state prosecutor will decide if she should face criminal charge or not.
Unfortunately.
Gross.
Fine. Civil litigation and threats against her royalty checks in France.
Yet
I am sure your ardent support for thought policing will never backfire!
Her thoughts, such as they are, are not at issue here.
You can’t control my thoughts! Even medicines can’t control MY thoughts!
The thought in question is that a specific group of people should stop existing. I’m sure that won’t backfire either.
First they came for the TERFs, and I said nothing. Because fuck TERFs
When you have a thought that isn’t just an echo in that empty skull the “thought police” will come for you.
The first amendment only applies in America.
In a healthy society people can have different opinions.
This is all fine, but I should be able to say “A is B”, where A is a person, a group, an idea, even anything in the things listed, and B is any kind of insult.
People calling for criminal prosecution over words are insecure and cowardly. And the small feeling of domination they get if things go they way is sufficient to make it unacceptable.
“Won’t someone rid me of this turbulent poster?”
And if I had a large enough following for some folks to take action and they started threatening or hunting you down, you’d still be A-OK with what I said right? They’re just words! As another example, you must have no problem with dictators like Stalin or Hitler, because they didn’t personally kill anyone, they just used their words!
That’s the difference. When you have a large enough following, what you say on online platforms ceases to be “just words” they become a call to action, even if that wasn’t your intent. This is a pretty new concept in humanity, that some of us can reach hundreds of thousands to millions with a single message. You can’t treat it the same as a regular person just stating their opinion. This isn’t a schoolyard or barroom debate anymore. When you have people that are obsessed and hang on your every word, then your simple insults toward groups become a demonization of that group and has wide reaching effects
Try thinking just the tiniest bit past your own mouth.
Calls to action are fine. We have to do that sometimes. To call people to come to streets, to take arms, to disobey governments.
All these can and will be equal in law to things like this.
Try thinking past the examples you personally like more.
This is a pretty new concept in humanity, that some of us can reach hundreds of thousands to millions with a single message.
In Gutenberg’s times something like this would be said.
This isn’t a schoolyard or barroom debate anymore. When you have people that are obsessed and hang on your every word, then your simple insults toward groups become a demonization of that group and has wide reaching effects
… But those abusing this are never prosecuted, despite laws and rules still being there.
… But those abusing this are never prosecuted, despite laws and rules still being there.
This is… The comments section of a tweet explaining more details from where someone is being prosecuted for literally that.
No, they are about someone being prosecuted for expressing an absolutely normal point of view.
Ok boomer.
- Some things don’t change over decades and even centuries, 2) I’m 28.
Big Boomer Energy
A) what?
- Huh?
D- your list is atrocious
valuing personal liberty over collective liberty is both selfish and less conducive to a functioning society.
There’s no such thing as collective liberty without personal liberty.
Also when person A says to person B “kill C” and B kills C, you don’t have to prosecute speech to punish A. They’ve made a request, or a command, which B follows.
There’s countries where the personal right to not be harassed is valued higher than the right to harass people. France is one of them. UK as well I believe.
You also don’t get to spread lies about someone and make them a target.
There’s countries where the personal right to not be harassed is valued higher than the right to harass people. France is one of them. UK as well I believe.
Completely irrelevant who wrote what in which law.
You also don’t get to spread lies about someone and make them a target.
Telling lies is an attack on the listener. To determine lies in specific situations is sometimes a problem.
ok dismiss it without thinking about it. I guess things like human rights theory are wrong about individual and collective rights.
Theory can be objective on something objectively existing. Theory of a thing in itself can’t be right or wrong.
Apparently when internet commenters want to argue my opinions, the best of them decide not to.
What’s the difference between a request or a command and speech?
Well, if one gets me in trouble, then i did the other.
One is participating in a decision, another is all communication.
It’s defamation (libel since it was written), so that would be a criminal offense.
Pulling some laws is completely irrelevant.
It’s not irrelevant. What you said, is that it should be perfectly fine to insult someone, and within certain parameters it is. You can say all sorts of insulting things about people. What you cannot do, however, is say things that are not true that would also jeopardize future earnings, freedom, and or their safety (essentially to do harm to a person). Beyond that Rowling is a public figure with a large audience which means she is, or should be aware that her comments have a greater influence than the general public. She made ignorant and mean comments, with the intent to harm the reputation of Imane Khelif as well as jeopardize her competitive status in boxing and furthermore her current and future earning potential. Beyond that, with all the fervor this has caused, Rowlings comments could have put Imane’s safety at risk. That’s certainly not trivial, nor irrelevant.
What you cannot do, however, is say things that are not true that would also jeopardize future earnings, freedom, and or their safety (essentially to do harm to a person).
Agreed.
My incentive to argue that this is not a limitation of speech is that if you use this as an argument that limitation of speech is OK, then that’ll spread to other possible limitations of speech. While this can be banned similarly to how poisoning people being illegal is not a legal limitation of cuisine.
The thing done using speech is illegal, not speech itself.
My point is that you can’t ban people who in your opinion are wrong. “For the general good” is not a justification, pun intended since we are discussing Rowling.
She made ignorant and mean comments, with the intent to harm the reputation of Imane Khelif as well as jeopardize her competitive status in boxing and furthermore her current and future earning potential. Beyond that, with all the fervor this has caused, Rowlings comments could have put Imane’s safety at risk. That’s certainly not trivial, nor irrelevant.
Yes, I’ve read up on this now more attentively and realized that it’s about complete misinformation. See, if IK were a transgender, there would be reasons to argue whether she’s eligible. Men are physically stronger than women, gender affirming medications and surgeries do not change that completely (depending on age of transition I guess).
My brain just couldn’t accept that the whole argument is about some rumor or weird idea that this is the case.
However, I maintain this :
The thing done using speech is illegal, not speech itself.
so a celebrity with millions of fans or a politician saying something like “white people are blood sucking vermin that are violent and dangerous” is a-ok, is it?
or a politician saying something like “white people are blood sucking vermin that are violent and dangerous” is a-ok, is it?
I mean, if by “white people” (American bullshit categories) they mean Europeans from ex-colonial cultures (including Americans), then that’s about right. So yeah, many times yes.
way to go against your own advocacy there and completely miss the point of the question.
what if the definitive word was “black” instead?
way to go against your own advocacy there
You don’t know what my “advocacy” is. You’ve imagined some bullshit because your American brain is too atrophied to actually think.
what if the definitive word was “black” instead?
About right too, there are many bad places in Africa.
I never said people should “agree to disagree”, and people should debate opinions they think are bad. A good debate can show strengths and weaknesses of arguments.
People have tried this for ages. It has not worked. These bigots are not debating in good faith. The only response is the verbal or legal equivalent of bapping them on the nose with a newspaper and going, “NO! BAD!”
Debate does not work if they are not arguing in good faith
While i agree with the spirit of what you’re saying here, I’d just like to add that’s it is important to not let these bad faith arguments go unanswered. Anybody that reads the conversation later on will (hopefully) see one side is trying to have a debate/conversation, while the other side is basically full of it.
What is the advantage of someone arguing in bad faith?
Isn’t labeling someone “bad faith” just an excuse not to respond in a considered manner?
Arguing in bad faith is advantageous because your arguments are able appeal to existing biases or emotional responses or “common sense.” Those biases, emotional responses, and “common sense” are by definition conservative and populist and so they hurt marginalized groups and stand in the way of progress. A rational debate requires a certain level of disconnected and objective reasoning, which bad faith arguments do not do. It also requires the principle of charity, where you interpret your opponent’s argument in the most charitable way rather than rejecting it outright or latching on to some detail they got wrong. Bad faith arguments don’t do that either.
This is why uneducated people and people with limited life experience are more likely to be conservative as well, they only know the default culture they absorbed through their existence, and new ideas are scary. They’re scary for everyone, at first, but progressives are just people who have become accustomed to them and allowed their knee jerk reactions to succumb to reason.
Thanks for your comments on bad faith arguments, listening and responding to the opponent is essential for a decent discussion.
Bad faith arguments are probably prioritising publicising their own opinion, rather than trying to change others (or their own).
If your goal is to win an argument, then using bad faith offers no advantage.
If your goal is just to do whatever the fuck you want, to not reveal (or possible even have) your actual motives, or to badger people into giving up the exchange, then arguing in bad faith is highly resistant to considered arguments and offers a never-ending supply of counters.
do whatever the fuck you want,
Here, not engaging has no effect.
to not reveal (or possible even have) your actual motives,
Yes, if the hidden motives are to irritate, waste time or troll the other person
or to badger people into giving up the exchange,
Here it’s more the other way around. The bad faith accuser gets to quit while claiming victory. If someone’s arguments are not logical then they should just be called out.
A persons existence and identity are not opinions. There is no debate there. It’s just bigotry.
By doing so you’re validating those opinions and giving fringe nut job opinions the same airtime (and therefore the same weight and import) as non bat shit opinions.
The BBC is particularly bad for this, in the interest of being “balanced” they give climate change denier loons space alongside highly researched climate scientists. That’s not balance though, because it makes it seem like the loons views are just as valid as the scientists.
Ok debate the strengths and weaknesses of “you don’t get to live”
Go.
Did JK Rowling actually say that?
Of course not, she just believes in protections for “natal” women, or at least that’s where all this started. The reaction to that seemed to radicalise her, which is a pattern I’m seeing a lot of.
Once you’re cast out of the group you’re in, you either embrace the other outsiders or you go it alone. It’s Sherwood Forest writ large.
If you wanted to "debate"something like whether black people have lower IQ based on their head shape, we’d rightfully call you a racist piece of shit.
There’s nothing to debate when it comes to how Rowling attacked a non-trans person, stated that she was a man who enjoyed beating up women, and led a public campaign against her using her influence.
What exactly is the point that you think is up for debate?
Didn’t give oxygen to shitty ideas
It’s an equivalent idea.
Why aren’t people more tolerant of Nazi beliefs?
Would you tolerate someone trying to kill you?
When your differing opinion threatens a whole group of people it has no place in a healthy society.
As a German, we are taught that every worst nightmare begins with people shaming other ppl for their race, ethnicity or beliefs. And if you call that you’re belief, you are at the other side of the tolerance paradox and that means every action to further your opinion is and should be considered a crime.
That’s why saying all that fucked up stuff about Rothschild should lead you straight to prison. It’s not a worldview anymore, it’s a fucked up mental state and a wildfire waiting to undermine democratic principles.
Hang on. Why should a certain surname shield someone from criticism.
Idk if you have looked into all that fucked up stuff ppl say about Rothschild, but most of it is just insane conspiracy theories and the majority of them have been thoroughly debunked multiple times.
No one is exempt from criticism, but no one is allowed to continuously defame ppl from a specific family name without having hard evidence. There is no evidence there.
This is called defamation.
And considering what some ppl say about the Rothschild family, they are making criminal threats and intimidations. With no basis at all.
So
why should a certain surname shield someone from criticism?
Because at this point it’s defamation and sometimes it’s also reaching into criminal conduct. Both are actionable because they are outside of the first amendment protections.
And on a personal note: accusing a family of awful things over the span of centuries is what I call absolutely disgusting and inhumane. You’re not a bad person, just because of your last name. At least not in my world.
It was the introduction of a specific family name into this discussion about TERFs that was strange.
Whilst I agree no-one should be targeted because of their surname, I also think it shouldn’t act as a shield.
A rich, organised group of people who, through their investments, have invisible influence over large parts of the world’s industry, banking and media should certainly be not be beyond discussion.
I brought this up as an example, to make you understand how a family can be hunted merely because of their name, not because of what the actual people in it do.
If you say “the Rothschilds are this powerful manipulative family” that’s fucked up. If you tell me which people you mean it’s easier to debunk it, but this thinking of groups makes conspiracy theories stick like tar to a group of people of whom the majority won’t have anything to do with it anyway.
This family is off limits for me in many ways because to be blunt ppl use them as a scapegoat for basically the same fucked up ideologies and actions that got us started with the Nazis in the third reich.
I’m gonna be honest here, you trying to regurgitate the same reasons why they’ve been basically hunted by extreme right wing nuts makes me vomit. It also makes me suspect you’re trying to instigate something as well and I don’t appreciate that.
I know you want a nuanced discussion but this is not the time nor the subject for that. There’s a lot of powerful people, and if you at least read up on the awful conspiracy theories and how they are easily debunked, you will realize how fucked up it is to reiterate the reasons making them a target.
https://time.com/6311698/antisemitism-conspiracy-theories-rothschild/
Oh and if you’re one of those people trying to put another target on the backs of a whole family tree, then I think we’re done talking. No one deserves to be under constant threat for their last name, no exceptions.
In a healthy society people have the critical thinking skills you lack.
The differing opinion being that a group of people shouldn’t exist?
Yeah, totally. That sounds like a healthy society to me!
Go fuck yourself.
Yeah, I also think it’s a massive euphemism to call bigoted lies and delusions “a differing opinion.”
intolerance is not an opinion. it’s aggression. in a healthy society, intolerance cannot be tolerated.
Yes. A healthy society, however, does not include respecting delusions and bigoted lies. Not even if people call them “opinions.”
People’s right to exist is not a matter of opinion. It is an affront to the basic social constructs upon which all of our society is built.
It’s amazing the lengths people will go to defend billionaire Nazi shit bags.
Go bootlick somewhere else.
In a healthy society people can see that there is a difference between holding an opinion, and bullying or slandering someone.
As long as it does not infringe on another’s right to be treated with respect and as an equal.
deleted by creator
Can you believe how much this has been downvoted, it’s beyond satire.
Maybe it’s being downvoted because it completely ignored the paradox of tolerance.
deleted by creator
Rowling really hates trans people so much that she couldn’t even stop targeting harassment towards cis women lol
This is an inevitable result of this ideology. In places where they actually decided to police gender in bathrooms, academic monitoring of this situation showed that they found 0 trans women, but had harassed, trespassed, and, in one case, assaulted cis women who were more masculine, or androgynous, in appearance.
They’re DOUBLE transvestigating Dylan mulvaney.
I know people who have been deeply addicted to meth, for decades, that aren’t this fucking crazy.
I’m so anti-trans I spend all day looking up and down their bodies in great detail
you must understand, I NEED to see what is in your pants. It isn’t creepy, or weird, it is just a safety concern.
name fits
This is exactly why I’m against sexy femboys! I can’t stop looking at their cute butts.
You make a good point about these people’s behaviors being compared to an addiction. An addict will also lie to your face or make up shit they know nobody could possibly believe, but they just double and triple down on their lies and false narrative. Whatever it takes to protect their addiction.
WTAF
They really are trying to use phrenology to find out if people are trans or not, jfc.
For some kinds of crazy, it’s just easier and much more comfortable to be double-right than it is to be single-wrong.
It’s like my mom. She would only ever call with bad news. Misery loves company. And finally I had to say to her. Please if you cannot call with something other than bad news and panic, kindly do not call at all. Indignantly she said, don’t worry I won’t call you anymore. Just can’t help herself.
Wish my mother would understand this. I haven’t talked to her in months after the last call. She either talks over me & never listens.
Isn’t that called destruction of evidence?
(Not that they’re aren’t 1,000 backups, but still.)
Nah, that’s actually compliance to the complaint to stop publishing slander.
No, she still has to apologize in the same medium she used to slander.
deleted by creator
Feels great, seeing these bigots and terfs finally shutting up for once.
I like to think that she’s coming to a realization, but more likely her lawyers told her to shut up and she probably hasn’t changed her mind one bit. I hope she gets taken to the cleaners. And honestly, fuck Harry Potter.
The Internet remembers
She has enough money to get around the jail sentence. She does not have the will to lose that money to people who deserve it more than herself.
Go to jail? Sure! But lose money, she’d never
Exactly. She’s confident she’d never face jail and if she did she’d just paint herself as a martyr, but there’s no romantic martyrdom about losing a big heap of money.
It’s hard to be a martyr for radical feminism when you attacked a female athlete
Do they think deleting tweets will make them disappear? In all likelihood, the lawyers already have all those tweets in a folder anyways
deleted by creator
you’ve been downvoted because this is usually a strawman conservatives like to use but just in case you’re a genuine person who’s maybe not very familiar with anything in this area and have only heard talking points of bullshitters:
not being attracted to any single transgender person, and any number of transgender people, does not make you transphobic. no one argues that.
but maybe it is worth thinking about whether it makes sense to say you’re not attracted to any transgender people, including people you haven’t met… like, how would you know? attraction isn’t that simple.
you can say you generally don’t find blonds attractive, for example, but even that can’t be a strict rule. you can always see a blond person that you do find attractive.
and that’s weird because blond is a physical trait. transgender isn’t. there are all kinds of trans people, tall, short, overweight, skinny, feminine, masculine, androgynous, blond, ginger… like how would you ever know whether you find someone attractive based on whether they’re trans or not?
saying that you wouldn’t date a transgender person is different, that goes into expectations from the relationship, romantic and sexual. and (although I’m a cishet dude here, so take it with a grain of salt but) I don’t think trans people would really find it unacceptable if you said respectfully that your expectations would not be fulfilled in such a relationship.
no one’s trying to force you into anything. the lgbt movement today is mostly about not forcing people out of relationships they want to have. that doesn’t mean that they want it forced the other way around.
It does not. But saying that certainly doesn’t make you more attractive.
It makes you look ignorant.
Not at all…
But thinking that it’s relevant to this discussion, and that you should post about it in response? Probably.
Oh sweet, sweet strawman
No one’s attracted to sad incel morons
