Yes, some people on the Blue side can be overly sensitive. No, I do not think that "a significantly noisy subset" of the Blue side finds a dissenting opinion to be harassment. Do you imagine these people responding to "I don't agree with that" with claims that they are being harassed? I burst out laughing reading that sentence in the article, it's such an obviously preposterous statement.
It's really quite comical that the author, in order:
1) Claimed that they were being objective and presenting the situation free of bias.
2) Claimed that any person on the Blue side who learns that anyone with a dissenting opinion is on the same site as them will feel that they are being harassed.
3) Claimed that the arrival of Blue users would ruin mastodon.
I skimmed over the rest of the article and it appears to include an "Actually It's Not Technically CP" argument, so I think I probably made the right choice here.
> Do you imagine these people responding to "I don't agree with that" with claims that they are being harassed?
Sadly yes. The logic works as follows:
If you don't agree with me (let's say on gay marriage), you're saying my belief is invalid. The things I believe constitute my identity; therefore you are attacking my identity and thus existentially threatening me.
On some forums this kind of disagreement is grounds for banning, no matter how politely expressed or well reasoned.
Okay, but you've now moved the goal posts from "mere dissent is harassment" to "people suggesting that I deserve fewer human rights than them is harassment" which, well, yeah.
Arguments containing a premise that the other side is a lesser human generally don't go well. I don't think that is unique to this situation.
To be clear: my company offers a maternity benefit that's more generous than their paternity benefit. I want to change that. If you offer any disagreement, then you are imputing I deserve fewer human rights, saying I am a "lesser human" than you, and thus you are harassing me. Correct? Nevermind which side is right: mere disagreement is harassment.
You provided a specific example of a topic with existential importance. I responded to it.
I do not think you can make an argument against gay marriage which treats all sexualities equally, by very definition.
If you feel you have an argument about why the government should deny homosexuals the right to marriage, but that does not treat homosexuals as lesser than heterosexual people, I'm all ears!
> I do not think you can make an argument against gay marriage which treats all sexualities equally, by very definition.
How can I reasonably be expected share my argument, if by your own criteria I'll be guilty of harassment if you disagree?
That's the stifling effect of "disagreement is harassment".
Think about it. By your criteria, discussion can't even happen if anyone's rights are at stake. Yet any meaningful disagreement will involve someone's rights - what is the extent of a right, and under what conditions can it be circumscribed. All of this talk is now off limits.
Maybe you should try to make sure you can win these arguments instead of preemptively banning them.
PS: I'm really not interested in gay marriage. As I said it's just an example of suppressing debate. Compare to how Red evangelicals will invite atheists to publicly debate evolution, which I think is more constructive. I can give more examples of Blue debate-silencing through harassment claims but this seems sufficient illustrative.
I think a very narrow segment of speech is harassment, namely that people deserve less because of their religion, race, gender or sexuality. I'm surprised you view this as contentious.
I don't think that's well-defined enough to unilaterally shut down debate. What if my religion tells me I can't work 6 months out of the year, and I need the same job protection Christians get for not working on Christmas and Easter? What if I'm asexual and I'm denied the tax benefits married people get? You're saying not only are these claims automatically granted, but that just discussing them is a punishable offense.
Also why is "religion, race, gender or sexuality" the holy quartet? Why not ageism, ablism, lookism, or my rights as a short person? Why are those open to debate while the others aren't?
1. I don't believe that religious people should be treated differently than non-religious people.
2. Asexual people can marry. They don't force you to have sex before they give you the certificate of marriage.
I did not claim that discussing these things was a punishable offense. You can discuss anything that you please, you are protected from prosecution by the 1st Amendment.
My only contention was that it was valid for someone to feel harassed because someone said they deserve less because of their sexuality.
> My only contention was that it was valid for someone to feel harassed because someone said they deserve less because of their sexuality.
Ok. I agree people's feelings are valid. I believe if someone feels harassed because of my opinion, my opinions may be just as valid as their feeling of harassment, and society is better served by open discussion than sparing feelings at all costs.
I realize that some people may abuse this to hurt other's feelings without making a sincere and salient point, which is regrettable. I'd like to think all my points can be articulated without offending anyone, though that's probably unrealistic.
I appreciate that you respect the 1st Amendment. It's a common Blue trope that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to speech involving supposed racism or sexism (which they refer to as "hate speech").
I'm all for open discussion. I'll discuss anything with anyone.
I was just responding in particular to the point about gay marriage because I think, as I said, by definition it's difficult to make that argument without a premise that you deserve more than the other side. Similarly, if you made the argument that someone does not deserve to vote because they use a wheelchair, I would think the same thing.
Perhaps in some Voltaire-ideal we should have an in-depth argument on the merits, but I don't particularly blame them for just saying "fuck this". It's not exactly a good faith argument that's conductive to a useful or productive conversation.
To use your parental leave example, contrast two arguments. One begins from "I think that both the mother and father deserve equal treatment" versus "Women are sinful, therefore they deserve fewer days off". You may earnestly believe both arguments and be attempting to make a reasoned, good faith argument, but one of them is more likely to result in "fuck this" and one of them is more likely to result in a useful discussion.
With regards to your point about a "common trope", you should consider talking to adults on the Left.
E: We've now reached the post column width that indicates that we both should have better things to do.
You're free to say "Fuck this, I don't want to argue anymore" if you like. The mistake is believing that makes anyone still talking a "harrasser" in the legally actionable sense.
>I skimmed over the rest of the article and it appears to include an "Actually It's Not Technically CP" argument, so I think I probably made the right choice here.
You'd do well to actually read the article then before making a comment like this. He goes briefly into that to show that you (english speaker) see it as a _very clear_ case of CP, whereas in japan it's not, that there's a distinction, and that they often won't understand why you'd confuse the two. And that difference in looking at it (regardless of picking a position on if it is or isn't cp) is what caused a bunch of issues.
