> Expressing doubt about the efficacy and ethics of diversity politics, questioning slogans like Black Lives Matter and Defund the Police, or worrying about the implications of gender reassignment therapies for children are all conflated with doing physical harm to actual people.
The author reveals their own prejudices in this statement, this whole article is just a red herring for the usual right-wing whining about being overly censored, never mind that the religious right has perpetrated more than it's fair share of censorship. Conservatives have no trouble telling people what to do with their bodies or personal lives, but God forbid somebody should tell you that it's not ok to respond with "All Lives Matter".
Free speech does not mean "you get to say what you want and nobody can get mad at you". It doesn't mean that you can say things that most people think are hateful and receive zero repercussions from the rest of society.
The government is being run by people who believe as the author does. He is free to pontificate on the pros and cons of giving a child gender reassignment surgery (how often is this happening?) without fear of censure by the law.
But looking deeper, he is mostly mad about potential backlash to his ice cold hot takes. Diversity politics is a side effect of giving underrepresented communities a voice, and gender reassignment surgery is a legitimate treatment for a recognized mental disorder, although not one taken lightly by physicians and strawman parents.
The author of Ramones the narrowing of acceptable discussion topics, but why are these things that he feels the need to talk about? I live in a "liberal" and inclusive city and I've never noticed a transgendered child. Is he mad you can't called people the N-word too? I can think of an endless list of discussion topics that don't require me to belch out hastily rendered judgments about how people are wrong or dumb or immoral.
Free speech set minorities free and it is true that it was abused by some people. For instance the feminist movement was indeed influenced by people wanting to legalize pedophilia. To their credit, at least at some point they distanced themselves from these people.
And it is true that the pedophiles did indeed defend themselves with the argument of free speech. As did people from the Third Reich.
What is undeniably true though is that free speech empowers minorities in a way a "liberal in an inclusive city" could never do.
Don't think yourself as a savior if you hand power to penalize speech to large media conglomerates and social media companies. You are no liberal, no progressive. You are just more the conservative, orthodox counter culture to people that do actually have liberal policies.
> pedophiles did indeed defend themselves with the argument of free speech
What are you on about? Pedophiles have the right to speak as freely as anybody else, which is to say without censure by their government. What do you think the first amendment says? Obviously "free speech" doesn't protect anybody from action, but they have the right to speak without fear.
Your post is what I'm talking about. There is no reason a company can't decide what is or isn't fit to print on their website. That said, big social media conglomerates shouldn't exist for other reasons. Nationalize Facebook, nationalize twitter. Personally, I'm done with those sites anyway, preferring federated social media.
The author reveals their own prejudices in this statement, this whole article is just a red herring for the usual right-wing whining about being overly censored, never mind that the religious right has perpetrated more than it's fair share of censorship. Conservatives have no trouble telling people what to do with their bodies or personal lives, but God forbid somebody should tell you that it's not ok to respond with "All Lives Matter".
Free speech does not mean "you get to say what you want and nobody can get mad at you". It doesn't mean that you can say things that most people think are hateful and receive zero repercussions from the rest of society.
The government is being run by people who believe as the author does. He is free to pontificate on the pros and cons of giving a child gender reassignment surgery (how often is this happening?) without fear of censure by the law.
But looking deeper, he is mostly mad about potential backlash to his ice cold hot takes. Diversity politics is a side effect of giving underrepresented communities a voice, and gender reassignment surgery is a legitimate treatment for a recognized mental disorder, although not one taken lightly by physicians and strawman parents.
The author of Ramones the narrowing of acceptable discussion topics, but why are these things that he feels the need to talk about? I live in a "liberal" and inclusive city and I've never noticed a transgendered child. Is he mad you can't called people the N-word too? I can think of an endless list of discussion topics that don't require me to belch out hastily rendered judgments about how people are wrong or dumb or immoral.