This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Radicals, right and left, are attacking our freedom of speech.
*Right-wing radicals want to suppress any mention of trans people.
*LGBTQ/Trans activists attack Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling for her opinions.
Suppressing freedom of speech encourages a precedent which may be turned around and used against the very people suppressing others Freedom of Speech.
"The right to free speech is more important than the content of the speech."
Voltaire
*Right-wing radicals want to suppress any mention of trans people.
*LGBTQ/Trans activists attack Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling for her opinions.
Suppressing freedom of speech encourages a precedent which may be turned around and used against the very people suppressing others Freedom of Speech.
"The right to free speech is more important than the content of the speech."
Voltaire
BohemianBoo · M
@badminton [quote]*Right-wing radicals want to suppress any mention of trans people.
*LGBTQ/Trans activists attack Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling for her opinions.[/quote]
So on the one hand, you have the Right banning books about trans people.
On the other hand, you have the Left boycotting a transphobic Fascist.
And you think these two things are the same? You think boycotting someone is an attack on free speech?
*LGBTQ/Trans activists attack Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling for her opinions.[/quote]
So on the one hand, you have the Right banning books about trans people.
On the other hand, you have the Left boycotting a transphobic Fascist.
And you think these two things are the same? You think boycotting someone is an attack on free speech?
@BohemianBoo I dispute that J.K. Rowling is a "transphobic Fascist." But the point is she is entitled to her opinion, even if it's wrong.
J.K. Rowling tweeted. “The idea that women like me, who’ve been empathetic to trans people for decades, feeling kinship because they’re vulnerable in the same way as women—i.e., to male violence—‘hate’ trans people because they think sex is real and has lived consequences—is a nonsense.” and,
" I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth,”
J.K. Rowling tweeted. “The idea that women like me, who’ve been empathetic to trans people for decades, feeling kinship because they’re vulnerable in the same way as women—i.e., to male violence—‘hate’ trans people because they think sex is real and has lived consequences—is a nonsense.” and,
" I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth,”
BohemianBoo · M
@badminton [quote]I dispute that J.K. Rowling is a "transphobic Fascist." But the point is she is entitled to her opinion, even if it's wrong.[/quote]
And we're entitled to boycott her. She still has her freedom of speech, the government isn't censoring her. We're just deciding we don't want to spend any money on her products.
Now compare that to the Republican book bans. These are not simple boycotts, this is Republicans using government force to censor authors. Regardless of what you think of boycotts, a boycott is not against freedom of speech. Government censorship is against freedom of speech.
And we're entitled to boycott her. She still has her freedom of speech, the government isn't censoring her. We're just deciding we don't want to spend any money on her products.
Now compare that to the Republican book bans. These are not simple boycotts, this is Republicans using government force to censor authors. Regardless of what you think of boycotts, a boycott is not against freedom of speech. Government censorship is against freedom of speech.
@BohemianBoo You are free to boycott the work of someone you disagree with. Just think carefully about your tactics. They could be turned around and used against you.
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
@badminton corporate radicals? Twitter and the Dems are radical?
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@badminton No, it is not "hate" to be truthful, but the problem she ran into was that certain groups do not want anyone to know facts they find personally uncomfortable.
Hatred is an emotion, an opinion. Truth is simple fact even if you don't like the fact personally.
But refusing to enjoy the works by any writer, composer or other artist merely for he or she expressing opinions or facts you dislike, outside of those works, is negative, even childish, and achieves absolutely nothing at all useful or helpful.
Even worse when used as a political weapon, for that is nakedly dictatorial whether by Left or Right, and that left or right is by US or European definition.
Hatred is an emotion, an opinion. Truth is simple fact even if you don't like the fact personally.
But refusing to enjoy the works by any writer, composer or other artist merely for he or she expressing opinions or facts you dislike, outside of those works, is negative, even childish, and achieves absolutely nothing at all useful or helpful.
Even worse when used as a political weapon, for that is nakedly dictatorial whether by Left or Right, and that left or right is by US or European definition.