|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 22, 2023 13:56:27 GMT
In my experience nearly everyone, right and left wing says they believe in free speech but very few of them actually do. has no particular attachment to the concept. The right are struggling with what to do about the 'gaming the system' problem, aka - the pervert problem. The right's problem is that freedom of speech only really makes sense in combination with strong social accountability and a dominant social form that is functional. None of this is true currently. It's a stranded value like a lone soldier that has ended up way behind enemy lines. Right wingers were falling over themselves to cancel Gary Lineker when he said something they didn't like, there's plenty of other examples like the don't say gay laws in Florida. Right and left wingers say they believe in free speech for everyone but most of them actually mean free speech for everyone who agrees with them. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 22, 2023 14:22:03 GMT
The left has no particular attachment to the concept. The right are struggling with what to do about the 'gaming the system' problem, aka - the pervert problem. The right's problem is that freedom of speech only really makes sense in combination with strong social accountability and a dominant social form that is functional. None of this is true currently. It's a stranded value like a lone soldier that has ended up way behind enemy lines. Right wingers were falling over themselves to cancel Gary Lineker when he said something they didn't like, there's plenty of other examples like the don't say gay laws in Florida. Right and left wingers say they believe in free speech for everyone but most of them actually mean free speech for everyone who agrees with them. You have misunderstood. The right's position was not that Gary had no right to say what he said, their position was that his statements were incompatible with forcibly collecting money from the UK public. - ie Gary can say whatever he wants, but i shouldn't be forced to fund his platform of fame that draws attention to this mindless gibberish. This is an illustrative example of a point i made in my previous post - that freedom of speech can't be a lone value. In this case, you can't compel people to pay you to talk and also claim you have the right to say whatever you want with that privilege - well, you are inconsistent if you do. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 22, 2023 14:58:08 GMT
Minorities are "afflicted"? No, but the deluded clearly are. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 22, 2023 15:05:01 GMT
The left has no particular attachment to the concept. The right are struggling with what to do about the 'gaming the system' problem, aka - the pervert problem. The right's problem is that freedom of speech only really makes sense in combination with strong social accountability and a dominant social form that is functional. None of this is true currently. It's a stranded value like a lone soldier that has ended up way behind enemy lines. Right wingers were falling over themselves to cancel Gary Lineker when he said something they didn't like, there's plenty of other examples like the don't say gay laws in Florida. Right and left wingers say they believe in free speech for everyone but most of them actually mean free speech for everyone who agrees with them. As a true centrist, I'm an ardent supporter of free speech. I'm also a believer in karma.
Over the last decade or more I've watched with dismay as the left have embraced cancel culture.
From speakers at universities, to the media and even to the current "I'm a Celebrity" they have bayed for this, that or the other to be boycotted, shut down or cancelled.
And now their hypocritical mewling when their own tactics are used against them is delicious to behold.
Because that is karma.  |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 22, 2023 15:19:20 GMT
Sid, your relationship with facts is tenuous at best. Who is demanding that Transgender people 'go away'?. If someone wants to wear a frock and believe they are a woman then feel free - but that does not make them a woman. It does as far as they are concerned, and that's what counts for them. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 22, 2023 15:22:29 GMT
Minorities are "afflicted"? No, but the deluded clearly are. The deluded are the ones who deny the variations in the human condition. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 22, 2023 15:30:46 GMT
Sid, your relationship with facts is tenuous at best. Who is demanding that Transgender people 'go away'?. If someone wants to wear a frock and believe they are a woman then feel free - but that does not make them a woman. You're right. It doesn't make them a woman. At least, it doesn't make them a woman by your definition of what a woman is. Definitions vary, however. And they are women by some definitions.But that's intellectualising something that should just be a matter of common courtesy. But they are not - you have just admitted that they are not real women and thus shouldn't take part in womens sports. The common courtesy is to say yes, you are free to dress up however you like, but that still just makes you a man in a dress. Otherwise you are lacking common courtesy to real women. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 22, 2023 15:31:34 GMT
Sid, your relationship with facts is tenuous at best. Who is demanding that Transgender people 'go away'?. If someone wants to wear a frock and believe they are a woman then feel free - but that does not make them a woman. It does as far as they are concerned, and that's what counts for them. There are people who believe themselves to be a cat - does that make them a cat? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 22, 2023 15:34:12 GMT
Sid, your relationship with facts is tenuous at best. Who is demanding that Transgender people 'go away'?. If someone wants to wear a frock and believe they are a woman then feel free - but that does not make them a woman. That's because you have confused transgender with transvestism. Not the same thing at all. No confusion - they are both men in frocks. I can remember when Eddie Izzard was a proud Transvestite - now he is a proud Transgender - but he is still the same person he always was. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 22, 2023 15:35:14 GMT
You're right. It doesn't make them a woman. At least, it doesn't make them a woman by your definition of what a woman is. Definitions vary, however. And they are women by some definitions.But that's intellectualising something that should just be a matter of common courtesy. But they are not - you have just admitted that they are not real women and thus shouldn't take part in womens sports. The common courtesy is to say yes, you are free to dress up however you like, but that still just makes you a man in a dress. Otherwise you are lacking courtesy to real women. I've admitted no such thing. One definition of a woman defines a woman according to the bio-chemical make-up of the brain. Another, defines a woman according to genitalia. You subscribe to the former, others subscribe to the latter. Nothing in what I said negatives the latter definition. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 22, 2023 15:37:39 GMT
Right wingers were falling over themselves to cancel Gary Lineker when he said something they didn't like, there's plenty of other examples like the don't say gay laws in Florida. Right and left wingers say they believe in free speech for everyone but most of them actually mean free speech for everyone who agrees with them. You have misunderstood. The right's position was not that Gary had no right to say what he said, their position was that his statements were incompatible with forcibly collecting money from the UK public. - ie Gary can say whatever he wants, but i shouldn't be forced to fund his platform of fame that draws attention to this mindless gibberish. This is an illustrative example of a point i made in my previous post - that freedom of speech can't be a lone value. In this case, you can't compel people to pay you to talk and also claim you have the right to say whatever you want with that privilege - well, you are inconsistent if you do. No, if it was concern over BBC impartiality they would have spoken up and condemned Alan Sugar and other BBC TV personalities when they posted pro Tory/Brexit posts on Twitter, but they didn't. The right loves a bit of cancel culture as much if not more than the left provided it suits their agenda. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 22, 2023 15:40:38 GMT
But they are not - you have just admitted that they are not real women and thus shouldn't take part in womens sports. The common courtesy is to say yes, you are free to dress up however you like, but that still just makes you a man in a dress. Otherwise you are lacking courtesy to real women. I've admitted no such thing. One definition of a woman defines a woman according to the bio-chemical make-up of the brain. Another, defines a woman according to genitalia. You subscribe to the former, others subscribe to the latter. Nothing in what I said negatives the latter definition. If they are ineligible for womens sports competitions then by definition they are not real women. We dont have subsets of competitions for all the people who cannot decided what gender they want to be. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 22, 2023 15:49:28 GMT
You have misunderstood. The right's position was not that Gary had no right to say what he said, their position was that his statements were incompatible with forcibly collecting money from the UK public. - ie Gary can say whatever he wants, but i shouldn't be forced to fund his platform of fame that draws attention to this mindless gibberish. This is an illustrative example of a point i made in my previous post - that freedom of speech can't be a lone value. In this case, you can't compel people to pay you to talk and also claim you have the right to say whatever you want with that privilege - well, you are inconsistent if you do. No, if it was concern over BBC impartiality they would have spoken up and condemned Alan Sugar and other BBC TV personalities when they posted pro Tory/Brexit posts on Twitter, but they didn't. The right loves a bit of cancel culture as much if not more than the left provided it suits their agenda. No. You are just colouring in a slice of position (positions) that's convenient for your wishes (to use public resources to pursue your political ends). For instance, my position is that people paid by the government, who are publicly recognisable figures, shouldn't have public political opinions unless doing so is part of their role. For these people, publicising (or leaking) their private political opinions should be considered incompatible with their role. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 22, 2023 15:57:50 GMT
I've admitted no such thing. One definition of a woman defines a woman according to the bio-chemical make-up of the brain. Another, defines a woman according to genitalia. You subscribe to the former, others subscribe to the latter. Nothing in what I said negatives the latter definition. If they are ineligible for womens sports competitions then by definition they are not real women. We dont have subsets of competitions for all the people who cannot decided what gender they want to be. LOL! They are disqualified because they were born with a 'male' physique. They are still women by a definition that categorises according to the bio-chemical make-up of the brain. Different societies can and have defined sex by different criteria. There is no correct criterion. There is no platonically ideal woman by which to gauge 'womaness'. No definition is more legitimate than another. Nobody is saying that transgender women are women by your definition. They patently are not women by that definition. But they are women by another definition. Neither definition can be correct. It is a matter of preference, a social construct that can legitimately vary from time to time and place to place. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 22, 2023 16:01:02 GMT
It does as far as they are concerned, and that's what counts for them. There are people who believe themselves to be a cat - does that make them a cat? Of course it does: You just change the definition of "Cat" et voilà they're a cat.
Indeed, that's why there's so many absolute pussies in the world today.  |
|
