I think he's criticizing your idea that:

>There's no more room for debate on such issues.

There is always room for debate on any issue. It might be a one-sided debate, but you're clearly implying that the debate should be suppressed, which is absurd.

So, human rights should be debated as to warrant their existence? I don't think so. If that makes me a the "big meany weany" for folks like him then good. I don't have time for it. Being transgender myself and having to deal with all the issues that it comes with on a personal level makes less empathetic towards non-transgender people's concerns. Simply put, if he and others thinks my life should be contingent on his feelings then I'm just not going to discuss the matter with him. I'll just cut them out of the conversation entirely. Nor do I owe them or other people with similar sentiments a say in my life. If I pay my way (which I do) then you get zero authority over my life: fact.

I've heard for years that being transgender is bad, evil, and all other kinds of undesirable adjectives without a hint as to how or why. And when something that resembles a coherent argument is made, I often find it's dependent on an irrational belief that's easily dispelled. Even when the arguments are dispelled the opponents refuse to acknowledge it and move on. They just double down on the vitriol and expand their program to deny rights to even access opportunities in the marketplace, be it healthcare or employment opportunities. When it becomes a choice between living in the closet (probably killing yourself in said closet) or living outside the closet and getting abused for being transgender (physically, economically, psychologically, and so forth) then enough is enough. There's literally zero excuses to be made. And many like myself now have a zero tolerance policy in debating the matter.

Either you're on board for civil rights or you're not. There's no nuance from the opposition. The opposition made their argument and it was lacking. Deal with it.

/rant

> So, human rights should be debated as to warrant their existence?

Yes. Everything can be debated. If you are unable to defend your preferred position in a debate, maybe it isn't as perfect and obvious as you thought it was.

> And many like myself now have a zero tolerance policy in debating the matter.

Great! It's a free country. You don't have to participate in any debate you don't want to. But if, rather than just bowing out of debates, you start to demand that everyone else just step in line with your position, and threaten and mob them if they don't... well. Then I'm afraid we have a problem.

> Yes. Everything can be debated.

Fundamental moral axioms cannot really be debated (in the sense of rational argument based on logic and evidence); they can only be accepted or rejected.

Furthermore, if you can't agree on them, nothing that rests on them (that is, any question of should rather than is) can be debated either.

"Fundamental moral axioms"? Do you mean the kind of thing that philosophers write whole books about? I was under the impression that it's exactly those ideas that are developed through the most rigorous debate.

Let's say that you're right about that.

What's the consequence, then? War of all against all, as the Yale students seem to want? Or we learn to coexist with people who have different fundamental moral axioms from us?

I vote for option B.

The answer, of course, will depend on your moral axioms (and, for most real sets of moral axioms people adhere to, the exact nature of the conflict between moral axioms. Its very hard to find a way to "peacefully coexist" with someone for whom actions which are a direct and immediate threat to your own highest values are morally obligatory.)

Do I think the students that are the focus here are out of line? Sure. I think there is a real lack of balance, perspective, and proportion in their revealed values.

OTOH, I think that finding a loud minority of university students behaving in a sophomoric manner to be decidedly unsurprising.

If you want people to peacefully coexist then you have to establish civil rights. No one's existence should be contingent upon personal sentiments or arbitrary morals. Either, we all have the same rights or we have none. There should be no debate as to who should have these rights as they benefit all.

But rights depend upon 'personal sentiment or arbitrary morals' all the time. Who I rent out my upstairs room to - I'll decide. Which clubs I join; what movie theatres I frequent. And these things have economic/social impact beyond me - the theatre will close if it doesn't show movies acceptable to a large enough population etc.

So we argue about 'privilege' like that can make a difference. Its at root, the majority vs minorities. The game will always be slanted toward the majority, because free market etc.

I'm in favor of peaceful coexistence, and treating everyone fairly. But I'm only one. The market (there are markets even in non-commercial/social transactions) will dominate the game.

I'd be more interested in following the dialog, if there was one. We have folks making up rules on every side; inventing new words and theories and constructs. And shouting down folks from other viewpoints. Its all designed to impede real dialog.

"But rights depend upon 'personal sentiment or arbitrary morals' all the time. Who I rent out my upstairs room to - I'll decide. Which clubs I join; what movie theatres I frequent. And these things have economic/social impact beyond me - the theatre will close if it doesn't show movies acceptable to a large enough population etc."

Economics doesn't factor into law. SCOTUS on the matter of Equal Protection has already spoken so economies adjust to legal realities (not vice versa).

"So we argue about 'privilege' like that can make a difference. Its at root, the majority vs minorities. The game will always be slanted toward the majority, because free market etc."

Privilege in racism is the concept that you and I based on our ethnicity can take certain conditions for granted. For example, I'm white so I rarely feel need to change my behavior when a police patrol car passes me on the road but a person of color is acutely aware of the situation and must act above/beyond what the well adjusted citizen should act (more polite, more timid). Privilege is the freedom to not notice a power disparity since you have all the power or the social norms in your favor to acquire it. Markets don't factor into it either. Markets are the affect of social orders not their cause.

"We have folks making up rules on every side; inventing new words and theories and constructs. And shouting down folks from other viewpoints. Its all designed to impede real dialog."

Okay, I'm not going too mean here but do you realize that POC aren't a position of power, right? If I get caught with a blunt I'm more likely to get a slap on the wrist since I'm white versus a person of color who may get a judge who'll throw the book at them. Just by being white I have a statistically better chance of lesser sentence for just about any crime.

Just because POC say mean things to you on Twitter or to your face doesn't equate being shouted down. They (and you) have a right to not associate nor to consider any ideas if they (and you) so wish. So, please don't assume the "truth is the middle." It's time for people to just accept that the truth in this matter be it racial equality or LGBT (emphasis on the T imo) rights is very clear. The only debate should be on how best to handle the injustices in question.

Sure I've followed the issue enough to know (some of) the jargon. But labeling it doesn't solve it, that's my point.

That's all fine theoretically. But in the end, a theatre showing films of interest to a minority will close, if they haven't got enough population to support them. Markets squeeze folks out all the time. All the laws in the land won't change that.

Training, oversight, education can all make a difference. I'm with you on what's right. But its tilting at windmills to try to legislate much of it.

"Sure I've followed the issue enough to know (some of) the jargon. But labeling it doesn't solve it, that's my point."

Labeling is part of identifying problems which is necessary to figure out what needs to be fixed.

"But in the end, a theatre showing films of interest to a minority will close, if they haven't got enough population to support them. Markets squeeze folks out all the time. All the laws in the land won't change that."

Again, your example isn't even applicable to the real world problems that pose POC and other minorities. Can you actually stay on topic?

"But its tilting at windmills to try to legislate much of it."

And yet even George Will of all people in an interview on Econtalk (years ago) said that affirmative action may have done some good considering the time it was enacted.

So, I think you're in the minority here in terms of opinions.

>Yes. Everything can be debated. If you are unable to defend your preferred position in a debate, maybe it isn't as perfect and obvious as you thought it was.

No, the right to exist in peace is not negotiable. If it is then we're living in a world that fundamentally is built on evil principles as it makes human life without value. It gives a justification to murder, rape, and steal so long as you get away with it. Human lives must have fundamental value and with it fundamental rights such as the right to self-identification (ex. gender identity and expression), economic autonomy (free to trade in a free market), and social autonomy (ex. freedom of association).

Without those rights we get a brutal world where only the strongest decides what's good and right. We've already had that for the majority of history. I'm sure no one in the West would want to go back to those times where life was short and painful. Only someone foolish would think such conditions are desirable or sustainable (at least with our level of technology, especially in warfare).

>But if, rather than just bowing out of debates, you start to demand that everyone else just step in line with your position, and threaten and mob them if they don't... well.

False equivalence. I never stated I wanted to mob anyone. But I will say if you want to be my friend or part of my family then you do have to adhere to some moral standard I find compatible. That's not up for negotiation. Everyone would agree that ultimately if you can't agree that X person has the right to exist in Y way (ex. allowing a transwoman to medically and socially transition) then there's nothing to debate. It's a conflict between fundamental principles. There's nothing to be gained by one bowing to the other. They're antagonists of the worse sort. Better they not associate than 'debate' which usually entails more violence than non-association.

Also, criticizing someone in the public sphere isn't even equivalent to mobbing. If I send you death threats or call your boss then that's mobbing, harassment, and bullying. If I call you a dipstick on Twitter and not evade your block afterwards; it's mean words. There's a key difference I should think.

> False equivalence. I never stated I wanted to mob anyone

Then I don't have a beef with you. But the students in these articles are mobbing people physically, are preventing others from speaking, are chasing people out of their jobs. That is wrong.

I don't think protests constitute mobbing. Also, I believe in the video the Master at Yale he wasn't mobbed but rather had several public meetings like this. But on the whole, I still don't see any evidence of there being a problem. It just seems to me that there's a strong contingent of social moderates to conservatives that would prefer people to toe the line out of some unnamed tradition. To me, tradition and authority warrant no respect unless it can be justified.

> I don't think protests constitute mobbing.

A large group of people surrounding one someone and screaming at them, or barging into events and disrupting them, or spitting on people? That's mobbing and it's wrong.

> But on the whole, I still don't see any evidence of there being a problem.

Would you feel the same way if it was Tea Partiers doing the exact same things?

> To me, tradition and authority warrant no respect unless it can be justified.

These traditions are what allow people with strongly varying societal views to coexist peacefully in a large country such as this one. The only alternatives to such traditions are either segregation or civil war.

>A large group of people surrounding one someone and screaming at them, or barging into events and disrupting them, or spitting on people? That's mobbing and it's wrong.

Are we even looking at the same videos from FIRE? All I see is one woman screaming at one man in a crowd. ONE, not two, not three, not many. ONE person is screaming in the FIRE video. Secondly, where in the videos is anyone spitting on the Yale staffer?

Also, lets talk about disrupting events. That's what even my dad (an old hippie) would call a protest. Mind you, my dad is more conservative these days (a Catholic and the like), but I'm sure he wouldn't call modern protests mobbing either. Disrupting events to raise awareness to grievances (whether or not they're genuine) isn't immoral. I think that's something you and I will never agree upon.

>Would you feel the same way if it was Tea Partiers doing the exact same things?

Yes, they can be as loud as they want, imo, and they have been already loud as they want. It seems you want to play a mind game where people should be silent unless it falls within your standard of legitimate complaint. You and I don't get to decide what's a legitimate complaint since we only do what's good/bad for ourselves. If the some conservative Catholic organization wants to stage a protest to prevent ENDA from passing in Congress who am I to tell them otherwise? The 1st Amendment furnishes them such a right to peaceably assemble. If they're rude or otherwise impolite about it, that's a matter of mere taste/sentiment. It's not a matter of law.

>These traditions are what allow people with strongly varying societal views to coexist peacefully in a large country such as this one.

You mean the tradition of silence is acceptable because it gives way to false peace? Really?

>The only alternatives to such traditions are either segregation or civil war.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -- John F. Kennedy.

Simply put, if your views require everyone to remain silent or never raise their voice when the established order refuses to change, then you will get civil war. As for segregation, people already do that without raising their voices, Google white flight.

TLDR-version:

1. Can you show in the article's FIRE video where anyone but one person is screaming? Also, what spitting (there's none in the video)?

2. You're making some faulty assumptions that the Tea Party movement didn't have disruptive protests when in fact there were several small scale protests around 2010 throughout the US.

3. You want people to peacefully coexist, but you also want people to basically STFU unless you approve of their views. I'm not inclined to agree. People have the moral and legal right to protest. It's not for you or me to decide.

4. What's with this segregation and civil war hyperbole? You really think one screaming woman at Yale equals massive social disorder? Maybe you and I are not on the same page here, but I honestly think you're being dishonest by this false equivalence.

Do you care to explain yourself or would you rather heckle and run?

It seems people who have a big issue with LGBT issues (especially the T) seem to prefer the latter over the former.

explain what, can you not comprehend what i wrote

No, what you wrote is was incomprehensible.