I agree with you. We are talking about how targeted groups will demand moderation to avoid persistent targeted harassment from a comparatively small number of people.
Conservatives are also often targets of hate. There are black, Jewish, gay, and trans conservatives who are also targeted not for the content of their politics, but due to attributes they were born with and cannot change. I can always set aside my politics, but one cannot set aside their race, gender identity or ethnic group.
Since the discussion is the sociological cause, the fact that the group doing the harassing is small, it will nearly always be banned by the larger majority that is targeted.
I agree. One thing to note though is it's one thing to remove bad law such as outlawing homosexuality as such and it's another to try to force everyone to promote you're life style. Harassment is bad. One problem is that there is no agreed to standard of harassment. So a lot of the left don't like that as a Catholic I will not promote or think that a homosexual lifestyle is something positive. This is not harassment nor is them disliking Catholics and saying mean things about our people and positions.
I think how people react to your positions is a very different discussion than the sociological and political questions we've discussed so far though.
A comparison can be made to other positions which may be a tad extreme here, but I think it's arguably appropriate. If someone advocated for climate change denialism on any public forum, they'd be laughed out of the metaphorical room. However, even if attempts are made to persuade said people with logical arguments, often they will continue to hold such beliefs to the same strength or even stronger than before.
Is it appropriate to silence people for holding specific views? No. But ultimately some compromise has to be made. A decent solution may be the use of a debate section, but I'm sure better ones exist.
The problem is that no one online has any sense of nuance. Any questioning of the absolute worst prediction, or disagreement about public policy regarding it are looked down on as climate change denialism.
Secondly, that argument has a lot of baggage associated with it. Transgender people get banned from the military because they 'cannot change their sex' or 'transgender people lose their jobs because they don't conform'. It's an argument around taking away the rights of a certain group of people and it shouldn't be surprising that people don't want to associate with that.
But at the same time, do you not see how this reinforces existing disparities in opportunity and social acceptance? If you have a better solution than mandating that businesses don't discriminate, I'm all ears. However, if you simply allow businesses to freely discriminate, then the world will only become more unfair over time.
I would never agree to take away rights from a Catholic, but it's disappointing to see a Catholic argue to take away rights from someone else using their faith as a bludgeon. Especially when I know many Catholics whom treat gay people the same as everyone else.
What exactly do you mean by "scientific position"? The term seems, to me, an absurdity.
> Doesn't make it okay.
Putting aside any actual wrongdoing, attacking those with privilege is infinitely better than attacking those without: the former have the resources to defend themselves; the latter do not.
In the same way your stance on climate change is a scientific position regardless if your stance is correct or not.
> the former have the resources to defend themselves; the latter do not.
It's still an evil to unjustly attack someone even if to different degrees.
Can you please just give the definition of "scientific position" that you are using?
Do you mean an assertion regarding reality? Because I think everyone agrees on the reality. The question of what the words "sex" and "gender" constitute is not a question of reality: it is a question of social and legal constructs.
> It's still an evil to unjustly attack someone even if to different degrees.
Yep.
A position that's ignorant of actual medical science is a "scientific" position?
As for vitriol against billionaires and cops, taking a stand against people abusing power is as American as the Boston tea party. If you're advocating for people to shut up and take the abuse you sound pretty authoritarian to me. Is it that hard to look at the situation and say "give me liberty or give me death" applies to poor people and black people too?
I'll let James Baldwin do the talking:
No I never said that nor do I think it. There are definite problems with some cops and there are many instances of gross abuse. I have no problem with billionaires.
Sounds pretty authoritarian to me.
Maybe because sex is a more accurate term.
> don't actually address that you're uncomfortable that some people don't fit into the social boxes of male and female.
So? What's your point? Male and female on not simple social boxes. There are real biological and physical differences between them.