• HexesofVexes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Where should the line be drawn?

    Where between “I wouldn’t date a trans person because it is against my ideals” (personal preference in partners) and “I wouldn’t socialise with a trans person because it is against my ideals” (personal preference in friends) would we draw our boundary? Would it be between these two forms of discomfort, or would both these ideals be unacceptable, or would both be acceptable?

    The issue isn’t that such speech should be removed, there is broad agreement there, but where do we start trimming?

    Next comes the question, in policing such discourse, what would the cost to privacy be? “Protect the children from the predators” (something everyone can agree with) is already a rallying cry leafing to the erosion of encryption and privacy, shall “stamp out the TERFs” become the next one? Who here remembers what “stopping terrorists” did to privacy?

    Overall, I doubt there are many who don’t feel open distaste at certain forms of speech, and would rather it not be tolerated. However, the difficulty in where to draw the line, and the fear of the cost such a line would have, is why there is likely more opposition.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You’re starting out with intolerance as the baseline. It’s one thing to not want to date a trans person because you’re not sexually ATTRACTED to trans people. That’s perfectly fine. To not want to because it’s “against your ideals” implies that you disapprove of ANYONE dating a trans person, which can only be a result of bigotry.

      Nobody’s talking about legislating against TERFS existing or that anyone who has bigoted views on trans people being predatory, so that’s not a valid comparison either.

      You can ABSOLUTELY be intolerant towards intolerance without trying to legislate it away or otherwise unfairly persecuting the bigots like they persecute others. In fact, that’s the default and correct reaction of tolerant people encountering bigotry.

      • Skates@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s one thing to not want to date a trans person because you’re not sexually ATTRACTED to trans people. That’s perfectly fine. To not want to because it’s “against your ideals” implies that you disapprove of ANYONE dating a trans person

        No, that’s what it implies to you. Not to everyone else. And idk why.

        It’s simple. “I wouldn’t date a trans person because it’s against my ideals” implies nothing about the rest of the world. It just exposes that the speaker’s ideal sexual preference does not include trans people. Now, if you’re choosing to take “ideals” as “ideals about how society should work”, that’s on you. If you’re choosing to take “I wouldn’t date” as “nobody should date”, that’s also on you.

        The phrase is simple and already explains sexual preference, not view on society. It’s actually really goddamn interesting, because OP was illustrating how hard it is to draw a line in the sand, because someone will cross it and say you’re not allowed to draw the line there, and you did that exact fucking thing. You likened drawing that line in the sand with drawing EVERYONE’s line for them, and swiftly crossed it, expressing how wrong it is to draw the line there, and where everyone else’s line should be, because you know better and are reading into the implications.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re either wrong about their intention or about their (lack of) clarity.

          “Ideals” and “preferences” are NOT synonyms and since I can’t read their mind, I’m gonna assume that what they say is what they mean. Silly in these post-truth times, I know, but I’m old-fashioned like that.

          • Skates@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            You literally misinterpreted what they said to suit your own agenda. Silly in any times, but yes - also old-fashioned.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Nope, I literally took them at their word and then you came riding to the rescue with a hypothetical interpretation.