zlacker

Who is saying that people should be harmed? Seriously. Whoever you have in mind, if they're actually advocating violence against people then I'm in agreement with you. That's not cool and they shouldn't be doing that.

Are you referring to calling a trans person by their biological sex?

>>simple+(OP)
Why does your mind instinctively go to that example?

>>Apocry+P3
Because leftists often use that as an example of hate speech.

>>simple+q6
And rightly so.

>>simple+(OP)
When a doctor is speaking with a trans person about their body, it's an appropriate time to speak about their biological sex. That is certainly not hate speech.

When a stranger is yelling at a trans person about their biological sex, it's done to inflict emotional harm on the trans person. They transitioned away from that gender to reduce harm (that is the definition of a trans person), and the stranger is intentionally trying to bring that harm back.

Imagine shouting at a woman about her "biological breast size" because she is wearing a push-up bra, or had surgery to enlarge or reduce her breast size. Would that seem like a normal, harm-free way to interact with another person you don't know? Obviously not.

>>simple+(OP)
Putting aside transphobic nonsense

> Who is saying that people should be harmed?

The rights actions speak so loud no one can hear their words.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/17/briefing/right-wing-mass-...

https://www.businessinsider.com/right-wing-extremists-kill-3...

https://www.salon.com/2021/06/25/filling-the-trump-void-righ...

>>jacque+w8
Depends on the context. People have been suspended from Twitter from saying things like "transwomen are actually men so stop letting them compete in women's sports, it's not safe or fair for actual women", which isn't hate speech, doesn't target an individual, and is a legitimate political opinion, so in theory should be fine. Yet bans are handed out anyway.

>>ciler+pe
I’m not familiar with the lightness with which Twitter bans conservatives. Could you provide an example close to the example you gave? Or will any example be even more bigoted?

>>simple+(OP)
People are actually advocating violence against people, and they have gotten banned for it.

>>ciler+pe
I don't believe that. I know several conservatives who posted that shit all the time and didn't get banned.

>>jacque+w8
Stating facts is not hate speech -- especially if you're trying to force society to go along with your unreality for political reasons.

>>roflye+Jb1
So Twitter needs to bad them all for you to be convinced?

>>simple+s12
Stating facts can be hate speech. For example, if someone said "I was just attacked on my way home" and someone said "you're black" in response, yeah. Facts. Hate speech.

See? :)

>>simple+D12
No. I just don't believe there is a "ban this speech" b/c in my experience that didn't happen.

>>roflye+FK2
Wait, so how is that hate speech?