UA responsibility tangent from political meme thread

Calling it "harm" is just giving yourself permission to reserve free speech for only those people who say things you approve of.

I can't grant you the power of literacy and comprehension.

If it was someone I know, we would both be laughing, so the point is moot.

FFS.. it's one wingnut who, based on some evidence of their prior behavior, is likely a troll with connections to our version of an alt right media group (Rebel News/Ezra Levant). The teacher's union is the one of the strongest in the country with some deeeeeeeeep pocket. There's pretty much no risk to his/her job given the reported seniority (over 15 years) and s/he could likely retire pretty comfortably if the challenge fails i.e.:fraud is discovered.

If some dropped you enough money, and there was no real way to lose your job, wouldn't you take it?

Think of how much discredit could be created towards actual trans folk!!!!

How many times must it be shown to you that a lot of stuff works out being cheaper when it comes out of a tax base than a profit driven private sector, and with frequently better results?

you aren't an asshole, just stupid.

coulda thrown nice sexual harassment claim in there as well...

How the fuck did you get all that from "hurting someone's feelings is harm"?

Let's say you started pounding on my door at 3am while shouting "get out here so I can violate your anus with my tiny penis, then I'm gonna stab you at least seventeen times with this hunting knife I brought with me!" If I called the police, said "I definitely want to press charges" when they show up, and you spend the night in jail, my actions would have caused you harm. Doesn't mean I shouldn't have called the police.

Let's also say that, before the police get there, you manage to get through my front door, and charge me, knife raised, and declare "it's stabby-sodomy time!" If I shoot you, I would definitely be harming you, but guess what I'm going to do?

In both scenarios, your actions may have justified the harm I caused you, but your actions didn't change my actions from harmful to unharmful.

Clearly.

pretty sure that you don't get to tell others whether they're injured or not by your actions.

Because calling it "harm" is just the transparent tactic for demanding I not be allowed to say it.


[Qoute]Let's say you started pounding on my door at 3am while shouting "get out here so I can violate your anus with my tiny penis, then I'm gonna stab you at least seventeen times with this hunting knife I brought with me!" If I called the police, said "I definitely want to press charges" when they show up, and you spend the night in jail, my actions would have caused you harm. Doesn't mean I shouldn't have called the police.[/quote]


Already thay has fuckall to do with free speech or the insistence that offensive words are "harmful. "

I would hope you will excercise your right of self-defense. Are you trying to equate threats of bodily harm with offensive speech?

And? What is your point?

Incitement and threats aren't free speech. If you're trying to muddy that distinction, you might as well stop.

And once again, there is no virtue on it if it is forcibly compelled.

I can insist on objective reality making that determination. Otherwise "I am harmed and you can't tell me otherwise" becomes the favored way to silence unwanted speech.

Except you're not a head-shrinker, or a neuroscientist, and you don't even read the books needed to be an amateur enthusiast at those subjects.
You're just a mediocre shmuck with a big fat mouth full of Dunning-Kruger.

What shitty thing are you so chomping at the bit to say?
All the slur words?
Go ahead, and let them fly.
Get that shit on the record.

Do I need to be a head shrinker to know my rights don't end where your feelings begin? No, I do not. You need to pass a much higher bar before it's even on the table.

That in itself is an expression of a feeling.

so inciting violence against a targeted group is okay in your mind?

how about workplace harassment?

Actual incitement is not ok.

Same with actual harassment.

But you do not get to dilute either concept to cover everything you don't want to hear.

Nor do you get to define "actual" harm because you don't like the groups it's aimed at.

"Those Jews really DO need telling that they're a bunch of money-grubbing baby-blood drinkers who killed Jesus! But I draw the line at the sticking them in ovens thing."

Then it's a good think I haven't done that.

Offensive and ignorant, but nobody is hurt. "Hate speech" IS free speech.

Do you know what actual harassment is?

Pink hair dye.

exactly

and you don't get to define that

especially as how it affects others.

And other people do not get to use an unverifiable claim of "harm" to reserve free speech for people they like.

good thing that there's people and research that have defined and often codified it (and the observed effects on everything from mental health to productivity) then, huh?

see, it is verifiable...
what isn't supportable is your denials, no matter how aggrieved you feel by being held to account.

Using Google for your self-diagnosis doesn't count as "research, " fucknuts.

Nor is "I'm sad, so I don't want to work" anyone else's problem. You are expected to grow out of that silly bullshit.

You would have made a great medieval Catholic.
They called depressives "melancholics" and they were despised for "laziness" which was considered a sin.
Oh, we get that value from religion too.
It was just feudal lords squeezing the plebs with spookum and guilt.
There's never been a secular justification for the whole Capitalist rat race thing.
Go ahead, and get a library card, and dig deep, you won't find it.
I'm confident of the results.

How about schizophrenia?
Walk it off?
Drink lots of orange juice?

If you're going to claim your "harm" is backed up with a clinical diagnosis, you can show some fucking receipts. If there is no clinical diagnosis, we're back to you making shit up to stifle speech you don't like.

Oh, you're back on clinicians now?
I thought they were on your shitlist for asserting that trans teens exist.
Consistency flees from you like a feather in the wind.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/2N3GJ3cwbEMAXisNdRrn7n

Episode 43 of the podcast I listen to "Philosophize This!" Episode title "Tolerance. Episode is 31 minutes 45 seconds.