[eeeuo]

Yes, some people on the Blue side can be overly sensitive. No, I do not think that "a significantly noisy subset" of the Blue side finds a dissenting opinion to be harassment. Do you imagine these people responding to "I don't agree with that" with claims that they are being harassed? I burst out laughing reading that sentence in the article, it's such an obviously preposterous statement.

It's really quite comical that the author, in order:

1) Claimed that they were being objective and presenting the situation free of bias.

2) Claimed that any person on the Blue side who learns that anyone with a dissenting opinion is on the same site as them will feel that they are being harassed.

3) Claimed that the arrival of Blue users would ruin mastodon.

I skimmed over the rest of the article and it appears to include an "Actually It's Not Technically CP" argument, so I think I probably made the right choice here.

[rustler]

> Do you imagine these people responding to "I don't agree with that" with claims that they are being harassed?

Sadly yes. The logic works as follows:

If you don't agree with me (let's say on gay marriage), you're saying my belief is invalid. The things I believe constitute my identity; therefore you are attacking my identity and thus existentially threatening me.

On some forums this kind of disagreement is grounds for banning, no matter how politely expressed or well reasoned.

[eeeuo]

Okay, but you've now moved the goal posts from "mere dissent is harassment" to "people suggesting that I deserve fewer human rights than them is harassment" which, well, yeah.

Arguments containing a premise that the other side is a lesser human generally don't go well. I don't think that is unique to this situation.

[rustler]

To be clear: my company offers a maternity benefit that's more generous than their paternity benefit. I want to change that. If you offer any disagreement, then you are imputing I deserve fewer human rights, saying I am a "lesser human" than you, and thus you are harassing me. Correct? Nevermind which side is right: mere disagreement is harassment.

[eeeuo]

You provided a specific example of a topic with existential importance. I responded to it.

I do not think you can make an argument against gay marriage which treats all sexualities equally, by very definition.

If you feel you have an argument about why the government should deny homosexuals the right to marriage, but that does not treat homosexuals as lesser than heterosexual people, I'm all ears!

[rustler]

> I do not think you can make an argument against gay marriage which treats all sexualities equally, by very definition.

How can I reasonably be expected share my argument, if by your own criteria I'll be guilty of harassment if you disagree?

That's the stifling effect of "disagreement is harassment".

Think about it. By your criteria, discussion can't even happen if anyone's rights are at stake. Yet any meaningful disagreement will involve someone's rights - what is the extent of a right, and under what conditions can it be circumscribed. All of this talk is now off limits.

Maybe you should try to make sure you can win these arguments instead of preemptively banning them.

PS: I'm really not interested in gay marriage. As I said it's just an example of suppressing debate. Compare to how Red evangelicals will invite atheists to publicly debate evolution, which I think is more constructive. I can give more examples of Blue debate-silencing through harassment claims but this seems sufficient illustrative.

[eeeuo]

I encouraged you to make the argument and said "I'm all ears". That hardly seems like preemptively banning your argument.

I am genuinely interested, please indulge us with your argument.

[ohtwenty]

>I skimmed over the rest of the article and it appears to include an "Actually It's Not Technically CP" argument, so I think I probably made the right choice here.

You'd do well to actually read the article then before making a comment like this. He goes briefly into that to show that you (english speaker) see it as a _very clear_ case of CP, whereas in japan it's not, that there's a distinction, and that they often won't understand why you'd confuse the two. And that difference in looking at it (regardless of picking a position on if it is or isn't cp) is what caused a bunch of issues.

[eeeuo]

I just ... don't care about the distinction. The entire subject is nauseating.