[mckirk]

The problem isn't that people should be referred to in the way they want. The problem is trying to mandate it from above.

Ideally, it would be perfectly "allowed" to insult someone by referring to them in a way they explicitly asked not to be referred to. And it would then also be perfectly allowed to call that person out for being a jerk. That's how a naturally formed community would handle such trolling -- but here, the idea is that the "right behaviour" has to be enforced by rules from above, and that's really not a good idea if you're dealing with anything other than a group of pre-schoolers.

[ihatemondays]

Relevant: https://xkcd.com/1357/

You're still perfectly "allowed" to maliciously misgender people, it'll just get you warned or banned.

[belorn]

I really wish people would stop using that argument and link, for several reasons:

1) The first amendment has been applied to companies which hold a position which similar to that of a town center. To be fair court decisions has gone both way, but the argument in favor is that when a company operate a space which is indistinguishable from a government operated space then it should be treated equally under the law.

2) When people in the US sue companies and talk about free speech or freedom of religion they usually don't win under the First Amendment ruling but rather under anti-discrimination laws. They will talk about freedom of speech to the media, but as a practical matter will raise anti-discrimination law in court as those have a much larger scope than the first amendment. In places anti-discrimination law can do more or less anything the first amendment do, except the first amendment restrict the government and anti-discrimination restrict companies.

3) In eu both freedom of speech and freedom of religion protects against governments, companies and people. Freedom of religion is particular broad and covers political and world views, and do not require any official religion or belief. EU law impacts many international companies. EU also has it own set of anti-discrimination and in 2000 added "any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited".

One of those three can likely be used when people bring up freedom of speech. Just because you think someone is an asshole for holding an opinion does not mean you can discriminate against the person saying it. The technicality of the first amendment is not a license for others to restrict speech.

[mckirk]

Well, I'm pretty sure "being a dick" was a bannable offense before, so the change of rules is then basically unnecessary.

[ihatemondays]

Obviously some people didn't understand that this policy would be included in "don't be a dick", otherwise we wouldn't be seeing all this pushback.

[mckirk]

The pushback is totally justified. Because this is about "you have to say what we command you to", instead of "you should just not be a dick".