| > An easy litmus test: are you advocating harm to a person for merely existing in the world This a dog whistle. Please define "harm", and "existing". This phrase is so often used by people who say "silence is violence" (it's literally not). I don't think you're being honest in your argument, here. You are implying lynchings and holocaust, but is that truly the debates you're applying your litmus test on? I highly doubt that. Are you not more likely to apply it to: * trans women competing in sports with biological women * abortion * pronouns * equality of outcome right? I'm not even saying I disagree with you on any of those points. But your "litmus test" allows you to point your finger where the harm is, and shut down debate, cancel the person, and "punch a nazi". And you also consider yourself as having monopoly on defining what pros and cons fall under "harm", and "existing". E.g. if you define misusing pronouns to be harm, someone else could define compelled speach to be to surrender the right to your own thoughts (2+2=5, from 1984). Again, I am not saying I disagree with you on the point, but both sides here have a very good case for screaming "harm!!!! I have harm here! Just for existing!!!". Same with a trans woman competing with a biosex woman. "Harm for just existing" applies equally, actually, to both women. Now what? You're just stuck screaming "fascist!" to each other. Why? What are you actually trying to accomplish? You will lose people with this attitude, not gain them. See Sweden and Trump. > Then I have no interest in hearing your toxic and hateful opinion I don't think you know what "hate" means. > I sure hope you'll be afraid to voice it around me. So you're admitting that your argument is based in threat of violence? |