The debate "Social justice is Free speech" was started by
February 4, 2019, 7:09 pm.
50 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 24 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Nemiroff posted 8 arguments to the agreers part.
DrMrDaniel posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Saam, IamKudzaiTC, finthechat, LucyTheDebatorQueen, lukeluckynuke123 and 45 visitors agree.
DrMrDaniel, Fanuel, JDAWG9693, Napoleon_of_Politics and 20 visitors disagree.
I do try to consider other's opinions and, to be blunt, I consider them too sensitive on this topic. "It" is technically also a pronoun. I don't think anyone should get offended by "it"; I certainly don't. Not just on the gender issue, but on religious matters as well, I just didn't bring it up 'cause I didn't find it relevant. But, yeah, they are too sensitive about this, too. And, I push for "it" so hard in my personal life because, I think we can agree that people not liking it isn't a good reason not to push for something. Also, I think that my pronoun, "it," should be equally considered as the pronouns that the trans community tries to push on me (they, xer, ze, etc.)
I agree with you on a personal level. insults, especially from people not important to me, are insignificant. of course you are dead wrong about words not having power in general, but I'm assuming you were talking only in the context of insults and sensitivity.
but this isnt about insults, it's about definitions of how people refer to themselves and each other on a regular basis. you might be ok with people referring to you as douche on a regular basis, but why would we go out of our way to use that as the default term? why go out of your way to assign people something you know is disrespectful.
religious people, often right wing, get very offended when you refer to their God as it, so please dont pretend it's some left wing snowflake thing. I've noticed trolls that make fun of snowflakes, tend to melt real fast when they get a taste of their own methods. it's very much bipartisan. its actually just human.
also, I dont believe you imagine your personal opinion to be mandate and have veto over all others. if your gonna set general norms dont you think other's opinions should be considered as well?
the topic isnt about power of words. this isnt insults. we are discussing definitions, such as you believing "it" to be fitting of that definition.
you werent just throwing out insults were you?
I think that "it" is an acceptable word when labeling anything because I don't give so much power to words like most people do.
because changing a word is not simple.
1. we already associate it with a specific definition.
2. we need to find an alternative for the original definition. how will we reference objects? or do you want to reference them as objects?
are you religious? because I used to use the term it for God, and it didnt sit well with the, often right wing, religious people. what makes you think this is ok?
"It" is a pronoun. And, if they want to change our language with new pronouns anyways, why not simply change how we use/view the word "it"?
it refers to objects. that's extremely insulting.
Look up California's pronoun laws for medical care people. But, I always use "it" as the gender-neutral pronoun.
I think there are examples of people intentionally using the wrong pronoun being fired. The examples I have heard are teachers. But it is a bit like going to class and having your teacher call a male student a little girl. It is sexual harassment.
would you be ok with their being a single, agreed upon, gender neutral pronoun. kinda like Ms, Mrs split a while back for women's rights. No more making stuff up on the fly.
now that I think of it, what is the advantage of she and he instead of just 1?
I cant speak to other countries. many dont have a freedom of speech law to begin with. however....
"and even some states, that if you "mispronoun" someone, you can be fined and even JAILED."
I doubt it. not in the USA. fake news.
The counterexample that always comes to my mind is in some country, and even some states, that if you "mispronoun" someone, you can be fined and even JAILED. That is not freedom of speech.
also firings are a company decision. not a government one. are you asking government to come in and enforce regulations of criticisms?
or is this just public demand and private sector adaptation? aka the free market way of right wing dreams?
freedom of speech protects from government censorship. it doesn't protect you from other individuals who are using their own freedom of speech.
Enforcement of social justice actually seems to violate free speech in most instances. They call opinions they disagree with "hate speech" and then dox you and get you fired from your job.