As a counterexample you claim to have joined Parlor because Twitter wouldn't let you hate transsexuals openly? This is supposed to support the premise that Parlor had a use for something other than to amplify hate speech?
This is where it gets interesting and the devil really is in the detail on this one.
If you define hate speech according to this:
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence shall be prohibited by law".
You are saying that this group cannot broadcast a message if that message tells transsexual people that they cannot be transsexual and be approved of by this groups god. Yet broadcasting such messages is a core part of their religion. So are you now discriminating against that religion in an effort to avoid discriminating against transsexual people?
If that is so then your comment could be classed as hate speech. I don't think it should be but I do think this highlights the risks and the need to limit what we consider hate speech. That to err on the side of free speech is the safer option.
People have used their religions to give a pass to discrimination for a long time[1]. Today's scapegoat is trans people, but a few decades ago it was miscegenation. People discriminated against mixed-race couples and said it was a core tenet of their religion[1]:
> Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
Surely if we could handle situations like the above that were leveled against mixed-race couples half of a century ago, we can handle the same being leveled at trans people today.
When it comes to free speech and freedom of religion, the ACLU[1] has this to say:
> Instances of institutions and individuals claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion are not new. In the 1960s, we saw objections to laws requiring integration in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students who engaged in interracial dating. In those cases, we recognized that requiring integration was not about violating religious liberty; it was about ensuring fairness. It is no different today.
This is the paradox of tolerance, unlimited tolerance leads to the disappearance of tolerance. A tolerant society must draw lines or end up overrun. Taleb has an interesting perspective on it as well: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
Great article, the %3 rule explains alot of the dysfunction in US politics. With fringe actors on the right(tea party, Qanon) and left(AOC, Antifa). The need for solidarity in either party allows for embrace of ideas/ideals the majority would reject if not for the need to "band together on party lines".
This is a bad faith argument, or at least just a bad argument in general. Denouncing transphobia has absolutely nothing to do with said transphobe's religion and everything to do with denoucning hateful rhetoric. It's a leap in logic to assume otherwise.
What's that common Christian refrain? Love the sinner, hate the sin? By your same logic, "love the sinner, hate the sin" is hate speech despite not attacking the person, but their harmful views and actions.
So, what's the end game here? Can I not ever talk about my opinion to anybody? Can I share it with my wife? Can my wife look at what's going on in the world and disapprove, or is that not allowed? Are people who believe as I do simply to not exist? Should we be exterminated? Should our lives simply be made so miserable that we'd rather we were killed in Gulags? Exactly what are you attempting to accomplish here, because right now, I am not allowed to talk with people on facebook (group bans); I can't talk on reddit (subreddit bans); I can't talk in church (lockdowns). As we saw with Parler (which we were promised was safe, because now the central authority was not someone who didn't like me), I also can't make my own app or service with my tech skills, because they'll be banned too. I can talk with my wife and family, so I guess I'll just keep on breeding to make more people to talk to, until you decide that the school system ought to be used to take my children, nieces, and nephews away, as we've seen in other western countries already, or until we're not allowed to have kids, as has been proposed by some journals and implemented in other countries (to much applause, mind you).
That sounds like a really great world you have planned for us. I am so glad my parents fled a third world country where our ethnic group made us be treated like trash to escape to this! This is exactly what they had in mind when they left :)
I guess I just don't really get it. I've accepted that my ideology has lost; all I ask is to be left alone to work, garden, own my home, have my children, raise my children, and let them do the same. I have already unregistered to vote, and have no more interest in politics, other than to complain about it online. Am I allowed to do this? What more must I do to not be considered an evil monster? Honestly, my treatment on Hacker News over the past year has been worse than the combined effect of racism growing up brown in a mostly white neighborhood during 9/11. This is insanity at every level.
Oh got it, the endgame is to downvote me into oblivion! How incredibly, incredibly childish. This country really needs to improve at the most basic human levels.
