Conversation

One cheap debate trick is reframing opposing opinions as having some sort of 'moral failure' and therefore foregoing all rights. For example, lots of attempts to shut down 'open debate' do so by framing the opposing opinions not as wrong, but as as "interruptive"

Aella

@Aella_Girl

Feb 1, 2018

For example, this piece of work that showed up on my FB feed. They're justifying shutting down dissenting speech not because of wrongness, but because they "exhaust" people and implying everyone has to stop what they're doing to turn around to "deal with" these opinions.

The following media includes potentially sensitive content. Change settings

View

Aella

@Aella_Girl

Feb 1, 2018

This is the same as shutting down speech because it comes from someone outside of the class of people "morally approved" to express opinions about things - for example, refusing to allow "oppressor" classes to speak.

Aella

@Aella_Girl

Feb 1, 2018

To be clear, I'm not saying that the "oppressor" classes are necessarily right, but only that we shouldn't prevent people from speaking because of moral judgments. If your position is strong and you understand it well, then you shouldn't be threatened by by dissenters.

Aella

@Aella_Girl

Feb 1, 2018

I also feel like the queer community suffers deeply from this problem. In most of my interactions with them they require very high 'moral signalling' before they agree to engage with any discussion or questions. They seem to feel highly threatened by dissent.

Replying to

Fairly understanding when they constantly have to fight against people arguing they have no right to exist.

Replying to

I have literally never heard anybody in my life say that anyone from the queer spectrum have no right to exist, and I used to be a fundamentalist Christian.

Replying to

and

Really you've never heard anyone insist trans people are mentally ill? Bi people are just confused? Ace people just haven't found the right person yet? Homosexuality is a life style choice/totally a thing that can be cured? Lot's of ways of saying lgtb people shouldn't exist

Replying to

and

Saying a trans person is mentally ill is not saying a trans person shouldn't exist? If I think "liking potatoes" means they have a mental illness then where am I getting "people who like potatoes have no right to exist"?

Replying to

and

Saying homosexuality is curable or that ace people need to find the right person is not the same as saying homosexuals and ace people "shouldn't" or "have no right to" exist. "No right to exist" is something you say to a genetic experiment gone wrong when you think it should die

12:43 PM · Feb 3, 2018

Replying to

and

Homosexuality is cureable therefore take the cure and stop and existing as a homosexual. If you just ate enough potatoes you'd eventually realise you were a potato lover all along. There's more than one way of removing those you consider undesirable

Replying to

and

making someone gay not-gay is not the same thing of "removing them," it's "changing them." If I hate potatoeaters and I try to make them stop eatin potatos am I "removing the undesirable?" Idk why pressures to change behavior suddenly get this new class if they're about lgbtq

Show replies