... and be very critical of the idea of gender-specific modesty codes.
Not just 'I support your right to wear a burqa' but supporting gender-specific modesty codes in 1 culture that you'd normally condemn.
-
-
"incendiary" speech. Its motivations are simply too questionable. Like climate-denial
. -
I don't because then what is appalling is always decided by the majority. Wrote this after the Milo thing but applicable more widely.pic.twitter.com/oAOl8GIWKA
-
Milo isn't hateful though. He's using ridicule and parody as a weapon against modern day "feminism". Atheists do the same against faith
-
In fact I would say Milos largest audience are feminists who flock to disrupt him, making him more popular, and play the victim over words.
-
The point is not what you think of Milo but whether we should ban ideas we think are hateful. Not agreeing on which are strengthens a 'no.'
-
We shouldn't ban ideas. Ideas don't hurt people, people do that. Because at the core hateful "ideas" are the result of hateful people
-
Or people you see as hateful because they have strong opinions that oppose your own.
-
Well again back to "everyone's reality is subjectively true" crap. If feminists see Milo as hateful in their mind he is.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
has itself been politicized in a "conservative" effort to defund it! So who undertakes public education for the public welfare?! No one. 3.
-
I think we have strayed way from the point. Do you think we can support rights to ideas but still be very critical of the ideas?
-
On that question, but again with the caveat: do no harm. In a moralist universe "do no harm" is impossible because moralism is authoritarian
-
I'm not sure what that is a response to. Do you see a difference between supporting rights to ideas & supporting the ideas themselves?
-
I'm taking it to the next step. Ideas have consequences. People act on them. I support any idea, anybright to have it, not any right to act.
-
That's a different issue and one we can agree on. Actions that harm people shouldn't be legal.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Not that Burgas are incendiary! My point on burqas would be that it is an emotionally complex symbol triggering multiple issues 1.
-
That's just an accurate observation.
-
Ethically, do you think it OK to support the right to wear them but also disagree with gender-specific ideas of modesty?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Hence, a kind of cultural anxiety, highly prone to manipulation-- a herd mentality-- and frankly I think this is politically intentional.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
to handle it! Another failing in our society and one which a nonpartisan public media should undertake, but supporting public media 3.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
in the cultural American mind. There has not been enough preparation of that mass mind, maybe intentionally-- certainly carelessly-- 2.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.