Calling someone a ‘fag’, however horrible it most definitely is, isn’t the same as saying they aren’t human, anymore than calling someone fat or ginger is.
-
-
Replying to @Amanhas50935590 @LYNESTAR_ and
no. "f*g" is a slur, designed to dehumanize. Calling them gay or queer or homosexual is an accurate definition. Specifically picking f*g is a choice, not a part of who they are.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Tredyn @LYNESTAR_ and
That’s ridiculous hyperbole. It’s a horrible, prejudiced, slur, one I would not use, but it’s not ‘dehumanising’ any more than calling someone a b*tch or a c*nt is.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Amanhas50935590 @LYNESTAR_ and
Calling someone those thigns is dehumanizing. B*tch is calling them a dog, not a human, and c*nt is reducing them to a single piece of anatomy, not a person. Slurs are designed to dehumanize!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Tredyn @LYNESTAR_ and
And at this point your argument is holed below the waterline. If anything this is or could be offensive to someone is ‘dehumanising’ and anything ‘dehumanising’ is banned then you have nothing near free speech.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Amanhas50935590 @Tredyn and
Meaningful speech is often ‘offensive’, people found those speaking in favour of gay tights to be ‘offensive’ and ‘dehumanising’. Saying almost anything worthwhile will offend someone.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Amanhas50935590 @LYNESTAR_ and
One of the biggest killers of trans people is suicide, and a large contributing factor to that is feeling shunned or hated by the outside world. Hate speech contributes to that, even if not directed at the trans person. When words like f*g are used the reinforce lethal hate.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Tredyn @LYNESTAR_ and
That is beyond ridiculous “this particular class of people is extremely fragile, so we’re going to ring fence them legally from any kind of back and forth that life consists of”.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Amanhas50935590 @LYNESTAR_ and
I'm not saying legally. But as people we should tolerate it way less. Hence why it's good for platforms to not allow it. There doesn't need to be laws, just more social pressure or consequences for this kind of hate speech.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Tredyn @LYNESTAR_ and
So basically, the extent of the public discussion should be, to a large extent, decided by large multinationals reacting to vocal activists? And you don’t think that could ever come back to bite you?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Do you have anything other than slippery slope fallacies? "we shouldn't take a stand against a because what if they take a stand against x?" Still isn't a good point. I think it's ok for people and cooperations to take a stand against bigotry.
-
-
Replying to @Tredyn @Amanhas50935590 and
If they take a stand against lgbtqia+ people, which is what they're currently doing by not enforcing THEIR OWN GUIDELINES, then I'm against it. People can stand up for things without wanting the way worse possible extreme of that thing.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. 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.