• grteOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    You are attempting to draw a false equivalence between something a person is vs a choice a person makes. A logically equivalent statement to yours would be, “You can’t demand someone publicly endorse gay/trans if you won’t publicly support people who choose to drive drunk.”

    I’m sure you can see how absurd that is.

    • uzi
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      5 months ago

      Removed by mod

      • Hootz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        No, that’s discrimination against a protected group.

        • uzi
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          5 months ago

          Removed by mod

          • Hootz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            5 months ago

            You’re either daft or just trying to create a “gotcha” moment.

            As an individual you can say whatever you want, however when you express bigotry or racism publically you face public criticism.

            Nothing is stopping you from being a POS nothing is stopping you from being a homophobe nothing is stopping you from being a bigot. AT AN INDIVIDUAL LEVEL

            You don’t need to be friends with trans people, they don’t want to be your friend anyways.

            “What say did the public have” idk maybe all the decades of fighting for rights…

      • grteOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Groups don’t, that’s a protected class under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Individuals of course can discriminate as they wish as long as they don’t spread hate speech.

        • uzi
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          5 months ago

          What is the universally recognized definition of “hate speech” that all people agree on?

            • uzi
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              Removed by mod

              • Sonori@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                5 months ago

                Except it does do harm, quite a bit of it actually. The normalization of violent and exclusionary rhetoric is exactly why over a hundred years after the first trans surgeries it’s now politically convenient for big government to step in and ban access to them even though it was a non issue a decade ago. Getting the common people to pretend ‘I sure wish the government would hurry up and kill all the dirty Jews already’ is a minor political disagreement is persicely how one of the most tragic slaughters in history came about, and it is disturbing to see such ideas being repeated openly,

                We, as a society have standards. We expect people to not go outside naked, and pushish thouse who do. That is not totalitarian, and it does not lead to gangs going around beating the clothed to death because the government has public indecency laws.

                We already have, and have possessed since near the beginning, laws against useing certain slurs in media and it has also not led to the installation of a totalitarian regime. To pretend that extending such laws to protect all people and not just the feelings of religious busybodies is absurd.

                It is not normal to pretend that being a such a broken and horible person that one wishes harm on innocent people one has never met, and it is not in the best interest of civil society to tolerate or amplify such people’s cruelty.

                • uzi
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Who is tryig to ban adult trans surgeries? Who is saying that adults are not allowed to change their bodies?

                  • Sonori@beehaw.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    The Republican Party

                    Don’t expect it to stay south of the border, none of the other attempts to create social wedge issues have tanken long before the Conservatives inport them.

              • grteOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                5 months ago

                The law I linked is the product of a democratically elected government. Though I agree with it, I had no personal hand in it except perhaps in casting a vote for someone who would have voted for it when it came up in the House of Commons. If you disagree with the law, you are free to petition your fellow Canadians to vote for a party that will change it.

                All that to say your accusations are histrionics.

                • uzi
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Removed by mod

                  • grteOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    You are an infinitely worse blight on society than any of the people you are bigoted against.