That counts as speech crime. Freedom of speech isnt just good speech or the speech you like or even the speech that isnt horrible, its all speech. Otherwise, its not free at all.
To quote Picard, “With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.”
The moment you censor that first opinion, no matter how justified you think you are, you oppress everyone.
Yeah, speech can’t cause a reasonable person to have a reasonable fear of harm. Like, calling in a bomb scare. I don’t know the exact parameters, but it’s established that there are forms of speech that are not permissible.
Right. So there are forms of speech that are not permissible.
The argument then isn’t “I don’t agree with this law banning calls for genocide because I’m against all forms of speech restrictions”. The argument is really “I don’t agree with this law banning calls for genocide because I don’t see calls for genocide as something that should be banned.” The latter argument is difficult to justify though, which is why the former argument is used by a lot “free speech absolutionists”.
Plenty of “speech crimes” that are illegal in the US already. For instance, threatening people. If you say to someone “I am going to assault you”, yes, that’s a crime, and you can be prosecuted and face prison time.
The right to…checks notes…advocate genocide is dead and you think it’s a slippery slope?
I mean, that tracks with the conservative understanding of language as another frontier in the competition of life, but still…well, let me ask you a question:
Would you defend my right to advocate for the genocide of white people or whatever nationality, ethnicity, color of skin, or etc you are? (To be crystal clear, I’m not doing that, nor do I ever intend to do that, or even support anyone that would do that)
According to the left, the right is an active genocide against Trans and gay people.
Correct, because gay and certainly trans people tend to have worse mental outcomes relative to other groups. The left’s response is to alleviate the problems associated with being trans and gay through medical intervention as necessary or even desired and normalizing the not-strange behavior. And when those things are implemented, efforts to roll those solutions back constitutes “Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group”. And the right definitely advocates killing trans and gay people, as a component of genocide.
I think using the word genocide incorrectly should be punishable by prison;
That’s a legitimate violation of free speech. If someone thought that my use of the word genocide was applied incorrectly in this very response could lead to my imprisonment. That’s nonsense.
in return, we can imprison those who advocate for real genocide.
And when those things are implemented, efforts to roll those solutions back constitutes “Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group”. And the right definitely advocates killing trans and gay people, as a component of genocide.
Using the definition you supplied
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as
such:
How are trans or gay people a nation, ethnic, racial, or religious group? They are not.
As such, by your own definition, there is no genocide.
he left’s response is to alleviate the problems associated with being trans and gay through medical intervention as necessary or even desired and normalizing the not-strange behavior.
Medical intervention is legal in this country. The only limits are around children, which is consistent with the medical studies. You should trust the science. It is why Sweden put restrictions on children since the evidence isn’t there.
And the right definitely advocates killing trans and gay people, as a component of genocide.
No they don’t. Even if they did, per your own definition, trans people don’t fit the definition required for genocide. I always hear people scream the right is killing trans people, but I have yet to see the camps.
Comparing the two just trivializes a real genocide. The holocaust was a genocide. The Holodomor was a genocide. Having someone misgender you is not genocide. It’s rude but it is not a genocide.
That’s a legitimate violation of free speech. If someone thought that my use of the word genocide was applied incorrectly in this very response could lead to my imprisonment. That’s nonsense.
Yet, the left wants to control speech. Ironic isn’t it? They just want to use words incorrectly to appear to be the victims. If the government tried to round up all the gay and trans people to gas them, I would be one of the first people to stand up to stop that. Until that days comes, we need to stop calling it a genocide as it enforces how nutty the left has become and it is offensive to people who have experienced real genocides.
How are trans or gay people a nation, ethnic, racial, or religious group?
An ethnicity is a group of people united by culture (among other things) and, LGBTQ+ is definitely a type of culture.
Comparing the two just trivializes a real genocide.
Your conception enforces one particular manifestation of genocide. In contrast, the convention says that genocide is either every element of the definition or part of it. In other words, doing everything except killing trans people is still genocide (according to the internationally legal definition anyway).
Someone misgendering someone arguably would constitute genocide if there were a concerted effort of assholes to intentionally cause mental harm to the misgendered people. I don’t think that’s the case. I think people are individually assholes and intentionally misgender people regardless of the mental harm it causes.
Yet, the left wants to control speech. Ironic isn’t it? They just want to use words incorrectly to appear to be the victims. If the government tried to round up all the gay and trans people to gas them, I would be one of the first people to stand up to stop that. Until that days comes, we need to stop calling it a genocide as it enforces how nutty the left has become and it is offensive to people who have experienced real genocides.
Let’s agree that everyone wants to control speech just in different ways. You want words to be used “correctly”, whatever that means. The left wants to expand or restrict what other words mean for various reasons. Xi doesn’t like being called Pooh. Whatever. What matters is that calling for genocide should be worth imprisonment.
An ethnicity is a group of people united by culture (among other things) and, LGBTQ+ is definitely a type of culture.
No, while there is a subculture, they are not an ethnic group. Thus using the term of offensive to people who have been part of genocide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity
he left wants to expand or restrict what other words mean for various reasons.
Your position is indefensible unless you’re willing to endure genocidal calls against a group in which you’re included. I’m not saying you’re wrong or right, I’m merely asking if you’re consistent. You have your out: just answer yes to my question.
So, I ask again: Would you defend my (or anyone else’s) right to advocate for the genocide of a group in which you are included?
The bill says “advocating genocide”
That counts as speech crime. Freedom of speech isnt just good speech or the speech you like or even the speech that isnt horrible, its all speech. Otherwise, its not free at all.
To quote Picard, “With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.”
The moment you censor that first opinion, no matter how justified you think you are, you oppress everyone.
Okay but in the US people can go to jail for death threats. Is that speech crime? Is that the first link in the chain? Or is that a reasonable law?
Yeah, speech can’t cause a reasonable person to have a reasonable fear of harm. Like, calling in a bomb scare. I don’t know the exact parameters, but it’s established that there are forms of speech that are not permissible.
Right. So there are forms of speech that are not permissible.
The argument then isn’t “I don’t agree with this law banning calls for genocide because I’m against all forms of speech restrictions”. The argument is really “I don’t agree with this law banning calls for genocide because I don’t see calls for genocide as something that should be banned.” The latter argument is difficult to justify though, which is why the former argument is used by a lot “free speech absolutionists”.
Plenty of “speech crimes” that are illegal in the US already. For instance, threatening people. If you say to someone “I am going to assault you”, yes, that’s a crime, and you can be prosecuted and face prison time.
Yes, and do you honestly think it will stop there? Human rights in Canada are dead, and Trudeau killed them.
The right to…checks notes…advocate genocide is dead and you think it’s a slippery slope?
I mean, that tracks with the conservative understanding of language as another frontier in the competition of life, but still…well, let me ask you a question:
Would you defend my right to advocate for the genocide of white people or whatever nationality, ethnicity, color of skin, or etc you are? (To be crystal clear, I’m not doing that, nor do I ever intend to do that, or even support anyone that would do that)
According to the left, the right is an active genocide against Trans and gay people. So no, it’s not a slippery slope at all.
I think using the word genocide incorrectly should be punishable by prison; in return, we can imprison those who advocate for real genocide.
Cited in South Africa’s case against Israel’s genocide, here is the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (PDF), which was drafted in 1948.
Correct, because gay and certainly trans people tend to have worse mental outcomes relative to other groups. The left’s response is to alleviate the problems associated with being trans and gay through medical intervention as necessary or even desired and normalizing the not-strange behavior. And when those things are implemented, efforts to roll those solutions back constitutes “Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group”. And the right definitely advocates killing trans and gay people, as a component of genocide.
That’s a legitimate violation of free speech. If someone thought that my use of the word genocide was applied incorrectly in this very response could lead to my imprisonment. That’s nonsense.
We can agree here.
Using the definition you supplied
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
How are trans or gay people a nation, ethnic, racial, or religious group? They are not.
As such, by your own definition, there is no genocide.
Medical intervention is legal in this country. The only limits are around children, which is consistent with the medical studies. You should trust the science. It is why Sweden put restrictions on children since the evidence isn’t there.
Comparing the two just trivializes a real genocide. The holocaust was a genocide. The Holodomor was a genocide. Having someone misgender you is not genocide. It’s rude but it is not a genocide.
Yet, the left wants to control speech. Ironic isn’t it? They just want to use words incorrectly to appear to be the victims. If the government tried to round up all the gay and trans people to gas them, I would be one of the first people to stand up to stop that. Until that days comes, we need to stop calling it a genocide as it enforces how nutty the left has become and it is offensive to people who have experienced real genocides.
An ethnicity is a group of people united by culture (among other things) and, LGBTQ+ is definitely a type of culture.
Your conception enforces one particular manifestation of genocide. In contrast, the convention says that genocide is either every element of the definition or part of it. In other words, doing everything except killing trans people is still genocide (according to the internationally legal definition anyway).
Someone misgendering someone arguably would constitute genocide if there were a concerted effort of assholes to intentionally cause mental harm to the misgendered people. I don’t think that’s the case. I think people are individually assholes and intentionally misgender people regardless of the mental harm it causes.
Let’s agree that everyone wants to control speech just in different ways. You want words to be used “correctly”, whatever that means. The left wants to expand or restrict what other words mean for various reasons. Xi doesn’t like being called Pooh. Whatever. What matters is that calling for genocide should be worth imprisonment.
The Nazis were a culture, was denazification a genocide?
You are defending Nazis? Really?
No, while there is a subculture, they are not an ethnic group. Thus using the term of offensive to people who have been part of genocide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity
This was converted in 1984. We call it New Speak.
Which part of your link were you proposing supported your stance? Reading it, it seems to say the opposite of what you are suggesting.
Free speech is dead in Canada. Guess what, speech falls under the category of speech.
Your position is indefensible unless you’re willing to endure genocidal calls against a group in which you’re included. I’m not saying you’re wrong or right, I’m merely asking if you’re consistent. You have your out: just answer yes to my question.
So, I ask again: Would you defend my (or anyone else’s) right to advocate for the genocide of a group in which you are included?
I dont know about him, but I would. Wouldnt be the first time I heard the term “Kill YT”