Criticism of religion and LGBT – equal freedom?

[exchemist]

Did I say something like it?

Yes.

 

[ChristineM]

Should people in a secular country have equal freedoms to criticise religion and LGBT movements?

Freedom of speech comes with responsibility, if you knowingly use your criticism to instigate violence then you should expect the result.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's quite irrelevant, but OK. I think....there will be though. Unfortunately it looks like there will be. Its like a sickness spreading and becoming a norm.

We aren't a sickness.
Ancient superstitions that repress us and justify our murder and being treated as less than fully entitled citizens are, amd very fortunately those are dying out.

 

[exchemist]

That's quite irrelevant, but OK. I think....there will be though. Unfortunately it looks like there will be. Its like a sickness spreading and becoming a norm.

You have a point that there is an intolerance of minority points of view in certain circles, which may be spreading: the "no platforming" and "cancel culture" that we hear so much about these days.

However I am not aware of any state censorship of expression of ideas in the western democracies and I don't see any threat of such practices being enshrined in law anywhere. Do you have examples in mind?

 

[exchemist]

We aren't a sickness.
Ancient superstitions that repress us and justify our murder and being treated as less than fully entitled citizens are, amd very fortunately those are dying out.

I think the "sickness" referred to is the supposed suppression of opinions, not the existence of gay etc people.

 

[Tambourine]

I think the "sickness" referred to is the supposed suppression of opinions, not the existence of gay etc people.

We suppress opinions all the time and nobody seems to have a problem with it.
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc. will remove pictures of actual babies if their algorithm spots a female nipple; women, LGBT people, and people from marginalized communities are habitually bullied off social media platforms by swarms of online harassers, and most private discussion spaces, including this one, will happily remove voices from their discourse if it suits them.

It's only when people rightly start calling out widespread bigotry and hatred that the pitchforks are coming out in favor of "freedom of speech", as if that meant bigots should be immune to possible negative consequences arising from their publically voiced hatred of others.

 

[exchemist]

We suppress opinions all the time and nobody seems to have a problem with it.
Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc. will remove pictures of actual babies if their algorithm spots a female nipple; women, LGBT people, and people from marginalized communities are habitually bullied off social media platforms by swarms of online harassers, and most private discussion spaces, including this one, will happily remove voices from their discourse if it suits them.

It's only when people rightly start calling out widespread bigotry and hatred that the pitchforks are coming out in favor of "freedom of speech", as if that meant bigots should be immune to possible negative consequences arising from their publically voiced hatred of others.

Yes, certain groups certainly suppress certain opinions. What @Piculet seems to be alleging is suppression by the state of sentiments felt to be anti-LGBT. Where that is concerned we do have, quite rightly, laws against hate speech of various kinds, but these do not suppress opinions that don't incite hatred.

 

[Piculet]

these do not suppress opinions that don't incite hatred.

I think a lot of people consider saying, "homosexual behaviour is wrong" to incite hatred.

 

[Piculet]

I think the "sickness" referred to is the supposed suppression of opinions, not the existence of gay etc people.

Not quite either. I meant the acceptance of homosexuality being a sickness among other sicknesses.

 

[Piculet]

We aren't a sickness.
Ancient superstitions that repress us and justify our murder and being treated as less than fully entitled citizens are, amd very fortunately those are dying out.

I didn't mean you. I meant the attitudes that spread about lgbt stuff being acceptable, are like a sickness.

 

[Piculet]

Yes.

Prove it.

 

[exchemist]

Not quite either. I meant the acceptance of homosexuality being a sickness among other sicknesses.

Oh well in that case the sickness is spreading and is here to stay, so you had better get used to it - or else live in some benighted country trapped in the Dark Ages.

 

[exchemist]

I think a lot of people consider saying, "homosexual behaviour is wrong" to incite hatred.

That would depend on how you say it, obviously. A number of the Christian churches also maintain it is wrong, but for the most part they manage to hold that view without inciting hatred of homosexuals.

 

[exchemist]

Prove it.

Firstly, you have "form" on this issue from previous threads and secondly, in this one you describe the acceptance of homosexuality as a sickness. That is a "terrible opinion" in the eyes of many readers here.

 

[HonestJoe]

Censure happens with both — both justified censure and unjustified censure.

If I lived in a country that would not permit criticism of LGBT movements, making it a topic that is out of the question in any public speech, television show or article, I would feel oppressed.

Why would you criticise an entire "movement" or organisation? Criticism is for individual behaviour and so should be implicitly equal regardless of who or what the people involved are.

The problems typical occur when people attack entire types of people, groups or organisations on the basis of stereotypes, over-generalisation or outright lies.

 

[exchemist]

Why would you criticise an entire "movement" or organisation? Criticism is for individual behaviour and so should be implicitly equal regardless of who or what the people involved are.

The problems typical occur when people attack entire types of people, groups or organisations on the basis of stereotypes, over-generalisation or outright lies.

I certainly think you can attack movements, when you consider they are out of order, or tedious or odious.

If someone felt that about the LGBT movement, they should be allowed to make their case. I might even agree with some bits of it - many movements can get dominated by unreasonable, or shrill, extremists, for instance, and I'm always pleased to see such people cut down to size. For example some of the leaders of the BLM movement seem to have extreme political views that in my view risk damaging support for a worthwhile cause.

 

[Tambourine]

That would depend on how you say it, obviously. A number of the Christian churches also maintain it is wrong, but for the most part they manage to hold that view without inciting hatred of homosexuals.

A number of self-described Christians do not manage to hold that view without inciting hatred of homosexuals, however.

 

[exchemist]

A number of self-described Christians do not manage to hold that view without inciting hatred of homosexuals, however.

.....in which case they are rightly subject to legal proceedings.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I didn't mean you. I meant the attitudes that spread about lgbt stuff being acceptable, are like a sickness.

Again, we aren't a sickness. Not literally, not figuratively.
Dogma that says we are is a malignant tumor that is fortunately responsive to treatment and is shrinking in much of the world; because we are so very often not the only targets of this diseased dogma.

 

[Piculet]

Again, we aren't a sickness. Not literally, not figuratively.
Dogma that says we are is a malignant tumor that is fortunately responsive to treatment and is shrinking in much of the world; because we are so very often not the only targets of this diseased dogma.

I didn't get that, but that's okay. I don't know why you always reply as though it could change my view or what I previously said. But then I don't like to repeat myself. Maybe you just like to have the last word. Women are like that.