How bad is the anti-trans movement going to get?

[Debater Slayer]

Have you a better method than mine.
Or Daryl Davis's?

I've had much practice negotiating with hostile
parties in real estate, eg, renters, buyers, sellers.
Set ego aside. Approach it methodically.
Ask oneself, what would best make the other
side amenable to an acceptable agreement?

Are you saying this approach can be good when engaging people who have violently hateful beliefs, or are you saying that everyone is obligated to adopt it?

If the former, I have already expressed agreement with it for some situations. I also do it myself with a lot of people including fundamentalists who believe people like me should be killed.

If the latter, I disagree for the reasons I already explained. I don't believe that people are obligated to placate or try to change their haters or abusers.

Also, the groups of people you listed are a far cry from murderous or genocidal neo-Nazis. Not sure this even needs to be said, but it makes your point less applicable to certain types of people.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's not what I said. If someone wants to try to "diffuse their anger," they're free to do so. What I'm saying is that I don't regard that as an obligation for anyone, least of all the targets of the hatred and calls for violence.

No one has the obligation to make the world a better place.
But one can choose that.

Europe has the highest global levels of freedom per multiple indices.

Not regarding speech.
Moreover, we are not European.
Mind the forum this thread occupies.

The US has an immature version of "freedom of speech" where incitement can go unchecked.

You say "immature", but that's specious...it ignores the reality
of our different values & constitutional law. Any solution
must be legal. Proposing otherwise is unreasonable.

Those are not mutually exclusive. Prosecuting Nazi preaching is a demonstrably effective way of mitigating the problem. See the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, and a bunch of other countries among the most prosperous and free in the world.

I disagree.
To fulminate is what Pubs & Dems
have been doing this last decade.
They've escalated hostilities.

I suspect we won't agree on this, because I'm staunchly against libertarian and largely American notions of "free speech" that overlook or fail to take into account the various reasons to prosecute incitement and hate speech and the benefits to doing so.

Your authoritarian approach to speech regulation
would be "failure to launch". When giving into
hate & hostility is the only tactic, you'll reap more
of the same.

 

[Revoltingest]

Great. I will leave it to you to talk to the people advocating public executions.

I've had such conversations, & cooled
some tempers. In particular, after 9/11,
I'd calmed people who wanted extreme
measures against mid-east types. Oddly,
mutually enjoyed food was the tool.
What should I have done...yelled?
Shamed? Threatened?

Right now I am trying to talk to the people who may be unaware of what is happening, the people who are not speaking out because they are not "trade unionists".

Whuh?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I had to Google who Jake Shields is. Some stupid MMA fighter. Who cares. I'm pretty sure Hitler was more well known. This looks like trolling, and most accounts on Twitter aren't even actual people. Even the blue check marks don't mean much. The requirements are rather loose: Twitter Verification requirements - how to get the blue check

You can literally find examples of people saying and agreeing with all manner of lunacy online. The Internet is a sick place. But does it reflect the offline world? Not really, considering what I said about many or most profiles on social media being bots, fake, catfishing, hacked accounts, etc. I've seen people saying the most outlandish, extremist things from all points of view online, and I've been online a long time.

Also, MMA fighters are known to act like total ***** in order to drum up publicity to hype up a future fight, which this guy is evidently trying to do as he's challenging trans men to fight him. (He's trying to take advantage of the brouhaha around trans issues in pop culture right now, probably.) The childishness and racism exhibited by both in the feuding leadup to that Mayweather vs. McGregor fight a few years ago is an example of this. It's a very macho, crass subculture (much like street culture and rap culture). If you're not familiar with it, you won't get it.

Basically, don't believe everything you see on the Internet. There's no genocide of trans people about to occur. Almost all trans people who are killed in the US each year are poorer trans women who are sex workers (it's very dangerous work for anyone, especially when you're poor and hustling on the street). We're not being attacked or beaten in the street. Perhaps log off and go outside.

 

[Debater Slayer]

No one has the obligation to make the world a better place.
But one can choose that.

So we agree that no one is obligated to placate neo-Nazis.

Not regarding speech.
Moreover, we are not European.
Mind the forum this thread occupies.

There is still ample freedom of speech in the European countries I listed. They just don't have freedom of incitement and genocidal preaching. They seem to be doing just fine without that, too.

You're not European, but that doesn't preclude observing useful laws and policies in other countries.

You say "immature", but that's specious...it ignores the reality
of our different values & constitutional law. Any solution
must be legal. Proposing otherwise is unreasonable.

I don't envy Americans who try to reduce the risk of neo-Nazism but have to work with an outdated and globally anomalous legal notion of "freedom of speech."

Another reason for me to seek the shores of a country with more reasonable laws instead of the US.

I disagree.
To fulminate is what Pubs & Dems
have been doing this last decade.
They've escalated hostilities.

Prosecuting hate speech and unequivocally condemning Nazism is not "fulmination"; it's crucial self-preservation. Europe learned to do that after Nazi propaganda led to the Holocaust and a world war. I'm glad they learned from history.

Your authoritarian approach to speech regulation
would be "failure to launch". When giving into
hate & hostility is the only tactic, you'll reap more
of the same.

I would find it no more authoritarian than prosecuting incitement of violent crime would be. It would perhaps be a "failure to launch" in the US, but it works just fine everywhere else in the developed world.

Furthermore, I think letting violent incitement and genocidal preaching go unchecked is a far bigger act of "giving into hate and hostility" than prosecuting or at least condemning them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Are you saying this approach can be good when engaging people who have violently hateful beliefs...,

Yes.
What reasonable alternative do you have?

....or are you saying that everyone is obligated to adopt it?

Is that what you inferred from....
"But one can choose that."

I don't believe that people are obligated to placate or try to change their haters or abusers.

You keep making it about being "obligated".
Why do you object to my making it a choice
to assume the role of improving things?

Also, the groups of people you listed are a far cry from murderous or genocidal neo-Nazis. Not sure this even needs to be said, but it makes your point less applicable to certain types of people.

I find that attitude defeatist, counter-productive, & churlish.

 

[Revoltingest]

So we agree that no one is obligated to placate neo-Nazis.

I didn't say "placate".
That is a mischievous misrepresentation of
seeking peace & understanding.
If you cannot discuss this without playing
this straw man game every post, I'll not be
inspired to serious discussion with you.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yes.
What reasonable alternative do you have?

That depends on the individual who has the violently hateful beliefs. With some, engagement is the best approach. With some, condemnation is best. With others, being fined or locked up for hate speech and incitement works well to minimize the harm they do.

Is that what you inferred from....
"But one can choose that."

You keep making it about being "obligated".
Why do you object to my making it a choice
to assume the role of improving things?

It's already a choice. I just refuse to place it on people as some sort of duty.

I find that attitude defeatist, counter-productive, & churlish.

What attitude are you referring to? Distinguishing between murderous or genocidal neo-Nazis and these groups?

I've had much practice negotiating with hostile
parties in real estate, eg, renters, buyers, sellers.
Set ego aside. Approach it methodically.
Ask oneself, what would best make the other
side amenable to an acceptable agreement?

I see little to no common factors between that situation and a situation where neo-Nazis are explicitly calling for the murder of members of entire groups.

 

[Shaul]

Because the republican platform doesn't actually benefit anyone other than the rich, they need to rely upon religion and moral panic to manipulate people into voting for them.
Thus controversies are manufactured toward that end, and transgendered people have been chosen for that.

Is there any topic that you don't try to bend to your irrational hatred of Republicans?

 

[Revoltingest]

That depends on the individual who has the violently hateful beliefs. With some, engagement is the best approach. With some, condemnation is best. With others, being fined or locked up for hate speech and incitement works well to minimize the harm they do.



It's already a choice. I just refuse to place it on people as some sort of duty.



What attitude are you referring to? Distinguishing between murderous or genocidal neo-Nazis and these groups?



I see little to no common factors between that situation and a situation where neo-Nazis are explicitly calling for the murder of members of entire groups.

I've nothing to add.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I didn't say "placate".
That is a mischievous misrepresentation of
seeking peace & understanding.
If you cannot discuss this without playing
this straw man game every post, I'll not be
inspired to serious discussion with you.

That's how I saw "diffuse their anger," as if the anger were legitimate or as if targets of hatred had a responsibility to "diffuse" said anger.

We can replace "placate" with "diffuse the anger of [Nazis]" if you find that more accurate. The same point still stands.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is there any topic that you don't try to bend to your irrational hatred of Republicans?

I surmise that such polarization is
why the subject is so hard to discuss.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's how I saw "diffuse their anger," as if the anger were legitimate or as if targets of hatred had a responsibility to "diffuse" said anger.

We can replace "placate" with "diffuse the anger of [Nazis]" if you find that more accurate. The same point still stands.

Nothing to add.

 

[Shaul]

AFAIK More trans people die from suicide than putative anti-trans attacks.

 

[Revoltingest]

AFAIK More trans people die from suicide than putative anti-trans attacks.

They have a very difficult path. I find that discussing
this with people IRL who oppose them can lessen
hostility. They have some empathy after all. And
I'm surprised how many people know actually know
someone who's trans.

 

[Viker]

Um, what power don't trans people have? There's trans people in the government and in elected positions, the Democratic Party pretty much officially supports trans rights, there's all the rich advocacy groups like HRC and GLAAD and numerous others, there's trans people who are famous celebrities, there's a lot of allies, etc. We're not exactly marginalized. I know I'm not. There's nothing stopping me from voting, donating money, protesting whatever I want, etc.

Power means authority. Pushing/passing legislation means law. Law is authority.

469 Bills in progress or passed. Many are direct attacks on the trans community.

 

[Viker]

AFAIK More trans people die from suicide than putative anti-trans attacks.

This is why we need open dialogue and to appeal to our opposition's sense of compassion. To let them know we go through a lot of hell, much of it unnecessary and brought on by those opposed. Much of it is just what we're going to go through regardless of wider social acceptance or not. I don't want to push anything on anyone. I just want to live like everyone else. I have a decent life now. But I have fought, over and over, tooth and nail to get here. There's a lot of younger people that could use my help, our help and the help of a kinder system.

 

[Shaul]

This is why we need open dialogue and to appeal to our opposition's sense of compassion. To let them know we go through a lot of hell, much of it unnecessary and brought on by those opposed. Much of it is just what we're going to go through regardless of wider social acceptance or not. I don't want to push anything on anyone. I just want to live like everyone else. I have a decent life now. But I have fought, over and over, tooth and nail to get here. There's a lot of younger people that could use my help, our help and the help of a kinder system.

Straining for gnats but swallowing camels? If more harm comes from trans lifestyle itself rather than outside factors then that should be addressed first and foremost. So long as the trans community denies that it produces deleterious consequences it will suffer. Too many trans supporters are loath to admit that much of their suffering is self-induced for fear it will undermine their cause. Which is sad and counterproductive.

 

[Estro Felino]

Leave the kids alone!
Is that so difficult to get?

 

[Ella S.]

Have you a better method than mine.
Or Daryl Davis's?

I've had much practice negotiating with hostile
parties in real estate, eg, renters, buyers, sellers.
Set ego aside. Approach it methodically.
Ask oneself, what would best make the other
side amenable to an acceptable agreement?

As far as I'm aware, nothing that I'm willing to compromise on.