Wait… is that really on the table? If so, then I grudgingly have to take her side insofar as objecting to prior restraint or compelled speech. Being an asshole is a fundamental human right.
Some rando posted on her Shitter account “vote for Labour, get two years” and Rowling responded with the quote in the headline.
If you read the article, they clarify that the Labour party wants to crack down on LGBTQ hate crimes, and nowhere is it said that they would make it illegal to use improper pronouns for others.
If you’re being an asshole on social media, I absolutely have the right to “punish” you by downvoting your post and calling you an idiot. If I’m the owner or moderator of the platform you’re being an asshole on, then I absolutely have the right to censor you by banning you - or just blocking you if I’m an individual user.
I do agree that the government doesn’t have a right to intervene however, unless you take it far enough that it constitutes targeted harassment - but in my experience, when most people complain about being “censored” for being asshole, they really mean that privately owned platforms are deciding to not host their BS
There is no right to not have to put up with assholes.
EDIT: Because @[email protected] keeps making comments then immediately deleting them, I’ll just answer here for when he finally finds a version of his response he’s satisfied with - since they’ve all been basically the same.
If you say “Of course I meant purely the legal aspect, that’s what I was saying the whole time”, then I’d point you to the comment of yours I actually responded to, which was
There is no right to not have to put up with assholes.
This is the remark that I’ve been talking about, and you don’t need to government to intervene in order to not have to put up with assholes. If you said “There is no right to have people you think are assholes put in jail”, then obviously I’d agree with you, but that’s not what you said. What you said is that we all have to just put up with assholes because we don’t have the right to stop them from being assholes, which is factually untrue for all the reasons that I’ve already stated
Wait… is that really on the table? If so, then I grudgingly have to take her side insofar as objecting to prior restraint or compelled speech. Being an asshole is a fundamental human right.
No. It isn’t on the table. This is another in the long line of scenarios that only exist in TERF imaginations.
It was not on the table.
Some rando posted on her Shitter account “vote for Labour, get two years” and Rowling responded with the quote in the headline.
If you read the article, they clarify that the Labour party wants to crack down on LGBTQ hate crimes, and nowhere is it said that they would make it illegal to use improper pronouns for others.
As fundamental as not having to put up with assholes.
You wanna do it? Go do it over there where no one else has to put up with your shit
There is no right to not have to put up with assholes.
Exercising your rights, I see.
There is as much right to be an asshole as there is to not put up with assholes
Sure there is. It’s called freedom of association
That’s neither here nor there. There is no right to punish or censor someone just because in your opinion they’re an asshole.
Depends on what you mean by punish or censor.
If you’re being an asshole on social media, I absolutely have the right to “punish” you by downvoting your post and calling you an idiot. If I’m the owner or moderator of the platform you’re being an asshole on, then I absolutely have the right to censor you by banning you - or just blocking you if I’m an individual user.
I do agree that the government doesn’t have a right to intervene however, unless you take it far enough that it constitutes targeted harassment - but in my experience, when most people complain about being “censored” for being asshole, they really mean that privately owned platforms are deciding to not host their BS
EDIT: Because @[email protected] keeps making comments then immediately deleting them, I’ll just answer here for when he finally finds a version of his response he’s satisfied with - since they’ve all been basically the same.
If you say “Of course I meant purely the legal aspect, that’s what I was saying the whole time”, then I’d point you to the comment of yours I actually responded to, which was
This is the remark that I’ve been talking about, and you don’t need to government to intervene in order to not have to put up with assholes. If you said “There is no right to have people you think are assholes put in jail”, then obviously I’d agree with you, but that’s not what you said. What you said is that we all have to just put up with assholes because we don’t have the right to stop them from being assholes, which is factually untrue for all the reasons that I’ve already stated
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
My comments keep disappearing or not going through. startrek.website has been having problems all day.