I'm genuinely struggling to understand your point. If a business owner decides to discriminate against gay customers, that's their choice, and they'll face the fallout. Now, picture a trans artist. Should they be FORCED to accept any commission, regardless of their beliefs? Would you mandate them to create pro-nationalist art or other pieces they find offensive? When do we call it 'forced labor' and where do we draw that line?
Kantiberl
joined 2 years ago
While I disagree with her stance (and it seems like she's a petty liar to boot) it is her right to serve or not serve anyone she wants for whatever reason, ignorant or otherwise. I can't even believe anyone would argue against that. It makes me nervous that people will so readily back forced labor just because they don't like the person or their beliefs.
It's not a moot point when we consider the fluidity of language and the potential for any group to manipulate terms to suit their interests. If someone can blanket-label their opposition as a 'transphobe' or, more extreme, a 'Nazi', it bypasses meaningful debate and eradicates the chance to understand differing viewpoints. This not only oversimplifies complex discussions, but it also fosters a lazy and destructive discourse that can fuel animosity rather than understanding. We need to be challenged. A tree that grows without wind will not have the strength to stand in a storm.
Who exactly holds the authority to label 'the bad guys'? Sure, some actions are undeniably harmful, but does that warrant placing all perceived wrongdoers in the same category, from internet trolls to murderers? Is there no nuance or room for varying degrees of transgressions? I hope you can ask yourself if you're always on the side of righteousness, or might you be perceived as 'the bad guy" from another perspective? It's important to understand that the world is not simply binary, and such a mindset can dangerously oversimplify complex issues.
While it's crucial to oppose harmful ideologies like Nazism, we must be wary of how we define such harmful groups. If we broaden these definitions arbitrarily, we risk encapsulating people who merely differ politically, diluting the term's significance and unjustifiably alienating individuals. In doing so, we inadvertently shrink our own communities, polarizing society to the extent where a moderate viewpoint might be mistaken for extremism. Right-leaning communities fall into this trap as well, resulting in fragmented realities where each group exists in its own echo chamber. This division deepens societal fissures and undermines moderate views, which, in my belief, are grounded in reality and thus instrumental in achieving balanced discourse.
I'm on kbin, so this isn't even my instance, but I really don't want to be part of an intolerant echo chamber of "good" people incapable of blocking magazines they don't like and instead trying to control what other people say and hear. No thanks to that.
I think you just made something really clear for me. We are all rich compared to most of the world that lives in almost complete abject poverty. We hate that part of ourselves that could do something about it but just sits on the couch consuming and adding nothing, and we project that hate on to billionaires so we can feel it outwards.
Oh don't even get me started on the downvote brigades from angry leftists around here. Don't you dare hold a moderate opinion around them, or they call you a nazi and tell you to go back to 4chan. You can read my post history. All I've ever expressed is the same sentiment expressed here, and I've been met with nothing but absolute vitriol.