| JWeinCom said: Saying I support abortion can not be said to be hateful, toxic, or demeaning to anyone who might be reading that post. If you are an unborn person I am pretty sure you're going to be completely unbothered. If you were a person who had an abortion that regrets it, it may stir up emotions, but someone supporting abortion is not demeaning you in any way or saying anything negative about you. If that's your best example, yikes. That said, if whoever owns this site (if such a person exists) wanted to make a rule that you can't talk about abortion, that's fine by me. If they want to make a site where only anti-abortion stances are promoted, also go for it. Point is that the idea of a forum is to make it a place where people willingly want to spend their time. If whoever runs the site thinks people want to go to a site where they have the privilege of getting their feelings hurt regularly to make themselves stronger or whatever... uhhhhh... well they could make that site. And if someone wants to make a place where certain things are not said, also their option. And you have the option of finding the place that is right for you, or even creating your own. As for the tired "so much for the tolerant left" bit, tolerance applies to things that are not harming others. |
The abortion example was a bit of a gamble, but with your response that gamble sure paid off. You said: "Saying I support abortion can not be said to be hateful, toxic, or demeaning to anyone who might be reading that post." Let's put that to the test and substitute one category of people with another. Instead of preborn humans, let's talk about the Sami people from Scandinavia. How does that sound to you: I support the genocide of the Sami people. Yikes. You might disagree of course, saying that abortion is not a genocide. But it is 73 million people murdered per year. To many, a way bigger crime against humanity than the holocaust. Still can't be hateful, toxic or demeaning?
Look, abortion is not even that important to me. It just came to mind, because I know many see it very, very differently than me, to the point that it would not even cross their minds that voicing support for the death of 73 million people per year can be hateful. It is an example to show how "don't be hateful" differs depending on who you talk to and how that is therefore not a good rule. Especially if applied by people who think similar about so many hot button issues. "I support the death of 73 million humans of a very specific and vulnerable group of people, but don't you dare talk about the "lgbqri+ inclusive and diversity direction sony was/is heading in."" (Copied from an example that warranted moderation.) Honestly silly. The double standard is so stark, it is almost a tripple standard.
"That said, if whoever owns this site (if such a person exists) wanted to make a rule that you can't talk about abortion, that's fine by me. If they want to make a site where only anti-abortion stances are promoted, also go for it."
I get that people have the power to create rules and enforce them.
"As for the tired "so much for the tolerant left" bit, tolerance applies to things that are not harming others."
I did not say "left", interesting conclusion though. So we should not be tolerant of things/people/ideologies that do harm others? Let's test that too. And we have the perfect example to do that with. What is your stance on abortion? Harming 73 million people per year by killing them? Or would you rather change your statement above to: "tolerance applies to things that are not harming those people one happens to care about"?
You can make your own rules and apply them as unjustly and unevenly as possible under the guise of tolerance and inclusivity. And you can be tolerant and inclusive. But both? That is not possible.
