A virgin on prom night lasts longer than concord.

The real question is, will an anime fan on prom night cry longer than Concord lasted?

Because Group A wants to compel Group B to use the new words. However, let me speak from my own perspective as that’s the only one I have authority on.

I genuinely do not care what words individuals or groups use. They are free to use all the words that they like. In fact, I do not care what actions individuals or groups take, with one caveat; that these words/actions do not harm, or infringe on, the rights of others. My problem begins where compelled speech/behaviour comes into play.

I will not be compelled by any person or entity to use words that I do not wish to use and I find it egregious at the very best to be told I WILL use certain words and that if I do not use the words or language as mandated to me then I can expect one or more of many negative consequences to come my way. I can understand why it is preferable that some words are NOT used in public speech (but again, I don’t agree with it being illegal, unless it incites violence), but I refuse and find it an affront to my person to be told which words I MUST use and in which context. Let Group A use all the words they like, and let Group B use the words they like, but neither Group or Group B should be compelled to use the words as set out by the other. 

A big issue that I have with this kind of argument, is what about the people that control the words in the other direction? 

• Trying to control anybodys speech is wrong, no matter from what "direction" that bid for control comes from. No matter if it was nazis, commies, you name it. The thing is, I only hear cries about "words being violence" and a furthering of hate speech laws coming from a rather particular "direction".

Group A coming up with new words they want to use, and Group B wants to prevent them from using those words. Why do you view Group A exclusively as being the one controlling the words, and not Group B preventing Group A's language use?

• Group B in this particular discourse is not preventing anything. And Group A does not just want to use those words for themselves, they demand others use them. The moment western countries (where I live) make a complete u-turn on these woke issues and legislate that using alternative pronouns is no longer something you have to do, but a crime you commit, then all the woke pronoun-people will have my full support with me saying that they should be able to use them. But as it stands, the workplace, the executive branch, journalism, media at large and the legislative branch trip over themselves to condemn anybody who dares to citicise, satirise or otherwise does not want to go with this manufactured "mainstream".

That's a big problem with these kinds of generic statements, they're often true in both directions.

Just like that neo-nazi quote that constantly gets thrown around "simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize"

No body wants to be criticized and plenty of people on all parts of the political spectrum get pretty upset if they're criticized.

• Just fell out of the sky, learning that this quote is not from Voltaire but from a neo nazi. The more you know. Its origin changes little about its usefulness though. And I think I get where you are coming from. Your sentiment here is that anybody can feel indignation about being criticised and anybody who criticises can answer with "not-voltaires" quote. But this is not the point of the quote. Or at least it is not my point. Even though it is not per random chance that the stereotypical picture of a crazy lefty is one who feels indignation. No, the point is about not being able to criticise. There is a mountain of difference between your critizism not being wanted and your citicism not being allowed or opressively silenced. And the simple truth about two different groups here is this: one can burn a st. george flag (I am using Britain for a specific example) and does not have to fear the police knocking on their door the next day. The other group can expect a knock from the police after not burning, but simply posting a meme about the pride flag. Saw that one recently, coming out of Britain I think. Criticism is not allowed. And along the spectrum we are talking here, it is forbidden (also by the law) in only one direction.

It just ends up being meaningless. It only sounds good to people who lack self awareness. 

• With the upper explanation in mind, I think awareness of destructive societal trends, their influence on art, legislation, media bias, and the beginnings of authoritarianism is also very important. Be aware.

And Group B is pushing to prevent the language use. So why isn't that viewed as control? 

If compelling certain speech is control, then so is compelling someone not to use certain speech.  

The big issue with your first paragraph is that harm and rights are relative.

The whole reason Group A is "compelling" speech, is because they view the alternative as harmful. It's harmful to a subgroup of people who don't have their identities respected. 

And you may disagree that it's harmful, but it's also absurd to think that "suggesting that people respect pronoun use" is harmful. 

Who is making it illegal? 

JuliusHackebeil said:

Trying to control anybodys speech is wrong, no matter from what "direction" that bid for control comes from. No matter if it was nazis, commies, you name it. The thing is, I only hear cries about "words being violence" and a furthering of hate speech laws coming from a rather particular "direction".

JuliusHackebeil said:

Group B in this particular discourse is not preventing anything. And Group A does not just want to use those words for themselves, they demand others use them. The moment western countries (where I live) make a complete u-turn on these woke issues and legislate that using alternative pronouns is no longer something you have to do, but a crime you commit, then all the woke pronoun-people will have my full support with me saying that they should be able to use them. But as it stands, the workplace, the executive branch, journalism, media at large and the legislative branch trip over themselves to condemn anybody who dares to citicise, satirise or otherwise does not want to go with this manufactured "mainstream".

JuliusHackebeil said:

With the upper explanation in mind, I think awareness of destructive societal trends, their influence on art, legislation, media bias, and the beginnings of authoritarianism is also very important. Be aware.

And Group B is pushing to prevent the language use. So why isn't that viewed as control? 

If compelling certain speech is control, then so is compelling someone not to use certain speech.  

The big issue with your first paragraph is that harm and rights are relative.

The whole reason Group A is "compelling" speech, is because they view the alternative as harmful. It's harmful to a subgroup of people who don't have their identities respected. 

And you may disagree that it's harmful, but it's also absurd to think that "suggesting that people respect pronoun use" is harmful. 

Who is making it illegal? 

If you’re compelling people to use language that you want them to, there is no “suggestion”. Suggesting is not a problem; a suggestion can be accepted or rejected. “Suggesting” someone use the words you mandate or else they will be fired, or fined, or imprisoned, isn’t a “suggestion” at all. 

In real life, most of the time it's a suggestion. 

Where are people getting imprisoned or fined?

Fired is a lot trickier. If you're a school counsellor, and one of your kids ends up killing themselves because you can't do the basic decency of being kind to them, then yeah I think you should be fired.