icepuncher69

Same about you m8.

I knew the race thing was gonna be pulled out from this. And i do understeand why they could be seen as the same thing. But they arent.

This is comical in twisting someone's existence as negatively impacting someone else because of the other person's bigoted views

Sexuality and gender are a very heavy isue for people, thats the reason they get all riled up when it comes to bathrooms, be it the gender conforming and nonconforming crowds. You cant and shouldnt force people that dont feel comfortable with sharing it with people with gender fluidity because it is being imposed into them and can cause them to lash out against them. Its not because of hate of bigotry, its just because they persieve the trans woman as not a woman, or a man, which isnt very progresive buy it is valid to feel uncomfortable by it, not everyone will be as progresive as they should, and their right to have their privacy respected should be... well... respected. Rape is a very heavy topic for women, and some consider it even worse than murder, and some women could feel like if they are raped in some way by having a non gender conforming person int the sanctuary of a bathroom where they feel they are the most vulnerable. But that doesnt mean that trans people should be excluded from using bathrooms. At the end they have fisiological needs like everybody else and if they dont whant to go to the mens bathroom because they feel the same discormfort as biowomen then thats fine and should be respected, but it doesnt mean that they should be imposed to biowomen.

That was my point all along, that answers arent as easy nor black and white, hell they arent even gray most of the time. Solving social isues are not as easy as just shutting people of and infringing into their right to talk (i mean some of them are like shuting up the fucking nazis) and most of the time require people that clash with them to go into a compromise by sorting outh their diferences.

And that whole discussion could leads us to the solution of having a third bathroom. It doesnt infringe of genderconforming women and lets trans women use a bathroom without making anybody uncomfortable, you can make a 4th bathroom for trans men too , hell you can make a 5th bathroom for absolutelly everyone that has no problem sharing a bathroom with non gender conforming people if its that big of an isue to people. Now it is not a perfect solution and you go into more problems if you include factors like costs or space.but my point is that a solution was proposed, and that doesnt happen if you censor people by casting them as intolerant.

Bathroom bans are intolerant.

I didnt whant to call this out but it is a bad take and you already whent ad hominem with the whole "take biology class you biggot" thing so im gonna do that ad hominem thing too. So under the intolerating the intolerant logic and by your take a man that percieves themselves as a man can go into the womans bathroom because women are being intollerant to men by not letting them into the womans bathroom, and that gives them the right of being intolerant to women and therefore using the same bathroom as them? So by that same logic anybody can get into your room without your permision because you are being intolerant to them going into your room so that gives them the right to not tolerate you and enter your room as they please? Thats just chaos at that point, and thats why there should be at least a neutral bathroom if we are to take that type of claims seriously which imo we shouldnt but it would be fair i guess to have one. Think better before you claim something as absolute.

I shouldnt make this next argument because im gonna put a target on my back but its the best example i can think of that puts that into question.

So women that go into their respective bathroom shouldnt feell uncomfortable because a clearly transgender woman goes into the same bathroom?

Should the transgender woman shouldnt go into the male bathroom if she feels uncomfortable going in it but should impose herself onto women that feel uncumfortable with her prescensce in the womens bathroom?

Who is the intolerant one there?

Are women that feel uncumfortable intolerant because a trans women that was formerly a man whants to share the same intimate space as the normal women?

Is the trans woman the intolerant one because they whant to go to the bathroom they feel more comfortable with?

That is a case in my opinion where tolerance gets challenged by both sides involved because the other one is getting into the privacy of the other.

You could say that woman shouldnt interfere with the bussines of the trans woman but you could say the same thing about the trans woman. So who is the intolerant here? Both?

In cases like that some people should be excused to at the very least for being uncomfortable and against the precense of the other person because at least in this case it is in and of itself interefering with the other parties privacy.

Honestly no.

It is easy to diferentiate those things.

For example;

"I dont like that x people do z thing because it affects y people in a negative way."

This one its not calling for violence against x people. its calling out x people for affecting y people in a negative way. Now if people get violent about it its because there is no denying that there is a number of people that already hate x people and are looking for anu excuse to lash out against x people, and they are gonna end up doing just that whatever they find it or not.

"I dont like x people because they could be a negative influence in our community."

Its a hard one but it is a call to segregation because it is saying that x people dont belong on the comunity that whoever is talking belongs in, now wathever this is true or not, by saying that it is implied that taking them out of the comunity would be a positive thing. So it is a call to do bad things but very subtelly.

So should the 2nd one be banned? No imho because it is very subtle about it and could be said as a genuine mistake. But it should and will be called out by people that dont agree with it and smart people would see it as a poor argument because it calls for segregation, and while a very bad opinnion it shouldnt be outhright banned, just called out and laughed at.

Now what should be punished or banned should br saying in a very public forum in front of lots of people something like the following:

"I dont like X people, they harm the good people of our community and they should be exilled from it and punished for their crimes such as z"

This one is an obvius one, it calls for violence and segregation for x people, punishment and comes of more as rallying than a genuine argument. So yeah, bann that.

I made that frase and used it as an example because people that use the "tolerance is intolerance to the intollerant" argument usually use it because they dont tolerate someone else having diferent opinions than them and say they are being intolerant when that is not true. And censoring genuine diferent points of view that do not call for violence or segregation is in my opinion a form of discrimination/segregation. So they themselves are doing what they preach is bad.

I just think it’s really naive to say corporations should allow hate speech and governments should be allowed to remove rights because you want to play centrist.

I wrote the complete oposite of that m8... wtf? Corporations shouldnt have a say on what is hate speech because critisisms to them or against their agendas will be gaslighted by them into being hate speech, specially in their platforms, and governments should punish calls to violence/segretation/discrimination in public forums, nothing more, nothing else. I never talked about removing anybodies rights.

I would like to say "nhiiiieee c0nGl4tuRaTion u pUt t3xT oVer aN iMag3" but this actually looks pretty cool. Nice job m8. Is the image A.I. generated? If so how did you make it?

Fair enough

Its a better option to make a deal with the brick fae with this horrible housing economy

Why is this a meme? Its not even funny, i mean i agree specially against corporate land owning but this is just propaganda larping.

This is not a meme and doesnt become one just because you add the sweet funny looking art man.

Its kind of on brand when you take into account what they mean when they say "revolution". (I.e. china's take on intellectual property)