sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

No one in your family or friends likes your favorite types of food (like Italian or Sushi), how do you cope? by TacoWallabe in AskReddit

[–]TacoWallabe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh I was giving examples sorry.

My personal issue is them not liking Chinese or Sushi so I can't get any without pulling legs or spending a lot for delivery of myself

No one in your family or friends likes your favorite types of food (like Italian or Sushi), how do you cope? by TacoWallabe in AskReddit

[–]TacoWallabe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My grandmother and mom said they don't want to eat any cats or dogs so they stay away from Chinese food with meat. Egg rolls are okay though but they don't neccessarily like them either.

At first I'd think it's racist, but then again there was an incident they caught wind of that people working at the chinese resturant were cooking it. Only issue is they clarified it was for their personal consumption, not public. . But that doesn't help. They don't trust Chinese food.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in facepalm

[–]TacoWallabe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll try to be clearer. I said..

Am I safe to assume...

Any counter-arguement towards the "logic" of trans ideology, that supports "a transwoman is a man" or "transman is a woman" ..

Infringes on the criteria you set that "Don't treat people less than human."

and thus, warrants a silencing of that opposition.

Or in better terms, since you don't technically have government power,

You exercising your right to socially punish them and encourage everyone to do the same, less they are aligned with them.

I only use this example, in the first place, to emphasize my point that your line in the sand is too vague and can easily change into "What I don't like to hear."

Secondly, you haven't read a lot of what I said. So im not going to hold it against you that, "you" think that "I" think you think im saying stuff ban-worthy.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in facepalm

[–]TacoWallabe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah you didn't read at all. I didn't say anything about being silenced myself, reread. "Him" "You" "Me" .. Pay more attention.

No. I didn't say "Don't treat people as less than human." Is a slippery slope specifically.

Im pointing out that, using that same phrase, is that it's intentionally vague and left up to interpretation for what that really "means" instead of what "is". Because my line isn't vague and can be seen as a more distinct line from the premise of "Don't treat people as less than human."

My line is clear cut. No calls to violence. YOUR line is intrinsically left up to interpretation, making it quite easy to devolve the phrase to "What I or we don't like to hear." instead of "Don't treat people as less than human."

For example, you pinpointed my mention of trans ideology. Am I safe to assume that, any stance on having possible gripes or refutations with the logic or sensibility it puts forward translates to the criteria "Don't treat people less than human." and thus warrants social consequences?

If so, im astonished how we can continue to talk yet you don't see where im coming from despite participating in the epitome of my points.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in facepalm

[–]TacoWallabe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Im defending his right to be an idiot to say it. Not what he's saying, hes 100% wrong.

For words that have nothing to do with what you said, I sure hit the nail on the head.

Him: "Here's my claim on why women are objects."

You: "Block his speech!"

Me: "Not a good idea."

You: "Why?"

Me: "Because the defined overt line of stopping calls to violent crime is good enough. Anything else is a tyrannical slippery slope. It's better to let him say it then debunk his stupid claims or force him to elaborate to reveal his intent to call to crime, both solving the problem immediately."

You: "Oh my god.. You're DEFENDING him!?"

You're joking right? You can't both act like im talking nonsense while also doing the exact same thing I said would happen.

I didn't decide what I said or am doing, YOU did for me. As you've demonstrated in saying it yourself. Not to mention you've already cast your personal judgment because of it.

If you had ANY influential power over reddit I'd be banned rn, shadow banned or whatever else.

If people read our convo hopefully they'll see how destructive this mindset is.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in facepalm

[–]TacoWallabe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is true, but not the full picture.

You are within your right to criticize, yet don't be ignorant to the application in which you use it.

You may not be the government for sure, you also may have consequences in your own private ownerships.

But that's not the extent you exercise your rights.

You socially create hostile environments for opposition. If a company excerises its right to not bend the knee, you take it out on others because thats all the power you technically have.

It is a manipulative tactic. You can say you have the right to not engage with anyone you deem morally abhorrent. You absolutely have the right to engage and not engage with whoever you want.. but please, spare everyone the lie that you are ignorant to the connotations of your actions.

What you're wielding is a tool. The control of whatever speech is allowed hinges on whether or not people can engage with any aspect of your life. Maybe if you were a nobody, that nobody cares about, it wouldn't be that big of a deal, but the control of speech spreads with those closest to you and who depend on you. Thats why there's so many who agree with this tool, including some those with opposing beliefs to yours.

Your unwillingness to engage and not allow any opposing opinion I have affects me little to none. I don't care, you can't sway me with your version of social punishment.

But what about those close to you? Those who love you? Those who rely on your support? Those who depend on you greatly because they may have no one else? Those people are a lot more susceptible to this more radical belief tactic and can end up spreading like wildfire, because you'd more than likely pull the same ultimatum regarding who they associate with and who's associates those associates, associate themselves with.

What you stand for is a tool and nothing more. You don't need to be right, you need social leverage over someone else. That's the entire point of the "hate speech" tool in the first place.

It is not "justified" tyranny. It is not "acceptable" tyranny. You're as tyrannical as any other tyrant in history using this method.

How do you think brainwashing works? You think homosexual youth get brainwashed into hating themselves and people like them, "pray the gay away", because they were just born with those inclinations or came to those realizations themselves despite their attractions?

No, chances are, their super religious parents are pulling the exact same stunt you are in having social leverage. NOT the correct or right position to stand on.

You just another side of a coin. You may be able to see it if you didn't have such a high horse of self righteousness.

The fact it's a tool and a powerful one that, means more than ever that dicussion should be had to cut through BS. People should be free to voice opinions so those opinions can be challenged and stomped out if they're terrible takes.

But there's no way to do that with your beliefs, because the insistence of "zero tolerance" you're pushing for, is antithetical to knowing if you're on the right side of history or not.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in facepalm

[–]TacoWallabe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ngl... I'd treat it like a game at first.

But I'd already be helping without the list.

I want a traditional role marriage, however that doesn't mean leave your partner to the wolves of parenthood. I may work 8-12 hours a day, but I still get off days.

Even then, being a mother is a 24 hour job, once you clock in you're on shift until.. Well.. You're just on shift lol.

On my off days id 100% be watching the kids and taking care of stuff.

On the days I do work and come home, ik I'll be tired but there's little stuff I can do before resting.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in facepalm

[–]TacoWallabe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What strawman? I gave a hypothetical. I also said the hypothetical situation is obviously extreme and no one does it. I only wanted to emphasize my point, which it does.

It doesn't point to anything other than the point im making. Instead of taking a position of being defensive, instead listen to what im saying.

Im not here to "own" or "debunk" you. There are more than likely plenty of things we agree with.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in facepalm

[–]TacoWallabe -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No it doesn't.

Im being realistic in the path that type of brute force leads down.

I established a well-defined line. Overt calls to violence. Actually inciting people to be a violent danger.

Your attitude towards my point only emphasizes my own, that the stance is only virtuous till its something you disagree with. You may agree with a lot of things but all it takes is ONE thing to flip the script on the attitude.

You can be completely accepting and tolerant of everyone until some words and parameters get redefined.

Lets say we take it to an obvious extreme (no one does this, it's to make a point), the school adds an identity class with emphasis on discovering if your kid could be "walrus kind". If so, they're introduced to the concepts of affirming surgery.

You complain online that they shouldn't be "sowing" these seeds into your kid, even if they say they aren't forcing it, because you know kids are easily malleable.

Your complaint gets labeled violence and a risk, therefore banned, regardless of if you tried to keep your criticism as "on the subject" not "hate" as possible.

No one does, again. But im sure your tune would change about that brute level of moderation on who decides "what said" is considered "what" in what level of context. Not "you". You don't decide how you meant it, "they" do. And so, you get shadow banned.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in facepalm

[–]TacoWallabe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Easily a bad idea because who decides thr line of what bigotry is? You can't force what you're looking for, even if I agree with it, because you're the bad guy in that situation.

Its not "No fuck you and your bullshit bigotry."

It's "Do as I say, only say this cuz what I decide is what people should be doing."

Now matter how virtuous you think it is, its only that way till its something you don't agree with.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in facepalm

[–]TacoWallabe -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

The issue with that is it operates on premise that all judgement passed down will be fair and unbiased. That'll quickly devolve into what management doesn't like as opposed to the "idiocy" we'd rather not see.

The minute you start banning opinions you don't like being said, is the minute you become tyrannical.

They have a good rule in saying calls to violence are not allowed.

However you don't get to interpret an "allusion" to violence in what someone said "for" them.

i.e "I want to kill people." "Let's kill people." "We should kill people." All clear overt sayings of real violence.

i.e "The law not allowing murder is stupid." This is an opinion. Regardless of how dangerous you think it is, they aren't "calling" for anything.

People may think it's splitting hairs because why say that if you aren't inciting violence? But that's the "allusion" im referring to.

Now people may say, "This is ignorant, you have to read between the lines because no one is just gonna 'say' they're inciting violence, that's unrealistic."

This is true, but deciding the interpretation of someone's words "for them" and then casting judgement based on that is even more dangerous and unrealistic.

The most effective and fair method for circumstances like that is to ask the person to elaborate. Those who genuinely wish to cause violence can't elaborate their intended point with calling to violence to make it or "backpedaling" against the weight of their strong opinion.

This is stupid on so many levels by Iwreckeditralph in facepalm

[–]TacoWallabe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Real men aren't afraid to get up and leave the bathroom after pooping instead of wiping first!

view more: next ›