MS4 from wake forest in HOT water!!!

[sloop]

Just explicitly—if someone signals that they don’t support trans people, that shouldn’t be tolerated. Doesn’t mean I want them to get stabbed by a needle, or harmed in any way, and of course I would not recommend speaking out in a clinical setting in response to a patient who reveals that bias.

But supporting trans people and not supporting trans people should not be seen as equally valid positions. So while I think it’s clear what you meant, I do think we should be careful in where the discussion goes.

I mean I get what you’re saying about the terms of service saying so, but I have a fundamental philosophical disagreement with the idea that only one perspective can be tolerated. That is political correctness, and not in the vernacular way. Political correctness in the Soviet-style “whether or not your view actually has substance is irrelevant because it is not the correct political position” way.

To be honest, your attitude is kind of terrifying. I actually agree with you that people should support trans people. But that is different from saying that we shouldn’t tolerate people who don’t support trans people. What exactly does that statement mean? What are you saying it is okay to do to the people you disagree with given that you’ve said that they don’t hold an equally valued position and they shouldn’t be tolerated? Should they be censored? In what ways? Should they be jailed? Punished in some other way? Executed?

It is one thing to say that you disagree with a position. It is another entirely to say that it shouldn’t be tolerated.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[FootballAndSkiing]

But supporting trans people and not supporting trans people should not be seen as equally valid positions. So while I think it’s clear what you meant, I do think we should be careful in where the discussion goes.

We are 400 posts in and I don't think one person has said anything anti trans. The comment seemed unnecessary.

 

[GoSpursGo]

I mean I get what you’re saying about the terms of service saying so, but I have a fundamental philosophical disagreement with the idea that only one perspective can be tolerated. That is political correctness, and not in the vernacular way. Political correctness in the Soviet-style “whether or not your view actually has substance is irrelevant because it is not the correct political position” way.

To be honest, your attitude is kind of terrifying. I actually agree with you that people should support trans people. But that is different from saying that we shouldn’t tolerate people who don’t support trans people. What exactly does that statement mean? What are you saying it is okay to do to the people you disagree with given that you’ve said that they don’t hold an equally valued position and they shouldn’t be tolerated? Should they be censored? In what ways? Should they be jailed? Punished in some other way? Executed?

It is one thing to say that you disagree with a position. It is another entirely to say that it shouldn’t be tolerated.

I guess I just don’t follow—I think anyone would be pretty taken aback if someone said they don’t support women, or Black people, or Jewish people. I don’t think those would be considered equally valued positions either.

I don’t think anyone was actually taking that position, and I’m obviously not saying that anyone should be executed for holding an offensive opinion. Its just that taken out of the context of talking about this student this counterfactual seems to imply that supporting vs not supporting trans people are equally valid positions. If that wasn’t what you were intending then I apologize—and it’s just further evidence that it’s really easy to misinterpret things online.

 

[DarkBluMage]

Just explicitly—if someone signals that they don’t support trans people, that shouldn’t be tolerated. Doesn’t mean I want them to get stabbed by a needle, or harmed in any way, and of course I would not recommend speaking out in a clinical setting in response to a patient who reveals that bias.

But supporting trans people and not supporting trans people should not be seen as equally valid positions. So while I think it’s clear what you meant, I do think we should be careful in where the discussion goes.

Why shouldn’t it be tolerated? We don’t live in a monolith. People are from different cultural, religious, and diverse backgrounds that differ in their views regarding things within society. What equals support to you? Championing trans issues? Is it not ok to simply live and let live? Is not supporting equal to discrimination? The idea that there is no leeway for those who don’t champion trans issues but aren’t discriminatory is a kind of view that is terrifying and I don’t believe it has any place in a wholly functioning and DIVERSE society.

 

[Lawpy]

I’m personally enjoying and learning a lot from the nuanced discussion between @sloop and @futureapppsy2 and that’s my primary focus in this thread right now since the original topic is pretty thoroughly discussed

 

[DarkBluMage]

I guess I just don’t follow—I think anyone would be pretty taken aback if someone said they don’t support women, or Black people, or Jewish people. I don’t think those would be considered equally valued positions either.

I don’t think anyone was actually taking that position, and I’m obviously not saying that anyone should be executed for holding an offensive opinion. Its just that taken out of the context of talking about this student this counterfactual seems to imply that supporting vs not supporting trans people are equally valid positions. If that wasn’t what you were intending then I apologize—and it’s just further evidence that it’s really easy to misinterpret things online.

Even if that was said that doesn’t give grounds for enjoying harm coming to a patient. It is very much the same thing. Its discrimination. What isn’t discriminatory about enjoying pain towards someone in your care because of their opinion or the way they choose to live their life? That has no place in medicine.

 

[sloop]

I guess I just don’t follow—I think anyone would be pretty taken aback if someone said they don’t support women, or Black people, or Jewish people. I don’t think those would be considered equally valued positions either.

I don’t think anyone was actually taking that position, and I’m obviously not saying that anyone should be executed for holding an offensive opinion. Its just that taken out of the context of talking about this student this counterfactual seems to imply that supporting vs not supporting trans people are equally valid positions. If that wasn’t what you were intending then I apologize—and it’s just further evidence that it’s really easy to misinterpret things online.

Tolerating something is really the passive position towards it. Saying that you will not tolerate something implies that you are going to actually do something to actively try to eradicate it by some sort of force.

When a school says they don’t tolerate fighting, that implies that they’re punishing people for fighting. When a government says it doesn’t tolerate a particular crime, that implies that it is punishing people for that crime.

Intolerance for views is a hallmark of authoritarianism. I personally think that a person’s views may validly open them up to criticism, but I don’t think they should be persecuted because of them. On some level, we do need to tolerate racists and transphobes because the alternative is a world where we’re punishing people for thought crimes.

 

[GoSpursGo]

Even if that was said that doesn’t give grounds for enjoying harm coming to a patient. It is very much the same thing. Its discrimination. What isn’t discriminatory about enjoying pain towards someone in your care because of their opinion or the way they choose to live their life? That has no place in medicine.

I explicitly said if taken out of the context of talking about this student. I agree with your point that a medical professional shouldn’t wish harm on anyone.

Tolerating something is really the passive position towards it. Saying that you will not tolerate something implies that you are going to actually do something to actively try to eradicate it by some sort of force.

When a school says they don’t tolerate fighting, that implies that they’re punishing people for fighting. When a government says it doesn’t tolerate a particular crime, that implies that it is punishing people for that crime.

Intolerance for views is a hallmark of authoritarianism. I personally think that a person’s views may validly open them up to criticism, but I don’t think they should be persecuted because of them. On some level, we do need to tolerate racists and transphobes because the alternative is a world where we’re punishing people for thought crimes.

I disagree—I think saying you aren’t going to tolerate something like discrimination can include speaking up when you see it. It’s honestly ridiculous to take my statement and say that I’m in favor of putting people with offensive opinions in jail or executing them, as it’s a gross misrepresentation of what I’m saying. But in any case, SDN is a private company and is under no obligation to allow racism or transphobia on our platform.

Again… it seems I read something into the post that wasn’t intended, so I’m sorry for having derailed this thread.

 

[sloop]

I disagree—I think saying you aren’t going to tolerate something like discrimination can include speaking up when you see it. It’s honestly ridiculous to take my statement and say that I’m in favor of putting people with offensive opinions in jail or executing them, as it’s a gross misrepresentation of what I’m saying. But in any case, SDN is a private company and is under no obligation to allow racism or transphobia on our platform.

I obviously never thought it was actually your position that people with offensive positions should be executed, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to raise it as a concern when talking about the possible consequences of a policy of intolerance towards specific opinions. As I said, the Soviets had such a policy and they did execute people for having opinions that weren’t politically correct.

And the “X is a private company” line is a cop-out. You’re right, SDN can do what it wants. It doesn’t make the policy a good one. Also, isn’t your support of private companies making their own policies in conflict with your belief that not supporting gay and trans people should not be tolerated? I assume you are also advocating for the rights of wedding planners and cake bakers to not serve gay clients.

 

[GoSpursGo]

And the “X is a private company” line is a cop-out. You’re right, SDN can do what it wants. It doesn’t make the policy a good one.

It would be a cop out if it was arbitrary or capricious. We explicitly state in our values that we value diversity in healthcare. Allowing racist or transphobic views to be shared on our platform would be antithetical to those values.

 

[FootballAndSkiing]

We explicitly state in our values that we value diversity in healthcare

This is why the term diversity annoys me. Definitely does not include diversity of thought.

 

[futureapppsy2]

This is why the term diversity annoys me. Definitely does not include diversity of thought.

I think it should, but there’s the caveat of some “diversity of thought” being actively harmful to others and society at large (e.g., anti-vax, white supremacy, gay panic) and the question of if we should promote or even platform that speech, particularly as a private organization. The only organization I’ve seen that truly champions free speech regardless of potential harm caused by it is the ACLU, and even that is limited to specifically working against government limitations on free speech, not saying all platforms should allow all free speech. Every other org has some idea of limitations on speech they think should or shouldn’t be platformed, whether in the liberal or conservative directions.

 

[FootballAndSkiing]

I think it should, but there’s the caveat of some “diversity of thought” being actively harmful to others and society at large (e.g., anti-vax, white supremacy, gay panic) and the question of if we should promote or even platform that speech, particularly as a private organization. The only organization I’ve seen that truly champions free speech regardless of potential harm caused by it is the ACLU, and even that is limited to specifically working against government limitations on free speech, not saying all platforms should allow all free speech. Every other org has some idea of limitations on speech they think should or shouldn’t be platformed, whether in the liberal or conservative directions.

I was just commenting on the overuse of the term diversity, its now just used as buzz word and sometimes I think its lost its meaning. I personally think speech on various platforms is censored too much. But I understand and support the right for private companies to censor what they want. It frustrates me because I think companies like twitter and YouTube don't enforce their policies equally, they should get criticized for it, but at the end of the day they can do what they want, SDN too.

 

[chilly_md]

It appears that this thread has run its course.