this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
31 points (86.0% liked)

Comic Strips

12716 readers
3127 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You're starting out with intolerance as the baseline. It's one thing to not want to date a trans person because you're not sexually ATTRACTED to trans people. That's perfectly fine. To not want to because it's "against your ideals" implies that you disapprove of ANYONE dating a trans person, which can only be a result of bigotry.

Nobody's talking about legislating against TERFS existing or that anyone who has bigoted views on trans people being predatory, so that's not a valid comparison either.

You can ABSOLUTELY be intolerant towards intolerance without trying to legislate it away or otherwise unfairly persecuting the bigots like they persecute others. In fact, that's the default and correct reaction of tolerant people encountering bigotry.

[–] Skates@feddit.nl 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It's one thing to not want to date a trans person because you're not sexually ATTRACTED to trans people. That's perfectly fine. To not want to because it's "against your ideals" implies that you disapprove of ANYONE dating a trans person

No, that's what it implies to you. Not to everyone else. And idk why.

It's simple. "I wouldn't date a trans person because it's against my ideals" implies nothing about the rest of the world. It just exposes that the speaker's ideal sexual preference does not include trans people. Now, if you're choosing to take "ideals" as "ideals about how society should work", that's on you. If you're choosing to take "I wouldn't date" as "nobody should date", that's also on you.

The phrase is simple and already explains sexual preference, not view on society. It's actually really goddamn interesting, because OP was illustrating how hard it is to draw a line in the sand, because someone will cross it and say you're not allowed to draw the line there, and you did that exact fucking thing. You likened drawing that line in the sand with drawing EVERYONE's line for them, and swiftly crossed it, expressing how wrong it is to draw the line there, and where everyone else's line should be, because you know better and are reading into the implications.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're either wrong about their intention or about their (lack of) clarity.

"Ideals" and "preferences" are NOT synonyms and since I can't read their mind, I'm gonna assume that what they say is what they mean. Silly in these post-truth times, I know, but I'm old-fashioned like that.

[–] Skates@feddit.nl 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You literally misinterpreted what they said to suit your own agenda. Silly in any times, but yes - also old-fashioned.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Nope, I literally took them at their word and then you came riding to the rescue with a hypothetical interpretation.