ToastedPlanet

Presumably the practice of preventing anti-queer disinformation would fall under the more general practice of preventing disinformation. Cis people can benefit from gender affirming care as well, it's just more regulated for and discussed in terms of trans people.

regardless of how much you might agree with it or think its righteous.

It's got nothing to do with me or righteousness. This is about strategic decisions to defend life and liberty from bad faith actors such as fascists.

regardless what it is

Not if it's dangerous to the people it's being delivered to. We do not want dangerous substances or bombs sent in the mail.

You arguing that each postal carrier has some intrinsic right to not deliver mail they find objectionable is arguing for the destruction, not the defense, of the US Postal Service.

No, I am arguing that we as a society should refuse to tolerate intolerance. Gender affirming care is a collection of lifesaving medical treatments. A ban on gender affirming care would deny trans people the fundamental right to exist. The success of this targeted disinformation campaign would put trans people in a life-threatening situation. By refusing to spread this disinformation campaign, this Canadian woman made the strategic decision to defend life and liberty.

Here in the US, the MAGA movement, a christo-fascist movement is attempting to takeover our democracy this November 5th. Depending on the outcome of the election we me all soon find ourselves in the position of this woman. Acts of civil disobedience might be the last line of defense to prevent the worst outcomes of fascist policies. We should not allow our institutions to be the instruments of our destruction. edit: typo

I would say that tossing your planned parenthood mail is a form of intolerance. Which is just as unacceptable as a disinformation campaign to ban planned parenthood in order to deny healthcare and reproductive freedom to individuals.

People aren't allowed to shout fire in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire. This basic premise doesn't change because of the medium of communication. People shouldn't be allowed to spread dangerous disinformation via the mail.

We shouldn't be concerned with what bad faith actors, such as fascists will do, when making our decisions. Bad faith actors will seek to infiltrate and undermine our institutions and systems no matter what we do. Our energy should be spent preventing bad faith actors from infiltrating our institutions.

I think I've made that mistake. I think I got excited, asked, and was informed that the curly fries were not in fact onion rings. I still love both though. =D

But I’m saying we shouldn’t tolerate intolerance. You’re the one saying we have to.

The opposite is in fact true. The fascists have breached the social contract of tolerance with their disinformation campaign. If they are not going to follow the agreement, then they are not protected by it. In other words, standing up against the fascists does not make us fascists. We should strategically defend our lives and liberties as needed. To do otherwise would make us complicit in our own destruction.

This is something we decide as a society. It's about who we are as a people.

We should not factor in what fascists will do into our decision. Fascists are bad-faith actors. Bad-faith actors will attempt to infiltrate and subvert any and all systems and institutions to their own ends. Instead we should focus on making systems and following best practices to prevent bad-faith actors like fascists from overturning our democracy.

No uneven application of the law would be required. This issue your argument is getting at is known as the paradox of tolerance. Where society is in the position of wanting to be tolerant while have to deal with intolerance. The resolution of the paradox comes from reframing tolerance as a social contract or peace treaty.

Under tolerance as a social construct people agree to tolerate each other. If a group of people such as fascists decide to not tolerate another group of people, then the fascists have breached the social contract of tolerance. The fascists are no longer protected by the social contract of tolerance and their speech, in the case of the disinformation campaign, is not protected.

As a society, we should not tolerate intolerance. It is not enough to individually toss out the flyers as trash. There are people who could be mislead into denying trans people their fundamental right to exist.

Gender affirming care is a collection of lifesaving medical treatments. A ban on gender affirming care would deny trans people the fundamental right to exist. This Canadian women's act of civil disobedience by refusing to spread a targeted life-threatening disinformation campaign is a strategic decision to defend life and liberty.

We should stand up to fascists, even if there isn't a law telling us to do so.

This is referred to as the paradox of tolerance. The idea that we have to tolerate intolerance is an incorrect resolution of the paradox. We can solve the paradox by reframing tolerance as a social contract or peace treaty.

In this framing, everyone agrees to tolerate each other. If a group, such as fascists, decide to be intolerant to another group the fascists have broken the social contract of tolerance. The fascists are no longer covered by the protections of the social contract of tolerance and in the case of this disinformation campaign, their speech is not protected.

This is the minimum that freedom loving people should expect from their democracy. We should tolerate everyone, but not tolerate intolerance. Fascists do not have the right to deny groups the fundamental right to exist with their speech.

To be clear, gender affirming care is a collection of life saving medical treatments. A ban on gender affirming care would deny trans people the fundamental right to exist. That Canadian woman's refusal to spread a targeted life-threatening disinformation campaign was a strategic decision to defend life and liberty.

Having systems in place to prevent the spread of disinformation campaigns would be preferable. However, in the US we are in the verge of a christo-fascist takeover of our democracy. We may all soon find ourselves in the position of this Canadian woman. Acts of civil disobedience may be the last line of defense in preventing the worst outcomes of fascist policies. We should not dismiss her actions out of hand. Actions like hers may soon save people's lives.

This is not about personal belief, but who we are as a society. We should want to live in a society where the fundamental rights of people to exist should be upheld.

Gender affirming care is a collection of lifesaving medical treatments. A ban on gender affirming care would deny trans people the fundamental right to exist. We should make the same strategic decision this Canadian woman did when she refused to spread a targeted life-threatening disinformation campaign and instead defend life and liberty.

We should not tolerate intolerance. It's not enough to individually throw this away in the trash when a disinformation campaign could mislead the public into denying a group of people the fundamental right to exist.

Nor should we worry about what fascists would do. Fascists are bad-faith actors. Bad-faith actors will always attempt to infiltrate and upend systems and institutions for their own ends. Instead our efforts should go to preventing bad-faith actors, like fascists, from taking over our democracy. Stopping the spread of disinformation campaigns is part of how we do that.

It has nothing to do with competency. We as a society should reject intolerance. It is very much the fascists problem that we do not tolerate their intolerance. The fascists have broken the social contract of tolerance and thus, in this case, their speech should not be protected by the social contract of tolerance.

You have the right idea.