Me, neither. That's why the article loses credibility to me by positioning the two side-by-side.
alanine96
joined 1 year ago
I like it a lot, but I'm worried I'll fall back into endless scrolling that I enjoyed breaking away from after leaving reddit.
Yeah, I actually really like the idea that people bring their biases/ideologies/paradigms to the table and you decide whether it's worth using a particular argument to convince them. That is how political speech works, fundamentally.
It's impossible to discuss topics like this and leave the bias of the website aside; further down in the article, when they're not talking about the tweet, they say asking people to refrain from using gendered language when they don't know the gender of their opponent is "creating an atmosphere of fear":
The irony of the NSDA’s obsession with “safety” is that it actually fuels an atmosphere of fear among students—the fear that they will lose if they once said the wrong thing on Twitter or accidentally refer to their competitor as Miss. This fear is palpable. The NSDA debates—once a forum for the open exchange of ideas—have become a minefield of political correctness, says NSDA student Briana Whatley, 15, of Miramar, Florida.
That makes it clear that this isn't about high school debate at all; it's about the ongoing push to scapegoat trans people. And that isn't a topic that is up for debate or discussion.
The people who voted for these politicians are by and large not the demographics being fucked over by those policies. I also used to feel like the right response was to laugh at these states, and being reminded that people who didn't want these policies are still suffering from them didn't really convince me of anything--after all, collectively, isn't that the community they're choosing to live in?
What changed my mind about that is realizing the harm is disproportionately distributed. Disenfranchised people are LESS likely to vote republican but MORE likely to suffer the effects of republican government. So when "they get what they voted for", it's really, "the poor get what the rich voted for", and that doesn't make me happy to laugh at at all.
What do people think of a "journalistic integrity" rule? I know that's also subjective, but I'm trying to think of how to phrase a rule that is basically "don't post intentionally incendiary crap". I guess the rule could just be "don't post intentionally incendiary crap", with some examples of what that means and community opportunities to in some way indicate that an article is incendiary crap.