Stop putting words in my mouth. While saying "I hate women" is misogynistic, it doesn't carry the same problems as actively discriminating against women.
Minskiev wrote:So one actually does create an unsafe school environment, while the other is silly and inane.
Both are silly and inane, but both do actually create unsafe school environments. That bigotry is stupid does not mean that schools should not crack down on it.
My point is that far more people are homophobic or transphobic than people who hate a sex.
Astrobolt wrote:For the title, is ‘queer’ accepted worldwide? I know its accepted where I live, but in certain areas it may be associated with its more heinous original homophobic/transphobic meaning.
It's been largely reclaimed.
Lastly, why are we limiting it to ‘non-specialized’ schools?
Because there is no need for a culinary school to teach gender studies.
Wansul wrote:"I can't see how this improves on the legislation it seeks to replace. As Apatosaurus pointed out, the definition of hate speech used in their bill is purposefully broad, so that schools have to work to reduce more broad kinds of discrimination and hatred, rather than few specific strains. Narrowing the definition and scale of applications only lets more hate and harm happen, and that's not good for students or anyone."
Just because it's narrower doesn't mean it allows more hate speech. You'll find I've actually used a perfectly functional definition of hate speech, which is narrower than Apato's, but not too narrow to allow hate speech. His is purposefully broad, but overly broad, though in application? It achieves the same, because both specify (mine in the definition, his in 2d) that hate speech on the basis of gender identity, gender expression, romantic orientation, sexual orientation, etc., isn't allowed.
Attempted Socialism wrote:Would 2a apply to universities and other (non-specialised) higher learning institutions?
Erm. Yes, although I think I still need to address overlap, forgot about that.
Untecna wrote:OOC: I concur with others, mainly Apato and Astrobolt. This replacement seems much worse than the target of your repeal, Minsk, and it shows quite a bit.
For one thing, Apato is correct in the definition. The broadness of the original definition is to pertain to a more broad removal of hate speech rather than what is only expressed in certain types of hate speech.
2d of the target narrows its definition to what is basically mine. I don't know what you think it accomplishes.
In another, the clauses only look to apply to "non-specialized schools", but nowhere in the draft is such a term defined. If this term should continue to see use, might I recommend a definition of such a term?
A non-specialized school is a school that isn't specialized. I don't see any need for a definition, because the term leaves no room for other interpretations.
The vagueness kills, however. A lot of this feels vague and schools can just as easily provide lip service and be perfectly acceptable under this resolution. (To clarify, I am referring to Clause 2; what types of resources? It could just as easily be one shoddy counselor that they pay minimum wage, that doesn't help anyone in reality)
I'll...try I guess?
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2022 12:33 pm