TW: Analysis of right wing conceptions of trans identity, which may contain damaging ideas; Debate and Argument; Quite serious possible opinions about free speech; an actual parody of right wing rhetoric that contains homophobia; mention of Paul Joseph Watson's face; references to mental health, alienation and suffering. Bonus: song recommendation at the end!!
"I do not think women's safety should be an afterthought" - this line is genius and basically highlights the quite disturbing reality of the right wing's entire BASE argument (so the very reason they exist as a force that is preventing progressions in human rights). Get this, it would take absolutely no logistical effort to implement things like transgender acknowledging bathrooms, so what is stopping it from happening? You then realise that the entire inexplicable and devastating debate is entirely about the value of human life. Their entire position is an admittance that they think some human identities are just lesser than others. This is ethical crime; they should not be allowed impact people's mental wellbeing like this. The alt-right is entirely constructed by a hatred of the diversity of consciousness and identity. It creates nothing, progresses nothing, suggests nothing, support anything (that isn't built to dismantle and damage, like white supremacy). At what point does free speech reach become unfree when it begins actually damaging people's mental health. Language damages people; this is the simple argument against the alt right. Any debate with an alt-right degenerate should contain only one question: "what is making you want to cause harm to some people's mental health, and why is nobody doing anything about it?"
Also interesting to ponder: what is the reason for them using the desire for free speech as an argument to spread harmful language. We have free speech, but most good people don't ever use it to spread hatred; they use it love and to care for and to fight for. It only bothers the right because their entire rhetoric consists of the parts of free speech we tend not to use because they damage people. Dial back the limits of free speech. Call it as it is: 'if you use language publicly and it causes actual damage to somebody's conscious well-being, then you are overstepping the boundaries of free speech.' That's why trigger warnings are MASSIVELY IMPORTANT THINGS; they are safeguards that identify the kind of language of the piece they are attached to in case it causes somebody mental distress. Never forget the importance of what they are, because our position on the left has built them, so surely we know why we use them. The right reveals that it does not know the purpose of them as safeguards against conscious suffering; they in fact want to actively reject such safeguards because "it's some stupid lefty safe space propaganda clown h*** thing" [!!!!!LGBTQPRIDE!!!!!!BLM!!!!!!!!!ConsciousnessMatters!!!!!!!!!] thing" This opposing argument is built entirely by the desire for the right to harm people, which is wrong, and should be stopped.
Here's a song recommendation: Don Diasco by Xiu Xiu
