[okareaman]

You're bringing the law into this but I'm not. That's a different issue. I support laws for trans people to have equal rights.

The world won't stop saying negative things about people like me and I accept that. Just last night I was watching Amazon's Bosch and the lead character called someone a "worthless alcoholic." As Vonnegut used to write, "so it goes."

[aeturnum]

I mean, fair enough, we can set the law aside.

Again, my point is that trans people are not complaining about "people saying negative things" in a vacuum. They are complaining about a specific situation that is happening which goes beyond just the context of the Chapelle special. I don't believe you are actually responding to the most common trans critique of Chapelle and, in not doing that, you dismiss the actual critiques they are making.

Let me put it this way: we don't have to agree about if the Chapelle special is a problem (I don't happen to worry too much about it but I understand why people are angry). But, I want you to imagine that the loudest and most alarmist trans folks are correct - Chapelle is helping a trend of violence against trans people. If that were the case (which again, is not exactly my belief tho things are pretty bad out there) disagreeing with them would be supporting violence against them. The best way, in my view, to avoid accidentally supporting that kind of thing is to start your personal thoughts (and public arguments) from the POV of the vulnerable community. That's how we can all avoid accidentally erasing an important critique.

[mpalmer]

So...assume the most extreme views are correct and start forming our own personal thoughts based on this assumption. Just in case they do turn out to be correct. I'm just not buying that.

Side note: I have yet to see a satisfying definition for this sense of the word "erasing". As best I can tell, it's just an emphatic way of saying "disagreeing with a position of personal importance to X".

[mpalmer]

Separately from my other reply, I'm curious whether you'd agree with the statement that the solution to bad speech is more speech. Because along with the most extreme views tend to come the most extreme solutions, most commonly suppressing undesirable speech. Boycotts are the most widely accepted ways of achieving this, but they don't usually work when the public doesn't agree with the boycotters.

And it's clear (to me anyway) that if one believes speech leads to violence, and if less extreme measures don't achieve the results you want, one will eventually attempt to have speech such as Chapelle's comedy routine legally defined as incitement of violence.

It is decidedly not incitement, according to the current legal definition, which I endorse. What do you think?

[hdjjhhvvhga]

> If that were the case (which again, is not exactly my belief tho things are pretty bad out there)

The point is, this is a very big if.