• ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 hours ago

    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.

    • Godnroc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I disagree with the part where a single person gets to decide to follow a law or not because it opens up the other side doing the same thing.

      That same gender affirming care could be through the post, in which case someone who disagrees could just not deliver it.

      The law needs to apply evenly or what is a loophole to one is shenanigans to the other.

      • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        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.