Are DCUM Political Topics Changing Your Vote?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them

It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.

I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.

I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.

Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.

Unfortunately, we can’t discuss certain topics because they draw the bigots out of the woodwork. People who are disrespectful and throw out hateful comments as “a DiFfeReNt oPinIoN”.

The problem is comments like “biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports” is not a hateful or bigoted comment, but gets labeled as such.

+100

You would be right to get flagged as hateful and bigoted when you try and call Imane Khelif "tr@ns" and "a man in the boxing ring beating up women" when she was born female, has female on her birth certificate, grew up female, has never ever in her life been identified as anything other than female, including numerous medical exams and tests - UNTIL she beat a Russian boxer, after which the IBA, which is Russian-run and BANNED from the Olympics due to corruption, declared, WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF, that she supposedly "flunked a gender test" and has ever since been sketchy, evasive and generally non-respondent to any followup inquiries.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/olympic-boxer-imane-khelif-is-neither-trans-nor-male/ar-AA1oidMS?ocid=BingNewsSerp

And then this poor woman got mercilessly cyberbullied and harassed by ranks of deranged right wingers, much like the ones who post here.

I agree that this should be flagged as hateful and bigoted. But that is not the example PP posted - what PP posted is definitely Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment.

However, Freedom of Speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it includes obscenity, child pornography, [b]defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words that incite violence.[/b]

Which is why Imane Khelif actually has a basis for filing a lawsuit for libel, defamation and cyberbullying.

However, expressing general statements on issues based on one's personal beliefs is Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment. As such, even if you don't agree with them, you are obliged to tolerate them so long as they don't cross the line.

No one is obligated to "tolerate" hurtful speech and actions based on certain "beliefs".

But the problem is anything that doesn’t agree with your belief system gets labeled “hateful speech.” You can’t have a rational conversation that way. You just can’t.

False. Not “anything”, just those that denigrate and hurt others.

Should we have a rational conversation about white supremacy?

I don’t think biological men should compete in women’s sports - hateful speech or not?
I want the borders closed and money going to undocumented people used for citizens instead - hateful speech or not?

Why do you say "biological men" instead of transgender women?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seeing threads like the Vance/ couch thread have opened my eyes to how petty and outrageous certain LWNJ’s are. Does nothing to sway my vote as I wasn’t voting for Trump anyway: however threads like that are so juvenile and repetitive that it’s a big eye opener.

The same people who hysterically emote about disinformation, misinformation, and Trump’s “lies” are flogging the Vance couch thing about. It makes the whole russian troll argument performative and null.

OMG! SOMEONE MADE A FUNNY!!!

We better throw out women’s rights.

DP. Not entirely clear who is throwing out of women’s rights with more alacrity, the Democrats or the Republicans. Both parties are leaning in hard on misogyny.

It’s very clear for those of living in reality.

The reality where millions of women have already lost access to healthcare.

I am sure that’s what you believe is true.

DP. You’re doing your hateful forced birther agenda all the favors in the world by telling women they haven’t lost anything.

I’m pro-choice. And I believe the Republicans deeply hate women. However, I also believe the Democrats deeply hate women.

Both sides!

Correct. It is both sides. Excellent observation.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them

It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.

I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.

I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.

Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.

Unfortunately, we can’t discuss certain topics because they draw the bigots out of the woodwork. People who are disrespectful and throw out hateful comments as “a DiFfeReNt oPinIoN”.

The problem is comments like “biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports” is not a hateful or bigoted comment, but gets labeled as such.

+100

You would be right to get flagged as hateful and bigoted when you try and call Imane Khelif "tr@ns" and "a man in the boxing ring beating up women" when she was born female, has female on her birth certificate, grew up female, has never ever in her life been identified as anything other than female, including numerous medical exams and tests - UNTIL she beat a Russian boxer, after which the IBA, which is Russian-run and BANNED from the Olympics due to corruption, declared, WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF, that she supposedly "flunked a gender test" and has ever since been sketchy, evasive and generally non-respondent to any followup inquiries.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/olympic-boxer-imane-khelif-is-neither-trans-nor-male/ar-AA1oidMS?ocid=BingNewsSerp

And then this poor woman got mercilessly cyberbullied and harassed by ranks of deranged right wingers, much like the ones who post here.

I agree that this should be flagged as hateful and bigoted. But that is not the example PP posted - what PP posted is definitely Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment.

However, Freedom of Speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it includes obscenity, child pornography, [b]defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words that incite violence.[/b]

Which is why Imane Khelif actually has a basis for filing a lawsuit for libel, defamation and cyberbullying.

However, expressing general statements on issues based on one's personal beliefs is Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment. As such, even if you don't agree with them, you are obliged to tolerate them so long as they don't cross the line.

No one is obligated to "tolerate" hurtful speech and actions based on certain "beliefs".

But the problem is anything that doesn’t agree with your belief system gets labeled “hateful speech.” You can’t have a rational conversation that way. You just can’t.

False. Not “anything”, just those that denigrate and hurt others.

Should we have a rational conversation about white supremacy?

I don’t think biological men should compete in women’s sports - hateful speech or not?
I want the borders closed and money going to undocumented people used for citizens instead - hateful speech or not?

Why do you say "biological men" instead of transgender women?

They are one and the same. It doesn’t really matter which term you choose to use.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them

It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.

I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.

I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.

Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.

Unfortunately, we can’t discuss certain topics because they draw the bigots out of the woodwork. People who are disrespectful and throw out hateful comments as “a DiFfeReNt oPinIoN”.

The problem is comments like “biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports” is not a hateful or bigoted comment, but gets labeled as such.

+100

You would be right to get flagged as hateful and bigoted when you try and call Imane Khelif "tr@ns" and "a man in the boxing ring beating up women" when she was born female, has female on her birth certificate, grew up female, has never ever in her life been identified as anything other than female, including numerous medical exams and tests - UNTIL she beat a Russian boxer, after which the IBA, which is Russian-run and BANNED from the Olympics due to corruption, declared, WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF, that she supposedly "flunked a gender test" and has ever since been sketchy, evasive and generally non-respondent to any followup inquiries.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/olympic-boxer-imane-khelif-is-neither-trans-nor-male/ar-AA1oidMS?ocid=BingNewsSerp

And then this poor woman got mercilessly cyberbullied and harassed by ranks of deranged right wingers, much like the ones who post here.

I agree that this should be flagged as hateful and bigoted. But that is not the example PP posted - what PP posted is definitely Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment.

However, Freedom of Speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it includes obscenity, child pornography, [b]defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words that incite violence.[/b]

Which is why Imane Khelif actually has a basis for filing a lawsuit for libel, defamation and cyberbullying.

However, expressing general statements on issues based on one's personal beliefs is Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment. As such, even if you don't agree with them, you are obliged to tolerate them so long as they don't cross the line.

No one is obligated to "tolerate" hurtful speech and actions based on certain "beliefs".

But the problem is anything that doesn’t agree with your belief system gets labeled “hateful speech.” You can’t have a rational conversation that way. You just can’t.

False. Not “anything”, just those that denigrate and hurt others.

Should we have a rational conversation about white supremacy?

I don’t think biological men should compete in women’s sports - hateful speech or not?
I want the borders closed and money going to undocumented people used for citizens instead - hateful speech or not?

Why do you say "biological men" instead of transgender women?

They are one and the same. It doesn’t really matter which term you choose to use.

But I asked about your choice. Why did you choose one over the other?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them

It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.

I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.

I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.

Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.

Unfortunately, we can’t discuss certain topics because they draw the bigots out of the woodwork. People who are disrespectful and throw out hateful comments as “a DiFfeReNt oPinIoN”.

The problem is comments like “biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports” is not a hateful or bigoted comment, but gets labeled as such.

+100

You would be right to get flagged as hateful and bigoted when you try and call Imane Khelif "tr@ns" and "a man in the boxing ring beating up women" when she was born female, has female on her birth certificate, grew up female, has never ever in her life been identified as anything other than female, including numerous medical exams and tests - UNTIL she beat a Russian boxer, after which the IBA, which is Russian-run and BANNED from the Olympics due to corruption, declared, WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF, that she supposedly "flunked a gender test" and has ever since been sketchy, evasive and generally non-respondent to any followup inquiries.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/olympic-boxer-imane-khelif-is-neither-trans-nor-male/ar-AA1oidMS?ocid=BingNewsSerp

And then this poor woman got mercilessly cyberbullied and harassed by ranks of deranged right wingers, much like the ones who post here.

I agree that this should be flagged as hateful and bigoted. But that is not the example PP posted - what PP posted is definitely Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment.

However, Freedom of Speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it includes obscenity, child pornography, [b]defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words that incite violence.[/b]

Which is why Imane Khelif actually has a basis for filing a lawsuit for libel, defamation and cyberbullying.

However, expressing general statements on issues based on one's personal beliefs is Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment. As such, even if you don't agree with them, you are obliged to tolerate them so long as they don't cross the line.

No one is obligated to "tolerate" hurtful speech and actions based on certain "beliefs".

But the problem is anything that doesn’t agree with your belief system gets labeled “hateful speech.” You can’t have a rational conversation that way. You just can’t.

False. Not “anything”, just those that denigrate and hurt others.

Should we have a rational conversation about white supremacy?

I don’t think biological men should compete in women’s sports - hateful speech or not?
I want the borders closed and money going to undocumented people used for citizens instead - hateful speech or not?

Why do you say "biological men" instead of transgender women?

They are one and the same. It doesn’t really matter which term you choose to use.

But I asked about your choice. Why did you choose one over the other?

Because when it comes to sports how the person feels is less important than their biology. The reason we separate sports into two categories is because of biology, not gender.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them

It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.

I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.

I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.

Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.

Unfortunately, we can’t discuss certain topics because they draw the bigots out of the woodwork. People who are disrespectful and throw out hateful comments as “a DiFfeReNt oPinIoN”.

The problem is comments like “biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports” is not a hateful or bigoted comment, but gets labeled as such.

+100

You would be right to get flagged as hateful and bigoted when you try and call Imane Khelif "tr@ns" and "a man in the boxing ring beating up women" when she was born female, has female on her birth certificate, grew up female, has never ever in her life been identified as anything other than female, including numerous medical exams and tests - UNTIL she beat a Russian boxer, after which the IBA, which is Russian-run and BANNED from the Olympics due to corruption, declared, WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF, that she supposedly "flunked a gender test" and has ever since been sketchy, evasive and generally non-respondent to any followup inquiries.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/olympic-boxer-imane-khelif-is-neither-trans-nor-male/ar-AA1oidMS?ocid=BingNewsSerp

And then this poor woman got mercilessly cyberbullied and harassed by ranks of deranged right wingers, much like the ones who post here.

I agree that this should be flagged as hateful and bigoted. But that is not the example PP posted - what PP posted is definitely Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment.

However, Freedom of Speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it includes obscenity, child pornography, [b]defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words that incite violence.[/b]

Which is why Imane Khelif actually has a basis for filing a lawsuit for libel, defamation and cyberbullying.

However, expressing general statements on issues based on one's personal beliefs is Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment. As such, even if you don't agree with them, you are obliged to tolerate them so long as they don't cross the line.

No one is obligated to "tolerate" hurtful speech and actions based on certain "beliefs".

But the problem is anything that doesn’t agree with your belief system gets labeled “hateful speech.” You can’t have a rational conversation that way. You just can’t.

False. Not “anything”, just those that denigrate and hurt others.

Should we have a rational conversation about white supremacy?

I don’t think biological men should compete in women’s sports - hateful speech or not?
I want the borders closed and money going to undocumented people used for citizens instead - hateful speech or not?

Why do you say "biological men" instead of transgender women?

They are one and the same. It doesn’t really matter which term you choose to use.

But I asked about your choice. Why did you choose one over the other?

Because when it comes to sports how the person feels is less important than their biology. The reason we separate sports into two categories is because of biology, not gender.

Yes, your first statement about "biological men" is hateful because, by your own explanation, it is aimed at diminishing the reality of transgender people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them

+ 1. Reddit is far more interesting.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them

It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.

I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.

I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.

Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.

Unfortunately, we can’t discuss certain topics because they draw the bigots out of the woodwork. People who are disrespectful and throw out hateful comments as “a DiFfeReNt oPinIoN”.

The problem is comments like “biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports” is not a hateful or bigoted comment, but gets labeled as such.

+100

You would be right to get flagged as hateful and bigoted when you try and call Imane Khelif "tr@ns" and "a man in the boxing ring beating up women" when she was born female, has female on her birth certificate, grew up female, has never ever in her life been identified as anything other than female, including numerous medical exams and tests - UNTIL she beat a Russian boxer, after which the IBA, which is Russian-run and BANNED from the Olympics due to corruption, declared, WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF, that she supposedly "flunked a gender test" and has ever since been sketchy, evasive and generally non-respondent to any followup inquiries.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/olympic-boxer-imane-khelif-is-neither-trans-nor-male/ar-AA1oidMS?ocid=BingNewsSerp

And then this poor woman got mercilessly cyberbullied and harassed by ranks of deranged right wingers, much like the ones who post here.

I agree that this should be flagged as hateful and bigoted. But that is not the example PP posted - what PP posted is definitely Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment.

However, Freedom of Speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it includes obscenity, child pornography, [b]defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words that incite violence.[/b]

Which is why Imane Khelif actually has a basis for filing a lawsuit for libel, defamation and cyberbullying.

However, expressing general statements on issues based on one's personal beliefs is Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment. As such, even if you don't agree with them, you are obliged to tolerate them so long as they don't cross the line.

No one is obligated to "tolerate" hurtful speech and actions based on certain "beliefs".

But the problem is anything that doesn’t agree with your belief system gets labeled “hateful speech.” You can’t have a rational conversation that way. You just can’t.

False. Not “anything”, just those that denigrate and hurt others.

Should we have a rational conversation about white supremacy?

I don’t think biological men should compete in women’s sports - hateful speech or not?
I want the borders closed and money going to undocumented people used for citizens instead - hateful speech or not?

Why do you say "biological men" instead of transgender women?

They are one and the same. It doesn’t really matter which term you choose to use.

But I asked about your choice. Why did you choose one over the other?

Because when it comes to sports how the person feels is less important than their biology. The reason we separate sports into two categories is because of biology, not gender.

Yes, your first statement about "biological men" is hateful because, by your own explanation, it is aimed at diminishing the reality of transgender people.

And there it is. Science is now hateful speech.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them

It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.

I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.

I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.

Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.

Unfortunately, we can’t discuss certain topics because they draw the bigots out of the woodwork. People who are disrespectful and throw out hateful comments as “a DiFfeReNt oPinIoN”.

The problem is comments like “biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports” is not a hateful or bigoted comment, but gets labeled as such.

+100

You would be right to get flagged as hateful and bigoted when you try and call Imane Khelif "tr@ns" and "a man in the boxing ring beating up women" when she was born female, has female on her birth certificate, grew up female, has never ever in her life been identified as anything other than female, including numerous medical exams and tests - UNTIL she beat a Russian boxer, after which the IBA, which is Russian-run and BANNED from the Olympics due to corruption, declared, WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF, that she supposedly "flunked a gender test" and has ever since been sketchy, evasive and generally non-respondent to any followup inquiries.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/olympic-boxer-imane-khelif-is-neither-trans-nor-male/ar-AA1oidMS?ocid=BingNewsSerp

And then this poor woman got mercilessly cyberbullied and harassed by ranks of deranged right wingers, much like the ones who post here.

I agree that this should be flagged as hateful and bigoted. But that is not the example PP posted - what PP posted is definitely Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment.

However, Freedom of Speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it includes obscenity, child pornography, [b]defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words that incite violence.[/b]

Which is why Imane Khelif actually has a basis for filing a lawsuit for libel, defamation and cyberbullying.

However, expressing general statements on issues based on one's personal beliefs is Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment. As such, even if you don't agree with them, you are obliged to tolerate them so long as they don't cross the line.

No one is obligated to "tolerate" hurtful speech and actions based on certain "beliefs".

But the problem is anything that doesn’t agree with your belief system gets labeled “hateful speech.” You can’t have a rational conversation that way. You just can’t.

False. Not “anything”, just those that denigrate and hurt others.

Should we have a rational conversation about white supremacy?

I don’t think biological men should compete in women’s sports - hateful speech or not?
I want the borders closed and money going to undocumented people used for citizens instead - hateful speech or not?

Why do you say "biological men" instead of transgender women?

They are one and the same. It doesn’t really matter which term you choose to use.

But I asked about your choice. Why did you choose one over the other?

Because when it comes to sports how the person feels is less important than their biology. The reason we separate sports into two categories is because of biology, not gender.

Yes, your first statement about "biological men" is hateful because, by your own explanation, it is aimed at diminishing the reality of transgender people.

And there it is. Science is now hateful speech.

Just your interpretation of science which ignores the science with which you don't agree.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them

It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.

I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.

I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.

Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.

Unfortunately, we can’t discuss certain topics because they draw the bigots out of the woodwork. People who are disrespectful and throw out hateful comments as “a DiFfeReNt oPinIoN”.

The problem is comments like “biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports” is not a hateful or bigoted comment, but gets labeled as such.

+100

You would be right to get flagged as hateful and bigoted when you try and call Imane Khelif "tr@ns" and "a man in the boxing ring beating up women" when she was born female, has female on her birth certificate, grew up female, has never ever in her life been identified as anything other than female, including numerous medical exams and tests - UNTIL she beat a Russian boxer, after which the IBA, which is Russian-run and BANNED from the Olympics due to corruption, declared, WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF, that she supposedly "flunked a gender test" and has ever since been sketchy, evasive and generally non-respondent to any followup inquiries.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/olympic-boxer-imane-khelif-is-neither-trans-nor-male/ar-AA1oidMS?ocid=BingNewsSerp

And then this poor woman got mercilessly cyberbullied and harassed by ranks of deranged right wingers, much like the ones who post here.

I agree that this should be flagged as hateful and bigoted. But that is not the example PP posted - what PP posted is definitely Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment.

However, Freedom of Speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it includes obscenity, child pornography, [b]defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words that incite violence.[/b]

Which is why Imane Khelif actually has a basis for filing a lawsuit for libel, defamation and cyberbullying.

However, expressing general statements on issues based on one's personal beliefs is Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment. As such, even if you don't agree with them, you are obliged to tolerate them so long as they don't cross the line.

No one is obligated to "tolerate" hurtful speech and actions based on certain "beliefs".

But the problem is anything that doesn’t agree with your belief system gets labeled “hateful speech.” You can’t have a rational conversation that way. You just can’t.

False. Not “anything”, just those that denigrate and hurt others.

Should we have a rational conversation about white supremacy?

I don’t think biological men should compete in women’s sports - hateful speech or not?
I want the borders closed and money going to undocumented people used for citizens instead - hateful speech or not?

Why do you say "biological men" instead of transgender women?

They are one and the same. It doesn’t really matter which term you choose to use.

But I asked about your choice. Why did you choose one over the other?

Because when it comes to sports how the person feels is less important than their biology. The reason we separate sports into two categories is because of biology, not gender.

Yes, your first statement about "biological men" is hateful because, by your own explanation, it is aimed at diminishing the reality of transgender people.

And there it is. Science is now hateful speech.

Just your interpretation of science which ignores the science with which you don't agree.

If you can show me the science that states biological males and biological females have no physical differences in muscle mass, bone density, lung capacity, etc, I’d be happy to read it.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them

It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.

I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.

I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.

Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.

Unfortunately, we can’t discuss certain topics because they draw the bigots out of the woodwork. People who are disrespectful and throw out hateful comments as “a DiFfeReNt oPinIoN”.

The problem is comments like “biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports” is not a hateful or bigoted comment, but gets labeled as such.

+100

You would be right to get flagged as hateful and bigoted when you try and call Imane Khelif "tr@ns" and "a man in the boxing ring beating up women" when she was born female, has female on her birth certificate, grew up female, has never ever in her life been identified as anything other than female, including numerous medical exams and tests - UNTIL she beat a Russian boxer, after which the IBA, which is Russian-run and BANNED from the Olympics due to corruption, declared, WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF, that she supposedly "flunked a gender test" and has ever since been sketchy, evasive and generally non-respondent to any followup inquiries.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/olympic-boxer-imane-khelif-is-neither-trans-nor-male/ar-AA1oidMS?ocid=BingNewsSerp

And then this poor woman got mercilessly cyberbullied and harassed by ranks of deranged right wingers, much like the ones who post here.

I agree that this should be flagged as hateful and bigoted. But that is not the example PP posted - what PP posted is definitely Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment.

However, Freedom of Speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it includes obscenity, child pornography, [b]defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words that incite violence.[/b]

Which is why Imane Khelif actually has a basis for filing a lawsuit for libel, defamation and cyberbullying.

However, expressing general statements on issues based on one's personal beliefs is Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment. As such, even if you don't agree with them, you are obliged to tolerate them so long as they don't cross the line.

No one is obligated to "tolerate" hurtful speech and actions based on certain "beliefs".

But the problem is anything that doesn’t agree with your belief system gets labeled “hateful speech.” You can’t have a rational conversation that way. You just can’t.

False. Not “anything”, just those that denigrate and hurt others.

Should we have a rational conversation about white supremacy?

I don’t think biological men should compete in women’s sports - hateful speech or not?
I want the borders closed and money going to undocumented people used for citizens instead - hateful speech or not?

Why do you say "biological men" instead of transgender women?

They are one and the same. It doesn’t really matter which term you choose to use.

But I asked about your choice. Why did you choose one over the other?

Because when it comes to sports how the person feels is less important than their biology. The reason we separate sports into two categories is because of biology, not gender.

Yes, your first statement about "biological men" is hateful because, by your own explanation, it is aimed at diminishing the reality of transgender people.

And there it is. Science is now hateful speech.

Just your interpretation of science which ignores the science with which you don't agree.

If you can show me the science that states biological males and biological females have no physical differences in muscle mass, bone density, lung capacity, etc, I’d be happy to read it.

That's not what I am disputing. I am disputing your contention that transgender people's identity is only based on "feels".

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them

It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.

I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.

I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.

Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.

Unfortunately, we can’t discuss certain topics because they draw the bigots out of the woodwork. People who are disrespectful and throw out hateful comments as “a DiFfeReNt oPinIoN”.

The problem is comments like “biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports” is not a hateful or bigoted comment, but gets labeled as such.

+100

You would be right to get flagged as hateful and bigoted when you try and call Imane Khelif "tr@ns" and "a man in the boxing ring beating up women" when she was born female, has female on her birth certificate, grew up female, has never ever in her life been identified as anything other than female, including numerous medical exams and tests - UNTIL she beat a Russian boxer, after which the IBA, which is Russian-run and BANNED from the Olympics due to corruption, declared, WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF, that she supposedly "flunked a gender test" and has ever since been sketchy, evasive and generally non-respondent to any followup inquiries.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/olympic-boxer-imane-khelif-is-neither-trans-nor-male/ar-AA1oidMS?ocid=BingNewsSerp

And then this poor woman got mercilessly cyberbullied and harassed by ranks of deranged right wingers, much like the ones who post here.

I agree that this should be flagged as hateful and bigoted. But that is not the example PP posted - what PP posted is definitely Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment.

However, Freedom of Speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it includes obscenity, child pornography, [b]defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words that incite violence.[/b]

Which is why Imane Khelif actually has a basis for filing a lawsuit for libel, defamation and cyberbullying.

However, expressing general statements on issues based on one's personal beliefs is Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment. As such, even if you don't agree with them, you are obliged to tolerate them so long as they don't cross the line.

No one is obligated to "tolerate" hurtful speech and actions based on certain "beliefs".

But the problem is anything that doesn’t agree with your belief system gets labeled “hateful speech.” You can’t have a rational conversation that way. You just can’t.

False. Not “anything”, just those that denigrate and hurt others.

Should we have a rational conversation about white supremacy?

I don’t think biological men should compete in women’s sports - hateful speech or not?
I want the borders closed and money going to undocumented people used for citizens instead - hateful speech or not?

Why do you say "biological men" instead of transgender women?

They are one and the same. It doesn’t really matter which term you choose to use.

But I asked about your choice. Why did you choose one over the other?

Because when it comes to sports how the person feels is less important than their biology. The reason we separate sports into two categories is because of biology, not gender.

Yes, your first statement about "biological men" is hateful because, by your own explanation, it is aimed at diminishing the reality of transgender people.

And there it is. Science is now hateful speech.

Just your interpretation of science which ignores the science with which you don't agree.

If you can show me the science that states biological males and biological females have no physical differences in muscle mass, bone density, lung capacity, etc, I’d be happy to read it.

That's not what I am disputing. I am disputing your contention that transgender people's identity is only based on "feels".

It doesn’t really matter what it’s based on. If they are biologically male then the they have physical advantages over biological females. That is the only important thing when it comes to sports.

If you are alluding to differences in the brain that make them women, that still doesn’t change the biology. It’s irrelevant what makes them transgender. They still have the physical body of a male, and the advantages that come with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them

It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.

I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.

I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.

Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.

Unfortunately, we can’t discuss certain topics because they draw the bigots out of the woodwork. People who are disrespectful and throw out hateful comments as “a DiFfeReNt oPinIoN”.

The problem is comments like “biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports” is not a hateful or bigoted comment, but gets labeled as such.

+100

You would be right to get flagged as hateful and bigoted when you try and call Imane Khelif "tr@ns" and "a man in the boxing ring beating up women" when she was born female, has female on her birth certificate, grew up female, has never ever in her life been identified as anything other than female, including numerous medical exams and tests - UNTIL she beat a Russian boxer, after which the IBA, which is Russian-run and BANNED from the Olympics due to corruption, declared, WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF, that she supposedly "flunked a gender test" and has ever since been sketchy, evasive and generally non-respondent to any followup inquiries.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/olympic-boxer-imane-khelif-is-neither-trans-nor-male/ar-AA1oidMS?ocid=BingNewsSerp

And then this poor woman got mercilessly cyberbullied and harassed by ranks of deranged right wingers, much like the ones who post here.

I agree that this should be flagged as hateful and bigoted. But that is not the example PP posted - what PP posted is definitely Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment.

However, Freedom of Speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it includes obscenity, child pornography, [b]defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words that incite violence.[/b]

Which is why Imane Khelif actually has a basis for filing a lawsuit for libel, defamation and cyberbullying.

However, expressing general statements on issues based on one's personal beliefs is Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment. As such, even if you don't agree with them, you are obliged to tolerate them so long as they don't cross the line.

No one is obligated to "tolerate" hurtful speech and actions based on certain "beliefs".

But the problem is anything that doesn’t agree with your belief system gets labeled “hateful speech.” You can’t have a rational conversation that way. You just can’t.

False. Not “anything”, just those that denigrate and hurt others.

Should we have a rational conversation about white supremacy?

I don’t think biological men should compete in women’s sports - hateful speech or not?
I want the borders closed and money going to undocumented people used for citizens instead - hateful speech or not?

No. Not hateful speech. But the problem with the far left is they think EVERYTHING is hate speech if it hurts someone's feelings.

You know the best lesson I learned growing up?

Life isn't always a bowl of cherries!!!
Things don't always go the way we want them. Life isn't fair. Get over it.

Toughen up folks. Life isn't fair. Get over it. Everyone needs to get a grip.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them

It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.

I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.

I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.

Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.

Unfortunately, we can’t discuss certain topics because they draw the bigots out of the woodwork. People who are disrespectful and throw out hateful comments as “a DiFfeReNt oPinIoN”.

The problem is comments like “biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports” is not a hateful or bigoted comment, but gets labeled as such.

+100

You would be right to get flagged as hateful and bigoted when you try and call Imane Khelif "tr@ns" and "a man in the boxing ring beating up women" when she was born female, has female on her birth certificate, grew up female, has never ever in her life been identified as anything other than female, including numerous medical exams and tests - UNTIL she beat a Russian boxer, after which the IBA, which is Russian-run and BANNED from the Olympics due to corruption, declared, WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF, that she supposedly "flunked a gender test" and has ever since been sketchy, evasive and generally non-respondent to any followup inquiries.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/olympic-boxer-imane-khelif-is-neither-trans-nor-male/ar-AA1oidMS?ocid=BingNewsSerp

And then this poor woman got mercilessly cyberbullied and harassed by ranks of deranged right wingers, much like the ones who post here.

I agree that this should be flagged as hateful and bigoted. But that is not the example PP posted - what PP posted is definitely Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment.

However, Freedom of Speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it includes obscenity, child pornography, [b]defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words that incite violence.[/b]

Which is why Imane Khelif actually has a basis for filing a lawsuit for libel, defamation and cyberbullying.

However, expressing general statements on issues based on one's personal beliefs is Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment. As such, even if you don't agree with them, you are obliged to tolerate them so long as they don't cross the line.

No one is obligated to "tolerate" hurtful speech and actions based on certain "beliefs".

But the problem is anything that doesn’t agree with your belief system gets labeled “hateful speech.” You can’t have a rational conversation that way. You just can’t.

False. Not “anything”, just those that denigrate and hurt others.

Should we have a rational conversation about white supremacy?

I don’t think biological men should compete in women’s sports - hateful speech or not?
I want the borders closed and money going to undocumented people used for citizens instead - hateful speech or not?

Why do you say "biological men" instead of transgender women?

They are one and the same. It doesn’t really matter which term you choose to use.

But I asked about your choice. Why did you choose one over the other?

Because when it comes to sports how the person feels is less important than their biology. The reason we separate sports into two categories is because of biology, not gender.

Yes, your first statement about "biological men" is hateful because, by your own explanation, it is aimed at diminishing the reality of transgender people.

And there it is. Science is now hateful speech.

Just your interpretation of science which ignores the science with which you don't agree.

If you can show me the science that states biological males and biological females have no physical differences in muscle mass, bone density, lung capacity, etc, I’d be happy to read it.

That's not what I am disputing. I am disputing your contention that transgender people's identity is only based on "feels".

Dp. Can you show any quantifiable measurement that can be used to determine a person is transgender?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them

It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.

I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.

I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.

Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.

Unfortunately, we can’t discuss certain topics because they draw the bigots out of the woodwork. People who are disrespectful and throw out hateful comments as “a DiFfeReNt oPinIoN”.

The problem is comments like “biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports” is not a hateful or bigoted comment, but gets labeled as such.

+100

You would be right to get flagged as hateful and bigoted when you try and call Imane Khelif "tr@ns" and "a man in the boxing ring beating up women" when she was born female, has female on her birth certificate, grew up female, has never ever in her life been identified as anything other than female, including numerous medical exams and tests - UNTIL she beat a Russian boxer, after which the IBA, which is Russian-run and BANNED from the Olympics due to corruption, declared, WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF, that she supposedly "flunked a gender test" and has ever since been sketchy, evasive and generally non-respondent to any followup inquiries.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/olympic-boxer-imane-khelif-is-neither-trans-nor-male/ar-AA1oidMS?ocid=BingNewsSerp

And then this poor woman got mercilessly cyberbullied and harassed by ranks of deranged right wingers, much like the ones who post here.

I agree that this should be flagged as hateful and bigoted. But that is not the example PP posted - what PP posted is definitely Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment.

However, Freedom of Speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it includes obscenity, child pornography, [b]defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words that incite violence.[/b]

Which is why Imane Khelif actually has a basis for filing a lawsuit for libel, defamation and cyberbullying.

However, expressing general statements on issues based on one's personal beliefs is Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment. As such, even if you don't agree with them, you are obliged to tolerate them so long as they don't cross the line.

No one is obligated to "tolerate" hurtful speech and actions based on certain "beliefs".

But the problem is anything that doesn’t agree with your belief system gets labeled “hateful speech.” You can’t have a rational conversation that way. You just can’t.

False. Not “anything”, just those that denigrate and hurt others.

Should we have a rational conversation about white supremacy?

I don’t think biological men should compete in women’s sports - hateful speech or not?
I want the borders closed and money going to undocumented people used for citizens instead - hateful speech or not?

Why do you say "biological men" instead of transgender women?

They are one and the same. It doesn’t really matter which term you choose to use.

But I asked about your choice. Why did you choose one over the other?

Because when it comes to sports how the person feels is less important than their biology. The reason we separate sports into two categories is because of biology, not gender.

Yes, your first statement about "biological men" is hateful because, by your own explanation, it is aimed at diminishing the reality of transgender people.

And there it is. Science is now hateful speech.

Just your interpretation of science which ignores the science with which you don't agree.

If you can show me the science that states biological males and biological females have no physical differences in muscle mass, bone density, lung capacity, etc, I’d be happy to read it.

That's not what I am disputing. I am disputing your contention that transgender people's identity is only based on "feels".

It doesn’t really matter what it’s based on. If they are biologically male then the they have physical advantages over biological females. That is the only important thing when it comes to sports.

If you are alluding to differences in the brain that make them women, that still doesn’t change the biology. It’s irrelevant what makes them transgender. They still have the physical body of a male, and the advantages that come with that.

Yes, it does matter what it is based on, especially when those like you try to diminish transgender people's reality. If you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge the full reality of trans existence, then I am going to assume that your concern about sports is simply part of a larger anti-trans agenda.