GP's is not claiming that overweight or transgender people are inhuman. That statement is exactly the type of extremist stance that is causing this debate in the first place.
Hell, they aren't even claiming that they are in favor of the points mentioned. Just that it's a bad idea for democratic society to shut down such discussion.
The problem with those discussions is that they tend to devolve in shouting matches.
Why is that? It's because this really is about people's feelings and sentiments on those topics. And those emotions range wildly from totally supportive to indifferent to deeply threatened.
While that's all completely valid, voicing your emotions unfiltered on the public Internet in front of an audience of anonymous millions comes with plenty of caveats. It's pretty much like standing up in a crowded, public town square and ranting unfiltered about how you feel personally in no uncertain terms. Or, more insidiously, taking on an appearance of reason and rationality, trying to hide an intention of eliciting an emotional response from others that validates your own feelings.
Many people don't take issue with the topic, they take issue with your behaviour. And they will show you their disapproval.
Free speech allows you to voice whatever is on your mind, but that doesn't force others to listen to you or give you a platform. Democracy doesn't imply that any and all behaviour is to be tolerated.
In real life, such behaviour is relegated to backroom clubs, shady bars and questionable small organizations. The Internet unavoidably hosts their digital equivalent. Moreover, as you can hide behind an anonymous handle on the Internet, move between different platforms fluidly, easily find a platform between thousands that will cater to you,... all of that from the comfort of your couch, really lowers the bar further.
The danger in all of this is when all of those digitally pent up negative emotions spill over in public life and starts affecting the very underpinnings that provide security and stability to each and every member society, regardless of who they are.
> It's because this really is about people's feelings and sentiments on those topics. And those emotions range wildly from totally supportive to indifferent to deeply threatened.
There's another dimension on top of even this. Nuance and shortcuts to commonly-held understanding, provided by body language and intonation, readily used in spoken discussion, are completely unavailable online. Typing out full, unspoken context for argument points takes far too long. So online discussions distill these deeply, deeply held feelings into a few sentences, which leads to oversimplification of one's own argument, and reductio ad absurdum of the other person's. So while "the internet" gives us this "wonderful" opportunity to discuss things that matter in an open and socialized way, it subtly channels such discussions into the most-hyperbolic form of "discussion" by nature of it being typed. Look no further than Twitter for the "best" example of this phenomenon. #SocialMediaIsDestroyingSociety
It's obvious to anyone who reads them that it doesn't even slightly relate to what anyone here has said (not letting someone participate in sporting events where they have a biological advantage is not exactly calling them pigs) but people post them anyway.
Is there some sort of costly signalling of membership of some social group (woke group?) going on?
Simple, I like to be solidaristic and find the _need_ per se to discuss those topics antagonistic to solidarity. I'm not signalling my virtue, but then again, you're free to call my attitude whatever you want, it just demonstrates our values are entirely distinct.
Problem is you end up forming a link in people's minds between views like yours and strawmen, causing distrust of people like you which will damage your cause.
If you want to read current psychological research on this I'd suggest this paper. It explores the personality attributes of people who virtue signal and what they have to gain from it in current society, and why that wasn't the case before. The personality types are Machiavellianism, Narcissism, Psychopathy - also referred to as the dark triad.
Reddit has plenty of discussion about violently overthrowing, imprisoning or murdering anyone anyone who is currently "too rich" like Jeff Bezos. Strangely the American redditor seem unaware that the rest of the world might also claim their wealth.
