[cannon7]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

What you call nuance manifests itself as naivety and double-speak.

Nuance is the antithesis of naivety. If only the world were so unsubtle.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Your views aren't nuanced, and saying they are nuanced does not address the fact that you consistently land on defending the people who set out to hurt or diminish the people (usually, your children) you use as shields from criticism of your own viewpoints.

I have never used my children in this way. You are clearly too lost here to see a father attempting to relate.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If you truly believe your views are nuanced and what you mean is that people don't understand your views because you are not able to communicate them correctly, that is not everyone else's fault.

Disagree. If you leave no room for subtlety, it is your fault when you can't see any shade other than black and white.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Then you're not actually ever analyzing an issue, you're just responding to the reaction regardless of what the issue is. "The internet" hasn't done anything to Reimer, and in the terms you're using, you are using CP as a proxy for "the internet" as a whole, which renders you unable to have honest, nuanced conversations about issues with real people. If you view everyone as a rage mob every time, you do yourself no favors and add nothing for anyone else.

You're saying there are no honest, nuanced and real people on CP? That's pretty insulting. Couldn't disagree more. I don't count you among them, but I think that has been made clear.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You think people on a Calgary message board (a rage mob, as you call it) criticizing a hockey player for harmful religious beliefs is a bigger issue than the actual beliefs that player holds, even when those beliefs are also consistently held by people with significantly more power than a message board holds. Doesn't that seem strange to you?

I've seen some pretty powerful people toppled for their unpopular views. I know we want to pretend the power dynamic is clearly defined, but I am not so sure.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Give me an honest answer without dodging the question and waxing poetic about "the internet" or whatever, stay on topic. Which do you think is a greater threat to a trans child: beliefs that the way they are is an inherently wrong choice they've made, or beliefs that ideas (religious or otherwise) should be available for criticism? If you could choose between giving someone power who thought one of the two things, who would you give it to?

I don't believe sexual orientation is a choice, so any belief to the contrary is quaint. But you want me to choose and I am telling you these are not mutually exclusive positions. And if it hasn't been made clear, I am not comfortable with giving anyone such powers.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Pretending we're doing anything here but criticizing a belief that does harm to people is being dishonest. You can't talk about how nuanced you are or respectful or whatever if you can't even manage to be honest in what the starting point of the conversation is.

Countless beliefs can potentially do harm. We can't banish them all. Our starting point is the entirety of human condition. You only seem to know how to apply broad brushes when what we really need is a thicker more robust canvas. A middling goaltender refusing to wear a jersey shouldn't be a crisis of culture resulting in deep wounds.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I also don't know why you need to go back to the idea of inclusivity being unlimited as someone who is apparently close to people who are going to struggle with the negative impacts of a culture that is not fully inclusive of who they are. Being inclusive of views or beliefs that are, by nature, not inclusive, is not inclusive. That's a good example of nuance and why it's hard to buy you having "nuanced" beliefs when you can't or don't want to recognize the nuance that inclusivity requires.

Ok, so what we really mean is we're only inclusive of those who agree with us. Sounds pretty exclusive to me. And we only seem to be concerned with negative impacts to some groups and not so much others. But that is because the groups we don't care about are not inclusive enough for our liking. Seems pretty circular. Am I being too subtle?

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Which do you think is less helpful to the "inclusive mission": the idea that someone's biology is inherently wrong, a sinful choice, or makes them lesser... or the idea that those beliefs should be met with strong criticism? I doubt you'll answer this question straight either, but food for thought then I guess.

I've already established that I think criticism is fine, even strong criticism. You've somehow conflated that with what I don't think to be helpful to the mission. Par for the course, I guess. But whether it is helpful or not, it should be allowed. Bad ideas should be allowed because that is how good ideas are tested. You want me to choose, black or white. And I'm trying to show you the spectrum of light. But this may not be straightforward enough for you.