MyMindIsLikeAnOcean

Can’t answer this without a better story and some history for both of you.

The boiler plate answer here is too fast…but there’s no correct answer.

I’ll preface by repeating what you said: we don’t know what the OP is talking about.

But, yeah, very often when somebody is complaining about free speech…they don’t mean free speech. What they mean is that their opinion should be accepted without criticism or consequence.

What this outlook has resulted in, in many places in the contemporary western world (the world I’m familiar with), is that hate speech, aggressive speech and threatening speech are protected - even encouraged - while the speech of those functionally suppressed or intimidated is ignored or attacked.

My opinion is that conservative speech has become a huge problem. It’s ironically social media bubbles that make so-called conservatives believe that their once marginalized opinions are more popular or legitimate than they are. I believe that conservatives want everybody to be forced to listen to their opinions until they agree with them or face consequences if they don’t.

This might seem like a troll to some…but it’s a legit ask.

Contemporary western conservatism, especially on the internet, is very often using liberal coded language to present or give cover to inflexible ideology.

Give us an example what you’re referring to…your comment doesn’t mean a lot of without any context.

“Freedom of speech” is a fraught concept. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean one must accept the views of another, for example. Freedom of speech is also accepting reaction to your speech. Each speaker is “owed” whatever freedom you’re proposing.

So your logic is that because it’s theoretically possible for the system to be “gamed”…the option shouldn’t be available for anyone? SMH

Uber aren’t saints…they’re just reacting to behaviour that’s already happening: A customer can already “vet” their driver and choose somebody with lots of ratings and their preferred (declared) gender etc. This option isn’t creating any additional harm…all it’s doing is adding a filter…and therefore a niche for women who want to provide rides to females and vice versa.

A criminal lying about who they are won’t be exasperated or eliminated with this new option. There’s no downside.

Thank for being honest.

My angle is I have a few friends who’ve been assaulted in cabs and Ubers. Yeah…they were smashed and engaging in risky behaviour…but they didn’t deserve what happened. I’m all about harm reduction.

Sure…some edge cases will always game the system…but I also can’t think of a reason not to try to address a problem.

Focus on the content instead of the diss.

No, women being able to request female drivers doesn’t put them more at risk. It’s puts them much less at risk. Why are you making things up? You fantasizing about “dark scenarios” doesn’t make them likely.

If you have any friends…chances are you have one or more that have been sexually assaulted after hiring a ride…that’s how common it is.

Right. Water is also wet. Why are we saying things everybody knows?

If you have any friends…odds are one or more have been sexually assaulted after hiring a ride….that’s how common it is. It’s reasonable to give women a less a dangerous option.