The Babylon Bee's Twitter account is no longer suspended

Post by xadhominemx » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 4:44 PM UTC

fallingknife wrote: post #137

socialismisok wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "absolutely true in the scientific sense", except at the "I have an understanding of high school level biology and sociology" sense. Sex and gender are both significantly more complex than just chromosomes, genitalia, or organs. If you are interested, I'm happy to dive into a good faith discussion of where the science actually falls.

And if you want to make that argument, fine. But when people are banning those who disagree, I will reflexively side with those banned and against the people doing the banning, whether or not I agree with them.

Post by leeroyjenkins11 » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 4:45 PM UTC

socialismisok wrote: post #43

txsoftwaredev wrote: post #7

Great, they should have never been banned to begin with.

Transphobia is pretty clearly against twitters rules. They weren't really banned, they were locked out until they deleted their tweet. All they had to do was delete the tweet.

Post by pessimizer » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 4:45 PM UTC

socialismisok wrote: post #169

_aavaa_ wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Presumably previous rules involved policy teams and moderation teams and legal teams. Presumably is doing some heavily lifting here. But either way, my point stands why isn't it "group ideology". Simply because it was made by committee doesn't change the connotation used. If someone opposed to Musk's views later takes control of twitter and restores everything to the current status quo, will that also be done using…

Yes, of course it will. Plenty of historical events have a group setting the initial culture or laws, then a dictator comes in and changes them. If another dictator comes in later and reverses them, that second person is still a dictator. If Elon sells to, I dunno, Zizek, and sudden changes occur, of course I'd say the new leftist leaders were enforcing their personal ideology. Is it so hard to believe that someone c…

Post by facedpython » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 4:45 PM UTC

monkmartinez wrote: post #168

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it depends on which side you believe is more toxic. It's strange you would take the side that limiting bigotry, racism, homophobia, and transphobia is what creates toxicity.

Except both sides say the same things in different ways. The side that limits bigotry, racism, homophobia, and transphobia (as you say)... explicitly promotes bigotry against ideas they don't hold dear (alt-right, etc), racial prejudice, glorification of transgender and homosexual values. I don't care what you practice, just don't shove it in my face and tell me to love it.

Post by notacoward » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 4:46 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #135

notacoward wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure it is real, but that's not the point. A fact can be true but still be amplified far beyond its actual significance relative to other things that are also true, and that seems like what's happening here. I'm seeing a lot of people citing the exact same highly-dubious articles, which takes us further from figuring out the empirical truth on a complex set of issues. Those citations are also often accompanied by…

If you're going to call something "disinfo," that thing should at a minimum be required to be untrue.