301–310 of 505 posts
Why was it suspended in the first place?
My Twitter feed is full of “There are only two genders. Test” And links to medical papers on myocarditis. Two things that would get you banned quick.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a compilation from verified accounts only: https://i.imgur.com/nkN539Q.png Vast majority of these accounts were never banned and many of the tweets are still up today.
I'll take a look when I'm not on mobile. My guess is that I'll say many of these should be deleted.
Some should be deleted. "End white people" is arguably a call to violence akin to what gets the right banned.
Some lack context. The first one, for instance, still exists but it's a reply to a tweet that doesn't. It's possible this is sarcasm.
Some are clearly in bounds, like, what's Jack May's tweet saying that should be against the rules? (Third column). Or Lena Dunham arguing that we're not causing the extinction of white men? Or someone saying, "can you cite a recent example of a figure expressing racism against white people?"
And then there are all the "I hate white people" comments. Personally we're likely to disagree about them. I think it's important to contextualize history and who has power when you moderate. Punching up is different than punching down, in my opinion. It's different to say "I hate the wealthy" and "I hate the poor". "I hate a minority" is different than "I hate the majority [who have a history of being oppressors]". I think it's really tacky for these folks to tweet this, and it's not something I'd tweet, so for me it falls into a grey area. I can reasonably see your argument that these are the same as, e.g., "I hate gay people" because it's expressing hate based on identity.
If Twitter went the way of saying "expressing hate towards an group based on traits they cannot control is against the rules" I'd say that I don't think that's nuanced enough, but I could live with it.
Thanks for sharing a source, it was interesting to dive in here.
I believe Babylon Bee should've been suspended not because of any moral issue but because Twitter was not a governmental entity, and thus had any right to set policies as preconditions for its users' use of the service. No existing social media company is a public communications carrier. I wouldn't argue for the DNC having a right to have a Parler account, either.
I'm a poor choice to defend being transgender to those who choose to be biased against it, because I dislike being placed in the position to argue. I just don't see it as fruitful because recent science seems to suggest it's useless: people don't change their mind about things they view as political unless personally affected by a one-on-one interaction.
I found these [1][2] to be a far better argument scientifically. Sociologically, I find the concept's existed forever and a day, such as one of the Roman emperors, the historical role of eunuchs and two-spirits, or even more quiet acceptances in families. It's not new. What's new is that the focus that was first on black people and then on gay people has been shifted to transgender people (although certainly the first two groups still suffer persecution - but are not now the continual topic of the Republican Party's admonitions and legislation).
As for a lot of what's controversial, it's never been before. Name changes have been a routine legal process for decades now. And, honestly, it's not a matter of asking for anything special in 99.9% of situations, it's just a matter of treating someone with respect and kindness, or at least with the absence of hostility.
My own personal feelings are not really relevant, but I will say briefly, for what it's worth, that everything inside me tells me I am a woman - and I am a self-perceptive person and have done a lot of self-questioning since I realized. The phrase 'misgendering' is a nice, obscure term - what it is, is actively, hostilely choosing to call someone something that hurts them. If you were a male and not the epitome of machismo, do you remember being a child and being called the feminine version of your name on a playground as a taunt? In many cases, most found that effective in hurting them. Why? You were being misgendered.
I'm merely presenting all of the above because no one else trans has appeared in this thread yet. I don't really wish to "fight" the position but I do feel responsible for presenting a viewpoint alternate to everything that's been discussed here already.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about humans who produce no gametes? Are they sexless?
Yes. For organisms that aren't capable of sexual reproduction, it doesn't make sense to talk about sex.
Which restrooms should they use?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A closest analogy would be the Babylon Bee making a joke about how you are not bipolar, it's all just in your head, or a satire about researchers trying to cure bipolar disorder instead of cancer, a real disease, and those would be fine, but then they would insist that it is true, your bipolar disorder is made up, and the CEO of Babylon Bee would go on Tucker Carlson's show and they would laugh about you being a whin…
>> the CEO of Babylon Bee would go on Tucker Carlson's show and they would laugh about you being a whiny, lazy leftist Then the Babylon Bee would publish "After Dismissing Warnings From His Mother, Tucker Carlson's Face Is Now Stuck That Way", which is hilarious since I knew before clicking the link which face it would be. They make fun of everybody. -- https://babylonbee.com/news/after-dismissing-warnings-from-h...
https://babylonbee.com/news/man-pretending-to-be-woman-visit...
"OMG OMG OMG Mr. President, how aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrree you? EEEEEEEEEE!" said pretend woman Mulvaney in a perfect impression of a totally normal woman. "I'm so, so, so, so, so, so excited to talk to you about important issues concerning very, very young little girls just like me!"
Meanwhile this one is just shamelessly pushing conservative misinformation. They even call for action at the end suggesting a propaganda book for children from the Libertas Institute, a libertarian think tank.
https://babylonbee.com/news/the-top-15-greatest-threats-to-d...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Babylon Bee isn't under house arrest. This analogy is absurd. They weren't allowed to target hate towards a specific, named individual on their Twitter account. Everything else they were saying was more or less ok. And they still had plenty of other outlets, including their very successful website. This is like a single book publisher telling Galileo, "we won't print this one page, but the rest of the book is ok".
If I recall correctly, they were suspended for saying that that specific named individual one man of the Year award. That doesn't seem very hateful, although it may seem derisive. There is a difference. Did it go beyond that?
Reach and influence are important, because they impact the magnitude of what a derisive comment can do to a target.
You saying, "lol, man!" In your living room has no reach, it won't cause harm. The Bee saying it has huge reach, and when aimed at a specific minority individual can lead to serious harm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. But Twitter has said "we want to make sure that we have trans voices on our platform, so in the interest of a broader marketplace of ideas, we're going to say no to one particular idea - making fun of trans people, who typically face a much higher level of violence, rejection, discrimination, and hate than most".
If Babylon Bee makes a joke about trans people how is that removing trans voices from the platform? If making a joke about a group is the same as encouraging violence or whatever then you can't make any jokes about people.
It's just a shitty experience.
For what it is worth, I am a trans person. I believe Babylon Bee should've been suspended not because of any moral issue but because Twitter was not a governmental entity, and thus had any right to set policies as preconditions for its users' use of the service. No existing social media company is a public communications carrier. I wouldn't argue for the DNC having a right to have a Parler account, either. I'm a poor…
Using a powerful tech tool to shut off one side of a debate has led to young girls being injured for life trying to compete with men in sports like volleyball. Or cutting their breasts off when they are 15 because there is no other side to argue against it.