Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reddit is banning any Aimee Challenor mention. UK public figure and Reddit admin

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 415 posts

Re: Reddit is banning any Aimee Challenor mention. UK public figure and Reddit admin

#391

Post by implements »

howinteresting wrote: post #388
zozbot234 wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, I don't present as a stereotypicallly feminine woman. ...But my body clearly needs to be estrogen-dominant to work well The stated purpose of feminizing/masculinizing hormone therapy is specifically to alter secondary sexual characteristics in a feminizing or masculinizing direction, respectively - so yours seems to be a comparatively uncommon use of such HT. Given that "medical gatekeeping" is merely a fact of…

??? I'm aware of what hormones do, I did plenty of research before getting on them. I take hormones so that my body is feminized, which I like. But I don't present as a stereotypically feminine woman in terms of long hair, dress or makeup. I'm not sure why that is so hard to understand. I'm usually perceived as a gender-nonconforming woman, which is how I'd like to be perceived as. The only reason people like me are…

> I'm usually perceived as a gender-nonconforming woman, which is how I'd like to be perceived as.

What do you think is the psychological cause of not wishing to be recognised as a gender-nonconforming transwoman?

What is the identity difference between woman and transwoman?

Re: Reddit is banning any Aimee Challenor mention. UK public figure and Reddit admin

#393

Post by cwkoss »

Symbiote wrote: post #137

I think the unwelcome article is probably this one, since it is easily found with a Google search suggestion: "Aimee Challenor G[raham Linehan]". NB the final picture is Challenor dressed as an infant (dress + teddy bear). Most other images are cartoon drawings from fetish/furry sites. https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/ashton-challenor-the-bo... (I'm posting this link as it seems important to the discussion. I'll…

Aren't like 10% of all sysadmins furries? People controlling internet spaces liking weird (legal) porn seems unsurprising and not something anyone should care about.

Is there anything more damning against Aimee besides "she seems to have some unusual sexual preferences"? I find the idea that "this person likes cartoon animals in diapers" leads to the conclusion "and thus is a danger to children" seems like a stretch.

Hiring her dad seems like bad judgement, but she was 21 and it doesn't seem like there is evidence she was procuring victims or anything like that.

Graham Linehan is like the UK Tucker Carlson of hating trans people (note all the confusing misgendering in this article). Accusations from him should be taken with a large grain of salt.

Re: Reddit is banning any Aimee Challenor mention. UK public figure and Reddit admin

#394

Post by dang »

ric2b wrote: post #372
dang wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Users are flagging them. The only thing moderators have done is decline to turn off the flags. We turn off flags sometimes when (a) the article contains significant new information ( https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... ) and (b) it can support a substantive HN discussion. Neither of those seems true here so I don't think it's a hard call. There have been countless threads on the generic to…

The fact that this is being done to cover up the past of a specific person who's an employee of reddit strikes me as novel, weren't the previous examples about much more general topics like covid denial?

It may be novel but I don't see that it's interesting in HN's sense of the word (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). There's a difference between the intensely-interesting quality of sensational, exciting stories, and the intellectually-interesting quality of deeper, more substantive stories. The latter are what HN is supposed to be for.

When I looked in on the discussions that were going on about this last night, they were shockingly bad flamewars about all the expected generic issues, so precisely the kind of thing we don't want here. Everything I've seen so far confirms that this story is an intense drama involving specific individuals (not just the one who shall or shall not be named, but whoever made the decisions that stirred up the outrage) that doesn't have much to teach us in general. Its primary value to HN seems to me as a good example for calibrating where to draw the ontopicness line. A teachable moment, as they used to say.

Re: Reddit is banning any Aimee Challenor mention. UK public figure and Reddit admin

#395

Post by nickalaso »

And this post has been flagged too, presumably by some group that is sharing the link internally, targeting the spread of this information as if it was a threat to them.

There has to be some sociological phenomenon that explains these kinds of events, and the strange group-think hivemind warfare type behavior that is now commonplace on all social media, across the entire political spectrum.

Does anyone have reading recommendations? This kind of thing fascinates me.

Re: Reddit is banning any Aimee Challenor mention. UK public figure and Reddit admin

#396

Post by HoolaBoola »

debacle wrote: post #248
sonthonax wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's such an incredibly vile article, it pretty much amounts to cyberstalking. It's pretty disgusting how he morally grandstands after digging out the fetish content of a really troubled 15 year old: > Whilst we might recognise that Aimee Challenor is a tragic victim in this mess, we must remember the positions of power and influence he held and how quickly and easily he reached them. The Spectator is equally vile…

It seems to me that the author is trying to highlight the person in question's extreme privilege. Were it not for Challenor's father, it seems like this person may not have had the opportunities that they do.

Given that the author is Glinner, a notorious transphobe (who has been banned from pretty much every even somewhat sensible platform for that), I very much doubt he cares at all about anything except that the person in question is a trans woman.

Glinner is awful, and no one should ever read anything by him.

Re: Reddit is banning any Aimee Challenor mention. UK public figure and Reddit admin

#397

Post by DominikD »

Quillbert182 wrote: post #20
DominikD wrote: post #10

Someone was banned from Reddit for linking to an article dead naming a trans woman. Did I get this right? If I did, what's the problem here, really?

It's not just that, they have banned any mention of her name. You literally cannot even type her name in private messages without the message at least getting deleted, if you aren't banned.

I seriously doubt that. This is a claim I've seen in many places (unsubstantiated) but I find it hard to believe that her name is triggering bans. Dead name? Sure, I can believe that and, again, I have no problem with this.

Re: Reddit is banning any Aimee Challenor mention. UK public figure and Reddit admin

#398

Post by DominikD »

jackric wrote: post #36
DominikD wrote: post #10

Someone was banned from Reddit for linking to an article dead naming a trans woman. Did I get this right? If I did, what's the problem here, really?

If I write an article today about someone who transitions next year, am I (and all articles) supposed to spend time updating it? Wikipedia is a different story

You could but you, obviously, don't have to. The problem is not about the content though, it's about linking to it. So someone linking to this old article if there are recent, better sources could very well be doing it maliciously.

Think of it this way: if someone linked to an old article that used some slurs that used to be mainstream-acceptable at some point but aren't any more, would you feel uncomfortable? I hope you would. The reason people don't have this visceral reaction when it comes to trans people has a lot to do with broader lack of understanding of non-cis minorities.

There's an obvious problem with figuring out what the intentions of someone writing are. And we absolutely can't tell if e.g. someone dead naming is doing it on purpose or not. Not knowing and willing to learn is absolutely fine. But since you can't tell oblivious from malicious, you have two options: ignore assuming innocence or ban assuming malice.

Internet discourse is not courtroom, you don't have to assume innocence and it's absolutely fine to have a higher standard for communication on Reddit. Not that I think Reddit does, but it could. ;) So, again, what should you do with misgendering or dead naming? Since I sympathize with minorities and the oppressed, I would ban. But I'm absolutely sure many, many people would find a way to label what I'd considered hate speech "a freedom of speech issue" so I'm not at all surprised that this is causing a stir over on Reddit.

Re: Reddit is banning any Aimee Challenor mention. UK public figure and Reddit admin

#399

Post by DominikD »

iams wrote: post #27
DominikD wrote: post #10

Someone was banned from Reddit for linking to an article dead naming a trans woman. Did I get this right? If I did, what's the problem here, really?

I'm not sure if you are trolling, but the article wasn't "dead naming a trans woman". It was an article in a mainstream uk magazine about a uk political party where her preferred name was mentioned

Mainstream UK press has serious problem with TERFs, so my question was genuine: is my understanding correct, that the issue stems from someone linking to misgendering, dead naming article?

Re: Reddit is banning any Aimee Challenor mention. UK public figure and Reddit admin

#400

Post by DreamScatter »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #309
kortilla wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Restriction of hate speech is not „moral authoritarianism“, it’s a good protection mechanism. Those are the exact same things. One is just the perspective of the oppressor and one is the perspective of the oppressed. > it’s a not well-thought idea Why? You give no evidence to support your argument as to how restricted speech makes makes things “more fair and democratic”.

>Those are the exact same things No, they are not. "Moral authoritarianism" is a judgmental label, putting equality sign between a democratic mechanism of protecting human rights and authoritarian rule, which is by definition undemocratic. A logical fallacy hidden behind a There's no place in a constructive discussion for such language, because it is not just untrue, but also offensive. >Why? There's plenty of histor…

There is even more evidence that countries with less free speech are more authoritarian. For example, consider Nazi Germany, here is an excerpt:

> When the Nazis came to power in 1933, the German constitution guaranteed freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Through decrees and laws, the Nazis abolished these civil rights and destroyed German democracy. Starting in 1934, it was illegal to criticize the Nazi government. Even telling a joke about Hitler was considered treachery.

Sounds like you are on the side of the nazi's, given that you support abolishing civil rights.

Post reply on HN