3 ms·

Many harms are very subjective, the application of the law depends on many subjective factors, for instance, as does almost any account of justice. To say somet

Many harms are very subjective, the application of the law depends on many subjective factors, for instance, as does almost any account of justice. To say something is subjective (and imply therefore be discarded, or it is invalid) is rubbish thinking. Just as with many other phrases, "men aren't women" isn't simply a clear expression of fact, it has an ideological message or meaning behind it, just as 4chan's famous "it's OK to be white" wasn't merely an affirmation of a fact very few (if anyone) doubted, it was designed to provoke a response: if challenged, the proponent could reply with "so you're saying it's not OK?". To frame it as "look how silly these rules are!" without taking into account possible context(s) and intentions seems disingenuous - I have a very hard time believing that someone (even on HN) could make such a statement in good faith.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
erikpukinskis 8y ago
I don’t think the rules are silly. I think they’re subjective. For what it’s worth, I think interventions to make Twitter feel safer for trans people are important. I’m sorry I said something that made you feel otherwise. I would prefer to do it in a way that women’s rights advocates can still do their work, but that’s probably impossible in the current climate. Safe spaces require a formal hierarchy of identities so you can resolve these issues. Either trans rights come first or uterus havers’s rights do. My preference would be that Twitter allows you to choose your mode of governance, so you can browse on “safe for trans people” mode or “safe for women” or “safe for conservatives” or whatever mode you prefer. We probably need multiple versions of each since there’s variation even within these categories. I don’t think there’s any way to do this within liberalism. It has to be an anarchist solution. It’s a mistake to think there’s a good universal answer.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

erikpukinskis 8y ago

I don’t think the rules are silly. I think they’re subjective. For what it’s worth, I think interventions to make Twitter feel safer for trans people are important. I’m sorry I said something that made you feel otherwise. I would prefer to do it in a way that women’s rights advocates can still do their work, but that’s probably impossible in the current climate. Safe spaces require a formal hierarchy of identities so you can resolve these issues. Either trans rights come first or uterus havers’s rights do. My preference would be that Twitter allows you to choose your mode of governance, so you can browse on “safe for trans people” mode or “safe for women” or “safe for conservatives” or whatever mode you prefer. We probably need multiple versions of each since there’s variation even within these categories. I don’t think there’s any way to do this within liberalism. It has to be an anarchist solution. It’s a mistake to think there’s a good universal answer.