6 ms·

@iconjack Here is your reply: I never aimed to give a reason for that. But since you asked so nicely let me explain to you from first principle: Twitter is ma

@iconjack Here is your reply: I never aimed to give a reason for that. But since you asked so nicely let me explain to you from first principle: Twitter is maintaining a social networking website. A space where anger and other emotions easily are amplified. Since we decided as a society to leave the control of this place to for-profit companies and not as a kind of public utility those companies are allowed to process use us with the same standard other companies are allowed to process their clients. While Twitter can discontinue service for arbitrary reasons it choose to do so in this case because a prominent person reported about their happiness with a medical proceagus was purposefully called a name and pronoun to invalidate Elliotts (and others) identity. While doubting someone's identity is not always harassment or hateful in this case this judgement seems sensible to me. Telling a stranger "You are not a chess player" without further context is not hateful. Repeatedly telling someone "You are not a chess player" can be harassment (if and only if the person doesn't want to be called that). But how do we deal with the case where a group of people coordinate and tell someone "You are not chess player" once each? It gets murky. It is harassment but hard to proof. However we as society have agreed that if a person called someone "You are not a chess player because you are a women" that this is harassment . You could justify that by showing a group exists which acts coordinated and tells female chess players that "You are not a chess player" and that the persons who say that act as part of that group. As society we agreed that calling trans people by their old identity repeatedly is a thing they do not want (unless specified by them otherwise) and is therefore harassment. Here i apply the argument that there is a group of people coordinated by common media consumption that calls trans people by their old gender. That JBP acts as part of that group can be established through multiple means such as past conduct however the additional claim that the elective operation a doctor performed on Elliot is illegal shows to me that he acting as part of such a group. I hope that I have convincingly established that JBPs message was harassing. In addition JBPs actions give strong reason why one might think he has an intense dislike for trans people and is acting motivated by hate. We've established that JBP acted hatefully, harassing another person for their gender and gender identity. This is an action banned on Twitter's terms of service. I hope you learned something from this.

_-david-_ 4y ago
>As society we agreed that calling trans people by their old identity repeatedly is a thing they do not want (unless specified by them otherwise) and is therefore harassment. Society has not agreed to this, which is why this is such a controversial issue. Also, just doing something somebody doesn't like is not harassment. I'm sure Peterson isn't a fan of being called a bigot and everything else he is called every day on Twitter. Should that count as harassment? People have an "intense dislike" towards him. People who say mean things to him often times are "acting motivated by hate".
- freemint 4y ago
  > Society has not agreed to this, which is why this is such a controversial issue. I am sorry you have not realized that Trans people do not like being called by their old identity. Would you like to argue why trans people like to be called by their old identity repeatedly? I encourage you to ask trans people whether they would find it harassing if they are repeatedly called by their old identity. I do not see how this can be contentious or controversial beyond people acting obtuse. > Also, just doing something somebody doesn't like is not harassment. Definition Cambridge dictionary tagged LAW for harassment: > illegal behaviour towards a person that causes mental or emotional suffering, which includes repeated unwanted contacts without a reasonable purpose, insults, threats, touching, or offensive language Was JBP speech illegal? We will only find out if Elliot sues and the appeals process has ended. It certainly meets other definitions from the same dictionary: > behaviour that annoys or upsets someone So, yes. Doing something someone doesn't like can literally be all it takes for it to be harassment. > Should that count as harassment? Yes, it might be harassment (in a legal sense). If the behaviour upsets him yes it is in the normal sense. The behaviour is also toxic. Twitter can (as it is currently private company) mostly decide it's own rules of moderation without input from society. It decided to give "race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease" special protection. Freedom from being called a bigot is not afforded, neither is political association protected (that would cover calling someone a bigot because he is a conservative). Twitter due to limited moderation resources has to restrict itself to moderating the important or often reported cases. In my experience toxic replies on Twitter are hidden under a spoiler in Twitter, below all other comments. What can JBP do about it if it upsets him: Statements of fact are usually excluded from laws on speech restrictions in the western world. He has any right to sue someone that this is harassment. He would just risk ending up with a situation where a court confirms that one might call him a bigot.

_-david-_ 4y ago

>As society we agreed that calling trans people by their old identity repeatedly is a thing they do not want (unless specified by them otherwise) and is therefore harassment. Society has not agreed to this, which is why this is such a controversial issue. Also, just doing something somebody doesn't like is not harassment. I'm sure Peterson isn't a fan of being called a bigot and everything else he is called every day on Twitter. Should that count as harassment? People have an "intense dislike" towards him. People who say mean things to him often times are "acting motivated by hate".

freemint 4y ago
> Society has not agreed to this, which is why this is such a controversial issue. I am sorry you have not realized that Trans people do not like being called by their old identity. Would you like to argue why trans people like to be called by their old identity repeatedly? I encourage you to ask trans people whether they would find it harassing if they are repeatedly called by their old identity. I do not see how this can be contentious or controversial beyond people acting obtuse. > Also, just doing something somebody doesn't like is not harassment. Definition Cambridge dictionary tagged LAW for harassment: > illegal behaviour towards a person that causes mental or emotional suffering, which includes repeated unwanted contacts without a reasonable purpose, insults, threats, touching, or offensive language Was JBP speech illegal? We will only find out if Elliot sues and the appeals process has ended. It certainly meets other definitions from the same dictionary: > behaviour that annoys or upsets someone So, yes. Doing something someone doesn't like can literally be all it takes for it to be harassment. > Should that count as harassment? Yes, it might be harassment (in a legal sense). If the behaviour upsets him yes it is in the normal sense. The behaviour is also toxic. Twitter can (as it is currently private company) mostly decide it's own rules of moderation without input from society. It decided to give "race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease" special protection. Freedom from being called a bigot is not afforded, neither is political association protected (that would cover calling someone a bigot because he is a conservative). Twitter due to limited moderation resources has to restrict itself to moderating the important or often reported cases. In my experience toxic replies on Twitter are hidden under a spoiler in Twitter, below all other comments. What can JBP do about it if it upsets him: Statements of fact are usually excluded from laws on speech restrictions in the western world. He has any right to sue someone that this is harassment. He would just risk ending up with a situation where a court confirms that one might call him a bigot.