5 ms·

> 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

> 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
> 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? Which has nothing to do with societal acceptance? Plenty of people don't like what others say, but that has nothing to do with acceptance. The majority of Americans reject the concept of trans. One poll I saw showed the percentage of people accepting it was declining. I couldn't find, but I think it was Pew. >I encourage you to ask trans people whether they would find it harassing if they are repeatedly called by their old identity. And I encourage you to read what I write. I am talking about acceptance not what you should or shouldn't do. >I do not see how this can be contentious or controversial beyond people acting obtuse. It is easy to see how it is controversial. Some people do not believe it is possible to be trans. They believe in a gender binary. Perhaps you are the one being obtuse if you don't see how it could controversial? >So, yes. Doing something someone doesn't like can literally be all it takes for it to be 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. I guess we have a fundamental difference in opinion on the definition of harassment. I don't think just saying something mean on Twitter to somebody is harassment. >What can JBP do about it if it upsets him Peterson obviously won't do this. He believes people should be free to call others bigots regardless if they are a bigot or not.
- freemint 4y ago
  Wow there is a lot of confusion in here. I'd read what you said and try to address it compactly but in a steel manned way. > Some people do not believe it is possible to be trans. They believe in a gender binary. Trans people do not violate the gender binary. They were the one and want to be the other. Non-binary people is the label for people who violate the gender binary. There are people who want transition to non binary state but that is a minority of Trans people. What many of them believe in is that a soul has a sex and that God makes no mistake when assigning souls to bodys. So they believe to be Trans is to act against Gods will. > The majority of Americans reject the concept of trans. One poll I saw showed the percentage of people accepting it was declining. I couldn't find, but I think it was Pew. I also found no such poll either. The polls i found for the US very a lot on the question being asked. Trans people in the military, strong support. Trans athletes not so much. Also why focus this on the US? Elliot Page and Jordan B Peterson are both Canadian. A country where there is a solid support for trans people at least since the 2010s. So it is not controversial there at all. In fact the complete Bill C16 stuff from Jordan B Peterson was him drawing attention to the fact that he disagreed with the direction his society was taking. His stance against the Bill was controversial. So i do not see how i am obtuse here talking about (a potential legal matter between) two Canadians and applying Canadian standards. > I guess we have a fundamental difference in opinion on the definition of harassment. Your definition differs with the country where the legal system would settle whether it is harassment. > And I encourage you to read what I write. I am talking about acceptance not what you should or shouldn't do. The only thing you wrote to me on the matter was: > Society has not agreed to this, which is why this is such a controversial issue. Where i interpreted "this" to mean "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)" as you refer to my standard of harassment later explicitly. > Also, just doing something somebody doesn't like is not harassment. You will not be able to find survey even under evangelical Christians which denies that " calling trans people by their old identity repeatedly is a thing they (Trans people in context of the original quote) do not want". This is statement of observation. Evangelicals are aware of this they do in fact do the opposite to harass trans people sometimes. Now that i have taken apart what you wrote at the point you were replying to me, accusing me not to read, tell me: Is it agreed and non controversial that "Trans people don't want to be called by their previous gender"?
yucky 4y ago
>I am sorry you have not realized that Trans people do not like being called by their old identity. As long as we also extend this reasoning to cover the virulent anti-white rhetoric all over Twitter which many people don't like...but the picking and choosing of what sort of "bigotry" is ok, is why you see people taking issue.
- freemint 4y ago
  Anti-white racism is still racism, yes. I can not recall the last time i saw an example of that. I can recall conversations about Anti White politics though, like undoing the effects of red lining. Which would attempt to cure consequences of an Anti Black racism a little (you can believe that the money spent will not be enough to undo those damages at all). Anti White often means "not maintaining or even reducing the historic effects of pro white racicm". Since they seem to be wide spread in your feed, i could have a look at some examples you send my way in the next 30 hours.
  - yucky 4y ago
    There are thousands to choose from, sift through one of the many tags flagging instances of it (most of which get no punishment) - https://twitter.com/search?q=%23antiwhite https://twitter.com/search?q=%23antiwhite Or for a more scholarly analysis with data - https://quillette.com/2018/08/17/a-closer-look-at-anti-white-rhetoric/ https://quillette.com/2018/08/17/a-closer-look-at-anti-white...
    - freemint 4y ago
      There is nothing scholarly about that article: i did the experiment here are my results: https://pastebin.pl/view/d3409b6b https://pastebin.pl/view/d3409b6b Nothing burger. Thank you for making me spend 100 minutes.
      - yucky 4y ago
        The funny thing is I knew you would ignore all of the anti-white vitriol posted all over the first link, and my original comment called it out ahead of time. But this is HN and I wanted to be more polite so I let you show yourself instead :)

_-david-_ 4y ago

> 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? Which has nothing to do with societal acceptance? Plenty of people don't like what others say, but that has nothing to do with acceptance. The majority of Americans reject the concept of trans. One poll I saw showed the percentage of people accepting it was declining. I couldn't find, but I think it was Pew. >I encourage you to ask trans people whether they would find it harassing if they are repeatedly called by their old identity. And I encourage you to read what I write. I am talking about acceptance not what you should or shouldn't do. >I do not see how this can be contentious or controversial beyond people acting obtuse. It is easy to see how it is controversial. Some people do not believe it is possible to be trans. They believe in a gender binary. Perhaps you are the one being obtuse if you don't see how it could controversial? >So, yes. Doing something someone doesn't like can literally be all it takes for it to be 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. I guess we have a fundamental difference in opinion on the definition of harassment. I don't think just saying something mean on Twitter to somebody is harassment. >What can JBP do about it if it upsets him Peterson obviously won't do this. He believes people should be free to call others bigots regardless if they are a bigot or not.

freemint 4y ago
Wow there is a lot of confusion in here. I'd read what you said and try to address it compactly but in a steel manned way. > Some people do not believe it is possible to be trans. They believe in a gender binary. Trans people do not violate the gender binary. They were the one and want to be the other. Non-binary people is the label for people who violate the gender binary. There are people who want transition to non binary state but that is a minority of Trans people. What many of them believe in is that a soul has a sex and that God makes no mistake when assigning souls to bodys. So they believe to be Trans is to act against Gods will. > The majority of Americans reject the concept of trans. One poll I saw showed the percentage of people accepting it was declining. I couldn't find, but I think it was Pew. I also found no such poll either. The polls i found for the US very a lot on the question being asked. Trans people in the military, strong support. Trans athletes not so much. Also why focus this on the US? Elliot Page and Jordan B Peterson are both Canadian. A country where there is a solid support for trans people at least since the 2010s. So it is not controversial there at all. In fact the complete Bill C16 stuff from Jordan B Peterson was him drawing attention to the fact that he disagreed with the direction his society was taking. His stance against the Bill was controversial. So i do not see how i am obtuse here talking about (a potential legal matter between) two Canadians and applying Canadian standards. > I guess we have a fundamental difference in opinion on the definition of harassment. Your definition differs with the country where the legal system would settle whether it is harassment. > And I encourage you to read what I write. I am talking about acceptance not what you should or shouldn't do. The only thing you wrote to me on the matter was: > Society has not agreed to this, which is why this is such a controversial issue. Where i interpreted "this" to mean "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)" as you refer to my standard of harassment later explicitly. > Also, just doing something somebody doesn't like is not harassment. You will not be able to find survey even under evangelical Christians which denies that " calling trans people by their old identity repeatedly is a thing they (Trans people in context of the original quote) do not want". This is statement of observation. Evangelicals are aware of this they do in fact do the opposite to harass trans people sometimes. Now that i have taken apart what you wrote at the point you were replying to me, accusing me not to read, tell me: Is it agreed and non controversial that "Trans people don't want to be called by their previous gender"?

yucky 4y ago

>I am sorry you have not realized that Trans people do not like being called by their old identity. As long as we also extend this reasoning to cover the virulent anti-white rhetoric all over Twitter which many people don't like...but the picking and choosing of what sort of "bigotry" is ok, is why you see people taking issue.

freemint 4y ago
Anti-white racism is still racism, yes. I can not recall the last time i saw an example of that. I can recall conversations about Anti White politics though, like undoing the effects of red lining. Which would attempt to cure consequences of an Anti Black racism a little (you can believe that the money spent will not be enough to undo those damages at all). Anti White often means "not maintaining or even reducing the historic effects of pro white racicm". Since they seem to be wide spread in your feed, i could have a look at some examples you send my way in the next 30 hours.
- yucky 4y ago
  There are thousands to choose from, sift through one of the many tags flagging instances of it (most of which get no punishment) - https://twitter.com/search?q=%23antiwhite https://twitter.com/search?q=%23antiwhite Or for a more scholarly analysis with data - https://quillette.com/2018/08/17/a-closer-look-at-anti-white-rhetoric/ https://quillette.com/2018/08/17/a-closer-look-at-anti-white...
  - freemint 4y ago
    There is nothing scholarly about that article: i did the experiment here are my results: https://pastebin.pl/view/d3409b6b https://pastebin.pl/view/d3409b6b Nothing burger. Thank you for making me spend 100 minutes.
    - yucky 4y ago
      The funny thing is I knew you would ignore all of the anti-white vitriol posted all over the first link, and my original comment called it out ahead of time. But this is HN and I wanted to be more polite so I let you show yourself instead :)