3 ms·

"if as you claim the Daily Sceptic has been directing and encouraging harassment and violent threats against doctors" I didn't say anywhere that the DS has bee

"if as you claim the Daily Sceptic has been directing and encouraging harassment and violent threats against doctors" I didn't say anywhere that the DS has been "directing and encouraging harassment". I didn't even imply it, because it's not true. That's something that, again, you just made up right now. You keep doing this: please respond to what people actually say, not what you wish they'd said. "this one passage has been cherry picked from what will obviously be a pro-forma response" Your original claim was that he had no idea why he was banned, but he cited an explanation from PayPal. You now reject PayPal's own words on the grounds that you don't believe it's meaningful. In other words, having made an incorrect claim you're now trying to make it unfalsifiable. But PayPal can easily say nothing and did so for the other terminations. For this one, they cited a specific part of their ToS. We can assume that is the reason. Finally, a "maximalist" is by definition not someone who suppresses free speech because they think it's the best for their business.

SilverBirch 4y ago
No, I mean you talked about the hospital so I googled it and found all these stories about doctors receiving death threats. Isn't that what you were talking about? Sorry if I mis-read something, but go Google it, there's a shit-tonne of stuff about people harassing and threatening to kill doctors that treat gender-dysphoria. if that's not what you meant I'm a bit confused why you referenced it. It's the exact thing we're talking about - that even a free speech maximalist probably draws the line before advocating the murder of medical practitioners.
- origin_path 4y ago
  Here we go again: you stated that the Daily Sceptic specifically - the site this thread is about - had been "directing and encouraging harassment and violent threats against doctors". When pointed out that this is isn't true you fall back on "I googled and found some mention of some people doing that", which isn't the same thing. At all. Not even close. If two groups of people both disagree with another group of people, that doesn't mean the first two groups can be arbitrarily treated as the same or blamed for the actions of the other. The extraordinary level of slippage your replies on this thread involve makes it very hard for people to debate with you, are you aware of that? You keep asserting that various people or groups have said things that they never said, or that they didn't say things when they did, based apparently on ad-hoc or arbitrary connections in your own mind. It's not surprising that you're feeling confused! The problem you're displaying here crops up frequently in discussions about censorship. It's what Matt Taibbi calls "the transitive property of whatever". I was arguing a week ago with someone else on this forum who was claiming that Facebook was somehow implicated in the Rohingya Genocide. It's a form of overly-transitive reasoning in which belief in the power of words strengthens to the point at which everything appears connected to everything else. To invert the argument to a form you may recognize from the 'other side' it's like arguing that because a few Muslims have blown themselves up in response to religious teachings, therefore all mosques should be shut down. So if you have a specific and precise problem with the website in question, let's hear it. And if you want to reply with an assertion that X said Y, please quote their exact words where they say that.
  - SilverBirch 4y ago
    >you stated that the Daily Sceptic specifically - the site this thread is about - had been "directing and encouraging harassment and violent threats against doctors". No, what I said was that was what you were suggested, because you literally raised the Tavistock issue and I looked it up and found out a load of people are threatening doctors. Apparently that's not what you meant, but it's not my fault you aren't being specific. I don't think it's an unreasonable jump for me to look at what you cited and go "Oh yeah you're right, the death threats against doctors are a bad thing". I told you, I don't read the website, I'm not going to trawling through it. It looks like it's full of terrible dross, which is why I deferred to your explanation. Personally, I could imagine it being any of a thousand other things. But that's life, if you fill your website full of absolute rubbish you're going to have trouble figuring out whats objectionable.

SilverBirch 4y ago

No, I mean you talked about the hospital so I googled it and found all these stories about doctors receiving death threats. Isn't that what you were talking about? Sorry if I mis-read something, but go Google it, there's a shit-tonne of stuff about people harassing and threatening to kill doctors that treat gender-dysphoria. if that's not what you meant I'm a bit confused why you referenced it. It's the exact thing we're talking about - that even a free speech maximalist probably draws the line before advocating the murder of medical practitioners.

origin_path 4y ago
Here we go again: you stated that the Daily Sceptic specifically - the site this thread is about - had been "directing and encouraging harassment and violent threats against doctors". When pointed out that this is isn't true you fall back on "I googled and found some mention of some people doing that", which isn't the same thing. At all. Not even close. If two groups of people both disagree with another group of people, that doesn't mean the first two groups can be arbitrarily treated as the same or blamed for the actions of the other. The extraordinary level of slippage your replies on this thread involve makes it very hard for people to debate with you, are you aware of that? You keep asserting that various people or groups have said things that they never said, or that they didn't say things when they did, based apparently on ad-hoc or arbitrary connections in your own mind. It's not surprising that you're feeling confused! The problem you're displaying here crops up frequently in discussions about censorship. It's what Matt Taibbi calls "the transitive property of whatever". I was arguing a week ago with someone else on this forum who was claiming that Facebook was somehow implicated in the Rohingya Genocide. It's a form of overly-transitive reasoning in which belief in the power of words strengthens to the point at which everything appears connected to everything else. To invert the argument to a form you may recognize from the 'other side' it's like arguing that because a few Muslims have blown themselves up in response to religious teachings, therefore all mosques should be shut down. So if you have a specific and precise problem with the website in question, let's hear it. And if you want to reply with an assertion that X said Y, please quote their exact words where they say that.
- SilverBirch 4y ago
  >you stated that the Daily Sceptic specifically - the site this thread is about - had been "directing and encouraging harassment and violent threats against doctors". No, what I said was that was what you were suggested, because you literally raised the Tavistock issue and I looked it up and found out a load of people are threatening doctors. Apparently that's not what you meant, but it's not my fault you aren't being specific. I don't think it's an unreasonable jump for me to look at what you cited and go "Oh yeah you're right, the death threats against doctors are a bad thing". I told you, I don't read the website, I'm not going to trawling through it. It looks like it's full of terrible dross, which is why I deferred to your explanation. Personally, I could imagine it being any of a thousand other things. But that's life, if you fill your website full of absolute rubbish you're going to have trouble figuring out whats objectionable.