6 ms·

Transphobia is pretty clearly against twitters rules. They weren't really banned, they were locked out until they deleted their tweet. All they had to do was de

Transphobia is pretty clearly against twitters rules. They weren't really banned, they were locked out until they deleted their tweet. All they had to do was delete the tweet.

ohCh6zos 4y ago
Galileo wasn't really under house arrest. All he had to do was recant. The comparison seems apt because while the magnitude of the punishment is out of proportion the refusal to yield to orthodoxy by taking the simple way out is similar.
- socialismisok 4y ago
  Babylon Bee isn't under house arrest. This analogy is absurd. They weren't allowed to target hate towards a specific, named individual on their Twitter account. Everything else they were saying was more or less ok. And they still had plenty of other outlets, including their very successful website. This is like a single book publisher telling Galileo, "we won't print this one page, but the rest of the book is ok".
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - readthenotes1 4y ago
    If I recall correctly, they were suspended for saying that that specific named individual one man of the Year award. That doesn't seem very hateful, although it may seem derisive. There is a difference. Did it go beyond that?
    - socialismisok 4y ago
      It's hateful in the sense that it's very derisive in the culture of the target and Babylon Bee has a large enough audience that the individual is likely to receive targeted threats as a result. Reach and influence are important, because they impact the magnitude of what a derisive comment can do to a target. You saying, "lol, man!" In your living room has no reach, it won't cause harm. The Bee saying it has huge reach, and when aimed at a specific minority individual can lead to serious harm.
      - chudmeister 4y ago
        None of these authoritarian excuses matter. They can say what they want about who they want now.
        socialismisok 4y ago
        Moderation is not authoritarianism.
        xigoi 4y ago
        If you use moderation as a tool to push your ideology, sure it is.
        socialismisok 4y ago
        If your ideology is printed in the rules before you enter, and you agree to respect those rules before entering, and the rules are things like "don't target individuals with racism, transphobia, homophobia, etc" it's really not authoritarianism. I can't yell in a library, the librarians aren't authoritarian. I know going in that libraries aren't the place for that.
        xigoi 4y ago
        Except Twitter does allow racism against whites. So its rules are not “don't target individuals with racism”, but “don't target non-white people with racism”, which sends a clear ideological message. Same with other demographics.
      - caeril 4y ago
        > derisive in the culture of the target > the individual is likely to receive targeted threats as a result. Obvious and simple solution here: 1. Allow people to say whatever offensive jokes they want. 2. Keep banning the actual problem: those who make the targeted threats. The entire concept of "incitement" is ridiculous. We have agency. Nobody can force me to go threaten someone. Go after the ones who commit actual harm, not the ones who make jokes.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - nemo44x 4y ago
    They targeted a public person who exists at the upper echelons of power and privilege. For a group of people so obsessed with comedy only “punching up” it’s ironic to see the justification.
    - space_fountain 4y ago
      Did they target her or did they target the idea of being trans? > where he serves proudly as the first man in that position to dress like a western cultural stereotype of a woman > We have still chosen to give the award as his self-identification has no bearing on the truth If you attack a successful member of a minority group based on their minority you still aren't punching up, sorry.
      - fknorangesite 4y ago
        > Did they target him Her.
        space_fountain 4y ago
        Gah, but thanks
- space_fountain 4y ago
  They didn’t have to say their tweet was wrong right? Just that it violated their rules, which it did
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Test0129 4y ago
> all they had to do is delete their tweet He could've gotten a lighter sentence if he just accepted the plea deal! Do you understand how silly this sounds. Moreover, they awarded Rachael Levine "Man of the Year" as a parody because they are a parody website that is right-leaning. Of all the things you could class as so-called "transphobia" this is what you choose? They never deserved to be banned. Additionally, I can go, right now, to Twitter and find a literally gold mine of rule breakers who lean far left that seem to never get touched. Strange, that. I personally am excited for the reckoning. Twitter is absolute disaster and hopefully the left leaning bad actors get the bans they have deserved since 2016. I've read absolutely disgusting things, especially regarding white people ("white"-phobia in your terminology?) that should be banned and in many times investigated by the FBI. Hopefully we see those bans come down soon. There's a huge difference between Parler and what gets banned on Twitter. To the point you could consider Twitter a very good approximation of Parler for the left. It's time these bad actors get the bans they deserve.
- fsociety999 4y ago
  While I agree that the Bee should never have been banned, the answer to this problem is less censorship, not more. It sounds like you are calling for people who have different ideological views from you to be banned, but that is not how a healthy society should function. There are already tools you can use on Twitter and other platforms to ignore content you don’t want to see (mute or block, for example). Banning someone should only be done in extreme circumstances like if someone is breaking the law or making literal calls to violence.
  - Test0129 4y ago
    > It sounds like you are calling for people who have different ideological views from you to be banned, but that is not how a healthy society should function. It only sounds this way because I targeted the left here. I only did that because it’s Twitter. I would rather have the extremes removed from the platform regardless. It’s already enough of a mess as it is.
- elforce002 4y ago
goldenchrome 4y ago
The argument that a person can be a different gender than the one that all their physical biology points to is absolutely not an open-and-shut case. I know many people believe that it is, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t valid opposing arguments. To me, that means that you shouldn’t be banned for contesting the idea of transgenderism. I think a more reasonable argument is that people should be allowed to present themselves how they want without prejudice, but that there are still some undeniable facts about the world. Clearly there are people who want to have this discussion and silencing one side of the discussion doesn’t resolve it. It just causes the tension to fester. Get it out in the open and the truth will come out.
- socialismisok 4y ago
  Sure. But Twitter has said "we want to make sure that we have trans voices on our platform, so in the interest of a broader marketplace of ideas, we're going to say no to one particular idea - making fun of trans people, who typically face a much higher level of violence, rejection, discrimination, and hate than most".
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    If Babylon Bee makes a joke about trans people how is that removing trans voices from the platform? If making a joke about a group is the same as encouraging violence or whatever then you can't make any jokes about people.
    - socialismisok 4y ago
      Why would I stay on a platform that lets people berate me? Independent of what my identity is? It's just a shitty experience.
      - _-david-_ 4y ago
        If you think trans people shouldn't be allowed to be berated online then why not ban berating of Trump or whites? Why should their experience on Twitter be a "shitty experience"? Regardless, you didn't answer my question: "If Babylon Bee makes a joke about trans people how is that removing trans voices from the platform?" People voluntarily leaving is not removing voices.
_-david-_ 4y ago
A joke about trans people is not transphobia. If somebody makes a joke about white people is that whitephobia?
- socialismisok 4y ago
  A joke about trans people may or may not be transphobia. There's a ton of context to consider - who is telling the joke, whi is the punchline, etc. But this case was not that. This case was specifically targeting a specific individual and making fun of them being trans. That's absolutely transphobia.
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    >A joke about trans people may or may not be transphobia. That is good. A lot of people don't agree. >who is telling the joke, Not true. >whi is the punchline, etc. Maybe. The problem is the inconsistent standards on that. Punch lines that are anti white or anti male aren't considered sexists or racist, but anti trans ones are. We need a consistent standard and we don't have it. >But this case was not that. This case was specifically targeting a specific individual and making fun of them being trans. That's absolutely transphobia. That was not the case. They were parodying the newspaper or magazine that said Levine was the woman of the year.
leeroyjenkins11 4y ago
- socialismisok 4y ago
  It is transphobic when you deliberately say the wrong thing (especially with an intent to harm or be inflammatory). A trans woman is a woman.
  - xigoi 4y ago
nemo44x 4y ago
> All they had to do was delete the tweet. And they didn’t which means they’ve earned gobs of respect because of their principled and dignified stance to refuse to be bullied. They won and showed the world you don’t have to lick the boots of elitist corporate oppressors.

Transphobia is pretty clearly against twitters rules. They weren't really banned, they were locked out until they deleted their tweet. All they had to do was delete the tweet.

ohCh6zos 4y ago

Galileo wasn't really under house arrest. All he had to do was recant. The comparison seems apt because while the magnitude of the punishment is out of proportion the refusal to yield to orthodoxy by taking the simple way out is similar.

socialismisok 4y ago
Babylon Bee isn't under house arrest. This analogy is absurd. They weren't allowed to target hate towards a specific, named individual on their Twitter account. Everything else they were saying was more or less ok. And they still had plenty of other outlets, including their very successful website. This is like a single book publisher telling Galileo, "we won't print this one page, but the rest of the book is ok".
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- readthenotes1 4y ago
  If I recall correctly, they were suspended for saying that that specific named individual one man of the Year award. That doesn't seem very hateful, although it may seem derisive. There is a difference. Did it go beyond that?
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    It's hateful in the sense that it's very derisive in the culture of the target and Babylon Bee has a large enough audience that the individual is likely to receive targeted threats as a result. Reach and influence are important, because they impact the magnitude of what a derisive comment can do to a target. You saying, "lol, man!" In your living room has no reach, it won't cause harm. The Bee saying it has huge reach, and when aimed at a specific minority individual can lead to serious harm.
    - chudmeister 4y ago
      None of these authoritarian excuses matter. They can say what they want about who they want now.
      - socialismisok 4y ago
        Moderation is not authoritarianism.
        xigoi 4y ago
        If you use moderation as a tool to push your ideology, sure it is.
        socialismisok 4y ago
        If your ideology is printed in the rules before you enter, and you agree to respect those rules before entering, and the rules are things like "don't target individuals with racism, transphobia, homophobia, etc" it's really not authoritarianism. I can't yell in a library, the librarians aren't authoritarian. I know going in that libraries aren't the place for that.
        xigoi 4y ago
        Except Twitter does allow racism against whites. So its rules are not “don't target individuals with racism”, but “don't target non-white people with racism”, which sends a clear ideological message. Same with other demographics.
    - caeril 4y ago
      > derisive in the culture of the target > the individual is likely to receive targeted threats as a result. Obvious and simple solution here: 1. Allow people to say whatever offensive jokes they want. 2. Keep banning the actual problem: those who make the targeted threats. The entire concept of "incitement" is ridiculous. We have agency. Nobody can force me to go threaten someone. Go after the ones who commit actual harm, not the ones who make jokes.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nemo44x 4y ago
  They targeted a public person who exists at the upper echelons of power and privilege. For a group of people so obsessed with comedy only “punching up” it’s ironic to see the justification.
  - space_fountain 4y ago
    Did they target her or did they target the idea of being trans? > where he serves proudly as the first man in that position to dress like a western cultural stereotype of a woman > We have still chosen to give the award as his self-identification has no bearing on the truth If you attack a successful member of a minority group based on their minority you still aren't punching up, sorry.
    - fknorangesite 4y ago
      > Did they target him Her.
      - space_fountain 4y ago
        Gah, but thanks
space_fountain 4y ago
They didn’t have to say their tweet was wrong right? Just that it violated their rules, which it did

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Test0129 4y ago

> all they had to do is delete their tweet He could've gotten a lighter sentence if he just accepted the plea deal! Do you understand how silly this sounds. Moreover, they awarded Rachael Levine "Man of the Year" as a parody because they are a parody website that is right-leaning. Of all the things you could class as so-called "transphobia" this is what you choose? They never deserved to be banned. Additionally, I can go, right now, to Twitter and find a literally gold mine of rule breakers who lean far left that seem to never get touched. Strange, that. I personally am excited for the reckoning. Twitter is absolute disaster and hopefully the left leaning bad actors get the bans they have deserved since 2016. I've read absolutely disgusting things, especially regarding white people ("white"-phobia in your terminology?) that should be banned and in many times investigated by the FBI. Hopefully we see those bans come down soon. There's a huge difference between Parler and what gets banned on Twitter. To the point you could consider Twitter a very good approximation of Parler for the left. It's time these bad actors get the bans they deserve.

fsociety999 4y ago
While I agree that the Bee should never have been banned, the answer to this problem is less censorship, not more. It sounds like you are calling for people who have different ideological views from you to be banned, but that is not how a healthy society should function. There are already tools you can use on Twitter and other platforms to ignore content you don’t want to see (mute or block, for example). Banning someone should only be done in extreme circumstances like if someone is breaking the law or making literal calls to violence.
- Test0129 4y ago
  > It sounds like you are calling for people who have different ideological views from you to be banned, but that is not how a healthy society should function. It only sounds this way because I targeted the left here. I only did that because it’s Twitter. I would rather have the extremes removed from the platform regardless. It’s already enough of a mess as it is.
elforce002 4y ago

goldenchrome 4y ago

The argument that a person can be a different gender than the one that all their physical biology points to is absolutely not an open-and-shut case. I know many people believe that it is, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t valid opposing arguments. To me, that means that you shouldn’t be banned for contesting the idea of transgenderism. I think a more reasonable argument is that people should be allowed to present themselves how they want without prejudice, but that there are still some undeniable facts about the world. Clearly there are people who want to have this discussion and silencing one side of the discussion doesn’t resolve it. It just causes the tension to fester. Get it out in the open and the truth will come out.

socialismisok 4y ago
Sure. But Twitter has said "we want to make sure that we have trans voices on our platform, so in the interest of a broader marketplace of ideas, we're going to say no to one particular idea - making fun of trans people, who typically face a much higher level of violence, rejection, discrimination, and hate than most".
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  If Babylon Bee makes a joke about trans people how is that removing trans voices from the platform? If making a joke about a group is the same as encouraging violence or whatever then you can't make any jokes about people.
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    Why would I stay on a platform that lets people berate me? Independent of what my identity is? It's just a shitty experience.
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      If you think trans people shouldn't be allowed to be berated online then why not ban berating of Trump or whites? Why should their experience on Twitter be a "shitty experience"? Regardless, you didn't answer my question: "If Babylon Bee makes a joke about trans people how is that removing trans voices from the platform?" People voluntarily leaving is not removing voices.

_-david-_ 4y ago

A joke about trans people is not transphobia. If somebody makes a joke about white people is that whitephobia?

socialismisok 4y ago
A joke about trans people may or may not be transphobia. There's a ton of context to consider - who is telling the joke, whi is the punchline, etc. But this case was not that. This case was specifically targeting a specific individual and making fun of them being trans. That's absolutely transphobia.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  >A joke about trans people may or may not be transphobia. That is good. A lot of people don't agree. >who is telling the joke, Not true. >whi is the punchline, etc. Maybe. The problem is the inconsistent standards on that. Punch lines that are anti white or anti male aren't considered sexists or racist, but anti trans ones are. We need a consistent standard and we don't have it. >But this case was not that. This case was specifically targeting a specific individual and making fun of them being trans. That's absolutely transphobia. That was not the case. They were parodying the newspaper or magazine that said Levine was the woman of the year.

leeroyjenkins11 4y ago

socialismisok 4y ago
It is transphobic when you deliberately say the wrong thing (especially with an intent to harm or be inflammatory). A trans woman is a woman.
- xigoi 4y ago

nemo44x 4y ago

> All they had to do was delete the tweet. And they didn’t which means they’ve earned gobs of respect because of their principled and dignified stance to refuse to be bullied. They won and showed the world you don’t have to lick the boots of elitist corporate oppressors.