8 ms·

What were they banned for? Looking through the content, I don't see any of the egregious hate speech or incitement of violence that we've seen in other bans l

What were they banned for? Looking through the content, I don't see any of the egregious hate speech or incitement of violence that we've seen in other bans like Trump.

socialismisok 4y ago
They gave a trans woman their man of the year award and tweeted about it. Twitter said misgendering is against their rules and blocked the account until they deleted the tweet. Babylon Bee felt attacked and refused to delete the tweet, so they just left their own account locked.
- apolymath 4y ago
- mrkstu 4y ago
  I'm not sure if they felt 'attacked'- more that they were standing up for their right to do what they do (satire) without being censored and giving into the censorship by deleting the tweet. The 'mis-gendering' in this case was absolutely truthful in a scientific sense, thereby making their point that truth being somehow harmful in today's society. Whether you agree that's a 'good' point or not it seems to fall squarely in the area that should be open for public comment.
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    It's not "absolutely true in the scientific sense", except at the "I have an understanding of high school level biology and sociology" sense. Sex and gender are both significantly more complex than just chromosomes, genitalia, or organs. If you are interested, I'm happy to dive into a good faith discussion of where the science actually falls.
    - ghostpepper 4y ago
      Why not assume there are many readers here who are interested in good faith discussion and just go ahead and post a summary of the science?
      - socialismisok 4y ago
        Typically because that could be a long post, and it might not be what the parent wants too engage with. I like to invite folks, rather than make assumptions about their preferences. The invitation is open to the community, of course!
    - fallingknife 4y ago
      And if you want to make that argument, fine. But when people are banning those who disagree, I will reflexively side with those banned and against the people doing the banning, whether or not I agree with them.
      - xadhominemx 4y ago
        fallingknife 4y ago
        That's not an argument
        xadhominemx 4y ago
        Did you not say “But when people are banning those who disagree, I will reflexively side with those banned and against the people doing the banning, whether or not I agree with them”?
        socialismisok 4y ago
        That's literally the argument you made.
    - 4y ago
  - xadhominemx 4y ago
    They don’t have the right to say hateful things about someone on someone else’s platform. They had a privilege, which was conditionally revoked.
    - dmix 4y ago
      Like satirists posting pictures of Muhammad?
      - xadhominemx 4y ago
        If Twitter was the government of the United States and subject to first amendment restrictions, you would have a point.
    - memish 4y ago
      Saying "the Earth is round" is hateful from the perspective of flat earthers. Would you apply the same logic equally and make it an offense to satirize this particular belief? Or to bring it full circle, I doubt the Bee would petition to get someone banned for satirizing "God" or saying "God is not real". If they did, we would call it out too.
      - xadhominemx 4y ago
        Yes, obviously Twitter got to decide which hateful statements were prohibited and which were not.
        dmix 4y ago
        You can trust Twitter and activists to make those decisions all you like. But don't expect people to stand by and accept that as an acceptable solution to societies problems. Because you're making these zero-transparency and zero-due process systems fill this role. Which is naive and idealistic in the worst ways. I would probably believe in these exact things when I was an ill-formed and very socially concerned 16 year old, but I can't honestly take that position today. The only people I see taking this position are people willing to gamble for today for short term gains of their pet ideologies while ignoring long term harm.
  - Shared404 4y ago
    > The 'mis-gendering' in this case was absolutely truthful in a scientific sense, Except: A) Gender != biological sex. B) Even biological sex has a lot more shades of grey C) Even if the Bee were referring to biological sex, it would be Male/Female of the year, not Man/Woman. D) It's the Bee. Everyone knows the intent.
    - xigoi 4y ago
      > A) Gender != biological sex. What makes you thing they weren't talking about biological sex? > B) Even biological sex has a lot more shades of grey Which are not applicable in this case, since the sex of the individial in question is inambiguous. C) Even if the Bee were referring to biological sex, it would be Male/Female of the year, not Man/Woman. A man is defined as an adult male. > D) It's the Bee. Everyone knows the intent. Yes, the intent of satire is to make fun of absurd situations.
      - socialismisok 4y ago
        Language is moving towards a disambiguation between male (as a kerotype or body plan) and man (as a social concept of what it is to be 'manly' in that society.) This evolution of language has been very rapid in some circles, and slow in others, but everyone uses it to some degree. For example, when people say, "Be a man!" Or "man up!", they aren't saying, "show your adult male body". They are saying, "meet our standards for what a man in our culture is!" Mulan's famous song, "I'll make a man out of you" has nothing to do with chromosomes or penises. It has everything to do with the social side of the term "man". So at the very least, the word man is ambiguous and could mean adult male or it could mean someone who is manly in behavior.
        xigoi 4y ago
        > Language is moving towards a disambiguation between male (as a kerotype or body plan) and man (as a social concept of what it is to be 'manly' in that society.) No, some people are artificially trying to create this distinction. In normal speech, “man” and “male” are pretty much interchangeable. > For example, when people say, "Be a man!" Or "man up!", they aren't saying, "show your adult male body". They're saying “show properties that are traditionally associated with males”. These stereotypes have to place in modern society and I find it appalling that the people who claim to want equality are continuing to perpetuate them.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mynameishere 4y ago
- Covzire 4y ago
  For some context, and why some believe that Babylon Bee's suspension was the catalyst for Musk buying Twitter: Twitter is the defacto online public square for a great number of people in politics, journalism, academia and many other fields. Twitter's TOS was, for whatever reason, deliberately written to disenfranchise half the voter base, half the country more or less by making it so simply expressing deeply held political or religious views would get half of them banned.
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    "half the country" overstates things. Roughly 40% of Americans believe that trans rights are good, roughly 30% believe they are bad, and 30% are undecided. I'd argue that if Twitter has a liberal bias, it reflects the mostly majority opinions. (Speaking as a leftist whose friends are constantly banned for trivial nonsense, Twitter also hates the left. Not the Democrats, they aren't leftist.)
    - xigoi 4y ago
      “Trans rights are good/bad” is a very vague statement. What exactly did the survey ask?
    - Covzire 4y ago
      What the 40% figure your citing might represent and what 'woke inc' are actually pushing in legislature and in medicine are most certainly two very different things.
- diebeforei485 4y ago
  This is the person - https://www.hhs.gov/about/leadership/rachel-levine.html https://www.hhs.gov/about/leadership/rachel-levine.html My hot take is that it's OK to mock senior government officials, actually.
  - NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
    >My hot take is that it's OK to mock senior government officials, actually. Mocking senior American government officials is the most protected speech in the country, in fact. I do it liberally an encourage others to. It's the most fundamental part of holding them accountable.
    - socialismisok 4y ago
      Is all mocking fair game? I mean, I hard agree with you, but I think there are things that are gauche or hurtful to mock. Like, I think Obama was a bad president and there are plenty of mock worthy things there, but depicting him and Michelle as apes is beyond the pale for me. Mock his policies, mock his affect, mock his social behaviors in other countries, hell, mock his tan suit. But to bust out racist memes? I dunno... I think that sucks.
      - CapricornNoble 4y ago
        Michelle Obama is fairly tall (5'11") and has a masculine jawline. I'm black and I LOL'd the first time I saw her called a Wookie (probably in the dumpster fire comments section of ZeroHedge). I mean, take a look: https://starsunfolded.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Michelle-Obama.jpg https://starsunfolded.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Michell... Alicia Keys or Keri Hilson she ain't.... If she were an absentee First Lady and less proactive, I could totally see someone calling her "Sasquatch" (a big mythical ape-creature rarely captured on camera) as a criticism and I'd be ok with that. Babylon Bee attacked a high-profile trans public servant in a way meant to (IMO) provide commentary on society's approach to trans issues and the implications for biological females? I'm ok with that too. I think some comedian, maybe Bill Burr or Andrew Schulz, had a similar bit: "Men are so awesome we're even better at being women than actual women. That's why a Man[Bruce Jenner] is Woman of the Year[Caitlyn Jenner], in his first year as a woman." or something to that effect.
- wooque 4y ago
- chudmeister 4y ago
  > felt attacked No, they were attacked.
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    Those are not mutually exclusive. One can feel attacked when they are or aren't actually attacked. One can feel not attacked, even if you are. You act on the feeling.

What were they banned for? Looking through the content, I don't see any of the egregious hate speech or incitement of violence that we've seen in other bans like Trump.

socialismisok 4y ago

They gave a trans woman their man of the year award and tweeted about it. Twitter said misgendering is against their rules and blocked the account until they deleted the tweet. Babylon Bee felt attacked and refused to delete the tweet, so they just left their own account locked.

apolymath 4y ago
mrkstu 4y ago
I'm not sure if they felt 'attacked'- more that they were standing up for their right to do what they do (satire) without being censored and giving into the censorship by deleting the tweet. The 'mis-gendering' in this case was absolutely truthful in a scientific sense, thereby making their point that truth being somehow harmful in today's society. Whether you agree that's a 'good' point or not it seems to fall squarely in the area that should be open for public comment.
- socialismisok 4y ago
  It's not "absolutely true in the scientific sense", except at the "I have an understanding of high school level biology and sociology" sense. Sex and gender are both significantly more complex than just chromosomes, genitalia, or organs. If you are interested, I'm happy to dive into a good faith discussion of where the science actually falls.
  - ghostpepper 4y ago
    Why not assume there are many readers here who are interested in good faith discussion and just go ahead and post a summary of the science?
    - socialismisok 4y ago
      Typically because that could be a long post, and it might not be what the parent wants too engage with. I like to invite folks, rather than make assumptions about their preferences. The invitation is open to the community, of course!
  - fallingknife 4y ago
    And if you want to make that argument, fine. But when people are banning those who disagree, I will reflexively side with those banned and against the people doing the banning, whether or not I agree with them.
    - xadhominemx 4y ago
      - fallingknife 4y ago
        That's not an argument
        xadhominemx 4y ago
        Did you not say “But when people are banning those who disagree, I will reflexively side with those banned and against the people doing the banning, whether or not I agree with them”?
        socialismisok 4y ago
        That's literally the argument you made.
  - 4y ago
- xadhominemx 4y ago
  They don’t have the right to say hateful things about someone on someone else’s platform. They had a privilege, which was conditionally revoked.
  - dmix 4y ago
    Like satirists posting pictures of Muhammad?
    - xadhominemx 4y ago
      If Twitter was the government of the United States and subject to first amendment restrictions, you would have a point.
  - memish 4y ago
    Saying "the Earth is round" is hateful from the perspective of flat earthers. Would you apply the same logic equally and make it an offense to satirize this particular belief? Or to bring it full circle, I doubt the Bee would petition to get someone banned for satirizing "God" or saying "God is not real". If they did, we would call it out too.
    - xadhominemx 4y ago
      Yes, obviously Twitter got to decide which hateful statements were prohibited and which were not.
      - dmix 4y ago
        You can trust Twitter and activists to make those decisions all you like. But don't expect people to stand by and accept that as an acceptable solution to societies problems. Because you're making these zero-transparency and zero-due process systems fill this role. Which is naive and idealistic in the worst ways. I would probably believe in these exact things when I was an ill-formed and very socially concerned 16 year old, but I can't honestly take that position today. The only people I see taking this position are people willing to gamble for today for short term gains of their pet ideologies while ignoring long term harm.
- Shared404 4y ago
  > The 'mis-gendering' in this case was absolutely truthful in a scientific sense, Except: A) Gender != biological sex. B) Even biological sex has a lot more shades of grey C) Even if the Bee were referring to biological sex, it would be Male/Female of the year, not Man/Woman. D) It's the Bee. Everyone knows the intent.
  - xigoi 4y ago
    > A) Gender != biological sex. What makes you thing they weren't talking about biological sex? > B) Even biological sex has a lot more shades of grey Which are not applicable in this case, since the sex of the individial in question is inambiguous. C) Even if the Bee were referring to biological sex, it would be Male/Female of the year, not Man/Woman. A man is defined as an adult male. > D) It's the Bee. Everyone knows the intent. Yes, the intent of satire is to make fun of absurd situations.
    - socialismisok 4y ago
      Language is moving towards a disambiguation between male (as a kerotype or body plan) and man (as a social concept of what it is to be 'manly' in that society.) This evolution of language has been very rapid in some circles, and slow in others, but everyone uses it to some degree. For example, when people say, "Be a man!" Or "man up!", they aren't saying, "show your adult male body". They are saying, "meet our standards for what a man in our culture is!" Mulan's famous song, "I'll make a man out of you" has nothing to do with chromosomes or penises. It has everything to do with the social side of the term "man". So at the very least, the word man is ambiguous and could mean adult male or it could mean someone who is manly in behavior.
      - xigoi 4y ago
        > Language is moving towards a disambiguation between male (as a kerotype or body plan) and man (as a social concept of what it is to be 'manly' in that society.) No, some people are artificially trying to create this distinction. In normal speech, “man” and “male” are pretty much interchangeable. > For example, when people say, "Be a man!" Or "man up!", they aren't saying, "show your adult male body". They're saying “show properties that are traditionally associated with males”. These stereotypes have to place in modern society and I find it appalling that the people who claim to want equality are continuing to perpetuate them.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mynameishere 4y ago
Covzire 4y ago
For some context, and why some believe that Babylon Bee's suspension was the catalyst for Musk buying Twitter: Twitter is the defacto online public square for a great number of people in politics, journalism, academia and many other fields. Twitter's TOS was, for whatever reason, deliberately written to disenfranchise half the voter base, half the country more or less by making it so simply expressing deeply held political or religious views would get half of them banned.
- socialismisok 4y ago
  "half the country" overstates things. Roughly 40% of Americans believe that trans rights are good, roughly 30% believe they are bad, and 30% are undecided. I'd argue that if Twitter has a liberal bias, it reflects the mostly majority opinions. (Speaking as a leftist whose friends are constantly banned for trivial nonsense, Twitter also hates the left. Not the Democrats, they aren't leftist.)
  - xigoi 4y ago
    “Trans rights are good/bad” is a very vague statement. What exactly did the survey ask?
  - Covzire 4y ago
    What the 40% figure your citing might represent and what 'woke inc' are actually pushing in legislature and in medicine are most certainly two very different things.
diebeforei485 4y ago
This is the person - https://www.hhs.gov/about/leadership/rachel-levine.html https://www.hhs.gov/about/leadership/rachel-levine.html My hot take is that it's OK to mock senior government officials, actually.
- NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
  >My hot take is that it's OK to mock senior government officials, actually. Mocking senior American government officials is the most protected speech in the country, in fact. I do it liberally an encourage others to. It's the most fundamental part of holding them accountable.
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    Is all mocking fair game? I mean, I hard agree with you, but I think there are things that are gauche or hurtful to mock. Like, I think Obama was a bad president and there are plenty of mock worthy things there, but depicting him and Michelle as apes is beyond the pale for me. Mock his policies, mock his affect, mock his social behaviors in other countries, hell, mock his tan suit. But to bust out racist memes? I dunno... I think that sucks.
    - CapricornNoble 4y ago
      Michelle Obama is fairly tall (5'11") and has a masculine jawline. I'm black and I LOL'd the first time I saw her called a Wookie (probably in the dumpster fire comments section of ZeroHedge). I mean, take a look: https://starsunfolded.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Michelle-Obama.jpg https://starsunfolded.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Michell... Alicia Keys or Keri Hilson she ain't.... If she were an absentee First Lady and less proactive, I could totally see someone calling her "Sasquatch" (a big mythical ape-creature rarely captured on camera) as a criticism and I'd be ok with that. Babylon Bee attacked a high-profile trans public servant in a way meant to (IMO) provide commentary on society's approach to trans issues and the implications for biological females? I'm ok with that too. I think some comedian, maybe Bill Burr or Andrew Schulz, had a similar bit: "Men are so awesome we're even better at being women than actual women. That's why a Man[Bruce Jenner] is Woman of the Year[Caitlyn Jenner], in his first year as a woman." or something to that effect.
wooque 4y ago
chudmeister 4y ago
> felt attacked No, they were attacked.
- socialismisok 4y ago
  Those are not mutually exclusive. One can feel attacked when they are or aren't actually attacked. One can feel not attacked, even if you are. You act on the feeling.