3 ms·

The trans debate is extremely polarizing and aggressive on both sides. I'll leave it at that. I think the real litmus test is a possible Trump unban. That's wo

by fleddr 4y ago

The trans debate is extremely polarizing and aggressive on both sides. I'll leave it at that. I think the real litmus test is a possible Trump unban. That's would be earth shattering.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
It's hard to imagine the Trump ban staying given what he was actually banned for. I'm not a Trumper but he tweeted: "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” Twitter interpreted this to be an incitement for terrorist attack on the inauguration and banned him, the sitting president of the US, for that. It is hard to imagine any platform with a semblance of free speech stand behind that kind of logic. If you are willing to read into statements that deeply, any speech is bannable. https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
- freejazz 4y ago
  That's pretty much entirely devoid of the context of everything else he tweeted and the rest of his actions and you can pretend that none of that matters but it obviously does.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    here is the context for the rest of his tweets: https://www.thetrumparchive.com/ https://www.thetrumparchive.com/ He was absolutely and obviously questioning and denying the election results. Maybe that should be a bannable offense, but that isn't what they did.
    - freejazz 4y ago
      "He was absolutely and obviously questioning and denying the election results" And ginning up the capital mob.... but keep ignoring the context.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        Like I said, I dont like Trump, but didn't and dont read it that way. I think it is absolutely a situation where peoples priors are feeding into the conclusions they come to. What you obviously read as ginning up a violent capital mob, someone else can read as encouraging peaceful protest. Trump was so divisive and loaded that some people come to conclusions completely independent of his actions statements. When he said the quote below [1], some people argued that he was encouraging violence, and it should be read with some kind of reverse meaning. My point is not to debate the actual intent, but illustrate that once you reach this level of interpretation and distrust, there is really no rational common ground for debate or analysis. Anyone can claim anything and there is no substance. "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"
        crazygringo 4y ago
        > What you obviously read as ginning up a violent capital mob, someone else can read as encouraging peaceful protest. There has been an entire set of Congressional hearings, with extensive testimony from the people surrounding him, to answer precisely which of those was the case. The evidence conclusively points to the former, there's really no question at this point. This isn't a matter of opinion anymore or "agree to disagree" -- it's just overwhelming facts, based on undisputed testimony, now.
        freejazz 4y ago
        You can play ostrich all you want, I'm just not sure why you seem to think it makes you look reasonable to stick your head in the sand and ignore everything around you.
  - Karunamon 4y ago
    Oddly enough, this is the first time I have read their reasoning for the ban. I did not know they had an article on it until now. Having read the link given to Twitter's interpretation of "context" of the other tweets he made, my conclusion is that it is impossible to dispassionately read the cited tweets and come to the conclusion they did without having a number of unstated priors, based entirely in partisan animus. The tweets literally do not say what Twitter claims they say. Up until now I had taken it on faith (well, more like widely reported media exposure) that he had actually "incited violence"; but after reading the cited tweets, I am left scratching my head. "Wait, that's it?" was the thought I had. It is election conspiracy mongering, sure, and perhaps that is not something Twitter wants to be in the business of carrying, but that is not the reasoning they used here. No violence incitement exists in those tweets. Pure and simple. "I am not going to the inauguration" is such a plain, short, and inoffensive statement that reading anything else into it says more about the person doing the reading than it does the speaker.
    - freejazz 4y ago
      "Having read the link given to Twitter's interpretation of "context" of the other tweets he made, my conclusion is that it is impossible to dispassionately read the cited tweets and come to the conclusion they did without having a number of unstated priors, based entirely in partisan animus." Really? I completely disagree. You'd have to burying your head in the sand to come to this conclusion IMO. Twitter isn't even saying that his tweets say "xyz", as you just described it. They go on length on how the tweets are being viewed and interpreted.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Yeah, I thought it was eye-opening as well and it obviously stuck in my mind. If you judge speech based on the worst possible interpretation that could be made by the worst or most delusional people in society, there is nothing that can pass the test. Certainly doesn't help that Donald Trump did in fact employ dog whistles and subtext during his time as president. I'm not sure where this leaves us aside from in a post-factual reality where imagination can't be differentiated from the real world. People are compartmentalized by their priors and have no common facts worth discussing
grecy 4y ago
> The trans debate is extremely polarizing and aggressive on both sides. I'll leave it at that. While that might sadly be true in some countries, please know there are many where people are perfectly happy to let people be whoever they want to be. It does not have to be aggressive.
- qull 4y ago
  The issue is less what is being said, but how it is being said, by either side. Both feel themselves correct, and in some narrow way, are.
  - grecy 4y ago
    > Both feel themselves correct, and in some narrow way, are. The side that is attempting to stop people being who they want to be is correct?

by fleddr 4y ago

The trans debate is extremely polarizing and aggressive on both sides. I'll leave it at that. I think the real litmus test is a possible Trump unban. That's would be earth shattering.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

It's hard to imagine the Trump ban staying given what he was actually banned for. I'm not a Trumper but he tweeted: "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” Twitter interpreted this to be an incitement for terrorist attack on the inauguration and banned him, the sitting president of the US, for that. It is hard to imagine any platform with a semblance of free speech stand behind that kind of logic. If you are willing to read into statements that deeply, any speech is bannable. https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...

freejazz 4y ago
That's pretty much entirely devoid of the context of everything else he tweeted and the rest of his actions and you can pretend that none of that matters but it obviously does.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  here is the context for the rest of his tweets: https://www.thetrumparchive.com/ https://www.thetrumparchive.com/ He was absolutely and obviously questioning and denying the election results. Maybe that should be a bannable offense, but that isn't what they did.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    "He was absolutely and obviously questioning and denying the election results" And ginning up the capital mob.... but keep ignoring the context.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Like I said, I dont like Trump, but didn't and dont read it that way. I think it is absolutely a situation where peoples priors are feeding into the conclusions they come to. What you obviously read as ginning up a violent capital mob, someone else can read as encouraging peaceful protest. Trump was so divisive and loaded that some people come to conclusions completely independent of his actions statements. When he said the quote below [1], some people argued that he was encouraging violence, and it should be read with some kind of reverse meaning. My point is not to debate the actual intent, but illustrate that once you reach this level of interpretation and distrust, there is really no rational common ground for debate or analysis. Anyone can claim anything and there is no substance. "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"
      - crazygringo 4y ago
        > What you obviously read as ginning up a violent capital mob, someone else can read as encouraging peaceful protest. There has been an entire set of Congressional hearings, with extensive testimony from the people surrounding him, to answer precisely which of those was the case. The evidence conclusively points to the former, there's really no question at this point. This isn't a matter of opinion anymore or "agree to disagree" -- it's just overwhelming facts, based on undisputed testimony, now.
      - freejazz 4y ago
        You can play ostrich all you want, I'm just not sure why you seem to think it makes you look reasonable to stick your head in the sand and ignore everything around you.
- Karunamon 4y ago
  Oddly enough, this is the first time I have read their reasoning for the ban. I did not know they had an article on it until now. Having read the link given to Twitter's interpretation of "context" of the other tweets he made, my conclusion is that it is impossible to dispassionately read the cited tweets and come to the conclusion they did without having a number of unstated priors, based entirely in partisan animus. The tweets literally do not say what Twitter claims they say. Up until now I had taken it on faith (well, more like widely reported media exposure) that he had actually "incited violence"; but after reading the cited tweets, I am left scratching my head. "Wait, that's it?" was the thought I had. It is election conspiracy mongering, sure, and perhaps that is not something Twitter wants to be in the business of carrying, but that is not the reasoning they used here. No violence incitement exists in those tweets. Pure and simple. "I am not going to the inauguration" is such a plain, short, and inoffensive statement that reading anything else into it says more about the person doing the reading than it does the speaker.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    "Having read the link given to Twitter's interpretation of "context" of the other tweets he made, my conclusion is that it is impossible to dispassionately read the cited tweets and come to the conclusion they did without having a number of unstated priors, based entirely in partisan animus." Really? I completely disagree. You'd have to burying your head in the sand to come to this conclusion IMO. Twitter isn't even saying that his tweets say "xyz", as you just described it. They go on length on how the tweets are being viewed and interpreted.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Yeah, I thought it was eye-opening as well and it obviously stuck in my mind. If you judge speech based on the worst possible interpretation that could be made by the worst or most delusional people in society, there is nothing that can pass the test. Certainly doesn't help that Donald Trump did in fact employ dog whistles and subtext during his time as president. I'm not sure where this leaves us aside from in a post-factual reality where imagination can't be differentiated from the real world. People are compartmentalized by their priors and have no common facts worth discussing

grecy 4y ago

> The trans debate is extremely polarizing and aggressive on both sides. I'll leave it at that. While that might sadly be true in some countries, please know there are many where people are perfectly happy to let people be whoever they want to be. It does not have to be aggressive.

qull 4y ago
The issue is less what is being said, but how it is being said, by either side. Both feel themselves correct, and in some narrow way, are.
- grecy 4y ago
  > Both feel themselves correct, and in some narrow way, are. The side that is attempting to stop people being who they want to be is correct?