4 ms·

I agree with this, but I would emphasize something you glossed over, which is that the target is a "public figure." It's normative to be cruel to "public figure

I agree with this, but I would emphasize something you glossed over, which is that the target is a "public figure." It's normative to be cruel to "public figures" in ways that would be totally unacceptable in any normal interpersonal relationship. I personally think that's fucked up, but it really is normative. So singling out e.g. cruelty specifically about trans people's gender presentation seems targeted and political, because it's completely commonplace to say cruel things about someone if they made bad art, or if they disagree with you about some political policies, and rarely do people get banned from anything about it.

ajross 4y ago
This is a perspective thing. But I just don't see that. I mean, sure, there are Internet Yahoos everywhere who run around calling people Nazis and whatnot. But do you have any examples of major abuse directed by big accounts with big audiences (i.e. the ones that attract the censors' attention) that should have been banned but weren't? The Bee went way out on a limb with that article as I see it. And they got banned. Certainly other similar accounts (the Onion, say) aren't nearly as hateful.
- mquander 4y ago
  I don't actually use Twitter, so I don't really have specific examples of huge Twitter accounts tweeting nasty things? I am just thinking of what's clearly considered normal among my peers. For example, here is a random thing I find if I Google "mean tweets about donald trump": https://twitter.com/dadsaysjokes/status/1062806755229474824?lang=en https://twitter.com/dadsaysjokes/status/1062806755229474824?... > What's the difference between Donald Trump and a worm? One of them is a slimy, loathsome creature incapable of complex thought; the other one actually shows up when it rains. I'm claiming that most people would think that it's totally okay to say that about Donald Trump in public, even though it's an absurdly mean thing to say. (I am sure I could find similar jokes about Joe Biden, too.) I don't think that this would be deleted from Twitter if people reported it. But I also don't think it's really much different from what the Bee wrote. I think people would treat the Bee's article as different mainly if they think that being trans is a special category that is taboo to be cruel about.
  - hairofadog 4y ago
    The notable difference is that one insult is criticizing behavior, while the other is criticizing the person for their core identity (and no, I don't count political affiliation as being central to identity). From my perspective it's OK to criticize Trump (or Biden) for their policies and conduct, but I don't think people should fat-shame Trump, for example, or make fun of Biden's occasional stutter. The issue isn't that people are being mean, it's that they're trying to ostracize people for aspects of their being that are out of their control. That's why, generally, trying to cast someone out for being of a certain race, gender, or sexual orientation are considered unacceptable, but criticizing their political opinions or corrupt or otherwise slimy behavior are fair game.
    - hunchle 4y ago
      > while the other is criticizing the person for their core identity Can this really be considered a core identity though? When a man such as Levine assumes an identity of a woman, is this not a form of identity fraud?
      - hairofadog 4y ago
        Yes, it can be considered central to identity, and no, obviously not fraud. If you’re genuinely interested, I found this video to be clarifying: https://youtu.be/6Avcp-e4bOs https://youtu.be/6Avcp-e4bOs
        hunchle 4y ago
        Which aspect of this video convinced you that when men like Levine identify as women, they actually are women, not just men who want to be women? I watched the whole piece and didn't find a persuasive argument in favor of this. Also their discussion on the Forstater case is out of date; that original judgement they cite was overturned on appeal, and the subsequent employment tribunal found that Forstater had indeed been discriminated against for her gender critical beliefs.
H8crilA 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

ajross 4y ago

This is a perspective thing. But I just don't see that. I mean, sure, there are Internet Yahoos everywhere who run around calling people Nazis and whatnot. But do you have any examples of major abuse directed by big accounts with big audiences (i.e. the ones that attract the censors' attention) that should have been banned but weren't? The Bee went way out on a limb with that article as I see it. And they got banned. Certainly other similar accounts (the Onion, say) aren't nearly as hateful.

mquander 4y ago
I don't actually use Twitter, so I don't really have specific examples of huge Twitter accounts tweeting nasty things? I am just thinking of what's clearly considered normal among my peers. For example, here is a random thing I find if I Google "mean tweets about donald trump": https://twitter.com/dadsaysjokes/status/1062806755229474824?lang=en https://twitter.com/dadsaysjokes/status/1062806755229474824?... > What's the difference between Donald Trump and a worm? One of them is a slimy, loathsome creature incapable of complex thought; the other one actually shows up when it rains. I'm claiming that most people would think that it's totally okay to say that about Donald Trump in public, even though it's an absurdly mean thing to say. (I am sure I could find similar jokes about Joe Biden, too.) I don't think that this would be deleted from Twitter if people reported it. But I also don't think it's really much different from what the Bee wrote. I think people would treat the Bee's article as different mainly if they think that being trans is a special category that is taboo to be cruel about.
- hairofadog 4y ago
  The notable difference is that one insult is criticizing behavior, while the other is criticizing the person for their core identity (and no, I don't count political affiliation as being central to identity). From my perspective it's OK to criticize Trump (or Biden) for their policies and conduct, but I don't think people should fat-shame Trump, for example, or make fun of Biden's occasional stutter. The issue isn't that people are being mean, it's that they're trying to ostracize people for aspects of their being that are out of their control. That's why, generally, trying to cast someone out for being of a certain race, gender, or sexual orientation are considered unacceptable, but criticizing their political opinions or corrupt or otherwise slimy behavior are fair game.
  - hunchle 4y ago
    > while the other is criticizing the person for their core identity Can this really be considered a core identity though? When a man such as Levine assumes an identity of a woman, is this not a form of identity fraud?
    - hairofadog 4y ago
      Yes, it can be considered central to identity, and no, obviously not fraud. If you’re genuinely interested, I found this video to be clarifying: https://youtu.be/6Avcp-e4bOs https://youtu.be/6Avcp-e4bOs
      - hunchle 4y ago
        Which aspect of this video convinced you that when men like Levine identify as women, they actually are women, not just men who want to be women? I watched the whole piece and didn't find a persuasive argument in favor of this. Also their discussion on the Forstater case is out of date; that original judgement they cite was overturned on appeal, and the subsequent employment tribunal found that Forstater had indeed been discriminated against for her gender critical beliefs.

H8crilA 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]