4 ms·

No. Banning someone because they posted the symbol of a group that murdered millions of people based on their race is very different from banning them because t

by nailer 4y ago

No. Banning someone because they posted the symbol of a group that murdered millions of people based on their race is very different from banning them because they posted “men are not women”.

SanjayMehta 4y ago
West posted a Raelian symbol, not a Hakenkreuz.
drkhn1234 4y ago
paxys 4y ago
So symbols are now banned on Twitter? Can I post a pirate flag? Skull and crossbones? The flag of the Chinese communist party? Also who was banned for posting "men are not women"?
- raspberry1337 4y ago
  Jordan Peterson, Matt Walsh, Matt Fradd, and a host of other Christians for similar points having in common that they deny transgender sex change.
  - jtode 4y ago
    >sex change *gender affirmation (edit: which is to say, trans people never made any claim to changing anyone's sex)
    - gijtyd 4y ago
      Not true - if you go on social media such as Twitter and Reddit, you'll often see trans people making the claim that they've actually changed sex. Along with other nonsense, like transwomen claiming that they have a menstrual cycle.
      - jtode 4y ago
        I can find you people of any ideological stripe who will say all sorts of outlandish and astonishingly wrong things; this does not mean that you should choose those worst examples as your exemplars. If I did that, I would have to assume that anyone right wing was a full-on nazi, which even with the nascent fascist jock itch we're all suffering, is ridiculous. But the fact is that Sex and Gender are two different concepts - one, as you point out, is a biological matter having to do with reproduction, and is settled and done, usually, long before the body becomes conscious. Gender, on the other hand, manifests mostly as performance, but nonetheless arises from a deep-seated place in the mind. So if someone says their gender does not match their sex, this is not a difficult concept to hold in one's head. I don't doubt you've seen people saying horrible things of all kinds on Twitter and Reddit, but understand, those places have nothing to do with the real world. You're here because on some level, you do understand that, and you want better. Welcome.
        gijtyd 4y ago
        These are surprisingly common examples. The idea behind the first is to redefine sex as a collection of attributes, and then claim that because a significant number of these attributes have changed, then sex has too. So a transwoman who believes this may point to his estrogen levels, breast growth, etc. as an indicator that he is female. This is why many claim to have a menstrual cycle too, it's intended as further indication of being female. When people say that their gender doesn't match their sex, they're expressing a rejection of their material existence. These are men who don't want to be men, and women who don't want to be women. I think it's no surprise that many then engage in self-deception, looking for ways to support a belief that they aren't the sex that they actually are.
  - theprincess 4y ago
    Harassing transgender people and defaming them the way that Peterson did Eliot Page is not simply saying "men are not women." What he actually said was that the surgery that he had, to reduce his breast size in the same way a cis man who had gynecomastia would, was criminal. Here's a right leaning site with screenshots of the tweet if that makes you feel better: https://nypost.com/2022/06/30/twitter-suspends-jordan-peterson-for-elliot-page-sin-tweet/ https://nypost.com/2022/06/30/twitter-suspends-jordan-peters... Matt Walsh trolls transgender people and enjoys making their lives miserable because he believes their existence is a threat to his personal code of morality. He also wishes to ban transgender people, even adults, from receiving any sort of care beyond conversion therapy which is considered abusive and banned in many countries. https://www.mediamatters.org/matt-walsh/daily-wires-matt-walsh-says-he-supports-universal-ban-all-gender-affirming-medical-care https://www.mediamatters.org/matt-walsh/daily-wires-matt-wal... None of them are simply saying "men are not women." It's like the difference between saying you think homosexuals are deviants who should burn in hell and saying "marriage is between a man and a woman." In both cases you're trying to be a jerk, but in the former you're being a lot more aggressive about it. There's a reason why even most homophobes don't like the Westboro Baptist Church. Only the biggest jerks support openly harassing and trolling people because of things that they can't control. Even if you think being gay or trans is a mental illness, a mental illness is still something you can't control. Trolling people is obviously not an attempt to help them. It's an attempt to make them suffer because you hate them.
    - nailer 4y ago
      > Harassing transgender people and defaming them the way that Peterson did Eliot Page Did you read the tweet you posted? Peterson’s criticisms of Ellen Page’s physician (not even Page herself) are not harassment or defamation any more than your criticisms of Peterson are.
      - theprincess 4y ago
        > not even Page herself I see that you're not ideologically motivated here. ^_^ It's decidedly not "criminal" for an adult to get a surgery that is commonplace for men with gynecomastia just because they have an "F" on their birth certificate. Breast tissue is breast tissue and there is no regulation that says that anyone has to have a minimum amount of it based on their sex assigned at birth. Women have breast reductions, especially at advanced ages, to help with their mobility all the time after all. Peterson's objective was to slur Eliot Page by casting him and the doctor who treated him in a negative light. It's slimy trolling and provocation. Not speaking truth or even a simple fact like that "men are not women." Just thinly veiled hate for his hungry audience to feed on.
- nailer 4y ago
  Symbols associated with credible calls to violence. Pirates are more a joke, the CCP is trash but is known more as the government of mainland China than for their murders. Jewish people are beaten for existing to this day particularly by black Americans. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=men+are+not+women+twitter&t=iphone&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=men+are+not+women+twitter&t=iphone...
  - paxys 4y ago
    Who gets to decide what is or isn't a joke? I assume you'd be okay with Twitter (and other forms of media) banning right-wing politicians and groups in the USA that associate with Nazis and fly Nazi flags at their rallies? Or those who call for Jewish people to be exterminated? Except no, everyone was up in arms about Twitter and liberals doing just that pre-Musk, because "free speech". Banning Kanye a month ago was the worst thing in the world, and today it's completely justified (despite the fact that he is posting much milder stuff). Funny how the conversation has turned now, and everything Musk does is justified using whatever mental gymnastics is necessary.
    - nailer 4y ago
      > fly Nazi flags at their rallies? Or those who call for Jewish people to be exterminated Yes. I would support this ban for same reason I support Kanye being banned. > associate with Nazis I don’t support guilt by association. Punish people that do bad things not people that talk to people that do bad things. > Except no, everyone was up in arms about Twitter and liberals doing just that pre-Musk No they weren’t. They were pissed off about political bans not bans on racial violence. I mentioned an example earlier in this thread. I don’t think you listen to people that you perceive to be your opponents. Edit (can’t reply due to rate limit): I don’t think Kanye should have been reinstated after “death con 3” - please, if you want to know my opinion on something, just ask rather than assuming.
      - paxys 4y ago
        > Yes. I would support this ban for same reason I support Kanye being banned. Twitter banned Kanye for exactly this, were heavily criticized for it, and Musk reinstated him when he took over. So what is different now? If anything his recent tweets are milder (remember going "death con 3 on jewish people")? And why is trans hate okay but Jewish hate grounds for an instant ban?
- rsynnott 4y ago
  Nobody; Twitter's always been fairly tolerant of transphobia. Various unpleasant far-right figures were banned for attacking _specific trans people_, which is different (though Musk seems happy enough to bring them back).
  - musk_micropenis 4y ago
    That's not true at all. There are many, many cases of people being banned for what I would consider quite mild transphobia. There's was a high profile case this year[0] where a republican Senate candidate was banned for saying, "Women's sports are for women, not men pretending to be women" It is not hard to find many more cases and of course the vast majority of banned accounts belong to people with no public profile and you'll never hear about them. [1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/twitter-suspends-u-s-senate-candidate-for-hateful-conduct https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/twitter-suspends-u-s-s...
    - rsynnott 4y ago
      From your article: > Hartzler’s tweet, posted in mid-February, said: “Women’s sports are for women, not men pretending to be women,” _and included her TV ad targeting transgender people in sports and particularly University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas._ Emphasis mine.
      - nailer 4y ago
        That’s a fairly mainstream view, and the idea that gender is performance is popular in gender-theory too.
zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago
Raelians murdered millions of people?
llamaimperative 4y ago
Right, so "so much for free speech absolutism" is exactly right. Turns out even Elon has a line that is well short of "law of the land." Because, fucking obviously.
- nailer 4y ago
  I don’t think there’s any way you could draw that conclusion from the comment you’re replying to but ok.
- quantified 4y ago
  Not new. Alex Jones is off just because he says so.
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    Well to be clear, it's not "just because he says so." It's because Elon personally had an experience (the death of his child) that is salient enough for him to supersede free speech. This is very different from the personal experiences of other people regarding other contested topics/personalities primarily in that those are the experiences of people not named Elon. In those cases, free speech wins open and close, very simple, and if you are upset about it it's because you're part of the cabal that's trying to take down Elon/Twitter/free speech.
    - vcvzsa3221 4y ago
      >personally had an experience ... that is salient enough for him to supersede free speech. what? how is that valid? the whole point is being able to say something regardless of if it hurts someones feelings.
      - llamaimperative 4y ago
        It's not valid, that's how. He's using "free speech" as a way to hype up all the right winger fanboys and to unban people who will cause incredible drama (i.e. engagement) on Twitter. Hopefully all it causes is online drama, but the barrier between real world actions and online information sphere is way more permeable than the "it's just a website!" people would have you believe. It has nothing to do with principles of any sort.
triceratops 4y ago
Nazis didn't take very kindly to homosexual or transgendered people either.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nailer 4y ago
  Sure and if someone advocated for violence against those groups they should be banned. But “men are not women” does not advocate for violence as I’m sure you’re aware of.
  - hackrnusr 4y ago
    Whether or not a statement should be interpreted as advocating for violence against a protected class is in the mind of the interpreter.
  - 0x4d464d48 4y ago
    And a swastika could just be something posted by some ignorant man with a mental illness and no interest in advicating for violence yet it gets censored anyway. I don't have a problem with Twitter banning hate symbols but I have a massive problem with the intellectual bankruptcy over this "free speech absolutism" horse shit.
    - nailer 4y ago
      The he could just be ill is indeed the likely cause. But you have to treat the ill hate the same way you treat the sane hate. The free speech absolutist stuff never included violence he was clear about that. People were being banned for simply not being left wing. That was a huge problem and it’s stopped.
      - 0x4d464d48 4y ago
        Musk himself tweeted that hate speech is free speech. The only catch was that it would be demonitized with reduced reach. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1593673339826212864 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1593673339826212864 Evidentally that doesn't work on celebrities. Posting a swastika alone is not necessarilly a call to violence like posting a confederate flag or ACAB isn't always a call to violence. It's been more than evident that the drivers Musk's policies on moderation are commercial and personal which is well within his right. Others are pointing out the hypocrisy of him claiming that his motivations for setting policy have been a dedication to 'free speech absolutism' which is clearly not the case. If yourself and others the moderation policy on Twitter was too oppressive to right wing views and are happy with this new direction all I can say is good for you. But you and those same other people should come out and expressly say that instead of getting on a high horse over "free speech absolutism" when thats clearly not what you're interested in.

by nailer 4y ago

No. Banning someone because they posted the symbol of a group that murdered millions of people based on their race is very different from banning them because they posted “men are not women”.

SanjayMehta 4y ago

West posted a Raelian symbol, not a Hakenkreuz.

drkhn1234 4y ago

paxys 4y ago

So symbols are now banned on Twitter? Can I post a pirate flag? Skull and crossbones? The flag of the Chinese communist party? Also who was banned for posting "men are not women"?

raspberry1337 4y ago
Jordan Peterson, Matt Walsh, Matt Fradd, and a host of other Christians for similar points having in common that they deny transgender sex change.
- jtode 4y ago
  >sex change *gender affirmation (edit: which is to say, trans people never made any claim to changing anyone's sex)
  - gijtyd 4y ago
    Not true - if you go on social media such as Twitter and Reddit, you'll often see trans people making the claim that they've actually changed sex. Along with other nonsense, like transwomen claiming that they have a menstrual cycle.
    - jtode 4y ago
      I can find you people of any ideological stripe who will say all sorts of outlandish and astonishingly wrong things; this does not mean that you should choose those worst examples as your exemplars. If I did that, I would have to assume that anyone right wing was a full-on nazi, which even with the nascent fascist jock itch we're all suffering, is ridiculous. But the fact is that Sex and Gender are two different concepts - one, as you point out, is a biological matter having to do with reproduction, and is settled and done, usually, long before the body becomes conscious. Gender, on the other hand, manifests mostly as performance, but nonetheless arises from a deep-seated place in the mind. So if someone says their gender does not match their sex, this is not a difficult concept to hold in one's head. I don't doubt you've seen people saying horrible things of all kinds on Twitter and Reddit, but understand, those places have nothing to do with the real world. You're here because on some level, you do understand that, and you want better. Welcome.
      - gijtyd 4y ago
        These are surprisingly common examples. The idea behind the first is to redefine sex as a collection of attributes, and then claim that because a significant number of these attributes have changed, then sex has too. So a transwoman who believes this may point to his estrogen levels, breast growth, etc. as an indicator that he is female. This is why many claim to have a menstrual cycle too, it's intended as further indication of being female. When people say that their gender doesn't match their sex, they're expressing a rejection of their material existence. These are men who don't want to be men, and women who don't want to be women. I think it's no surprise that many then engage in self-deception, looking for ways to support a belief that they aren't the sex that they actually are.
- theprincess 4y ago
  Harassing transgender people and defaming them the way that Peterson did Eliot Page is not simply saying "men are not women." What he actually said was that the surgery that he had, to reduce his breast size in the same way a cis man who had gynecomastia would, was criminal. Here's a right leaning site with screenshots of the tweet if that makes you feel better: https://nypost.com/2022/06/30/twitter-suspends-jordan-peterson-for-elliot-page-sin-tweet/ https://nypost.com/2022/06/30/twitter-suspends-jordan-peters... Matt Walsh trolls transgender people and enjoys making their lives miserable because he believes their existence is a threat to his personal code of morality. He also wishes to ban transgender people, even adults, from receiving any sort of care beyond conversion therapy which is considered abusive and banned in many countries. https://www.mediamatters.org/matt-walsh/daily-wires-matt-walsh-says-he-supports-universal-ban-all-gender-affirming-medical-care https://www.mediamatters.org/matt-walsh/daily-wires-matt-wal... None of them are simply saying "men are not women." It's like the difference between saying you think homosexuals are deviants who should burn in hell and saying "marriage is between a man and a woman." In both cases you're trying to be a jerk, but in the former you're being a lot more aggressive about it. There's a reason why even most homophobes don't like the Westboro Baptist Church. Only the biggest jerks support openly harassing and trolling people because of things that they can't control. Even if you think being gay or trans is a mental illness, a mental illness is still something you can't control. Trolling people is obviously not an attempt to help them. It's an attempt to make them suffer because you hate them.
  - nailer 4y ago
    > Harassing transgender people and defaming them the way that Peterson did Eliot Page Did you read the tweet you posted? Peterson’s criticisms of Ellen Page’s physician (not even Page herself) are not harassment or defamation any more than your criticisms of Peterson are.
    - theprincess 4y ago
      > not even Page herself I see that you're not ideologically motivated here. ^_^ It's decidedly not "criminal" for an adult to get a surgery that is commonplace for men with gynecomastia just because they have an "F" on their birth certificate. Breast tissue is breast tissue and there is no regulation that says that anyone has to have a minimum amount of it based on their sex assigned at birth. Women have breast reductions, especially at advanced ages, to help with their mobility all the time after all. Peterson's objective was to slur Eliot Page by casting him and the doctor who treated him in a negative light. It's slimy trolling and provocation. Not speaking truth or even a simple fact like that "men are not women." Just thinly veiled hate for his hungry audience to feed on.
nailer 4y ago
Symbols associated with credible calls to violence. Pirates are more a joke, the CCP is trash but is known more as the government of mainland China than for their murders. Jewish people are beaten for existing to this day particularly by black Americans. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=men+are+not+women+twitter&t=iphone&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=men+are+not+women+twitter&t=iphone...
- paxys 4y ago
  Who gets to decide what is or isn't a joke? I assume you'd be okay with Twitter (and other forms of media) banning right-wing politicians and groups in the USA that associate with Nazis and fly Nazi flags at their rallies? Or those who call for Jewish people to be exterminated? Except no, everyone was up in arms about Twitter and liberals doing just that pre-Musk, because "free speech". Banning Kanye a month ago was the worst thing in the world, and today it's completely justified (despite the fact that he is posting much milder stuff). Funny how the conversation has turned now, and everything Musk does is justified using whatever mental gymnastics is necessary.
  - nailer 4y ago
    > fly Nazi flags at their rallies? Or those who call for Jewish people to be exterminated Yes. I would support this ban for same reason I support Kanye being banned. > associate with Nazis I don’t support guilt by association. Punish people that do bad things not people that talk to people that do bad things. > Except no, everyone was up in arms about Twitter and liberals doing just that pre-Musk No they weren’t. They were pissed off about political bans not bans on racial violence. I mentioned an example earlier in this thread. I don’t think you listen to people that you perceive to be your opponents. Edit (can’t reply due to rate limit): I don’t think Kanye should have been reinstated after “death con 3” - please, if you want to know my opinion on something, just ask rather than assuming.
    - paxys 4y ago
      > Yes. I would support this ban for same reason I support Kanye being banned. Twitter banned Kanye for exactly this, were heavily criticized for it, and Musk reinstated him when he took over. So what is different now? If anything his recent tweets are milder (remember going "death con 3 on jewish people")? And why is trans hate okay but Jewish hate grounds for an instant ban?
rsynnott 4y ago
Nobody; Twitter's always been fairly tolerant of transphobia. Various unpleasant far-right figures were banned for attacking _specific trans people_, which is different (though Musk seems happy enough to bring them back).
- musk_micropenis 4y ago
  That's not true at all. There are many, many cases of people being banned for what I would consider quite mild transphobia. There's was a high profile case this year[0] where a republican Senate candidate was banned for saying, "Women's sports are for women, not men pretending to be women" It is not hard to find many more cases and of course the vast majority of banned accounts belong to people with no public profile and you'll never hear about them. [1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/twitter-suspends-u-s-senate-candidate-for-hateful-conduct https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/twitter-suspends-u-s-s...
  - rsynnott 4y ago
    From your article: > Hartzler’s tweet, posted in mid-February, said: “Women’s sports are for women, not men pretending to be women,” _and included her TV ad targeting transgender people in sports and particularly University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas._ Emphasis mine.
    - nailer 4y ago
      That’s a fairly mainstream view, and the idea that gender is performance is popular in gender-theory too.

zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago

Raelians murdered millions of people?

llamaimperative 4y ago

Right, so "so much for free speech absolutism" is exactly right. Turns out even Elon has a line that is well short of "law of the land." Because, fucking obviously.

nailer 4y ago
I don’t think there’s any way you could draw that conclusion from the comment you’re replying to but ok.
quantified 4y ago
Not new. Alex Jones is off just because he says so.
- ethanbond 4y ago
  Well to be clear, it's not "just because he says so." It's because Elon personally had an experience (the death of his child) that is salient enough for him to supersede free speech. This is very different from the personal experiences of other people regarding other contested topics/personalities primarily in that those are the experiences of people not named Elon. In those cases, free speech wins open and close, very simple, and if you are upset about it it's because you're part of the cabal that's trying to take down Elon/Twitter/free speech.
  - vcvzsa3221 4y ago
    >personally had an experience ... that is salient enough for him to supersede free speech. what? how is that valid? the whole point is being able to say something regardless of if it hurts someones feelings.
    - llamaimperative 4y ago
      It's not valid, that's how. He's using "free speech" as a way to hype up all the right winger fanboys and to unban people who will cause incredible drama (i.e. engagement) on Twitter. Hopefully all it causes is online drama, but the barrier between real world actions and online information sphere is way more permeable than the "it's just a website!" people would have you believe. It has nothing to do with principles of any sort.

triceratops 4y ago

Nazis didn't take very kindly to homosexual or transgendered people either.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nailer 4y ago
Sure and if someone advocated for violence against those groups they should be banned. But “men are not women” does not advocate for violence as I’m sure you’re aware of.
- hackrnusr 4y ago
  Whether or not a statement should be interpreted as advocating for violence against a protected class is in the mind of the interpreter.
- 0x4d464d48 4y ago
  And a swastika could just be something posted by some ignorant man with a mental illness and no interest in advicating for violence yet it gets censored anyway. I don't have a problem with Twitter banning hate symbols but I have a massive problem with the intellectual bankruptcy over this "free speech absolutism" horse shit.
  - nailer 4y ago
    The he could just be ill is indeed the likely cause. But you have to treat the ill hate the same way you treat the sane hate. The free speech absolutist stuff never included violence he was clear about that. People were being banned for simply not being left wing. That was a huge problem and it’s stopped.
    - 0x4d464d48 4y ago
      Musk himself tweeted that hate speech is free speech. The only catch was that it would be demonitized with reduced reach. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1593673339826212864 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1593673339826212864 Evidentally that doesn't work on celebrities. Posting a swastika alone is not necessarilly a call to violence like posting a confederate flag or ACAB isn't always a call to violence. It's been more than evident that the drivers Musk's policies on moderation are commercial and personal which is well within his right. Others are pointing out the hypocrisy of him claiming that his motivations for setting policy have been a dedication to 'free speech absolutism' which is clearly not the case. If yourself and others the moderation policy on Twitter was too oppressive to right wing views and are happy with this new direction all I can say is good for you. But you and those same other people should come out and expressly say that instead of getting on a high horse over "free speech absolutism" when thats clearly not what you're interested in.