6 ms·

I am on your side generally, but are you labelling "men are not women" (or w/e) hate speech? I think this is the sort of thing that poses a problem; that's bas

by ss108 4y ago

I am on your side generally, but are you labelling "men are not women" (or w/e) hate speech? I think this is the sort of thing that poses a problem; that's basically a position on a controversial issue. It's not hate speech anymore than saying "There is no God" is hate speech against religious people.

assbuttbuttass 4y ago
I think a closer equivalent would be saying "marriage is between a man and a woman"
- ss108 4y ago
  I disagree; I think saying God doesn't exist is much closer. Some people have a subjective belief God exists. Some of them admit it is subjective, others assert that God objectively exists. People who do not believe in God typically say no, it's not subjective, and, as a descriptive matter, we have no evidence God exists, etc. Similarly, some people believe gender is subjective, and that people can "be" another gender if they feel like it (if I am getting this wrong lmk; it's obviously a simplistic statement of that position). Others believe the question is purely objective and determined by observable biology--i.e. "it's not subjective, and as a descriptive matter, you are x gender". In contrast, "marriage is between a man and a woman" is basically purely normative. It is not a statement about what "is". It is a statement about what should be.
  - assbuttbuttass 4y ago
    "Trans people exist" is an objective statement of fact (though some people would say it's just a "choice"). But also, "trans women are women" is normative, since it seeks to prescribe how trans people are treated by society.
ethanbond 4y ago
Today's hate speech is yesterday's "position on a controversial issue." (I don't think this is a simple question at all, but this particular tack is not as sound as it might appear. There was a time not so long ago that vitriolic antisemitism, even in the US and western Europe, was pretty much the consensus view.)
- ss108 4y ago
  I get where you're coming from, but there are few issues with this. Most importantly, I think as a practical matter, there is a big difference between "I do not think gender is subjective; instead, it is determined by observable biology" and "Jews are a treacherous race who control the levers of power and do not properly belong in our society". Obviously, there is real hate speech against transgender people; but basic criticisms of that lifestyle choice (including the very labelling of it as a "lifestyle choice"), without more, cannot reasonably count as such. I would be interested how many people who want to deplatform or censor criticisms of the phenomenon of transgenderism would agree with critcising Sam Harris in similar fashion. His criticisms of religion, in particular Islam, are very virulent and strident, and don't seem logically that distinct from "denying" that a man can become a woman. Doesn't he basically say that religion is a kind of mental disorder and that society should ban it? In fact, things like complaining about calling women "birthing people" seem quaint in comparison the stuff he says.
  - llamaimperative 4y ago
    IMO there are so many differences between a religion and a gender decision/behavior/whatever you'd like to call it that they're really hard to compare in this way. That said, I don't think there's much banning going on of people who are truly just stating their position "x is not y." In fact if that were the case, you'd see e.g. JK Rowling booted immediately. So why isn't she? In my view, platforms and individuals are making assessments of other people's intents and the likely impacts of their words in totality. It's a deeply inconvenient fact that the words "a b c" uttered by one person to one audience can yield completely different results than the exact same words "a b c" uttered by a different person to a different audience. This is inconvenient because it makes consistent-appearing regulation basically impossible, but the reality is that everyone does this every day. We get it wrong a lot, but on net, it's obvious that a neo-Nazi with disgruntled, armed, lonely young men followers saying, "the Jews are overrepresented in media" is completely different from Pew Research saying "the Jews are overrepresented in media." These two phrases are different in basically every single way that matters! So this is why IMO JK Rowling and Sam Harris kind of get passes. It's very obvious they're not calling people to arms. It's obvious their fans are not about to go raid a mosque or a gender-affirming care clinic. This is not so obvious for, as far as I can tell, many of the people who've gotten hit by Twitter's moderation. Edit: And just to be crystal clear, I don't think Twitter or anyone else has gotten this exactly right. Idk what that'd even look like. It's a ridiculously hard problem. But that's why I never bought a website with 160MM DAU declaring that free speech is back.

by ss108 4y ago

assbuttbuttass 4y ago

I think a closer equivalent would be saying "marriage is between a man and a woman"

ss108 4y ago
I disagree; I think saying God doesn't exist is much closer. Some people have a subjective belief God exists. Some of them admit it is subjective, others assert that God objectively exists. People who do not believe in God typically say no, it's not subjective, and, as a descriptive matter, we have no evidence God exists, etc. Similarly, some people believe gender is subjective, and that people can "be" another gender if they feel like it (if I am getting this wrong lmk; it's obviously a simplistic statement of that position). Others believe the question is purely objective and determined by observable biology--i.e. "it's not subjective, and as a descriptive matter, you are x gender". In contrast, "marriage is between a man and a woman" is basically purely normative. It is not a statement about what "is". It is a statement about what should be.
- assbuttbuttass 4y ago
  "Trans people exist" is an objective statement of fact (though some people would say it's just a "choice"). But also, "trans women are women" is normative, since it seeks to prescribe how trans people are treated by society.

ethanbond 4y ago

Today's hate speech is yesterday's "position on a controversial issue." (I don't think this is a simple question at all, but this particular tack is not as sound as it might appear. There was a time not so long ago that vitriolic antisemitism, even in the US and western Europe, was pretty much the consensus view.)

ss108 4y ago
I get where you're coming from, but there are few issues with this. Most importantly, I think as a practical matter, there is a big difference between "I do not think gender is subjective; instead, it is determined by observable biology" and "Jews are a treacherous race who control the levers of power and do not properly belong in our society". Obviously, there is real hate speech against transgender people; but basic criticisms of that lifestyle choice (including the very labelling of it as a "lifestyle choice"), without more, cannot reasonably count as such. I would be interested how many people who want to deplatform or censor criticisms of the phenomenon of transgenderism would agree with critcising Sam Harris in similar fashion. His criticisms of religion, in particular Islam, are very virulent and strident, and don't seem logically that distinct from "denying" that a man can become a woman. Doesn't he basically say that religion is a kind of mental disorder and that society should ban it? In fact, things like complaining about calling women "birthing people" seem quaint in comparison the stuff he says.
- llamaimperative 4y ago
  IMO there are so many differences between a religion and a gender decision/behavior/whatever you'd like to call it that they're really hard to compare in this way. That said, I don't think there's much banning going on of people who are truly just stating their position "x is not y." In fact if that were the case, you'd see e.g. JK Rowling booted immediately. So why isn't she? In my view, platforms and individuals are making assessments of other people's intents and the likely impacts of their words in totality. It's a deeply inconvenient fact that the words "a b c" uttered by one person to one audience can yield completely different results than the exact same words "a b c" uttered by a different person to a different audience. This is inconvenient because it makes consistent-appearing regulation basically impossible, but the reality is that everyone does this every day. We get it wrong a lot, but on net, it's obvious that a neo-Nazi with disgruntled, armed, lonely young men followers saying, "the Jews are overrepresented in media" is completely different from Pew Research saying "the Jews are overrepresented in media." These two phrases are different in basically every single way that matters! So this is why IMO JK Rowling and Sam Harris kind of get passes. It's very obvious they're not calling people to arms. It's obvious their fans are not about to go raid a mosque or a gender-affirming care clinic. This is not so obvious for, as far as I can tell, many of the people who've gotten hit by Twitter's moderation. Edit: And just to be crystal clear, I don't think Twitter or anyone else has gotten this exactly right. Idk what that'd even look like. It's a ridiculously hard problem. But that's why I never bought a website with 160MM DAU declaring that free speech is back.