5 ms·

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 no

by 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.
- ss108 4y ago
  This reply might be too late for Hacker News, so I'll keep it concise since I think convo is dead anyways. I would say that there are a couple ways in which religion and gender decision/identity are quite comparable in specific contexts like this; namely, they both involve people adopting assertions or beliefs that are empirically untrue (and I say this as someone who does believe in God and is somewhat religious), and asking for varying degrees of deference to such beliefs. In the free speech context, we have the issue of when something is criticism of these subjective beliefs, versus when it is hate speech. I believe I can furnish at least one other, more clear example of a context in which, to me at least, they are pretty comparable. I think your point about "who is saying it" is like...I agree with your example, but I don't see that can be a rule lol. That's just discriminating on the basis of who is saying it--and besides, how do you necessarily know whether someone is armed and lonely? Does JK Rowling get a pass? She wasn't banned on Twitter, but she gets routinely dragged by a lot of people nowadays. IDK what most people think of Sam Harris. I am just glad he isn't more well-known and popular. I also agree that it is a complex problem lol.
- hygy 4y ago
  JK Rowling gets a pass because she doesn't explicitly say "transwomen are men" or "$NAME is a man" even though that is clearly what she believes. She comes close, e.g. with tweets like https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1597611298728337408 https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1597611298728337408, but doesn't cross the line. Whereas others who just go ahead and say it will eventually get their accounts suspended. It's the dogwhistle versus the foghorn.
- nailer 4y ago
  Gender is performative, religion is belief, neither performance or belief are innate qualities.
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    Not relevant to the convo but thanks for your thoughts.

by ss108 4y ago

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.

ss108 4y ago
This reply might be too late for Hacker News, so I'll keep it concise since I think convo is dead anyways. I would say that there are a couple ways in which religion and gender decision/identity are quite comparable in specific contexts like this; namely, they both involve people adopting assertions or beliefs that are empirically untrue (and I say this as someone who does believe in God and is somewhat religious), and asking for varying degrees of deference to such beliefs. In the free speech context, we have the issue of when something is criticism of these subjective beliefs, versus when it is hate speech. I believe I can furnish at least one other, more clear example of a context in which, to me at least, they are pretty comparable. I think your point about "who is saying it" is like...I agree with your example, but I don't see that can be a rule lol. That's just discriminating on the basis of who is saying it--and besides, how do you necessarily know whether someone is armed and lonely? Does JK Rowling get a pass? She wasn't banned on Twitter, but she gets routinely dragged by a lot of people nowadays. IDK what most people think of Sam Harris. I am just glad he isn't more well-known and popular. I also agree that it is a complex problem lol.
hygy 4y ago
JK Rowling gets a pass because she doesn't explicitly say "transwomen are men" or "$NAME is a man" even though that is clearly what she believes. She comes close, e.g. with tweets like https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1597611298728337408 https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1597611298728337408, but doesn't cross the line. Whereas others who just go ahead and say it will eventually get their accounts suspended. It's the dogwhistle versus the foghorn.
nailer 4y ago
Gender is performative, religion is belief, neither performance or belief are innate qualities.
- ethanbond 4y ago
  Not relevant to the convo but thanks for your thoughts.