6 ms·

> You are the one misrepresenting here. Someone involved in censoring a sitting US President is newsworthy Whether or not they are newsworthy or appropriate, i

> You are the one misrepresenting here. Someone involved in censoring a sitting US President is newsworthy Whether or not they are newsworthy or appropriate, information about Roth and Lorenz clearly isn't "video content the users had already explicitly uploaded for the purpose of public viewing". If you want to change your argument, feel free, but don't accuse me of misrepresentation and then lie. Of course, if you want to make the argument that Roth is notable enough, you can. But I want to see you thread the needle about how doxxing Roth is acceptable, but Musk isn't. > As to Boston Children's Hospital, you were lied to. A study from March this year clearly states that 36.7% of their patients were under 18 and as young as 15. No I was not. A hysterectomy is not a chest surgery, and the hospital doesn't provide them to children (https://archive.vn/7R44e https://archive.vn/7R44e). The hospital may provide some services to children, but hysterectomies aren't one of them. Again, do not misrepresent my comments.

brigandish 4y ago
> Of course, if you want to make the argument that Roth is notable enough, you can. But I want to see you thread the needle about how doxxing Roth is acceptable, but Musk isn't. I'm a bit confused by this. I have just checked Libs of Tiktok's Twitter feed and only found two tweets referencing Yoel Roth, one bemoaning the fact that LoTT is receiving threats and that if it were Roth it'd be national news[1], and another[2] from November the 4th flagging a tweet to him and wondering why it is still up. Where is LoTT doxxing Roth? As to the stuff circulating about Roth, it was all public to begin with, right? I certainly don't wish any threats to come his way but that's threats and harassment, not doxxing. Maybe I missed something. [1] https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1602978234345431040 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1602978234345431040 [2] https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1588338910815342592 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1588338910815342592
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1602797460769968128 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1602797460769968128 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1602188311099019265 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1602188311099019265 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1602179892346585090 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1602179892346585090 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1602147621698957312 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1602147621698957312 And more, all recent. You're correct, I guess that I should have said "harass" not doxx, but yeah there's tons of stuff LoTT is doing to stoke harassment at Roth (like imply he's a groomer: https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1601778632552484865 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1601778632552484865)
  - brigandish 4y ago
    I'll be frank and say that I don't find any of that to be harassment nor inciteful of anything but opprobrium, and I do find some of his tweets shown to make it easy to question his position. I think the tweet about whether students can consent is being unfairly taken out of context (the article it's from[1] is fair and not anything like the way it's being portrayed) but some of the other tweets and his PhD thesis… the criticism are valid (to be made, not necessarily correct). Still, no one should be in fear because of their legal speech - that makes it unfree - whether that's Roth or LoTT or Musk or anyone else, but I don't see that those tweets would be liable for that. [1] https://www.salon.com/2010/11/20/student_teacher/ https://www.salon.com/2010/11/20/student_teacher/
    - foldr 4y ago
      This LoTT tweet is pretty shameful: https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1602179892346585090 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1602179892346585090 It doesn't exactly take amazing Google fu to find infinite examples of straight women talking about how men holding babies are hot: https://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=men+holding+babies+sexy&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=men+holding+babies+se... I don't know if the tweet qualifies as harassment, but it's certainly making entirely baseless allegations that could easily lead to this person being targeted by crazy vigilante types.
      - brigandish 4y ago
        By using heterosexual, non-paedophilic women as one end of the spectrum, and paedophiles at the other, we can see that indeed, such statements by the former would raise no eyebrows. Such statements by the latter would raise eyebrows. That's because of context/prior behaviour. Roth has a lot of tweets that would provide context that invites raised eyebrows, especially given his PhD dissertation, and his behaviour as head of Trust and Safety, where he suppressed the #groomer hashtag, and given an overall context where people of Roth's political persuasion are hyping up drag queens dancing for children and he's actively suppressing criticism of it. That's so easy to explain. I also might add that women have a biological urge to give birth and take into account the male's skills as a father. To say that (some or all) gay guys have this may be true but it seems a stretch, and why express it out loud when you're supposed to look like you give a damn about CSAM? At the very least, his tweets are utterly stupid and reckless. If a headteacher tweets "wow, women are hot but women holding babies, extra hot!" wouldn't you pause? How about if he tweets out from his main account "I have a secret dirty twitter account", you wouldn't raise an eyebrow? Please. As to "that could easily lead to this person being targeted by crazy vigilante types", firstly, that could be said of anything, though we do have another spectrum, running from (to a reasonable person) non-threatening through marking out undesirables to directly threatening. The marking can lead to actual threatening situations, like before a genocide, but they also overlap with valid criticism, and since we're not in a genocide situation I struggle to see how the tweets in question reach that bar. Find something that says "we should kill paedos" from LoTT and you'll have a much stronger case, otherwise you've taken up a position where you're arguing against someone who's against paedophilia, simply because they're a political opponent. That's how this endless cycle continues.

brigandish 4y ago

> Of course, if you want to make the argument that Roth is notable enough, you can. But I want to see you thread the needle about how doxxing Roth is acceptable, but Musk isn't. I'm a bit confused by this. I have just checked Libs of Tiktok's Twitter feed and only found two tweets referencing Yoel Roth, one bemoaning the fact that LoTT is receiving threats and that if it were Roth it'd be national news[1], and another[2] from November the 4th flagging a tweet to him and wondering why it is still up. Where is LoTT doxxing Roth? As to the stuff circulating about Roth, it was all public to begin with, right? I certainly don't wish any threats to come his way but that's threats and harassment, not doxxing. Maybe I missed something. [1] https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1602978234345431040 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1602978234345431040 [2] https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1588338910815342592 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1588338910815342592

joshuamorton 4y ago
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1602797460769968128 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1602797460769968128 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1602188311099019265 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1602188311099019265 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1602179892346585090 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1602179892346585090 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1602147621698957312 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1602147621698957312 And more, all recent. You're correct, I guess that I should have said "harass" not doxx, but yeah there's tons of stuff LoTT is doing to stoke harassment at Roth (like imply he's a groomer: https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1601778632552484865 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1601778632552484865)
- brigandish 4y ago
  I'll be frank and say that I don't find any of that to be harassment nor inciteful of anything but opprobrium, and I do find some of his tweets shown to make it easy to question his position. I think the tweet about whether students can consent is being unfairly taken out of context (the article it's from[1] is fair and not anything like the way it's being portrayed) but some of the other tweets and his PhD thesis… the criticism are valid (to be made, not necessarily correct). Still, no one should be in fear because of their legal speech - that makes it unfree - whether that's Roth or LoTT or Musk or anyone else, but I don't see that those tweets would be liable for that. [1] https://www.salon.com/2010/11/20/student_teacher/ https://www.salon.com/2010/11/20/student_teacher/
  - foldr 4y ago
    This LoTT tweet is pretty shameful: https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1602179892346585090 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1602179892346585090 It doesn't exactly take amazing Google fu to find infinite examples of straight women talking about how men holding babies are hot: https://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=men+holding+babies+sexy&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=men+holding+babies+se... I don't know if the tweet qualifies as harassment, but it's certainly making entirely baseless allegations that could easily lead to this person being targeted by crazy vigilante types.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      By using heterosexual, non-paedophilic women as one end of the spectrum, and paedophiles at the other, we can see that indeed, such statements by the former would raise no eyebrows. Such statements by the latter would raise eyebrows. That's because of context/prior behaviour. Roth has a lot of tweets that would provide context that invites raised eyebrows, especially given his PhD dissertation, and his behaviour as head of Trust and Safety, where he suppressed the #groomer hashtag, and given an overall context where people of Roth's political persuasion are hyping up drag queens dancing for children and he's actively suppressing criticism of it. That's so easy to explain. I also might add that women have a biological urge to give birth and take into account the male's skills as a father. To say that (some or all) gay guys have this may be true but it seems a stretch, and why express it out loud when you're supposed to look like you give a damn about CSAM? At the very least, his tweets are utterly stupid and reckless. If a headteacher tweets "wow, women are hot but women holding babies, extra hot!" wouldn't you pause? How about if he tweets out from his main account "I have a secret dirty twitter account", you wouldn't raise an eyebrow? Please. As to "that could easily lead to this person being targeted by crazy vigilante types", firstly, that could be said of anything, though we do have another spectrum, running from (to a reasonable person) non-threatening through marking out undesirables to directly threatening. The marking can lead to actual threatening situations, like before a genocide, but they also overlap with valid criticism, and since we're not in a genocide situation I struggle to see how the tweets in question reach that bar. Find something that says "we should kill paedos" from LoTT and you'll have a much stronger case, otherwise you've taken up a position where you're arguing against someone who's against paedophilia, simply because they're a political opponent. That's how this endless cycle continues.