5 ms·

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1602797460769968128 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1602797460769968128 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status

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.
    - foldr 4y ago
      You are basically just saying, in a long winded way, that it’s ok for straight women to be attracted to straight men holding babies, but it’s not ok for gay men to be attracted to gay men holding babies. It’s a strikingly clear case of homophobia. One could more easily believe that it was unintentional on your part if you hadn’t written your third paragraph trying to justify it with back-of-an-envelope evo psych. > and why express it out loud when you're supposed to look like you give a damn about CSAM? At least get your timelines straight. He was an academic at the time and not working for twitter.
denoteds 4y ago
Sounds like fair criticism to me. These are all tweets that Roth made publicly. If he didn't want people to comment, he shouldn't have tweeted them.

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.
  - foldr 4y ago
    You are basically just saying, in a long winded way, that it’s ok for straight women to be attracted to straight men holding babies, but it’s not ok for gay men to be attracted to gay men holding babies. It’s a strikingly clear case of homophobia. One could more easily believe that it was unintentional on your part if you hadn’t written your third paragraph trying to justify it with back-of-an-envelope evo psych. > and why express it out loud when you're supposed to look like you give a damn about CSAM? At least get your timelines straight. He was an academic at the time and not working for twitter.

denoteds 4y ago

Sounds like fair criticism to me. These are all tweets that Roth made publicly. If he didn't want people to comment, he shouldn't have tweeted them.