22 ms·

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

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.
    - brigandish 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. What a strange way to misinterpret something long winded. Should I have written more for you, or do you think that your preconceived notions would render that effort as moot as it is now? > At least get your timelines straight. He was an academic at the time and not working for twitter. a) Were all his pronouncements during this period? b) He was writing about letting underage children onto Grindr for some nebulous reasons around that time: > accommodate a wide variety of use cases for platforms like Grindr — including, possibly, their role in safely connecting queer young adults. I can think of better ways for teenagers to connect than a hookup app. Can't you? c) American date format is idiotic, I'm not interested enough to decode them all, perhaps you could do it for me as you're so precise with what others have written.
      - foldr 4y ago
        I would love to hear your 'better ways' for queer teens to connect with each other. In general it is much more difficult for queer teenagers to meet each other (especially in more rural or conservative areas) than it is for straight teenagers. From the age of 16 I certainly made use of the internet to meet other gay people (in the early 2000s). While there are certainly risks associated (as indeed there are for adults!), one has to be realistic about the availability of other options – some of which may be considerably less safe. To me, it seems quite a sensible suggestion to have properly vetted apps that teenagers could access without lying about their age. This would probably make people safer on average than the status quo, where teenagers still use dating apps designed for adults. >a) Were all his pronouncements during this period? I don't know what counts as one of his 'pronouncements', so you will have to check this for yourself.

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.
  - brigandish 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. What a strange way to misinterpret something long winded. Should I have written more for you, or do you think that your preconceived notions would render that effort as moot as it is now? > At least get your timelines straight. He was an academic at the time and not working for twitter. a) Were all his pronouncements during this period? b) He was writing about letting underage children onto Grindr for some nebulous reasons around that time: > accommodate a wide variety of use cases for platforms like Grindr — including, possibly, their role in safely connecting queer young adults. I can think of better ways for teenagers to connect than a hookup app. Can't you? c) American date format is idiotic, I'm not interested enough to decode them all, perhaps you could do it for me as you're so precise with what others have written.
    - foldr 4y ago
      I would love to hear your 'better ways' for queer teens to connect with each other. In general it is much more difficult for queer teenagers to meet each other (especially in more rural or conservative areas) than it is for straight teenagers. From the age of 16 I certainly made use of the internet to meet other gay people (in the early 2000s). While there are certainly risks associated (as indeed there are for adults!), one has to be realistic about the availability of other options – some of which may be considerably less safe. To me, it seems quite a sensible suggestion to have properly vetted apps that teenagers could access without lying about their age. This would probably make people safer on average than the status quo, where teenagers still use dating apps designed for adults. >a) Were all his pronouncements during this period? I don't know what counts as one of his 'pronouncements', so you will have to check this for yourself.