4 ms·

So, Andrew Tate videos would be blocked for talking about male gender roles? I don’t understand why we are replacing “LGBT Content” with “Gender Content” in for

So, Andrew Tate videos would be blocked for talking about male gender roles? I don’t understand why we are replacing “LGBT Content” with “Gender Content” in formal vocabulary.

deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
2ndorderthought 5mo ago
It sounds less bigoted. It's not less bigoted. It sounds that way though.
sdsd 5mo ago
Most conservative Christians (at least the ones I know in LDS and evangelical circles) would be very uncomfortable with their kids watching Andrew Tate videos, yes.
- ceejayoz 5mo ago
  Their voting records don’t seem to bear that theory out.
  - spwa4 5mo ago
    One of the central tenets of democracy is that NOBODY knows anyone else's voting records. Even politicians are not allowed to reveal who they're voting for (meaning they can't show the paper. They can talk about it afterwards, but for all you know e.g. Trump voted for Harris). I've always known people involved with the Christian community to be opposed against all extreme political parties, left and right (and long ago against anarchists, mostly against greens, ...). If they are rightist, they won't be nearly far enough right to support Andrew Tate and the like. You don't know and can't know if being Christian and voting rightist overlaps or not. Only the general area is known. Nothing more.
    - ceejayoz 5mo ago
      I don’t know how you voted. I know how your neighborhood did; I know how evangelicals (and Asians and Jews and people in certain age and income brackets and dozens of other data points) voted. The more evangelical an area, the more it voted for Trump. We know this.
      - joe_mamba 5mo ago
        >The more evangelical an area, the more it voted for Trump. Talking to my evangelical friends here in Europe, they also voted for the most hardcore extremist populist candidates who turned out to be corrupt liars, just like Trump, who didn't give a flying fuck about the "Christian values" they preached, they just exploited them for the votes while doing the most non-Christian things ever in private. I think the reason they fall for candidates and apps like these, is evangelicals and devout Christians as a whole, are too trusty and naive, which makes the easy marks for the most unscrupulous predatory politicians and businessmen out there.
        joquarky 5mo ago
        The people who outsource their thinking often wind up in the same circles.
  - jitler 5mo ago
    Did large blocks of them vote for Tate?
    - ceejayoz 5mo ago
      Large blocks of them voted for his ally. https://www.propublica.org/article/andrew-tate-investigation-dhs-paul-ingrassia https://www.propublica.org/article/andrew-tate-investigation...
- array_key_first 5mo ago
  Andrew Tate is a raging misogynist, the Mormon church is built from the ground up on misogyny. Seems like a match made in heaven.
  - gopperl 5mo ago
    [flagged]
lowmagnet 5mo ago
Because they even conflate pronouns with gender issues. You know, the words that substitute for antecedents in conversation.
covvy 5mo ago
[flagged]
- nerdsniper 5mo ago
  You conflate them, but it kind of sounds like the article is separating their de novo definition of “gender” from “trans”? > It’s also rolling out a filter on sexual content aimed at blocking material related to gender and trans issues Also there’s no need to “separate the T” because the actual quote was that this group wants to block LGBT content: > “We are going to create an environment that is Jesus-centric, that is void of pornography, void of LGBT, void of trans” It’s just weird for news outlets to relabel “LGBT” to “Gender”.
- rsynnott 5mo ago
  ... Well, I mean, taken at its most literal, _arguably_ the earth is flat. It's a bloody nonsense argument, but one might theoretically make it, and thus it is arguable. If you mean 'arguable' in its more conventional meaning, then, no it isn't arguable, don't be silly. > This is why there's been a burgeoning "LGB drop the T" movement in the past few years. So... As an experienced homosexual, I have met exactly one gay person in real life who holds this position. But he also opposed gay marriage, and civil unions, so, ah, y'know, not the most rational actor. (Also, IIRC he didn't believe in bisexuals, so would presumably be looking to lose the 'B', as well...) In practice, pretty much anyone parroting "LGB, drop the T" thing is a straight transphobe, and likely also a homophobe.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]

So, Andrew Tate videos would be blocked for talking about male gender roles? I don’t understand why we are replacing “LGBT Content” with “Gender Content” in formal vocabulary.

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

2ndorderthought 5mo ago

It sounds less bigoted. It's not less bigoted. It sounds that way though.

sdsd 5mo ago

Most conservative Christians (at least the ones I know in LDS and evangelical circles) would be very uncomfortable with their kids watching Andrew Tate videos, yes.

ceejayoz 5mo ago
Their voting records don’t seem to bear that theory out.
- spwa4 5mo ago
  One of the central tenets of democracy is that NOBODY knows anyone else's voting records. Even politicians are not allowed to reveal who they're voting for (meaning they can't show the paper. They can talk about it afterwards, but for all you know e.g. Trump voted for Harris). I've always known people involved with the Christian community to be opposed against all extreme political parties, left and right (and long ago against anarchists, mostly against greens, ...). If they are rightist, they won't be nearly far enough right to support Andrew Tate and the like. You don't know and can't know if being Christian and voting rightist overlaps or not. Only the general area is known. Nothing more.
  - ceejayoz 5mo ago
    I don’t know how you voted. I know how your neighborhood did; I know how evangelicals (and Asians and Jews and people in certain age and income brackets and dozens of other data points) voted. The more evangelical an area, the more it voted for Trump. We know this.
    - joe_mamba 5mo ago
      >The more evangelical an area, the more it voted for Trump. Talking to my evangelical friends here in Europe, they also voted for the most hardcore extremist populist candidates who turned out to be corrupt liars, just like Trump, who didn't give a flying fuck about the "Christian values" they preached, they just exploited them for the votes while doing the most non-Christian things ever in private. I think the reason they fall for candidates and apps like these, is evangelicals and devout Christians as a whole, are too trusty and naive, which makes the easy marks for the most unscrupulous predatory politicians and businessmen out there.
      - joquarky 5mo ago
        The people who outsource their thinking often wind up in the same circles.
- jitler 5mo ago
  Did large blocks of them vote for Tate?
  - ceejayoz 5mo ago
    Large blocks of them voted for his ally. https://www.propublica.org/article/andrew-tate-investigation-dhs-paul-ingrassia https://www.propublica.org/article/andrew-tate-investigation...
array_key_first 5mo ago
Andrew Tate is a raging misogynist, the Mormon church is built from the ground up on misogyny. Seems like a match made in heaven.
- gopperl 5mo ago
  [flagged]

lowmagnet 5mo ago

Because they even conflate pronouns with gender issues. You know, the words that substitute for antecedents in conversation.

covvy 5mo ago

[flagged]

nerdsniper 5mo ago
You conflate them, but it kind of sounds like the article is separating their de novo definition of “gender” from “trans”? > It’s also rolling out a filter on sexual content aimed at blocking material related to gender and trans issues Also there’s no need to “separate the T” because the actual quote was that this group wants to block LGBT content: > “We are going to create an environment that is Jesus-centric, that is void of pornography, void of LGBT, void of trans” It’s just weird for news outlets to relabel “LGBT” to “Gender”.
rsynnott 5mo ago
... Well, I mean, taken at its most literal, _arguably_ the earth is flat. It's a bloody nonsense argument, but one might theoretically make it, and thus it is arguable. If you mean 'arguable' in its more conventional meaning, then, no it isn't arguable, don't be silly. > This is why there's been a burgeoning "LGB drop the T" movement in the past few years. So... As an experienced homosexual, I have met exactly one gay person in real life who holds this position. But he also opposed gay marriage, and civil unions, so, ah, y'know, not the most rational actor. (Also, IIRC he didn't believe in bisexuals, so would presumably be looking to lose the 'B', as well...) In practice, pretty much anyone parroting "LGB, drop the T" thing is a straight transphobe, and likely also a homophobe.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]