As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like

from the that-did-not-take-long-at-all dept

Well, that did not take long at all. On Friday we predicted that just like every other social media platform out there, the new favorite among people who falsely say that Twitter is censoring conservatives, would start taking down content and shutting down accounts just like everyone else. Because, if you run any sort of platform that allows 3rd party speech, sooner or later you discover you have to do that. In Friday’s post, we highlighted Parler’s terms of service, which certainly allows for it to take down any content for any reason (we also mocked their “quick read on Wikipedia” style understanding of the 1st Amendment).

What we did not expect was that Parler would prove us right so damn quickly. Over the weekend, Parler was apparently busy taking down accounts.

And he was not the only one.

There’s a lot more as well. Parler seems to be banning a bunch of people. And it has the right to do so. Which is great. But what’s not great is the site continues to pretend that it’s some “free speech alternative” to Twitter when it’s facing the same exact content moderation issues. And, yes, some people are claiming that Parler’s quick trigger finger is mostly about shutting down “left” leaning accounts, but as with Twitter’s content moderation, I won’t say that for sure unless I see some actual evidence to support it.

What I will say is that when politicians like Ted Cruz say he’s joining Parler because it doesn’t have “censorship,” he’s wrong. Same with basically every other foolish person screaming about how Parler is about “free speech.” It’s got the same damn content moderation questions every platform has. And it’s pretty silly for Parler’s CEO to refer to Twitter as a “techno-fascist” company for its content moderation policies, when his company appears to be doing basically the same thing. Amusingly, the CEO is also claiming that “If you can say it on the street of New York, you can say it on Parler. Except that later in that same article, he admits: “You can?t spam people?s comment sections with unrelated content.” Except, you kinda can do that on the “street of New York.” (I recall there being more than one street in New York, but whatever). Anyway, this was always bogus, as you can see from the fact that so many accounts are being banned.

As I’ve said before: I think competition is good. And, personally, I’d prefer there to be many more competitors (though, I wish they were interoperable implementations of a protocol, rather than individual silos, but…). So, I have nothing against Parler existing. In fact, I think it’s an excellent demonstration of why the concerns about “dominance” by Twitter or other platforms is silly. It’s possible to create alternatives, and Parler has shown that it’s able to attract a bunch of users. At least for now.

But what no one should do, is think that Parler is somehow any more “pro-free speech” than Twitter is, or that it doesn’t pull down content and accounts. Because it does.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: parler

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
914 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

The part you’re missing is that it’s only censorship if it silences speech you like. When speech you don’t like is censored that’s just common sense, silly. What are you, some sort of commie mutant traitor?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

General stereotypes are fun and usually full of assumptions.

Many who voted for Biden did so not because they like neocons, but because they realize Donald is a dictator wannabe and is running a slow motion coup – or at least trying very poorly.

Now, if one were to ask a liberal lefty whatever your derogatory term of choice my be, I doubt that any one particular person would hold all of those stated opinions.

Not all weapons are owned by right wing conservative types.
Amnesty for what?

I like the bigger government thing – that is a laugh and a half. Conservative are for small government when they are not in control, otherwise it is open flood gates.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

It’s hazardous to presume that a person’s behavior or position defines who they are.

As for Trump’s dictatorial policy, his declaration of a national emergency due to alleged invaders from the southern border (id est, immigrants and refugees) was pretty dictatorial, as was the re-appropriation of funds from schools for military children and for maintaining harbors in order to build his wall. But then the whole wall program was typical of an tyrant who governs based on whimsy rather than research into state affairs.

Then there’s the whole thing of selling access to himself to foreign powers through his hotels and clubs. Profiteering off of one’s position as head of state is pretty dictatorial.

Then there’s the nepotism within the White House, going as far as giving his kids security clearances for which they did not qualify (and are and remain a national security risk.) That’s classic dictatorial material right there.

Oh yes, and leaving Puerto Rico without relief after Hurricane Dorian was a dick move, the kind for which usually one has to be a banana-republic dictator to pull. But that may more be an indictment of how low the US has fallen in letting Trump get elected in the first place.

Whether you can’t think of Trump’s dictatorial maneuvers, Bobbybrownbb or you choose to ignore them, it’s terrifying either way. That you don’t bother to look that crap up demonstrates your own indifference to your civic responsibility, but that’s not unique to you, and again is an indictment of our nation.

But that’s not the only thing not unique to you. More than seventy million other Americans appear voted for Trump even after he botched the COVID-19 response (and continues to do so). Moreover our Republican Senators can’t seem to scrape together an ounce of personal integrity, but that’s a natural outcome of allowing an elected President serve as a dictator.

It’s the crimes against humanity that break my heart, not that Trump did them and is not (yet) held accountable, but that such a mass of American population are perfectly okay with the kids left orphaned and the Kurds left to be massacred and the Muslim ban.

I don’t know why people like you can’t recognize the intrinsic hazards that come with tolerating our fascist police state and our captured federal government, as we’re all on the purge list (unless you’re buddies with a billionaire).

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Mainstream media

Not a single original thought

Of course not. I’m not here for the art. The facts color President Trump as a dictator-wannabe. I’m not making shit up or coming to conclusions that were not come to by countless others, both in the mainstream media sector and out.

Also, just because someone you don’t respect says a thing doesn’t make it false or true. It just means you don’t respect it as a data source.

I get my data from multiple sources, which means if you give a fuck, you can confirm it yourself with a couple of websearches.

Or not, because you’re comfortable in your data bubble and you’re too afraid to see things that might stress your worldview.

That is cowardice, incidentally, and makes you exactly the kind of chump that Trump likes to exploit.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

Whelp, you can add instigating a coup d’etat to the list of dictatory actions by President Trump. Elizabeth from Knoxville Tennessee, believed she was participating in a coup and got a facefull of pepper spray for her involvement.

Feel free to actually look up what Trump has done, starting with the Muslim Ban.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

nobody says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

I see idiocy on both sides in this comment section, but how the hell was this a coup? Thousands were there that had nothing to do with it (the same rational separated BLM protesters from rioters all year who did much worse, now it doesn’t apply I guess). Trump told everyone early to go home and they banned him. And now this article looks real dated since everyone has banned Parler (Twitter is a competitor to a Parler while Google and Amazon are a provider, all 3 of whom operated in unison just now).

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
nobody says:

Re: Re: Re:9 "How the hell was this a coup?"

Evidence of what? And that definition doesn’t fit for a coup, otherwise you could say that of anyone who challenges the vote of an election (which is absolutely allowed by the constitution, and it would be typical of those wanting power to label those challenges as a coup). But if you want to remove all context and discretion and go by the dictionary, well then there have been dozens of coup attempts this year that went unchecked. And as far as "evidence", while it was certainly NEARLY ALL Trump supporters who broke in, there were some notable exceptions, and were finding out that the capital police were oddly unprepared for potential escalations when compared to many other (and much smaller) protest gatherings. It was a travesty and absolutely should be called out as a riot, but not some organized insurrection, not even close. It’s fine to not like Trump, I get it, but NO ONE should be in support of these opportunistic, Orwellian actions being taken in response (be they legal or not).

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 "How the hell was this a coup?"

anyone who challenges the vote of an election (which is absolutely allowed by the constitution) [would be a coup d’etat]

The Constitution doesn’t allow for military or violent challenges to the election. Litigation, yes. Strong-arm assault, no. The Wednesday assault was violent. New revelations are showing it was significantly violent. Discussions on Parler have revealed that there were directions to use force. Materials brought by the raiding crowd indicate an intent to use deadly force.

Not just the pipe bombs.

Complain here all you like, but judges and juries will decide if the attack should be described as a coup d’etat, and what an appropriate punishment should be.

It’s a good thing there are tons of photos and video footage.

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
nobody says:

Re: Re: Re:11 "How the hell was this a coup?"

My line about the constitution was in response to your secondary definition of a coup. Yes, OF COURSE a violent takeover would count, but if the sheer amount of people involved and the level of organization is not taken into account at all, then SEVERAL local coup attempts have happened the past (yes I said local, clearly for the whole country, the scale would need to go up). It’s funny you say "military or violent" as that sounds like we both know what a coup ACTUALLY looks like. The soviet coup in ’91 involved tanks, for god’s sake, with military and political leaders, not people getting high or being half-naked with horns (and again, a couple were either antifa or BLM, weird company for this organized assault by Trump supporters). But fine, there were some who were armed and some explosives found, and individuals organization what TO THEM was coup, for sure. But again, if that’s the standard then all those who used Twitter and Facebook to organize attacks over the past year should either be charged or have their existing charges elevated.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

According to the lefftards not all the Muslim are bad but all the Trumpers are Terorrist !

No one is saying that all Trump supporters are terrorists. Just that an alarmingly large number of them appear to at least want to be terrorists and that the people who stormed inside the capital last week were Trump-supporting terrorists.

Who,s side is burning and looting , wreck the national flag all this years?

The alt-right and some dissatisfied blacks, generally after being assaulted in the latter case. Well, actually, I don’t know of anyone wrecking the national flag, not that it matters as that is protected speech so I don’t care.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re:

Rally sizes are not a reliable indicator of election results, especially during a time when many voters, especially on one side, are fearful of catching a highly infectious disease and both they and the people organizing the rallies for that side are taking precautions (like social distancing) to reduce the spread of said disease. And that’s not getting into the fact that a lot of people who voted to elect Biden were doing so not because they like Biden or were Democrats (the type of people who’d attend Biden’s rallies) but because they dislike Trump more than they dislike Biden.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

Yeah, according to Politico and FiveThirtyEight Trump voters really like the racist dog whistles (more accurately, the racist dog tubas). So while I went to great lengths to give Trump voters the benefit of doubt, yeah, it turns out I was wrong and they just mostly (over 90%) want to purge the brown people.

They still do in 2020.

Incidentally, now that the FBI’s arresting Boogaloo Bois for burning and looting during BLM demonstrations, Trump’s own people have contributed to the ambiguity regarding violence during demonstrations. BLM demonstrations are still unlikely to be violent, even when the police go in, guns and grenade-launchers blazing.

Just like the civil rights, the left doesn’t have to do anything before law enforcement opens hostilities. Only now, smartphones with cameras are ubiquitous. And they’re streaming to the internet, and being watched. We don’t have news agencies as a gateway anymore (and boy are they pissed off over it).

So maybe look at the videos and face the truth, if you dare. The FBI has already determined white supremacists and far right nationalists are the greatest terror threat in the US.

I bet they’re looking for recruits, if you’re interested.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Fucking morons

That’s what US Secretary of State Tillerson called Trump in a moment of candor. We can’t be sure that was the last straw that motivated Tillerson’s ouster. Rumor has it Tillerson had written his resignation already and Pence convinced him to hold out a bit longer.

I suspect fucking moron is a prerequisite to work for Trump, To be a MAGA or a Q… or a Proud Boy. FBI plants must me losing their goddamn minds saturated in and forced to mimic the banality.

But I get the implication and appreciate it. As a youngster, I too yearned for a cause in which the bad guys wore black hats and the good guys wore white. I, too yearned for a cause greater than myself. But then I had to face the horrifying revelation that sides are what we take in hours of desperation and scarcity. And the ones painted to be the culprits is not the ones on the propaganda posters.

Besides which, everything Trump stands for, everything his MAGAs and Qs and goon squads stand for is contrary to the promise of the United States. And contrary to societal fundamentals I would argue are essential in a modern nation. So no thank you. I’m glad you didn’t ask outright.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

He’s tried to discredit the media, fired anyone who doesn’t do exactly what he says, favors loyalty to him over loyalty to the country or the law, has tried to shut down investigations into him or his cronies, claimed to have absolute power, calls for law and order while holding himself to be above the law, claimed that the election was rigged if he wasn’t elected, and instigated an attempted coup to keep him in power. He may not actually be a dictator, but it’s not for a lack of trying.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

What a F-ing coward! Meet me in the street bitch! You must be a transgender. All homos, trannies, lesbians, illegal aliens, libtards, abortionists, will be thrown into the lake of fire on judgement day. Now that is a movie I can’t wait to see. Watching your carcass being dropped into the fire. Trump is God’s messenger for this wicked generation. To even speak evil of Trump is blasphemy against Jesus Christ who is God almighty manifested in flesh

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Scarygary says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Please go to the cdc website and see the latest video on how hospitals have lied about covid deaths to the tune of 130k. Why, because the receive money for every reported death and case. All this does is give tyrannical politicians ammunition to exert their power under the excuse that they are saving humanity. BS.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

I would address this, but it has absolutely nothing to do with this article, so I’ll just assume it’s spam.

In case you were wondering, this is about Parler’s claimed and actual moderation policies. I’m more than willing to go beyond that and go for closely related topics like social media, moderation, Twitter, Reddit, §230, allegations of conservative bias, etc. However, the pandemic, while an important issue to discuss, has no relevance to the article.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

noname says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

@Uriel-238 Trump selling access through his clubs?? You are more of a conspiracy theorist than Alex Jones. Pop Pop Biden has been selling influence for decades. Now we know how his son got rich. Hunter’s so arrogant he won’t even pay the taxes because he thinks Daddy will save him. Wake up fool. You don’t need to wear the black Nikes and track suit. What flavor is the Kool aid that they gave you?

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 White House access via the DC Trump Hotel

Start here. I’m sure this rabbit hole goes further than you want to dig.

Your turn. Show me the goods regarding Joe and Hunter Biden.

PS: Biden’s not my guy. I know he’s old establishment. But like Clinton his corruption is less by orders of magnitude than Trump ever was, and we knew this in 2016.

You were played. We’ve all been played.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

You have intelligently been programmed (brain washed) in your whole way of defining and recognizing right from wrong and good vs evil.

I can most likely be assured that you do not believe in one God and the Bible or your thought process would not be so skewed and deranged.

May God’s Holy Spirit touch your soul and awaken you.

Love you brother

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 "Be assured that you do not believe in God"

Oh I can assure you that I do not believe in God. And doubly so for the Abrahamic mythology. Heck the notion that the universe is but Azathoth’s dream is more credible than the overworked, mistranslated mess that is 21st century Christianity (and its ~40,000 schisms).

I am not Christian nor claim to be. But having a solid grasp on truth based on evidence is way more important to me than adhering to comforting fables based on credulity and faith.

As I’ve noted regarding the allegiance to Trump of Christian voters in contrast to the national average, Christians are eager to see sin and waggle their fingers at other people. They give themselves and each other a mulligan.

Not all Christians are this way, but enough of them are that the Supreme Court of the United States is now skewed to exalt institutions over people, and to confine women and LGBT+ to an underclass.

So I am entirely unimpressed with Christianity as a source of moral compass. I’ll keep my own council as what is right and wrong, and self awareness enough to know I’m still just an ape acting more on instinct than rationality. We all are.

Don’t be a sucker, and don’t rely on the wrath of some angry all-father to drive you to social propriety. Do right for right’s sake, because doing so has material benefit for all.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Jeff says:

Re: Re: Re:7 "Be assured that you do not believe in God"

"Do right for right’s sake"

So playing devil’s advocate for a minute. Without a real God that created humanity and provided absolute truth on how to interact with each other for a properly functioning society, then how do you conclude what is actually right in order to do it. For example is sex outside of marriage right and if so (going against "God" given rules), how do we know it’s not actually causing tiny undetectable ripples of damage to society that combine with other tiny ripples (like envy, gluttony, pride, etc.) which eventually lead to waves of broken adults later on. Perhaps our feeble efforts to relax the long established written religious rules of conduct because "God doesn’t exist" is the reason for 99% of society’s current ills.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 "Be assured that you do not believe in God"

Without a real God that created humanity and provided absolute truth on how to interact with each other for a properly functioning society, then how do you conclude what is actually right in order to do it.

Are you honestly suggesting that without "God" telling you what’s right you are unable to determine for yourself the difference between right and wrong? That’s ridiculous.

Perhaps our feeble efforts to relax the long established written religious rules of conduct because "God doesn’t exist" is the reason for 99% of society’s current ills.

Going to definitely need a citation on that one…

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Divine Command Theory

Without God [telling us how to behave in society] how do you conclude what is actually right in order to do it?

It’s a pedantic nit (from a philosopher’s perspective) that the role of guiding humankind is not necessarily integrated with the role of creating the universe. Not a big deal, but in most faiths, the two roles are separate.

For one thing, we’ve worked out (multiple times) divine command theory hasn’t been all that great for us serfs. Divine right of kings has invariably resulted in a John of England, a Caligula or a Trump† who sets progress back generations. When we’re lucky, it results in social movements away from religious decree and toward anthropocentric forms of leadership-selection.

So what do we do when God isn’t telling us what to do (or we highly suspect scripture is really some ancient-era version of Dienetics)? We figure out better ways. This is where we delve into notions like utilitarianism or contractrarianism (see also, the Social Contract). Having been screwed over by God-ordained creedalism (deontological ethics when ethicists talk about them) we work out better ways. Trial and error. When oligarchs aren’t trying to force us back into feudalism, they can work pretty well.

But another thing: We don’t care. Even when we are devoutly religious. Even when we are ethicists, the human ape tends more to do what he (she) feels like doing, rather than what he believes he is morally obligated to do. Black churchgoers voted (mostly) for Clinton in 2016. White churchgoers voted (mostly) for Trump. They all felt justified. And even the wackos that raided the Capitol on January 6th felt they were entirely vindicated and justified in their assault. The religious leaders and political leaders of the US routinely engage in peculation despite their (alleged) upstanding moral qualities, and our religious gladly engage in partisanship when choosing who to forgive and who to condemn.

So without God telling us what to do we’d be… doing what we do now, most likely.

† Yes, Trump was elected, not appointed, but only though non-democratic means, and the religious blocs defied their own morality (trump’s less-than-pure character and history, for which other politicians have been routinely condemned) as if it were a mandate from God. It was at least a mandate from their respective religious institutions, and blind obedience contributed to Trump’s electoral victory.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Extra-marital sex

Is sex outside of marriage right?

Firstly, the institution of marriage has its own problems. We’ve long established that marriage is not merely a license to procreate, and yet the resistance to give LGBT+ folk the right to marry (and access the extensive library of state benefits for married couples) was a long, hard fought battle with opposition largely among the gatekeepers, so marriage itself is less a device of social function and more of a device of social control. This is affirmed by the fact that children are still being married in the United States, often to older partners (and are then expected to perform their marital duties). Nine-year-olds were being (legally!) married as recently as the 1990s, and I know of a thirteen-year-old married in 2018, so marriage doesn’t serve to assure functional matches or to protect children.

Then, modern medical science regards premarital sex as healthy and functional despite the social expectation that brides will be virgins. a robust sexual routine has a number of health benefits, and premarital sex promotes sexual self-awareness, so a person knows what she (he) wants, what turns her on and gets her off, which makes for more communicative, longer lasting relationships.

Extra-marital sex can serve when two partners have mismatched libidos, have to spend a lot of time apart or just have mutual appetites to play the field. Emotions like jealousy can be a matter (often more an issue of inclusion than possession), but also can be navigated with communication.

So, despite the common believe that open marriages are fragile, It’s deception and imbalanced negotiations that cause those relationships to break down, not the sex. Plural relationships have to be win-win(-win-win-win) and not like our click-through telecommunications term-of-service contracts.

(Speaking of which, it’s difficult to create a society that respects consent when most of our other interactions are about one side trying to graft the other side. But that’s a criticism of late-stage capitalism, not of sexuality.)

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 "Be assured that you do not believe in God"

Now, I’m a Christian, but I cannot abide by such faulty arguments.

Without a real God that created humanity and provided absolute truth on how to interact with each other for a properly functioning society, then how do you conclude what is actually right in order to do it.

First off, as a social species, humans have evolved to have empathy, giving them an intuitive sense of right and wrong, at least in broad strokes. This empathy is often strongest for those who are most like the subject. We also evolved to have a sense of fairness for similar reasons, which similarly provides guidance to our individual sense of morality.

Second, we can basically come up with a society-wide set of morals by agreeing on certain goals to work towards, like maximizing well-being and happiness for as many people as possible while minimizing harm to as many as possible, and some sort of priority system. Actions that help us approach those goals are “good”, while actions that push us further from those goals are “bad”. Obviously, some of the details are not agreed upon, which leads to gray areas.

Really, that’s basically what morality is: things that progress us towards some goal we like are “good”, while things that push us away from that goal are “bad”. And it can get pretty subjective and relative. Even if we just look at Christian philosophers, there is a lot of disagreement among them because they can’t agree on some things like goals and which things are more important. And there are a lot of gray area and many exceptions to generally accepted rules.

On a side note, playing a different sort of Devil’s advocate, let’s say that there is a real God who created humanity and provided a code of conduct. 1) That’s not an absolute morality as there are still exceptions to some of the rules. 2) It’s also not an objective morality because it’s based on the views of a personal being (God). 3) If it’s so perfect, why has it changed over time? I go into more detail later with some examples, but the morality most American Christians follow today, even the most devout Evangelical ones, is not the same as the one in Biblical times or even in early American history or just a few decades ago. 4) Again, if it’s so perfect and an absolute truth, why is it that so many Christians cannot agree on what that truth is? And what about the other religions with their own rules? What puts Christianity above them?

Since there is no way to definitively prove or disprove the existence of any God, gods, or goddesses in general, which God, gods, or goddesses exist (if any), which of the many holy texts is/are an accurate description of the “true” morality, or which interpretation of the “true” holy text(s) is the right one, if any, until after death, and there is no provable way for the dead to come back and tell us (and the stories of those that claim to have done so or that they witnessed someone else do so) are contradictory or unhelpful in these matters, as a practical matter if nothing else, it’s best to treat morality in general as relative and largely subjective.

For example is sex outside of marriage right

In my opinion, it depends on the particulars. Is the sex consensual by all involved parties? If so, was that consent informed and not coerced? Is either party dating or married to someone else? If so, is the married/dating party’s significant other aware of and consenting to the act? Is this an exclusive relationship (that is, limited to a subset of a relatively small, known group of persons that are also only sexually involved with a subset of that same group) that is just not formally recognized by some sort of authority? If not, or if any sexually involved party(s) may or do(es) have some STD(s), are they taking precautions to prevent the transmission of STDs? Are they taking actions to prevent pregnancy? If not, have they adequately planned for the possibility of a pregnancy, and if so, what is that plan and how well prepared are they for it? What are the ages of the parties? Is there a command relationship between the parties outside of the bedroom? Does this relationship lead to a conflict of interest or favoritism in their professional/political capacity? Has either party vocally condemned sex outside of marriage during or prior to the affair? Did they lie about the affair, and to whom?

I don’t believe there is anything inherently wrong or dangerous about sex outside of marriage, so it depends on the particulars. That actually applies to a lot of statements as broad as this one. The answer to such broad questions is often, “It depends.”

(Note: I personally have no intentions of actually having sex outside of marriage, but I don’t judge the morality of others’ behaviors based solely on mine.)

and if so (going against "God" given rules), how do we know it’s not actually causing tiny undetectable ripples of damage to society that combine with other tiny ripples (like envy, gluttony, pride, etc.) which eventually lead to waves of broken adults later on.

That’s where psychological and sociological studies come in, though it’s also worth noting that it also depends on how one defines “damage to society” and “broken adults”.

We can determine some measurable indicators of “damage to society” and “broken adults” and measure those against the questioned behavior (in this case, sex outside of marriage). If there’s a statistically significant correlation, more studies can be done to determine the likelihood of a causal connection between them and what direction that causality goes as well as the possible existence of confounding factor(s). If so, then we can determine what and how much, if any, “damage to society” is done by sex outside of marriage and, if there is any, how much of it is preventable without disallowing sex outside of marriage altogether. Of course, these studies would have to be compared to sex within marriage and a mixed group of both.

Again, though, this depends on how we define “damage to society” and “broken adults”, which are in turn based upon some predetermined goal(s) upon which to base our morality. It also depends on our threshold for “damage to society” before we determine something is “bad”.

And then there’s what you said about envy, gluttony, pride, etc. Again, those would have to be tested for “damage to society” before we could even determine those to be “bad for society”.

Perhaps our feeble efforts to relax the long established written religious rules of conduct because "God doesn’t exist" is the reason for 99% of society’s current ills.

[citation needed]

First, you presuppose that there are long-established written religious rules of conduct that were followed more often before than they are now. Given the fact that there have been numerous disagreements throughout history on what those written rules actually are even within a given faith and the diversity of faiths throughout history, each with their own written rules of conduct, and the fact that many of those pushing these rules are often guilty of breaking them, this is a questionable assertion.

Second, you also presuppose that there has been an increase in “society’s ills”. Again, I don’t see any evidence of that. There has actually been a decrease over the past several decades in crimes committed in general and in violent crimes in particular. I suppose it depends on how one defines “iils” in this context, but then people can’t seem to agree on that.

Third, you presuppose that there has been a relaxation of the aforementioned rules that is because of people asserting that “God doesn’t exist”. 1) Many religious people have a more relaxed interpretation of the rules than their ancestors did that has nothing to do with other people saying that God doesn’t exist. 2) You assume that religious people are more likely to follow these rules than atheists, and I haven’t seen evidence that this is the case. 3) You forget that sometimes the rules have gotten stricter; for example, slavery used to be condoned, but no longer is; polygamy was once allowed and is actually explicitly allowed in the Bible, but now it’s condemned; racism and sexism were previously commonplace but are now strongly discouraged.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Projection

Every accusation, a confession

Dude, your team is having a bad week. Maybe lay off the internet and the FOX News for a while? Maybe take some time and rethink what you’re going to do?

We had to go through similar reckonings in 2001 when George W. Bush got sworn in after a minority victory. He made a lame speech, rolled back environmental protections ten years and then veered hard right, and then again in 2016 when Trump warned of American carnage.

It’s not a good feel. I get it. Take a break. Regroup. We’re not going to collect your guns this week. We’re not going to start singing Гимн па́ртии большевико́в at least until March.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Reg says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

If you think General Stereotype is fun…Check out the real General…If we can’t believe a retired 3 Star General McInerney …who can we believe ???

https://fastly.cloudinary.com/wvw/video/upload/v1591934042/kgtefrv3nicl6i0hxbgu.mp3?fbclid=IwAR1kSGd-ud08GyzCc4I4wx1x51Vqr3GOJ3V5k4IE9TRZ_-Q0DvzfYXRuYuo

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

How do you use an app to change votes when the machines aren’t even connected to the internet?! Do all the machines have this "app" installed? Wouldn’t it be easier to just change the machines to read the votes differently instead of leaving obvious evidence on the devices storage? At least making the machines read differently would be harder to find and if it was found, it could just be blamed on an error. Why hasn’t this app been found during the investigations?

Sometimes you gotta use a little logic to see that something doesn’t add up. Logic won’t make you right, but it will tell you when something is wrong…

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Every accusation a confession

Wait, are you talking about Trump and his undisputed Russian connections that he lied about during his 2016 campaign?

We’re not out of the woods yet with that. He’s still President until January.

Care to reassure the rest of us Trump is not going to scorch the earth on the way out? I’m not so sure.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

anyone can see a demented racist criminal commie owned by china can be trusted with our nuclear codes.

You mean Trump? He’s pretty demented, clearly racist (see for example the Muslim ban, the Wall, and his promise to keep suburbs white), plausibly a criminal, and is “great friends” with the heads of communist China and North Korea.

good job libtards.

Oh, then I guess you mean Biden, who seems quite intelligent, not at all racist, not a criminal, not communist, and not connected to China… You sure you don’t mean Trump?

The rest of us need to research all the great things that can be acco[]mplished with DRONES.

Did Trump actually stop the drones? I’m asking honestly. I also don’t recall him criticizing Obama for drone use.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Trump's use of drones

Candidate Trump very much endorsed drone strikes and the introduction of drone strike programs into other theaters. He also endorsed increased use of drones by law enforcement (though he never said law-enforcment drones should be armed.)

Other than the attack (Assassination? I’d call it a targeted killing) on Qasem Soleimani, we don’t have reports of strike programs outside Pakistan and Afghanistan, but this is not to say they don’t exist, just they haven’t been leaked.

I do know that drone pilot teams burn out hard, with a battery of symptoms akin to the PTSD seen in front-line combatants. It is one of the arguments that people can tell the difference between video games and real life, and are profoundly affected by the latter. So the current programs are having trouble finding new crews.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bobwhite says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Conservatives are ALWAYS for smaller government. Republicans, however, vary widely. Far too many Big Government Republicans (Conservatives used to call then RINO’s).

The Donald has no desire to be a "dictator." That is a stupid smear or the result of strong hallucinogens. Dictators never, ever reduce regulations or lower taxes. Dictators never, ever try to keep immigrants OUT of their countries. It is true, however, that The Donald has narcissistic tendencies.

Leftists in government, however, almost always have a totalitarian streak.

Centralized power = Leftists and Fascists
Decentralized power = Conservatives

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 "Smaller Government"

Except that smaller government has always been about gutting welfare programs and social safety nets. When it comes to the military, even the Fiscal Responsibility crowd like the Tea Party were glad to put more money into laser planes and active camouflage. This disdain for the serfs continues into the shit-tier care provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs, which has been a major counter-recruitment selling point since the Reagan Years: if you get half-way blown up, the US military or USMC is happy to leave you homeless and begging on the sidewalk.

So no, I call bullshit.

But then, you’re arguing conservatives want to decentralize power, which runs contrary to the DeLay era K-Street Project policy of keeping Republican officials in lockstep by nothing short of extortion, which lead to the total divisiveness and lockdown of federal legislature today. Also, George W. Bush’s notorious use of signing statements (all saying in boilerplate legal screed I will enforce this only if I feel like it ) both of them demonstrate a consolidation of power to the executive and the heads of the congressional bodies.

Feel free to argue that the GOP from the Reagan Years forward are not true conservatives. It’ll be amusing, at least. But since you’re trying to condone Trump, whose authoritarianism ran thick through his whole administration, I have to assume you’re willfully divorcing your comments from facts, which is on-brand for current self-identified conservatives, Republicans and Trump supporters.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

There’s a lot wrong with what you said, but this part is ridiculous:

Dictators never, ever try to keep immigrants OUT of their countries.

Yes, yes they do. Russia is very strict about who comes or goes, as does Turkey.

Then there’s this:

Leftists in government, however, almost always have a totalitarian streak.

Nope. Look at Canada and France, both run by leftists, yet neither are totalitarian. There are two different extreme radical left-wings: communism and anarchy. Only one of those ever goes totalitarian. Furthermore, fascism is well established as the extreme right-wing of politics. Look at the nation during WWII: of the major totalitarian nations, only one (the Soviet Union) was leftist; Spain, Italy, Germany, and Japan were ultra-right-wing. (China, Vietnam, and North Korea didn’t become communist until after WWII). Meanwhile, the US, Britain, and France were democracies, the former run by a relative liberal, the other two with some socialist policies. And then there was Switzerland, a primarily socialist government that was and still is not totalitarian.

I think you’re confusing conservativism with libertarianism. Conservativism (in the US) favors order; libertarianism favors freedom; liberalism favors equality, then freedom.

Ultimately, the modern Republican Party combines small-government conservative, libertarian, evangelical, racist, sexist, pro-corporation/anti-Union, and fascist people in one party. This is why you have contradictory goals.

Finally, to briefly address this:

The Donald has no desire to be a "dictator."

He has openly admired dictators like Putin, the head of China, and Kim Jong Un for their power; he has openly defied Congress; he has tried to pressure the media and state officials into doing his bidding; he calls anything he doesn’t like “fake news”; he has tried to make the part of the government spreading free information across the world into a pro-Trump propaganda outlet; he has turned the AG into his personal lawyer; he has fired everyone who doesn’t immediately do what he wants when he wants; he is right now trying to overturn the results of an election because he lost. And remember the positions he’s taken over how powerful the president is. And yet you don’t think he wants to be a dictator? Give me a break.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 "we know they are wrong"

This raises the question of exactly how you know your liberal friends are wrong? I assume there’s more thought to it than well, I know I’m right or _because what they argue just feels wrong.

Most of my liberal aligned opinions are informed by fundamental principles: we are all Americans and human beings.We are all deserving of equal rights, equal liberties and equal treatment by the legal system. We all should have food security, housing security, security of family, job security and so on, since not having these things makes the population crazy and want to purge each other (into mass graves, ultimately). It should be okay to be nonwhite, non-christian, LGBT+, goth, punk or identify as part of any counterculture imagineable.

Do you disagree with any of these notions? That might be why liberal friends disagree with you.

What do you think should be different?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Facial Recognition Software Finally Gets Around To Getting An Innocent Person ArrestedNorth Carolina Cops Fired After Their In-Car Camera Catches Them Talking About Wiping Black People ‘Off The (Expletive) Map’
As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn’t LikeOverhypefrom the that-did-not-take-long-at-all deptMon, Jun 29th 2020 12:08pm — Mike MasnickWell, that did not take long at all. On Friday we predicted that just like every other social media platform out there, the new favorite among people who falsely say that Twitter is censoring conservatives, would start taking down content and shutting down accounts just like everyone else. Because, if you run any sort of platform that allows 3rd party speech, sooner or later you discover you have to do that. In Friday’s post, we highlighted Parler’s terms of service, which certainly allows for it to take down any content for any reason (we also mocked their "quick read on Wikipedia" style understanding of the 1st Amendment).What we did not expect was that Parler would prove us right so damn quickly. Over the weekend, Parler was apparently busy taking down accounts.And he was not the only one.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Commie Mutant Traitors

"Does someone still play Paranoia?"

Used to be a fun game…but with first GWB and now Trump that game suddenly took on a very much darker shade of Poe. A mission briefing in that game held by an unimaginative self-serving bureaucrat with a severe case of dunning-kruger and the attention span of a small child is now nothing more than switching on a newscast and catching ten seconds of a bona fide real life white house press briefing or a speech by an attorney general.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Your Master says:

Re: Re:

Its not free speech when i can’t go and threaten to murder people for their views!

Communists are the stupidest people on the planet. An entire group of envious losers who are either incapable of, or don’t want to earn anything themselves.

But sharing is caring right?

Capitalism separates those who are smart and those who are poor. I hope you try your revolution, i want to be able to slaughter righteously.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Martine says:

Re: Re:

They never said they would allow people to do anything they wanted. The only people that get banned are people who use a huge amount of profanity, to who post pornographic images. they never ever ban anyone because they post liberal comments. aid someone wants to prove to me that they have done so, then show a screenshot of it happening. Just like it is a lie that they charge any fees, or ask for a driver’s license. They do neither of those things. All You need to be on Parler is an email.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: [what] you deserve for being a lazy slug

a) If you have to withhold basic necessities to get your people to work, you’re doing it wrong (and they will piss in your soup and knife you in the dark). And…

b) A well fed, warmly dressed, safely sheltered people will gladly work and pay their taxes (Roman senators mocked the plebes and slaves for needing only bread and circuses and not having the sophisticated delicate tastes of aristocrats.) Your feudal lords could have totally kept their position if they just could remember the serfs are human beings too, and need care.

Your shadowy plutocratic masters have had capitalists telling them all this time (for decades) they should take better care of the peons, and if they only would, they’d continue to serve with little complaint. But no. Your upper management decided greed is good, that short-term profits and golden parachutes were more important than a sustainable labor force. So your puppetmasters totally fucked up their own paradise.

And anyone who does laze about like a slug, even when they’re adequately sorted probably suffers from depression And the US has entirely shit the bed when it comes to managing mental health. Now the whole nation is a madhouse.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Jason In TN says:

The point of free speech

Enough hypocrisy to go around?

Our Marxist friends who are more than happy to tout Twitter’s ability to ban and shadow ban speech the left labels as "fascist" are now upset about Parler?

The left has Facebook and Twitter running plenty of interference. In a competitive market, leftists who state "all of my leftist friends joined Parler to screw with MAGA folks" are essentially stating their purpose was to dilute the platform – not participate. There is a good faith element here, and I saw multiple Parler accounts which were only established to toss out hatred for those who think differently than them.

The point of free speech is that you can speak, and the Marxists have basically the entire public square. That their open wish is to deny conservatives or moderates such as myself a place to openly discuss our positions is no surprise.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re: The point of free speech

The point of free speech is that you can speak, and the Marxists have basically the entire public square. That their open wish is to deny conservatives or moderates such as myself a place to openly discuss our positions is no surprise.

Please provide an example of your position that you can’t discuss on Facebook and Twitter.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

Facebook constantly censors content, having blocked PragerU and divergent views on COVID-19.

Interestingly, because people on the left say that Zuck is biased towards conservatives. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3kj3n3/facebook-apparently-thinks-left-wing-bias-is-as-bad-a-problem-as-hate-speech

Time was when "progressives" were staunch free speech advocates. Now you are censors.

So you’re saying a shop that says "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Mask, No Service" is a censor, because you’re describing private actors and not the US government.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Your far-left newspapers and TV networks routinely lie through their teeth

Counterpoint: Fox News.

the major social media platforms are censoring the right wing

Counterpoint: Gab, Parler, Voat, and every website for conservative/right wing political news and opinions that have yet to be taken down on orders from “the major social media platforms”.

you are all for it

If Twitter, YouTube, etc. want to ban hateful speech from their platforms, and conservatives are more likely than liberals to be dinged under those service’s TOS agreements, the issue isn’t with the TOS agreements.

once your wish comes true, that worm can turn overnight

At which point I’ll be more than happy to find a service that will host my speech. (I left Tumblr without issue once the porn ban went into effect, after all.) Twitter, YouTube, etc. aren’t the alpha and omega of Internet services.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 The point of free speech

Comparing it to a shop sign is dilatory and non-serious on your part

Comparing getting kicked off of private property to going to jail for printing something the government doesn’t like is "dilatory and unserious" if you ask me.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ArmchairAnalyst says:

Re: Re: Re:6 The point of free speech

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. When the banning of supposed hate speech includes widely heard opinions and ideas, there is a problem. When social media is shitting people down for saying they think there is a biological difference between men and women, or that surgery can’t change ones sex, or all lives matter is considered racist, or freedom of speech is somehow an alt-right idea, you’ve lost the argument. Parler does have terms of service and community standards and a point system. When you violate the terms, you accrue a point. They do tell you what your violation is. When you reach 20 points, you’re banned. The idea that the are only banning liberals, or they are banning liberals for their ideas – as opposed to violating the community standards, is nonsense.

Twitter censored a post from the president stating he would enforce the law. That’s literally his job. He is the head of the US military, and Twitter pretended he was threatening random act of violence. And there has been rampant vote by mail fraud – see the news stories just this week. That’s one they deemed false, but it’s not. Twitter created community standards in which the closely held religious beliefs of every major religion is a violation of standards.

The difference for me is that Parler gives anyone a chance to speak their ideas while Twitter keeps looking for ways to silence ideas they don’t agree with. Twitter has community standards that are ideology based. Parler doesn’t. This entire screed of yours is full of lies and innuendos. I still believe you have a right to say what you have.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

The idea that the are only banning liberals, or they are banning liberals for their ideas – as opposed to violating the community standards, is nonsense.

Replace “liberals” with “conservatives” and you can say the same thing about Twitter. That it has community standards aimed at greater inclusiveness — standards meant to encourage the speech of marginalized groups such as trans people — doesn’t mean it has a political bias. And if you want to claim anti-trans speech as the domain of conservatives by saying “banning anti-trans speech is banning conservative speech”? That isn’t a Twitter problem.

Twitter censored a post from the president stating he would enforce the law.

I didn’t know that “adding speech to a tweet” is “censorship” nowadays. Mind explaining the logic behind that thought process, champ?

there has been rampant vote by mail fraud – see the news stories just this week

“Rampant” implies a far higher amount of instances of mail fraud than the news has reported. Fraud concerning mail-in ballots is still proportionately rare, and it doesn’t happen at levels that would sway (or have swayed) an election — especially the national presidential election.

Twitter created community standards in which the closely held religious beliefs of every major religion is a violation of standards.

That says more about the beliefs of those religions than it does about the standards set up by Twitter.

Parler gives anyone a chance to speak their ideas while Twitter keeps looking for ways to silence ideas they don’t agree with

Twitter admins keep looking for ways to keep the most people on the service. That’s it. If that means setting rules that might shut up a few homophobes and transphobes but let queer people speak without fear of harassment (in large amounts)…well, it is what it is. Don’t like it? Go to Parler; I’m sure its standards don’t have a problem with someone referring to queer people with anti-queer slurs.

I still believe you have a right to say what you have.

Twitter users have every right to say what they want. And Twitter admins have every right to boot people from the platform if such speech breaks the TOS. Don’t like it? Find a site with a TOS you do like and stay there. You’re not owed, entitled to, or guaranteed a spot on Twitter.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Common sense and facts

I’ve yet to find common sense that is actually common, unless you are talking about those specific things that can be demonstrated with readily available scientific observation. (id east things fall. birds can fly.)

As regarding matters of science of sex and sexual identity, I do recommend familiarizing yourself with intersex as well as what gender is before you start asserting scientific facts and reality associated with transphobia.

This is your one chance to do some fucking research before you reveal yourself to be a fool and a jerk.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

Are you unfamiliar with the following scientific facts?

  • Some people with XX chromosomes have male primary and/or secondary sex characteristics.
  • Some people with XY chromosomes have female primary and/or secondary sex characteristics.
  • Some people have neither XX nor XY chromosomes but instead XO, XXX, XXY, or XXX chromosomes.
  • Some people with male primary sex characteristics develop female secondary sex characteristics.
  • Some people with female primary sex characteristics develop male secondary sex characteristics.
  • Some people have a mix of male and female primary sex characteristics.
  • Some people have a mix of male and female secondary sex characteristics.
  • Some people lack some primary and/or secondary sex characteristics for either gender.
  • Transgender people (even before any sex-changing or hormone-replacement procedures are performed) have been found to have brains far closer to that of the gender they identify with than the sex they were assigned at birth.
  • Going through sex-change operations and/or hormone replacement therapy is often recommended for transgender people, and it is virtually always recommended that they present as the gender they identify as and that family and friends try to accept them as they are. This is far better for their mental health in the long-term and does no real harm.

How about these bits of reality?

  • Transgender people have high rates of suicide and depression based either on bullying/harassment for being transgender or on not being allowed to transition.
  • In most cases, a transwoman presenting as a woman is externally indistinguishable (pre- or post-op) from a ciswoman while they’re dressed.
  • In most cases, a transman presenting as a man is externally indistinguishable (pre- or post-op) from a cisman while they’re dressed.
  • Due to the previous two facts, unless you’re their doctor or having sex with them, you should never know whether or not someone presenting as a woman was born male or female.
  • A number of transgender people today were actually born with partial and/or complete sex organs for both sexes or were of nonexistent or indeterminate sex at birth and were simply assigned a sex at birth arbitrarily by doctors, often with surgery and frequently without the parents’ knowledge or consent. Basically, doctors would make (sometimes educated) guess as to the infant’s sex and would often be wrong.
  • Sex and gender, while often correlating well, aren’t exactly the same thing.

These are all facts. They may not all be “common-sense facts,” but common sense isn’t all that common, anyways, and science and reality don’t really conform very well with common sense to begin with; many absolutely true facts are counterintuitive.

As for your definition of “transphobic”, you forgot that one of the comments at issue equated transition treatments with conversion therapy, which is far from being a scientific fact, reality, or a common-sense fact. It’s also not exactly borderline.

But let’s set that all aside for a moment. You ask whether or not we’re saying people should be banned from a privately-owned platform like Twitter by the owners of said platform for making such comments. That’s not necessarily what is being said. We’re saying that corporations like Twitter should absolutely have the right to ban people for making such comments regardless of whether we personally would do so, and that those people are not entitled to be able to say whatever they want on a privately-owned platform like Twitter, certainly not without consequence. There’s also the fact that it’s hardly surprising that people would be banned for making such comments, and I’m not all that sympathetic to them, but that’s separate. The point is that if you don’t like it, show your lack of support by using a different platform or by simply not using Twitter.

Dafuqusay says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re:

Some…
You keep mentioning "Some"
Some like a mean, or an average or a mode? What is this "some" you speak of.

Firstly let’s talk intersex. By definition intersex people are approximately 1.7% of the population.

That’s not enough for a classical study to rule this out as anything more than genetic aberration. It certainly doesent classify to be "some" but rather an extreme few.

Since we classify creatures by similar traits and not by genetic defects from a taxonomy perspective the aberration of a population of 1.7% would be nothing more than genetic lottery. And would not classify a species to have a new gender. Any more than a 7 legged spider to be a new species.

How you "present" yourself to the world does not and cannot change this fact of nature.

You are picking a tiny subset of a species and saying "ah ha I have found a new gender because this monkey was born without a penis."

When all you have done is point out gene expression.
Unless you want to argue that genetics is completly wrong.

When you average out 2% of the population as a margin of error you have 2 distinct genders. With 2 unique gene expression, and organ sets. Along with bone density, muscle mass, and cognitive abilities even before the child is introduced to society.

Maybe you should learn about how genes work before you claim there are 70+ genders.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re:

  1. I never claimed anything about the number of genders at all, only that which gender a given individual is isn’t always clear cut. I certainly never claimed 70+ genders. (I’m not saying there aren’t, either; the exact number is immaterial to my argument.)
  2. “Some” means “there exists” in logic and statistics. That they exist among humans necessarily means that, biologically speaking, not every human fits neatly into exactly one of two sexes, let alone genders (there’s a difference). I was disproving an absolute statement; any number of counterexamples would suffice.
  3. We’re not talking about classifications of species, though I should point out that there is no strict definition for what makes two organisms the same species or not. There are organisms in the same species unable to reproduce with each other but able to reproduce with some others, while others where they are different species but are able to produce fertile offspring together. Besides, we don’t classify humans the same way we do other organisms; no other species has an equivalent to race or religion that we can tell from which we can distinguish individual groups of the same species.
  4. My point was that determining the gender of a given individual, especially at birth, isn’t always easy. It’s not black and white. You may consider it a “rounding error”, but given the sheer size of the population, 1.6% is actually quite a few people.
  5. Even outside of intersex individuals and transgender individuals, there are a number of cisgender, nonintersex females who appear fairly masculine and cisgender, nonintersex males who appear fairly feminine. That’s not even getting into androgynous individuals. Why do I bring them up? Because it means, as a practical matter, identifying someone’s birth sex by appearance is very error-prone. So basically, why do you care if their identity differs from their assigned sex at birth? How would you even know for sure?

At any rate, my main point wasn’t even all that. Whether or not Twitter made the right call here in our opinions is immaterial to the point I and others were focusing on: Twitter has the legal right to make whatever decision they want when it comes to moderation.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Re:

Define “perverts”. I don’t see how transgender and intersex people are necessarily “sexual perverts”. Nor is homo-/bisexuality.

Also, my (lesser) point is that, for the most part, you can’t even tell a transgender person from a cisgender person. Most don’t broadcast their sex-assigned-at-birth. They aren’t forcing anything on you.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Perverts

I never really understood why people have a problem with what people do indoors with consenting adults. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to look at it or do it yourself.

At any rate, if that’s what they meant by “sexual perverts”, it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion up to that point. We were talking about gender, genetics, and biological sex on the internet. Furries and BDSM are a separate issue, as well as sexual activities, though it’s still the platform holder’s prerogative on what to do with them.

P.S. Odd to have a time-based restriction on a website like that. Isn’t /b where all the controversial stuff goes, anyways? Kids and the easily offended shouldn’t really be there at any time of day.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15 Perverts

From the Rules of the Internet

8. There are no real rules about posting
9. There are no real rules about moderation — enjoy your ban

I’m pretty sure the 4Chan policies were made ad-hoc with no attention to consistency in format, hence MLP posts are highly restricted and Furry porn is restricted by time. The channels generally are a casual place that don’t take too seriously the moderation process.

It’s one of those seedy dives that has a sign:

No spitting!
We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason!
No anal sex in the common area until after 10pm!

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Zephyrius says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re:

The chromosomes argument is flawed, as most people have no clue what it actually is, and probably never find out.

Transwomen presenting as a women externally is indistinguishable wearing clothes…so what you’re saying is the wide range of makeup and clothing can actually disguise what someone really looks like? That’s some ground breaking information right there…who would have thought?

Again, stating very rare situations/genetic flaws does not equate to their being more genders….it just means the baby was born "incomplete" or with a "mutation". Like are we going to teach kids in school that 4 fingers and 1 thumb is not normal either because 2% of the world was born with an extra finger? Like where does it stop? This is the problem with your mindset…you just take everything logical and throw it out the window for the sake of 2%. It’s mindblowing. We’re not saying to burn them at the stake, we are simply saying we can be nice to everyone…but don’t force/teach this crap to our kids and to also use completely different language. Freedom of speech means I can call you whatever I want, and I don’t need you, or Twitter, or Facebook telling me it’s correct or not. That is what CENSORSHIP is…and were not living in fucking China.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 "Don't force/teach this crap to our kids"

And yet my grandson’s father was pressuring him to man-up(not cry, stuff his emotions) when he was four. We have a society in which men are super protective of their roles, and women don’t want to share their spaces.

Abolish gender entirely and the whole transgender conversation becomes nearly moot. It’s what we should have done in the 1970s. Instead, we have religious fanatics claiming it’s a communist plot. And child abuse because toddlers aren’t tough.

LGBT+ Is over 10% of the population and outnumbers us left-handed folk (and I am more than annoyed at the limited left-handed or ambidextrous offerings that free-market capitalism gives us). Transgendered persons (if 2% is correct) is more than the first-nation peoples in the United States, who are also terribly underserved.

And considering that power and recognition is only getting worse and floating to the wealthiest, the US is sucking more every day then you too will find yourself an underperson (or even an unperson) as time moves forward.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re:

The chromosomes argument is flawed, as most people have no clue what it actually is, and probably never find out.

Irrelevant. The point is that there are more than two options.

Transwomen presenting as a women externally is indistinguishable wearing clothes…so what you’re saying is the wide range of makeup and clothing can actually disguise what someone really looks like? That’s some ground breaking information right there…who would have thought?

What it means is that there is no good reason to discriminate against transgender women. Additionally, there are a number of men who naturally look like women without makeup and vice versa. So, again, whether or not they identify as the gender corresponding to their sex-assigned at birth is none of your business. That’s the point.

Again, stating very rare situations/genetic flaws does not equate to their being more genders….it just means the baby was born "incomplete" or with a "mutation".

I never said anything about the number of sexes. I was talking about whether biological sex is strictly two possibilities without intersection or exceptions. While the majority fit neatly into one of two categories, not everyone does.

Like are we going to teach kids in school that 4 fingers and 1 thumb is not normal either because 2% of the world was born with an extra finger? Like where does it stop?

As John Oliver said, “Somewhere.” Also, I don’t see why it matters what we teach about what is normal about hands. I’m not discussing normality at all. That seems to be the problem here. You’re thinking I’m trying to change “normality”. I simply don’t care about some random person’s definition of “normal” and don’t believe that we should exclude anything outside of “normal”.

This is the problem with your mindset…you just take everything logical and throw it out the window for the sake of 2%. It’s mindblowing.

No, we’re recognizing that some things aren’t black-and-white as shown by the existence of 2% (which is significant, BTW, given the size of the population). Why should we exclude the 2%? How does it hurt you?

What you call “logical” appears anything but to me. It’s not “logical”; it’s simple and traditional. Unfortunately, life and reality aren’t always simple, and I’ve never been a fan of traditions for tradition’s sake, especially if they exclude people.

We’re not saying to burn them at the stake, we are simply saying we can be nice to everyone…but don’t force/teach this crap to our kids and to also use completely different language.

What “completely different language”? I’m not talking about going overboard; I’m talking about basic decency. You don’t want to use the made-up pronouns like “xe”? Fine. If they prefer “he” over “she” or vice versa, use what they prefer. Otherwise, or if you can’t abide by that, use singular “they”. Nothing I’m suggesting involves saying anything complex or outside the English language. I’m not even asking you to use complicated rules for your speech. These are very simple rules that are very easy to abide by.

No one is asking you to “force” anything on your kids. A lot of transgender people knew they were transgender without even knowing that it was a thing, anyways. As for teaching, if it doesn’t come up, then I don’t have a problem. However, when I was a kid, we were taught about genetic disorders like sickle cell anemia and extra or missing fingers. What’s wrong with teaching about transgender and homosexuality stuff or sex-related genetic disorders later in life? Why is it so offensive to you to know or teach that not everyone fits in the category of “normal”, and that’s okay?

Freedom of speech means I can call you whatever I want, and I don’t need you, or Twitter, or Facebook telling me it’s correct or not.

Freedom of speech does mean you can call me or anyone else what you want without fear of violence or government intervention (for the most part, at least), but it does not give you the right to say it without me, Twitter, or Facebook telling you whether it’s correct or not. In fact, freedom of speech means that everyone has the right to tell you whether you’re right or not. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism of your speech or freedom from social consequences for your speech.

You don’t have to like it, but the very essence of free speech involves one person saying something and another person disputing it. That back-and-forth is what the Founding Fathers envisioned.

That is what CENSORSHIP is…and were not living in fucking China.

How the hell is saying, “You’re wrong,” censorship by any meaning of the term?

And while we’re on the subject, let’s get back to the original point under discussion: Facebook and Twitter’s treatment of what they feel to be transphobic speech on their platforms. That’s not censorship, either, though it’s a hell of a lot closer than the criticism of your speech. Censorship means you can’t say it at all without government interference. A platform holder telling you to take speech they dislike somewhere else is not censorship; it’s moderation of their privately owned platform, something they have every right to do. If you don’t like their rules, take your ball somewhere else. You don’t have the right to force Facebook and Twitter to host your speech if they don’t want to.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Bob dole says:

Re: Re: Re:2 The point of free speech

This is really funny.

You are saying censorship based on ideology is a myth – I try to read this thread and for a while see ONLY your comments – condemning an invisible person.

Eventually I see your debate opponent is hidden. I expand his comments – partisan, maybe, but no profanity much less random epithets.

It literally got flagged because someone (you? Author?) disagreed.

So you want to revise your position or are you a professional liar?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Toom1275 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 The point of free speech

Did it really not occur to you that gaslighting and lying about the very thread you’re posting in, where all it takes to debunk your false narrative is reading anything that surrounds your disingenuous post, is a massively stupid and obvious bad-faith tactic?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Facebook constantly censors content

Is Facebook stopping people from posting conspiracy theories about COVID-19 on Twitter or Mastodon or anywhere else? If not, it ain’t censorship. Facebook has an absolute right to moderate speech — and that includes speech such as, oh I’unno, conspiracy theories about COVID-19 that could lead to further erosion of public health.

You’re free to say whatever you want. But you can’t make others listen. And you sure as shit can’t (and shouldn’t be able to) make others host your speech. Don’t like it? Start your own Gab or Voat or Parler or 8chan.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Disregarding the fact they’re using the fucking WHO guidelines – an organization that was lead by a communist terrorist until recently, both FB, Twitter and others have made coordinated deplatforming in several instances. Also, they actually can’t moderate their content with political bias and enjoy their special protections under the decency communications act. Sigh, i remember the left was staunch free speech proponents. Now it’s corporate bootlicker like you

YouthGoneBy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Terrorist may be a stretch but he certainly is, or at least was, a communist. The man was from the Tigray province, which was the support base for the communist party up until I believe 1995. He was in government as early as 1991, so to say he was not a communist is simply not accurate.

That communist party saw major financing from the Chinese communist party. That’s not necessarily damning, nations help like-minded nations all the time.

I’m only replying to point out that the man was in fact a communist, and a member of a communist party with financial ties to China, and then as head of the WHO certainly seemingly, and I stress seemingly, softened any pandemic related press releases with China in mind.

We could also get into WHO treatment of places like Hong Kong and Taiwan. So, I think having a rational discussion about the mans motives is not out of the question. It’s natural.

For my part I’m against Tedros. Not because of his politics, but because of the office he holds. States rights is where I stand in all things, and I do not believe that organizations like the UN and WHO can coexist with national identity. It has to be one or the other, and I choose national identity.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

"It has to be one or the other, and I choose national identity."

You were doing so well up until then. Fact of the matter is that when your options are a bunch of turds spray-painted in different colors the answer should never be "Always turd A because red, white and blue is my color".

You should be looking – at worst – for the source which after a modicum of critical thinking provides the least bad advice. That may still be a less malodorous turd, granted, but every little bit counts when the time comes where you have to eat your selected offer.

I also don’t trust the WHO much when it comes to China or Taiwan but they are – unfortunately – still a better source of information than anything coming out of the white house.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 communist = terrorist?

It’s bad enough that terrorist has become common nomenclature for designated acceptable targets for neutralization, like zombie.

And yes, there is the old Cold War presumption that the only good Red is a dead Red. We’re past the Cold War now. The Soviet Union disbanded. They’re not very big on Communism now.

But at what point is the ideology of Communism worth shooting someone over? At what point does communism equate to terrorism?

(I should point out terrorism traditionally includes military violence against civilians, such as the WWI rail-gun attacks on Paris, or the German V2 attacks on London, or US targeted killings throughout the late 20th century and the drone strikes continuing to this day. I’m not sure why our drone strikes are not regarded as terrorism, except that the US is doing it and we want that to be okay. It’s totally not okay.)

Getting back to the specifics, did Tedros Adhanom engage in ideological violence against civilians, say when he was Minister of Health of Ethiopia? What terrorism did he do that qualifies him as a terrorist?

Talmyr says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

You contradicted yourself by calling States’ Rights absolute, then going on about national identity. A Federal, national identity is inconsistent with absolute state rights.

Which also seem to be inconsistent with any local area that disgrees with the state (Fracking bans, anyone?). Or any state that doesn’t follow Fascism and gets the Federal Government called down on it. (Sanctuary cities, anyone?)

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

For the record, I don’t think that organizations like the UN and WHO are incompatible with either states’ rights or a national identity.

The UN allows most nations a place where they can all engage in diplomacy together and discuss their issues to a global audience. Most if not all UN resolutions are nonbinding on member nations, so no rights are given up. It’s just a place to discuss issues and possibly work together to resolve them.

As for the WHO, again, it’s decisions aren’t really binding. It’s basically a way for all the nations to get together to discuss global health issues like a pandemic and work out what the proper response would be. What is or isn’t healthy is or shouldn’t be political and applies everywhere; it’s all just facts and scientific inquiry. As such, broad determinations on the facts of large-scale health issues and recommendations for tackling them shouldn’t be dependent on any individual nation. That’s actually where the WHO went wrong here by being too dependent on China at the beginning and by ignoring Taiwan entirely. That doesn’t mean that the idea behind the WHO is intrinsically wrong, though.

If you believe in both states’ rights and a national identity, then you probably already recognize that some issues should be tackled by the larger-scale federal government rather than state or local governments. Things like international trade, interstate issues, basic human rights, diplomacy, currency, and war should be handled by a centralized federal government. Similarly, some issues are best handled or at least discussed by a global organization. The difference is that most global organizations are ultimately less powerful than individual national governments.

Also, out of curiosity, do you feel the same about NAFTA and the WTO?

dAbOYdUNgONcRADY (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Dude, a pandemic pays no mind to nations borders state lines or political leanings. When the big ones come along you need organizations that can work as well as can be expected in a political world to monitor and administer and advise regarding situations that need complex and massive networks. It’s been proven now that without those organizations and funding and planning, we end up in crisis situations as we are now in 2021 and COVID where they had months to figure out the strategies of distributing vaccines. And as we applaud the rapid development of this new bio technology, we also have to acknowledge what a disaster it is now that the next legs of this process werent even half baked. When there’s a pandemic, nations and states and communities tend to act like individuals rather than teams because there’s little precedent. Except there is precedent and that’s WHO.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

they actually can’t moderate their content with political bias and enjoy their special protections under the decency communications act

Two things.

  1. It’s the “Communications Decency Act”, and with the sole exception of 47 U.S.C. § 230, the entire CDA was rendered unconstitutional.
  2. Interactive computer services can moderate according to political bias and retain 230 protections; show us exactly where the law says otherwise.
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Also, they actually can’t moderate their content with political bias and enjoy their special protections under the decency communications act.

Hello! You’ve Been Referred Here Because You’re Wrong About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Also, they actually can’t moderate their content with political bias and enjoy their special protections under the decency communications act.

I’m afraid you are wrong, see https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml and https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200625/11032444780/author-section-230-chris-cox-says-all-critics-are-wrong-about-history-intent-230.shtml

Also, here you have another link of interest regarding moderation bias: https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/17/17582152/facebook-channel-4-undercover-investigation-content-moderation

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

both FB, Twitter and others have made coordinated deplatforming in several instances.

And your point is?

Alex Jones has been kicked off every major platform, but he still has his own platform from which to spew his crazy ideas, and nobody is stopping him from doing that. And anybody who wants to "follow" him can do so on his own site!

John says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Very true. Similar to the fact that any homosexual couple can bake their own wedding cake. Or that anyone who “identifies” as a member of the opposite sex can simply go outside and pee behind the bushes instead of having a department-store being forced to let them use the lavatory of their choice.

Similarly, why, for example should a private men’s club be forced to allow women to become members, or even Blacks for that matter, just because it might inhibit their ability to “network” in business? They could simply go and start their own private clubs.

I find it amusing that one, an obvious liberal/progressive, has no problem with government intervention into a private business when it fits their agenda, but oh so vocally rush to its defense in this case.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Likelihood this is sincere (not parody): 0.9997/1

Poe factor: 4

Are you really arguing against public accommodations? Or comparing public accommodations to accommodation of speech on a given forum.

I was recently reminded our conservative colleagues are also glad to have black kids jailed for posting threatening Rap lyrics on their Facebook page, or punishing Arab boys who bring their self-made electric clock to school, because it might be a bomb.

Hate speech is AOK but boobs, digital timers and violent rap lyrics are not?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Patriot says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Hopefully you’ll become "toxic" and de-platformed, permanently disemployed and de-banked by the monopolies.

Banks and payment processors, who’ve been given a monopoly on the issuance of unbacked credit, should be required to serve any lawful customer.

The same goes for Internet infrastructure companies who provide DNS, anti-DDoS, cloud hosting and the like.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

I don’t think there’s any serious debate on COVID-19 beyond when, where, and how to reopen. Any “divergent views” outside of that are almost certainly wild conspiracy theories, made out of ignorance, quack science, or wishful thinking.

I also don’t think Facebook “blocks” users; it bans them.

As for “free speech”, there’s a difference between supporting FA free speech and free speech on privately-owned public platforms. It’s also not censoring to kick you off my lawn when you’re saying something I don’t like.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

TBTop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 The point of free speech

Facebook tossed a good friend of mine for a month for linking to a peer-reviewed, double-blind study with a control group showing the ineffectiveness of masks. Your kind loves censorship, even of carefully documented, scientific studies. It’s pathetic.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

It not only has that right it was right to do so because that ‘study’ does not say what they think it does, and as such it could have resulted in people making dangerously stupid/ill-informed decisions that could get them and/or those around them infected or killed.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

Yeah, that’s about what I expected from you at this point.

Rather than address the actual point, you instead throw out the same rubbish ‘law’ about people too arrogant to learn anything. If you were projecting any harder you’d be causing glare on the ISS’ windows.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
steell (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 The point of free speech

From your link: "Conclusions This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. "

A study comparing cloth masks to medical masks determines that medical masks are more effective. Imagine that.

You said "Facebook tossed a good friend of mine for a month for linking to a peer-reviewed, double-blind study with a control group showing the ineffectiveness of masks."
Lie much?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:5 The point of free speech

As others have pointed out the study shows that medical masks are better than cloth masks in protecting health workers from getting infected.

Another thing that infection specialists, doctors and health-care workers in general have pointed out, its that the primary reason for using a mask is not to protected the wearer – it’s to protect the people around them.

If your buddy (and you considering the language you used) made a post on Facebook saying that masks are ineffective based on this study your posts deserve to be removed without question.

So your "divergent view of COVID-19" turns out to be uninformed hogwash that promulgates an idea that will put people in danger.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 The point of free speech

I don’t think you or your friend read that study. It talks about the effectiveness of cloth masks, not all masks. And it even has an updated link regarding COVID-19 related shortages of PPE and says that cloth masks aren’t as good as surgical masks or respirators but still better than nothing.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

TBTop (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Okey doke, then. Speaking of science, how about a peer-reviewed, double-blind study of 1,600 health care workers in high-risk units in 14 hospitals, showing that the common cloth masks block only 3% of particles, and that surgical masks only block 44%?

Sorry, "progressive," but your mandatory masks do NOTHING to stop the spread of the virus. You couldn’t care less about science. This is entirely about your politics and your insatiable need to engage in self-righteous virtue signaling.

Now, I’m sure you will dump on the study. Why? The Iron Law: "You can always tell a ‘progressive,’ but you can never tell a ‘progressive’ a single thing. They think they know everything."

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

It found that cloth masks were worse than wearing nothing at all.

Speaking of not reading the study… no, it didn’t, because there was no no-mask control group, something you would have known had you bothered to even read the abstract.

Intervention Hospital wards were randomised to: medical masks, cloth masks or a control group (usual practice, which included mask wearing). Participants used the mask on every shift for 4 consecutive weeks.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Re:

I get by now that you’re a hypocritical ass who thinks that schoolyard level insults are making other people look bad, but just a tip for the future, if you’re going to lie it helps if the refutation to that lie isn’t literally a few comments above.

Once more from the abstract of the study in question:

Intervention Hospital wards were randomised to: medical masks, cloth masks or a control group (usual practice, which included mask wearing). Participants used the mask on every shift for 4 consecutive weeks.

Digging into the study a little more…

In the control arm, 170/458 (37%) used medical masks, 38/458 (8%) used cloth masks, and 245/458 (53%) used a combination of both medical and cloth masks during the study period. The remaining 1% either reported using a N95 respirator (n=3) or did not use any masks (n=2).

It is also unknown whether the rates of infection observed in the cloth mask arm are the same or higher than in HCWs who do not wear a mask, as almost all participants in the control arm used a mask.

Another limitation of this study is the lack of a no-mask control group and the high use of masks in the controls, which makes interpretation of the results more difficult.

And in a more recent response to questions regarding how the study might apply to COVID concerns:

Health workers are asking us if they should wear no mask at all if cloth masks are the only option. Our research does not condone health workers working unprotected. We recommend that health workers should not work during the COVID-19 pandemic without respiratory protection as a matter of work health and safety.

I’d say I look forward to your admission that you were wrong and an apology for calling me a liar, but as your past responses have indicated that that’s almost certainly beyond you I suppose I’ll take the entertainment provided from yet more of the childish name-calling that seems to be your default response instead.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

‘Less effective than alternatives’ does not mean ‘not effective at all’, and as the study itself noted there was no ‘no mask’ control group to compare with. In addition as the writers of the study itself noted in a response to people asking if/how it applied to COVID ‘Health workers are asking us if they should wear no mask at all if cloth masks are the only option. Our research does not condone health workers working unprotected.’, which rather conflicts with the idea that masks don’t do any good if you’re going to point to them as a source.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: The point of free speech

"Facebook constantly censors content, having blocked PragerU and divergent views on COVID-19."

So wait, proven lies which if believed and acted upon constitute lethal danger to anyone reading it is now comparable to a measured discourse on family values and economics in your book?

"And Reddit removes posts that criticize "Black Lives Matter.""

Calling black people "N_ggers", implying that they’re all somehow "less" than white people, or discussing George Floyd as a "criminal" who deserved death when in fact, he was not, **is not "criticizing" Black Lives Matter.
I realize the difference may be lost to you.

"Time was when "progressives" were staunch free speech advocates."

Time was when a self-styled "conservative" was something other than a repetitively spamming shit-posting racist or bigot. You are still completely free to start your own platform where you can discuss just how much <insert ethnic or transgender minority> sucks. But not even way back when did "progressives" ever let you do that in their own living rooms.

Facebook has catered to conservative values to the point where it’s now harder for liberals to debate seriously than it is for the "alt-right" to sneak in a few implications about the inferiority of <minority scapegoat>…but that’s just not good enough for the guys who are still miffed that they can’t use someone else’s platform to organize their next cross-burning.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 The point of free speech

Any convictions? No? Then what use is that? Just some journalists making unsubstantiated claims. The fact that the very same people have no issue fuelling racial tension by lying about police brutality towards black people, something that has literally gotten people killed, makes it all the more ridiculous

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

lying about police brutality towards black people

The video of George Floyd didn’t lie, unless you think he deserved to die over using a fake $20 bill that he may not have even known was fake and therefore the lethal use of force was wholly justified.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10

Please provide proof that at the time of his death, George Floyd was infected with COVID-19 and under the influence of drugs. Please also provide a reasoned opinion as to why any of what you said, regardless of whether it’s true, justifies his being murdered by a police officer for nothing more than using a fake $20 bill.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re:

The one time I handed over a fake note to pay for something, the store refunded me for confiscating it, and gave me an apology, after they checked their CCTV and saw me getting it out of the machine on their own premises.

Almost like there’s some kind of notable difference between me and Floyd…

notes the lack of melanin

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to