Former Reddit CEO: Content Moderation Teams Don’t Care About Your Politics, They Just Want You To Stop Being A Jerk
from the basically-correct dept
Last week, about the same time I posted by giant post on all the things that Elon Musk didn’t understand about content moderation, former Reddit CEO Yishan Wong posted a really long, but completely worth reading thread about content moderation on social networks. I’m not going to go through the whole thing, but did want to point out some key points that are worth repeating.
As he starts out the thread noting, if Elon does take over Twitter “he is in for a world of pain. He has no idea.” That’s because almost everyone — especially techies — assume there’s some simple solution to the content moderation challenge. They’re wrong. What you’re trying to solve for with content moderation is human nature and societal level problems. And no one’s been able to solve those ever, and a guy building rockets doesn’t magically know how to fix those kinds of problems.
The key point that Yishan made (and which I also made in my post last week) is that many, many of the people in these companies — both at the executive decision making level and working on content moderation or trust & safety — don’t care about your politics and don’t want to touch your content. They don’t.
They DON’T CARE ABOUT POLITICS. They really don’t.
Donald Trump was not de-platformed for being right-wing.
I talk a bit about this in my thread about Omega Events: https://t.co/rktOKjr7ze
— Yishan (@yishan) April 15, 2022
While slightly simplified from reality, he notes that the people making these decisions just want you to behave and stop being a jackass. He says it’s about not “squabbling” but the squabbling is a result of people acting like jackasses, and it escalates.
They would like you (the users) to stop squabbling over stupid shit and causing drama so that they can spend their time writing more features and not have to adjudicate your stupid little fights.
— Yishan (@yishan) April 15, 2022
And, so, as he notes, if you don’t want to get moderated, stop being a jackass:
And, yes, he posts the perfect meme to explain how livid people get when they’re blocked, and I can assure you that, even on a small site like Techdirt, the following is true about the people who flip out when caught in our spam filter:
As he notes, the people screaming for open debate are not engaging in a civilized debate at all. They’re abusively spamming and harassing people they dislike.
There’s a lot more in the thread that is worth reading, so I’ll just leave it there and suggest you go read the whole thing. The only small thing I’ll push back on is this tweet, which claims that “there are no real principles. They are just trying to be fair because if they weren’t, everyone would yell LOUDER and the problem would be worse.”
There was a period of time when that was true — around the same time that Yishan was still at Reddit. However, in the eight years since he left, the whole trust & safety space has evolved significantly, and grown and professionalized to the point that many of the companies actually do have “real principles” that they use to set up their content moderation rules and enforcement.
The underlying concept, though, remains absolutely true. They just want people to stop being assholes all the time, and they’d like you to act nicer to one another, and they really, really, really want to treat people fairly.
The idea that there’s some grand conspiracy among these companies to silence this or that group is just not true. And no matter which “example” you name, I guarantee you, there’s another explanation for why that person or that piece of content was banned. And it might just be that it was being presented in a manner that was driving people crazy and causing more bad behavior. You can scream to heaven as loud as you want that your personal view on some controversial topic is the “right” one, or that you should be allowed to scream it, but if it’s creating a huge mess and causing more people to go even crazier, at some point, the website is going to cut you off.
The world would be a better place if people didn’t group up and become bigger and bigger assholes on social media. But, we’re not there yet, and Elon has no solution for that problem.
Filed Under: bias, content moderation, elon musk, politics, social media, yishan wong
Companies: reddit, twitter
Comments on “Former Reddit CEO: Content Moderation Teams Don’t Care About Your Politics, They Just Want You To Stop Being A Jerk”
hnmm
What about people whose politics boil down to being a jerk? Aka Trump supporters. It’s not like they have anything approaching an ideology.
Re: You're not helping
Assumping all Trump supporters are jerks is a core element to the problem.
Assuming all Biden supporters are angels doesn’t help either, if you happen to sit on that side of things.
We need to address the issue being debated, not target some titled or percieved aspect of those we claim to be arguing against.
Re: Re:
Why do you assume anyone criticizing a Trump supporter is a Biden supporter? Assuming a false dichotomy probably doesn’t help either.
But also, some people, demonstrably many vocal Trump supporters online, are not debating issues so it’s not even possible to address “the issue being debated.” They’re just trolling to degrade the concept of dialogue because they win if other people give up trying to express themselves. Which is why you need to be able to block them on social media because they spoil any “marketplace of ideas” that they engage in because they are not discussing anything in good faith.
Re: Re: Re:
Exactly this. Jean-Paul Sartre has a really good quote describing that mindset. They know they are being absurd, they are amusing themselves. They do not seek to persuade, but to intimidate and disconcert.
Ironically, the last time I posted the full text of the Sartre quote in these forums, the mods deleted it within about an hour. Message received.
Re: Re: Re:2 I’d like to test that theory.
Re: Re: Re:2
Care to elaborate on this?
Which mods?
Which thread?
Was it once available to be read then later deleted?
Was it “hidden” by a “Click here to view this post” message?
Re: Re: Re:2
Actually, ‘these forums’ is a blog, and it doesn’t have moderators who delete comments, it has a community that can collectively hide them if they are off-topic, attacking others, etc.
Re: Re: Re:2 And yet you're still here....lying badly
“Ironically, the last time I posted the full text of the Sartre quote in these forums, the mods deleted it within about an hour. Message received.”
Of all the things that never happened, this never happened the most.
Re: Re: Re:2
I can assure you this did not happen.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Your assurance is woth less than nothing. I have years of experience of comments being deleted on this site. This website and most people who post are totally fake. Just read the profiles of the top commentors. Fake as a $3 bill.
Re: Re: Re:4
[Hallucinates facts not in evidence]
Re: Re: Re:4 Come at me bro!
” I have years of experience of comments being deleted on this site.”
Hey bro, do you want yo know how I know you’ve never been on this site before?
Re: Re: Re:4
I can assure you this is not true, unless you were spamming escort services, fake viagra, or essay mills… We only delete pure spam.
That seems like it would be a shitton of effort. Why would anyone do that?
Re: Re: Re:5
Yeah, it’s not like you’re an ISP or Overstock or something. “Seeing” astroturfery/sockpuppetry here is a pretty amusing claim. Not like we haven’t heard it before (from probably the same person every time?), but still…
Re: Re: Re:4
I’ve been on this site for years, and literally the only posts that have ever been deleted—not simply hidden or caught up in the spam filter—have been obvious commercial spam, nothing more. I tend to avoid calling people liars, but in this case, you clearly are.
Re: Re: Re:4
So, just a head’s up, if you’re going to try to gaslight and back it with your ‘years of experience’ it helps if you’re not on a platform with a bunch of people who actually do have that experience and know you’re full of shit.
Re: Re: Re:4
The Plaintiff’s failure to cite the substance of their claims, as is required for those claims to be taken seriously, compels dismissal.
Re: Re: Re:2
“Ironically, the last time I posted the full text of the Sartre quote in these forums, the mods deleted it within about an hour”
Bullshit. Nothing gets deleted here no matter how much it’s reported unless it’s actual commercial spam, and if you saw it appear here that means it didn’t get lost in the spam filter.
Re: Re: Re: assumptions?
I was not making an assumption that critics of Trump supporters are necessarily Biden supporters. I was merely pointing out that there are jerks in both of those camps. (there are probably fine people on both sides too /s)
Lumping people together like this is not helping move any of the debates forward as it leads all too easily to ad hominem attacks.
Re: Re: Re:2
Do you mean “calling people names”? (so what), or actual “argumentum ad hominem”, which, while a logical fallacy and poor argumentation, is hardly barred from debate, which has no rules about evidence and solid logic.
More nuance can be good, though. Not sure i’m willing to give a pass to those who vote with Trumpists because they are nominally “conservative”, or because they are “anything but a Democrat” (regardless as to how far (old-)right-leaning they are). And unpredictable swing-voters are just plain unpredictable. Not a lot of sense in trying to be nuanced here. They want to perpetrate and cleave to a culture war, well, they got one.
Re: Re: Re:3 Which is it?
The self-contradictions are rampant.
Is more nuance good, or are all Trump voters evil?
You said both. They’re incompatible. Which is it?
You’re like a person who took a logic class once and thinks he grokked it… but didn’t.
Re: Re: Re: Sincerely, where did Ben say that?
Whether he’s right or wrong, I don’t see him asserting or even implying if someone is anti-Trump they’re pro-Biden, and vice versa.
He didn’t, at all. Go re-read it. You’re the one jumping to conclusions.
One of the most entertaining things about Techdirt comments sections is the Masnickian impulse to identify alleged hidden messages. Much like how the unsophisticated read subliminal portents and diabolical designs behind backwards lyrics on heavy metal records in the 1980s.
You Techdirters are like the PMRC.
Re: Re:
I don’t really think “jerk” versus “person who supports a jerk” is a meaningful distinction, but if you want to split hairs, fucking go nuts.
Nobody said all Biden supporters are angels.
Cool. When do you plan on doing that?
Re: Re: Re: “jerk” versus “person who supports a jerk”
We face a deeply bifurcated set of opinions among those who are vocal online.
There are a bunch of trigger words that seem to turn off the brains of many people – for example “Trump” and “socialism”.
We can and should debate the ideas of Trump and of socialism, taking them apart one by one, and seeing which are valid and which are false.
We can’t do that by immediately labling anyone who says antything nice about either one – however narrow or conditional – as a “jerk” or evil or an enemy.
I suggest that those unable to do that should be ignored in any serious discussions aimed at understanding truth and improving society.
Re: Re: Re:2
Unless they sincerely apologized for voting for/supporting him in any way, anyone who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and/or 2020 should get every last bit of scorn, derision, and humiliation they have coming to them.
Re: Re: Re:3
I’m willing to tentatively forgive people who voted for him in 2016 so long as they admit they screwed up as I doubt anyone could have foreseen just how disastrous he would be as a president but anyone who voted for him in 2020 can fuck right off as they’ve shown that they are Herman Cain(I believe that’s how it’s spelled)-level stupid at best by that decision.
Re: Re: Re:4
I’m pretty sure most of the recipients of the Herman Cain Award were Trump supporters.
Emphasis on were. 👀
Re: Re: Re:5
At that point forgiveness or lack thereof kinds becomes a moot point, nothing I could say could beat the ‘they told you’ COVID hit them with.
Re: Re: Re:4
And then there’s lostinlodos who’s so in denial of his extremist programming he lies to himself that his positions against things like sensible taxes and immigration are reasonable.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Wow, you just proved all of it right there. You are one stupid son of a bitch and proud of it. AND THAT….is how Trump haters are seen by all of America. You people in Tech come across as immature, uneducated and mindlessly self absorbed. No one likes you people. NO ONE.
While your mamma slides a pizza under the door to make sure you are nourished, the real world citizens are doing something productive, something real. We can’t stand that people like you live in positions that the rest of us must sometimes be forced to endure. Yet you relish in it and your ability to spew hate, because that is exactly what you do. You assume you’re correct. All the time being an idiot and proud to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
You can fuck off with your false equivalence.
Re: Re: Re:2
The fact that you (or others) have missed the “debates” (logically sound arguments with evidence are better) or can’t sort it out for yourself isn’t anyone else’s problem.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: deep
“What about people whose politics boil down to being a jerk? ”
Excellent point (though not as you intended)
‘Bad behavior’ (jerks, trolls, disrupters, etc) is often very subjectively ascribed by moderators to merely unpopular viewpoints that immediately tick off the emotions of very fallible moderators and the dominant participants’ mood in a specific platform.
Valid fringe opinions are often considered to be disruptive nonsense by the conventional local majority.
Such fringe opinions must be firmly stated to address the predictable backlash, and that firmness is instantly interpreted as jerk-like aggression.
Re-stating a fringe opinion or protesting the backlash is interpreted as absolute proof of trolling.
Bad-Behavior is a too convenient label to censor viewpoints you really dislike at a very subjective gut level.
Re: Re:
If you can’t state your opinion in such a way that it doesn’t rile up people to the point where they think you are a jerk, you are a jerk.
The point being, people don’t want to deal with what they perceive as jerks and when it comes down to social interactions it isn’t normal people who need to change or switch venue – it’s the fucking jerks and assholes.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: Non-jerky?
What is the non-jerky way to say transwomen are men? What is the non-jerky way to say that gods don’t exist? It is not just the manner of saying things that riles people up, but also having their deepest beliefs baldly challenged as false.
Re: Re: Re:2
By not saying it at all, you fucking transphobe.
“I don’t believe in God.” You don’t have to insult people for believing in a deity.
I assume challenging the very existence of a person would—and should—rile them up. If you can’t be nice about someone being trans (by shutting the fuck up about it), being a bigoted jerk who supports efforts like passing laws to ban one trans student from playing high school sports certainly isn’t going to win you any friends…who aren’t already transphobic bigots, anyway.
Re: Re: Re:2
“I believe that gender and sex are one and the same and that gender is both binary and immutable.”
I mean, you may still come off as kind of a jerk, as that’s a pretty ignorant and jerky opinion, but that’s the least jerky way to say it. At the very least, you aren’t directly telling them that they’re lying or deluded. You are stating your opinion about definitions.
“I don’t believe that gods exist.”
That one’s much easier! Really easy, actually.
No, it’s usually how you say it, though some things are inherently jerky. I mean, it’s kinda hard to sugarcoat, “You are delusional,” or “I know that deep down, you actually know I’m right even if you don’t realize it.” But if you’re going to do that, at least try to be more diplomatic about it.
It’s also usually about how often you repeat it and what you say in context that matters. If you say something jerky just once, that can be considered an aberration.
Re: Re: Re:3
And if you say it once, you can easily apologize for saying it and learn from the experience.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Silencing
“By not saying it at all, you fucking transphobe.”
Well, yes, I know that the woke (or anyone else, really) would prefer that contrary opinions go away, but given that that’s not going to happen, I’m afraid you will need to remain angry.
“I assume challenging the very existence of a person would—and should—rile them up.”
Yes, that was my point. Such opinions are always going to be perceived as jerky no matter the circumlocutions. That doesn’t make the opinions false, however. Truth remains true no matter how many people it makes unhappy.
Re: Re: Re:5
Actually, Woke people and those who embrace cultural sensitivity don’t mind the existence of opposing opinions. We just challenge your right to express harmful opinions in a private arena such as the comments here on Techdirt. Get broken, Hymen Rosan. We don’t want walking hate crimes like you poisoning the minds of innocent boys, whether straight or otherwise, who like dressing up as Disney Princesses, for example.
Re: Re: Re:5
Why yes, I would prefer that you keep your bigoted opinions about trans people—which contribute to the high rates of suicide amongst trans people, the rates of violence against and murders of trans people, and the passage of laws that try to push trans people out of public life—to yourself, you transphobic bastard.
Good thing I’m “queer” as in “fuck you”, then.
Maybe stop worrying about trans people as if they’re all sex offenders. Maybe stop acting like you’re God and your proclamations of what gender and sex are override the gender identities of trans people. Maybe stop being an asshole and let trans people live in peace.
Or keep being an asshole who wants trans people silenced by way of haranguing them back into the closet (and possibly suicide). Your call, shitbird.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 Murders of trans people
Most murders of trans people are of Black transwomen prostitutes, that is, of young Black men involved in criminal or criminal-adjacent activities. I don’t believe that their murder rate is any higher than other such young Black men.
Re: Re: Re:7
And I’m sure you don’t give a shit either way, because what’s one less living trans person to you besides one less trans person to worry about “transing” your gender?
Fuck off with your bullshit already; you won’t find anyone here who is sympathetic to your views outside of the troll brigade.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
Black people shooting and murdering other Black people in numbers disproportionate to their population share causes painful cognitive dissonance for woke race ideologues, and therefore they do not talk about it. Black lives matter to them only when they are ended by white people, or by law enforcement.
Re: Re: Re:9
In your zeal to show your entire racist ass to the world, you’re forgetting a rather important point: The majority of violent crime is intraracial. Or do you simply ignore how most of the murders of white people committed in a given year are committed by white people?
You don’t give a shit about Black-on-Black crime except as a way to imply that Black people are inherently, uncontrollably, unquestionably criminal and violent at their core.
Fuck you, you racist prick.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
The proportion of shootings and murders among Black people is far higher than their share of the population. It’s the fact that they’re intraracial – that it’s Black people shooting each other, not white people shooting Black people – that causes such discomfort for woke race ideologues.
I voted for a Black mayor who promised to address crime in New York City, so yay me? Black people aren’t “at their core” different from anyone else. But for a variety of reasons, some racist and imposed by white society, some not, many Black people are now enmeshed in long-standing harmful social and cultural constructs that prevent them from doing better, and are held back by woke race ideologues who rail against any notion that improvement can come from within Black communities themselves.
This is what woke ideologues have in common – the refusal to see things obvious to everyone else, because they do not fit into the ideology the woke want to believe.
Re: Re: Re:11
I’m not discomforted by the idea of intraracial violence. After all, I’m White, and I accept the fact that—based on statistics about violent crimes in re: race/ethnicity—I’m far more likely to be killed by another White person than I am to be killed by anyone of any other ethinc group.
If anything, the fact that most violent crime is intraracial discomforts you, because it lays bare the hollowness of the “Black-on-Black crime” argument. That’s why you never mention the fact that violent crimes in other ethnic groups are mostly intraracial: Doing so would undercut your “argument” about Black people being inherently criminal.
Every time you trot out the “Black-on-Black crime” argument, you’re implicitly arguing that Black people and Black culture are inherently and unquestionably violent in a way no other ethnic group/culture is. If that wasn’t the case, you wouldn’t concentrate on Black people to the exclusion of every other ethnic group.
One of those constructs is modern American conservatism, as best exemplified by Donald Trump and his sickening sycophants in Congress.
Improvements in majority-Black communities can come from within those communities, yes. But such improvements can only ever be helped by policies that seek to lift up Black people rather than further oppress and marginalize them.
Besides, I don’t see you saying a goddamned thing about majority-white communities that harbor Klan members and other racist garbage. Where’s your concern about those communities—or are you not all that worried about how those Very Fine People™ are fucking up “white culture”?
Re: Re: Re:12
In case you were curious as to the source of Hyman Rosen’s bullshot:
And here’s the reality Stephen is trying to drive through Hyman’s thick skull:
Re: Re: Re:13
THANK YOU.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:13 NYC crime racial breakdowns
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/year-end-2021-enforcement-report.pdf
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14 They fled, as they eventually always do.
You broke them.
In case you’re new here, here’s what you just did:
Stone will spend the night rocking in the fetal position and try not to be another stereotype of a sexual eccentric flipping xi’s own off switch.
Toom isn’t smart enough to know which end of the shotgun to stick in his mouth. Even if he accidentally gets the muzzle in his craw, he’d never realize it’s not like Atari… you actually have to load the bloody thing.
Re: Re: Re:15
Is this really the best trolling you can do? 4chan’s /b/ was better than you 10 years ago, and /b/ has always sucked.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:16 Putting a brave face on it
He seems to have snapped you like a twig. Thanks for giving yourself a little cry break and getting yourself under control in your response to me.
Based on your unhinged ranting and frustrated cursing above at Mr. Rosen’s polite words, I wonder how long before you nudge the 42% stat up to 43.
Please hold out a little longer. Your disheartened and utterly ineffectual freakouts are like the warm, placid glow of sunrise.
Re: Re: Re:17
I’m not trans, but thanks for outing yourself as a transphobe without any actual prompting. Got any new material for once, or are you going to stick with insults that were boring long before you were even born?
Re: Re: Re:18
I know you’re not trans, I apologize for implying such.
You’ve always made it very clear you’re a queer, which being a slur, I’ve always thought was as odd as Blacks calling themselves ‘n**ger’. But I’ve never had a problem with people calling themselves whatever, as long nobody tries forcing me or my kids to call them that. (The “not forcing others” part is what you Leftists have such a hard time with.)
What I was doing was extrapolating the 42% statistic to all LBGTQPIA+. I don’t know the suicide rates for ‘queer’ but you keep telling us it’s astronomically high.
Either way, I said don’t do it. Being nice, see? You’re entertaining.
(Please do flag this, though. Thx in advance.)
Re: Re: Re:19
Slurs can be reclaimed. “Queer” is one of them; it’s largely used by other queer people as a more inclusive catch-all for people who would otherwise identiy as part of the LGBTQ+ population. “Queer” can cover any sexual orientation/gender identity outside of heterosexual/cisgender. Some people that I would refer to as “queer” don’t like the word, and that’s fine (e.g., someone identifies as gay but not queer). I don’t mean to slur any of those people, and I’m more than willing to respect the way they express their identity.
And before you even fucking think to think about maybe going where you’re probably wanting to possibly take this: No, pedophiles don’t count as queer because pedophilia is a sexual paraphilia, not a sexual orientation or gender identity. Anyone who says otherwise is either an asshole, a troll, or a pedophile trying their best to piggyback off the current societal acceptance of queer people. Fuck all three groups.
Says someone who probably sees no problem with the state of Florida recommending that trans children be deadnamed.
Re: Re: Re:19
Well, that’s already a huge problem. That’s not how statistics work. At all.
Re: Re: Re:15
I’d appreciate it if we not use references to suicide in jokes or insults, please.
Also, this…
…is wrong for other reasons..
First, “xi” is used as a pronoun only for those who prefer to be referenced as such rather than “he”, “she”, “it”, or some other nonstandard pronoun. It is not used to refer to genderfluid, non-binary, or transgender people in general. The generally accepted pronoun for someone with unknown, unspecified, or indeterminate gender is “they”.
Second, Stephen is neither genderfluid, transgender, nor non-binary, nor does he ask to be referred to with any nonstandard pronouns. He is a cisgender man, albeit not a heterosexual one. As such, this makes no sense as a reference to him.
Third, what do you even mean by “a sexual eccentric”?
Re: Re: Re:14
Okay, and…what’s the point of posting that link, again? What are we supposed to be looking for? What in that link disproves any of what Toom posted?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:15 You have to *read* the thing, Stone
I did. And while one can’t expect Toom to blunder his way through pretending to understand complicated things like statistics and charts without a lot of coaching and mentorship, I declare this at your reading level.
Stuff that would trip Toom up (like ‘Asian Pacific Islander’ having nothing to do with a hockey team) shouldn’t be impossible for you.
You know what, never mind. After you realize what it’s saying, you’ll opt to disappear, or obfuscate, instead of eating crow.
Re: Re: Re:16
Man, your shit is boring. 🥱
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:17 You didn't disappear, so...
… you chose to obfuscate, as I willed it.
You demanded receipts. He gave you it on a platter. You ignored it.
Conclusion: you didn’t read it, or if you did, you didn’t understand it.
That’s cool. But every time you’re provided a source and you ignore it, the ‘Boy Who Cried Wolf’ factor clicks up a few notches.
Re: Re: Re:18
So if you read the report you should have not problems pointing out what’s wrong with what Toom’s cited.
Re: Re: Re:17
It’s very telling that Nah has never once provided anything that wasn’t a description of himself with someone else’s username taped on like anyone but himself would be dumb enough to fall for it.
Re: Re: Re:16
That didn’t answer the question. How does the citation contradict Toom?
Re: Re: Re:9
Numbers or stop lying.
Re: Re: Re:9 They coukld hear that dog whistle from space
You really are a racist ass clown. I had real hope that you were more than just a watered down chozen clone.
Re: Re: Re:3
“I mean, you may still come off as kind of a jerk, as that’s a pretty ignorant and jerky opinion”
Also one that’s very easily proven wrong by noting the many exceptions to the rule that can’t be handwaved away, like hermaphroties, intersex individuals and people with other unusual genetic and physical difference.
That person’s obsession with other peoples’ genitals is noted, however.
““I don’t believe that gods exist.”
That one’s much easier! Really easy, actually.”
A slightly more jerky way would be to just say that an atheist believes in exactly one less god than the average Christian – we’ve all rejected the existence of everything but the Abrahamic god, we just disagree on that one out of the many thousands already rejected.
That’s an interesting philosophical argument, and honestly not one that I have any investment in “resolving” unless the person I’m talking to insists that they should be able to control my life because they believe in one and I don’t.
Re: Re: Re:4
Oh, very much so! I do it all the time. I just figured it’d be an interesting challenge to find the least offensive way to say it. Which was kinda the point: you can be very obviously wrong about even something like this without being a complete jerk about it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Intersex Exceptions
That’s why the seemingly more polite phrasing is less effective and true than the more jerky one. Transwomen are generally men with no physical gender anomalies due to genetics or developmental problems. Ditto for transmen.
It is true that sex and gender are the same, and that sex is binary and immutable. The fact that genetic and developmental problems may cause individuals to exhibit aspects of both sexes or of neither doesn’t change that. Evolution is not engineering. It is also true that woke gender ideologues would be outraged if having such physical anomalies were a requirement of declaring oneself to be trans.
So, using the more polite phrasing leads to this fruitless sequel of talking about physically intersex people that has nothing to do with the political issues.
Re: Re: Re:5
“Transwomen are generally AMAB people with no physical gender anomalies due to genetics or developmental problems. Almost ditto for transmen.”
FTFY, Hymen Rosan. YW. ;p
Re: Re: Re:6
You’ll have to forgive Hyman—he’s obsessed with the genitals of trans people even more than an actual trans person would be obsessed with their own genitals.
Re: Re: Re:5
Biological sex may inform gender identity, but gender identity does not inform biological sex.
Please define “woke”, then define “woke gender ideologues”. Be specific and detailed; provide examples of your definitions where necessary. Aim for clarity that means what it says instead of vagueness that can mean anything you want it to mean from argument to argument—I want your bullshit on the record so you can’t back out from it in the future.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 Define "woke"
I have done this several times. Perhaps you can’t see it because my posts are routinely hidden. Or perhaps you just like sealioning.
“Woke” refers to a constellation of ridiculously false left-wing views about gender and race and crime and history and more. Woke gender ideology believes that sex and gender are different, that gender is an aspect of mind rather than body, and that men can be transformed into women and vice-versa. I think it’s the opposite of what is called “gender essentialism”.
As with wokeness in general, woke gender ideology wants to force people to affirm these beliefs.
Re: Re: Re:7
This is vague bullshit. It can mean whatever you want it to mean—even if it doesn’t make any sense when compared to factual reality. Give me something clear and concrete.
Okay but that’s true, though. Biological sex and gender identity are different, and gender identity is an aspect of psychological self-identity that is informed by (but not entirely dependent upon) biological sex.
Trans people want to live their lives openly and in peace without facing harassment and violence from transphobic dickbags like you…and you actually believe that’s a bad thing?
Because let’s be clear: Trans people are not trying to “trans” (verb) anyone. They’re not trying to groom/recruit children into being trans (and you have no evidence of that). They’re not trying to rape people in bathrooms or destroy sports or whatever other transphobic nonsense you were led to believe by conservative media and that bitch J.K. Rowling. Trans people are trying to live in peace within a society that, by and large, wants them all gone. (In the closet at best, dead at worst.) Your continued insistence on being an asshole about trans identities—about trans PEOPLE, and yes, they are PEOPLE regardless of whether you like that fact, you goddamned son of a bitch—contributes to the largely anti-trans atmosphere in modern society that makes a hell of a lot of trans people afraid for both their livelihoods and their lives.
Nobody is asking you to be transgender. Nobody is asking you to accept “woke gender ideology”. What I’m asking you to do—and I want to be absolutely 100% clear about this—is to STOP TREATING TRANSGENDER PEOPLE LIKE THEY NEED TO FUCKING DIE BECAUSE THEY EXIST.
Fuck, man. I’m cisgender, but I’m also queer, and people like you make my blood boil with the kind of rage that makes me want to put my fist through a wall. How can you be this shitty towards people who are only ever trying to live their lives in a way that doesn’t even personally affect you?! FUCK!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
Being trans is a delusion and a mental illness. Trans people can live their lives as they like, subject to not imposing their beliefs on other people. That includes staying out of single-sex spaces for which their bodies disqualify them, unless the people already in those spaces give them permission, and it includes not teaching schoolchildren in public schools that trans beliefs about gender are correct. It is entirely analogous to religion. We’re do not teach creationism on public schools, and religious organizations get to keep out people from other religions (and the organizations decide who qualifies, not the people who want to join).
Your rage is irrelevant to me. Anger about reality doesn’t change reality.
Re: Re: Re:9
And what about you, trying to impose your beliefs on trans people? What about you, trying to impose your ideas of gender identity on people trying to live their lives in a way that literally doesn’t affect you in any meaningful way whatsoever? I suppose you’re more than welcome to do that, seeing as how you’re not “woke”, huh.
Fuck you.
Show me literally one example of this happening as you laid it out. Cite a credible source for it, too—Breitbart, InfoWars, Fox News, OANN, and your ass don’t count.
Regardless of whether you can do that: Fuck you.
Well, if you consider transitioning from one religion to another and facing the loss of existing community that often comes from doing so—not to mention how such transitions can often be met with legal punishments in places that mandate a specific religious practice—then I can see the analogy.
Otherwise: Fuck you.
…oh, and one more thing.
Trans people aren’t trying to make you trans or force you to believe “woke gender ideology” (whatever the fuck that means to you right now) or whatever you think they’re doing. They’re asking you to accept them as AN ACTUAL FUCKING PERSON regardless of their gender identity and let them live as AN ACTUAL FUCKING PERSON whose gender identity probably doesn’t affect you in any way. They’re asking for your narrow-minded ass to tolerate their existence instead of harassing them about their gender—to let them go about their day without trying to trigger their dysphoria or make them afraid of you committing violence against them for daring to step out in public. Your attitudes and your desire to shove your transphobia in queer people’s faces and go “fuck you, get out of society if you can’t be what you were born as” is what piss me off. They’re contributing to the trends of trans people committing suicide, being murdered, being shunned into homelessness and poverty, and otherwise being unable to live decent lives.
And it’s all because you want to be comfortable enough to say “you’re not really a woman, you know” to a trans person without catching shit over it. That’s how I know you support the “don’t say gay” law in Florida: That shit applies just as much to non-queer people saying things about queer people in schools as it does to queer people. It’s not enough for people like you to shut trans people up. You gotta shut up their allies, too.
After all, you can’t preserve your own comfort if other people can keep trying to tell you how you’re a huge piece of transphobic shit.
Fuck. You.
Re: Re: Re:10
As aggravating and incredibly stupid as their bigotry might be(and I commend you for dealing with them, I certainly wouldn’t have the patience) I can’t help but find it more than a little funny that for all their bigotry and disgust they’ve almost certainly spent far more time thinking and obsessing about what’s in the pants of trans people than actual trans people, rather like the vehemently anti-gay people who end up spending more time thinking about gay sex than gay people.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10 One Example
https://www.schools.nyc.gov/school-life/school-environment/guidelines-on-gender/guidelines-on-gender-inclusion
Quote from that document:
Puberty education and sexuality education lessons must be designed to be inclusive and affirming of all genders, gender identities, and sexual orientations, and use gender-inclusive language throughout (e.g., “a penis” vs. “a boy’s penis,” or “one example of sexual anatomy” vs. “female sexual anatomy”).
Woke gender ideology is a lie, as is the rest of woke ideology. Having the government teach that lies are truth and forcing people to affirm those lies is intolerable. You may rage as much as you like. It will not change reality one iota.
Re: Re: Re:11
I’m not really seeing a problem there. Some women have dicks. Your discomfort with that idea, your obsession with the genitals of trans people in general, and your apparent desire to drive trans people out of public life/into their graves (an assertion you have yet to refute in any meaningful way) are problems only you can solve.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12
Yes, I’m quite aware that you believe in woke gender ideology and aren’t going to change your mind. That’s why we have a culture *war*. When woke ideologues get the government to impose their lies and cannot be convinced that they are wrong, they must be defeated in the court of public opinion and at the ballot box. Fortunately, that seems to be happening.
Re: Re: Re:13
And your side is perfectly fine with driving your “enemies” into an early grave via suicide, given how you’re on the same side of the kinds of people who pass laws to ban one trans person from competing in high school sports in a given state.
Just say you want trans people dead and be done with it. At least that’d be some actual motherfucking honesty from you, you prick.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14 Suicide
https://www.columbiapsychiatry.org/news/young-adults-schizophrenia-have-highest-suicide-risk
It’s not surprising that people who have delusions about themselves and reality also have elevated rates of suicide. That’s one of the things that mental illness does.
People with the trans delusion haven’t done any harm to anyone, and I don’t want them to die. (It’s the gender ideologues who are pushing lies, not ordinary trans people.) Ideally, they would receive mental health treatment to let them come to terms with the fact that they are living in the only body they will ever have, and it will only ever be the sex that it is. They can choose to transition, but they will know more than anyone else how superficial that change is. After all, they will see themselves at all times, not just when the costumers art makes them look their best.
It’s woke gender ideologues who will cause increases in suicide, by encouraging people to live untenable illusory lives that will constantly brush up against a reality that demonstrates to them that what they believe is not real.
Re: Re: Re:15
Bull. Fucking. Shit.
Every post you’ve made about trans people has called their humanity into question by positing that they’re delusional subhumans. (Hell, you’ve been basically one step away from using a certain ableist slur in reference to their intellectual capability.) You’ve never once denied support for any policy put forth by conservative lawmakers that specifically targets trans people—a move that will inevitably harm those trans people by making them targets for harassment and violence. You’ve only ever talked shit about trans people in the same way transphobes do, and you’ve never once shown even an ounce of genuine compassion for trans people.
Don’t give me this bullshit performative concern about the lives of trans people now. I won’t believe it. Neither will anyone else.
The psychological and physical torture known as “conversion ‘therapy’ ” doesn’t work on gay people. Using it to treat trans people will be no different.
And there it is, the surest sign of a transphobe: You think of trans people as r⸺ds playing dress-up by running around in a gendered costume instead of people who are trying to treat their gender dysphoria in a world that largely prefers to see them dead or permanently miserable.
No, it’s actually intolerant bigots like you—bigots who insult, harass, and assault trans people—that drive trans people to suicide. It was the same when all that attention was directed at gay people; the only reason you’re not catching more shit for doing it to trans people is because trans people are still widely considered an Acceptable Target™ for that kind of bullshit.
But yeah, sure, it’s the people who are trying to help trans people live their best lives that are driving trans people to suicide~. Totally believe you there~.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:16 Subhumans
People who are wrong aren’t subhumans, they’re just wrong. People who have delusions about reality aren’t subhumans, they’re just deluded and mentally ill.
Woke gender ideologues would prefer to believe that their opponents are driven by hate rather than reality, because then they don’t have to face the fact that reality counters their beliefs.
People who believe delusions are always going to be fragile, because even if the people around them are willing to lie to make the delusions seem real, the world itself isn’t going to accommodate them. Transwomen are men. Their bodies are male and always will be, no matter how much medicine and surgery and costuming they apply. That’s going to be apparent to themselves and others in a multitude of ways.
Re: Re: Re:17
But you are driven by hate. Hate is what drives you to attack trans people. Hate is what drives you to obsess over trans people’s genitals. Hate is what keeps you posting transphobic bullshit in these comments sections.
Where does all this hating lead you to in the end?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:18 Where Does It Lead?
Hopefully, to the destruction of woke gender ideology, and woke ideology in general. Just as recovered memory was discredited after having led to the Satanic panic that destroyed lives over nothing, so too will be woke gender ideology and critical race theory. My tiny role in its destruction is to point a finger and laugh at the true believers and never let them forget that their attempts to silence opponents is failing as we speak.
Speaking of which, I just saw The Secrets of Dumbledore. J. K. Rowling’s name is all over it as scriptwriter and producer, so go Team TERF!
Re: Re: Re:13 I think we all know the answer to that...
Why do you have such an obsession with other peoples genitals?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14 "Some women have dicks" - Stephen T. Stone, genius
Everything I’m reading by Hyman Rosen shows he’s talking about minds, not genitals.
The percentage of true transsexuals (people with the delusion they’ve been born into the wrong sex) versus plain ol’ perverts (autogynephiles) is one I’ve not seen statistics on.
Regardless, Mr. Rosen seems mostly to be talking about those suffering from the trans delusion. He’s talking about a mental illness, which is why he mentioned mental health treatment instead of genital surgery.
Civilized countries don’t let doctors chop off the limbs of people with Body Integrity Dysphoria. Why they’d allow medical perverts to slice and dice and construct a Frankensteinian pseudo-vagina or neo-penis.
Groomers want to pump children full of hormone blockers for several reasons: a) teach learned helplessness; b) torturing children is their sexual fetish; c) since they themselves are sexual misfits, they want to create others so as not to feel so alone; d) it’s how genetic dead ends (won’t procreate with a sexual opposite) reproduce; e) a combination of the above. (There’re no exceptions.)
I hope the Left continues it’s recent but very passionate decision to stand firmly in the camp of child molesters. I feel terrible for their child victims, but in the long term it’ll lead to a better world.
Techdirters, please maintain your pro-pedo stance.
(Also, please flag this comment.)
Re: Re: Re:15
[citation needed] for everything you just said.
Re: Re: Re:13 You ever notice the only poeple who say woke are RWNJ's?
Do you get a cash prize for saying woke enough times?
Re: Re: Re:11
You… do know that intersex people exist, right? Even ignoring transgender people, some women have penises, and some men have parts typically associated with female anatomy. This isn’t even necessarily part of being transgender or genderfluid or anything.
More importantly, avoiding language that discriminates against transgender people is not teaching acceptance of or agreement with a transgender person’s beliefs about their sex and gender.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10 Source for Stone - "Show me literally one example"
‘kay.
This is from Kendall Brown “healthcare advocate fighting to defeat Republican supermajorities | Quaker | I live for books, plants, and Dolly Parton”. Not from a far right notzi source like those goosestepping fascists at Forbes or The New Yorker.
https://twitter.com/kendallybrown/status/1516521224876216334
Actual video shown multiple times in the thread.
As an interesting experiment which proves the “conservatives aren’t being censored, leftist pedophiles aren’t deleting their own videos every time they’re caught, war is peace, etc” line that Masnick takes, try searching for the original video of Tyler Wrynn. It’s very hard to dig up thanks to Masnickian censorship and gaslighting.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10 Any Techdirter going to talk about Tyler Wrynn?
My comment was flagged below, but I provided a link to an anti-Republican Quaker (not my descriptions, hers) discussing this unquestionable groomer schoolteacher. He’s the one telling kids “I’m your parents now.”
You asked for “literally one example”. You got it.
Comments?
https://twitter.com/kendallybrown/status/1516521224876216334
Re: Re: Re:11
You didn’t actually read what Kendall Brown wrote, and the video doesn’t in any way prove what you think it does unless you explain why this specific teacher is “unquestionable grooming” the students by telling them that they are loved when there are numerous other teachers that have said things to the same effect.
Nah, you are just another stupidly hateful person.
Re: Re: Re:9 come at me bro
“Anger about reality doesn’t change reality.”
then why you so mad bro?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
Because woke ideologues are trying to force people to affirm lies. That won’t change reality, but affirming lies is bad, and we should get angry at people who are trying to force us to do that, just as we were when attempts were made to teach creationism in schools.
Re: Re: Re:11
Your statement comes with a grand irony: The people most likely to want creationism (read: conservative Christian dogma) taught in schools are the same kind of people who are fighting to stop “woke gender ideologues” (whatever the fuck that means) from doing…whatever the fuck you’ve allowed yourself to be deluded into believing they do on a daily basis.
You’re on their side, regardless of whether you want to be. But don’t think for a second that those leopards won’t eat your face if and when they feel they must.
Re: Re: Re:5
Gender is a mental and social construct that isn’t even the same across cultures and subcultures, so bzzzzzt, wrong, but thanks for playing.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 Can problems with social constructs be fixed with radical surgery?
If gender ID problems can be repaired with radical surgery – and I would doubt the sanity of anyone on either side who alleges genital-altering surgery isn’t radical – then we’re talking biology.
If we’re talking biology, then we’re out of the realm of ‘social construct’ (gender) and into the land of anatomy (sex).
So what you’re nearly admitting here is that ‘transgenderism’ is an obfuscation and the real issue being discussed is ‘transsexualism’.
The Left’s move to replace transsexualism with transgenderism was a smart one, and has succeeded. Prior to that happening, a trans man was only considered a woman after fully completing SRS and vice versa.
But now that the ‘gender social construct’ is the paradigm, it allows biological males to ‘do gender’ women, with fully intact and functional male genitals, and demand access to women-only spaces. Access which the Establishment has – so far – granted them, to the objections of real girls and real women.
I cannot wait for the day when ‘drag’, the misogynistic mockery of women by sodomy enthusiasts, is treated with as much derision as blackface. Drag = Blackface, but with my mother, sisters, and daughters as the target of scorn instead of Black people.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7 I Like Drag
I like drag shows but I can see your point. As a bisexual dominate man I often catch heat for pointing out that my femme friends that women aren’t that effeminate and to my butch friends that men aren’t that masculine.
The entire genre is very much like blackface as it is a caricature of felinity like blackface is a caricature of black culture. Stereotypical features are emphasized while subtly is missed.
A trans woman is most often how a man sees a woman. A trans man is most often how a woman sees a man.
I had a friend who did drag at a club in Long Island that I used to bounce at. He would always say he just felt like a man. I’d ask him ‘really and what is that?’ I could never get a strieght answer.
Around 2010 he actually started to transition and went on the hormones. I was back for a visit and he told me ‘Wow its so much different, it’s like thing that used to make me so emotional don’t even bother me in the slightest and things that didn’t used to bother me at all just feel me with so much rage, I see red.’ ‘Oh’ I said. ‘You mean like you want to cut the guys head off and put it on a pike as a message to everyone else to never try that shit again?’ ‘Yes! Exactly!’ he exclaimed. I chuckled and smiled ‘Oh do tell.’
Re: Re: Re:7
You could try moving to Afghanistan, where their idea of gender and gender roles is in line with yours.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8 I Get It
Yes I get it. You like most liberal males have testosterone levels on in the range of 80 year old men. No joke see try guys episode where they checked their T levels. So you don’t understand how testosterone affects your mental and emotional state. A female transitioning to male will have testosterone levels much higher than your pathetic ass. That’s one of the issues I have with how transitioning is handled. They just give people these hormones that significantly affect emotional state and don’t teach them how to regulate these emotions they have never felt before. Females to male are the worst and in my observation frequently blow up their lives because they don’t know how to deal with the aggression testosterone brings.
Re: Re: Re:9
Funny how it’s the antivaxxer Republicans who are taking testosterone-blockers in the hallucination it’ll protect them from Covid as they avoid the vaccine.
Re: Re: Re:9
Show me a scientific study to back that up or f**k off.
Re: Re: Re:7
Partially, yes. Though, if you were unaware of biology affecting neurology, then you need to retake biology.
False dichotomy. Although they aren’t the same thing, sex and gender do influence one another. More importantly, that we make changes to the physiological sex to accommodate for the gender identity doesn’t make gender anatomical.
No, it’s not. For one thing, there’s no such thing as “transsexualism”. You’re now arguing a strawman.
False. That may have been the public perception, at least among most non-trans people, but that is simply not a true statement and never has been. There has never been a requirement that a transgender person must fully complete SRS.
Also, you have the terminology wrong. A trans man is a transgender person who identifies as a man.
That’s not what drag actually is. It has nothing at all to do with being gay, transgender, genderfluid, or non-binary. Straight cisgender men dress in drag as well, and many transwomen and gay men never dress in women’s clothing (and, of the ones who do, many don’t do the whole thing, generally just wearing skirts/dresses/heels/whatever without acting any differently or using makeup). Additionally, many aren’t doing it to mock women at all or to trick anyone at all.
Also, “drag” only exists because we, as a society, have arbitrarily decided that some clothing and accessories are women’s-only. Blackface existed in part due to actual intrinsic physical differences between black people and non-black people (skin color), and it’s offensive largely due to the history of how it was used. If you don’t see the difference, I can’t help you.
Honestly, I’d be fine if we didn’t make certain clothes men’s-only or women’s-only.
Re: Re: Re:5
Depends on how you define “physical”. Their brain chemistry generally does appear anomalous for their physiological sex but not for their gender identity, and brain chemistry is a physical attribute.
“Binary”, in this context, means that “male” and “female” are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive categories of sex and gender among humans. Any exceptions disprove the fact that gender and/or sex are truly binary.
Largely because the only accurate ways to determine such things would be impractical in most situations and/or a huge invasion of privacy.
Which basically devolves to an argument about semantics. You define sex and gender differently from how transgender people and people who actually study human sexuality do. No amount of facts is going to change that because the actual facts are not truly in dispute, only the definitions, some interpretations, and how to handle that in real life.
Also, it has everything to do with the political issues. The fact that there are already exceptions to “just male” and “just female” means that gender is more complicated than that and assuming everyone is in one of those categories when determining public accommodations and paperwork is false.
Furthermore, it shows that different sex-discriminant characteristics of the human body (and genes) do not have perfect correlation. It is trivial to use the same logic to point out that the brain doesn’t always correlate with the body, which is exactly what being transgender is all about.
Finally, you did not demonstrate that the polite phrasing would lead to this “fruitless debate” or that the jerky one would not, and both are necessary for this conclusion to follow.
Re: Re: Re:2 Obviously not
Have you tried not being an asshole?
Re: Re: Re:2
Per your own words you think trans-people are mentally ill, regardless how you formulate that and tell them your opinion it’s a jerk move for 2 reasons:
1. You aren’t qualified to talk to people about whether they are mentally ill or not.
2. You are carrying on a conversion with someone you think are mentally ill telling them that they are mentally ill. It doesn’t take a genius to know that this is a bad idea for various reasons.
Re: Re: Re:2
Your obsessive behavior in bringing that up on every thread about moderation is what makes you a jerk.
Re: Re:
Restating an opinion when the discussion is about something else is being a jerk. I.E. reminding everybody that a trans woman is really a man in every thread on moderation, as one our trolls tends to do is way beyond having an opinion, but passive aggressive trolling.
Re: Re: Re:
Except that a trans woman isn’t really a man, she’s a woman regardless of what was between her thighs when she was born. No amount of saying that someone is or was really something else can change their lived reality.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Because Twitter explicitly bans “deadnaming” trans people, it serves as a perfect storm of arguing moderation versus censorship.
Re: Re: Re:2
No, it doesn’t. Twitter admins can ban whatever fucking speech it wants; as a privately owned service, it has that right. If it wants to ban deadnaming, so be it—you can always go to Truth Social and deadname transpeople there because Twitter can’t censor you there, you goddamn shitstain.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Censorship
As you woke ideologues find it convenient not to see when it’s going your way, having the right to censor does not make exercising that right any less censorship. No one is disputing that Twitter can do anything it wants to. After all, that’s why woke ideologues are so fearful of a Musk takeover; they think that he will stop the woke-favoring censorship and they will not be able to prevent it, because it will be just as legal as what Twitter is doing now.
It’s kind of funny that woke ideologues are trying to push dissent into samizdats. Let’s reproduce the repression of the Soviet Union here!
Re: Re: Re:4
How is it censorship when you can go to any other platform besides Twitter and deadname trans people all the live-long day? And don’t trot out the dead horse that is the “BuT iT’s CeNsOrShIp On TwItTeR!!!1!” argument—it’s bullshit when Lodos does it, and it’ll be equally as bullshit if you do it.
At which point a lot of people would probably leave Twitter en masse for other services, because they’re not gonna want to deal with a platform where the owner thereof believes the “Worst People” Problem is a goal to achieve rather than avoid.
It’s kind of “funny” that you believe tolerance of queer people is an idea that needs dissent.
Re: Re: Re:2
That you have a problem with rules against deadnaming says you are intolerant, and will not let trans people live free from you attacking them at every opportunity.
Re: Re: Re:2
The only reason why someone would choose to deadname someone else is to harass and drive them away – there are no other reasons.
I’m not surprised at all that you think harassing people is just fine since you have persistently displayed all the characteristics of being a bigoted intolerant racist asshole.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Why "Deadnaming"?
Because people’s former names are part of reality and history, and the very concept of “deadnaming” is a sin the woke invented to force people to affirm the lies of gender ideology – that trans people are only what they say they are, not what they were.
It was Bruce Jenner who won Olympic gold, not Caitlyn Jenner, and it was Ellen Page who starred in Juno, not Elliot Page.
“Deadnaming” is no worse in concept than mentioning someone’s former spouse after they have divorced and remarried. And if the woke want to make it a deadly sin, all the more reason to not let them do that.
Re: Re: Re:4
And in many circumstances both should earn you a punch to the nose. Reminding people of a past that they may want to forget is being an obnoxious jerk.
Re: Re: Re:4
Here’s a simple litmus test for you if you place such importance on prior names: Always use your married friends former name and if they happen to be divorced, keep using their married name – especially if it was a very bad divorce.
Because if you don’t, that means the only reason you think deadnaming is just fine is because you want to deadname someone to cause them discomfort.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5 In your litmus test...
Is it only deadnaming if you say their birth name when addressing them directly?
I thought deadnaming was mentioning their birth name at all , to anyone (even if the named individual was unaware of it.)
In your scenario, it would only be doubleplusungood if you called the divorced person “Mrs. Jones” to her face. Saying to a disinterested third part “There goes Suzy. She used to be married to my co-worker Mike Jones. Up until last year, she went by Mrs. Jones.”
Aren’t both those situations deadnaming?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
The reason to deadname someone is accuracy. Bruce Jenner won Olympic medals, not Caitlyn. Ellen Page starred in Juno, not Elliot. The US has no “right to be forgotten”. A person’s former name is part of their history, and they don’t get to compel anyone else never to mention it, any more than they get to compel anyone else to affirm their false beliefs about their gender. If Twitter wants to censor people for doing that, that’s their business, but they shouldn’t be surprised when they’re called out for it. Or get taken over.
Re: Re: Re:4
The one and only reason to deadname someone is if your mental illness compels you to lie about their gender.
Re: Re: Re:5
Objection, being an asshole is not a mental illness.
Re: Re: Re:4
…cruelty. That’s it. That’s the only reason to knowingly and intentionally deadname a trans person.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Deadnaming = best example of how censorship works in the 21st Century
Take a common practice (mentioning peoples’ birth names). Now define that as hate speech. Ban hate speech. Problem solved. People unwilling to lie are censored.
The Left has always been very uncomfortable with birth names, because there’s a certain group who are extremely disproportionately represented on the Left (especially the violent and radical left) that had a huge incentive to change their last names to fit in with the host population.
But they didn’t used to be able to Thought Police to the degree they can now.
Go try to find Christine Jorgensen’s original name on the ‘online encyclopedia’. Poof, it’s gone down the Memory Hole.
But the Left says “We’re not INGSOC!”
Re: Re: Re:3
If a woman gets married and takes her husband’s last name, would you still call her by her maiden name?
If someone asks you to call them by a shortened or alternate version of their first name (e.g., “Mike” instead of “Michael”), would you still use the full version of their first name?
And if the answer is “no” on both questions, how are those any different than extending the same courtesy to trans people?
…fucking what
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Please clarify
Interesting thought experiment.
So I can do it right, please tell me: is it deadnaming only if calling the individual they’re deadname when addressing them?
That’s the way you’ve set up your analogy.
My understanding is that deadnaming is not confined solely to addressing them directly, as you’ve implied, but referring to their deadname at all .
I think the analogy is close, but instead of the “calling Mike Michael is a hate crime” scenario, it’s that “mentioning to a third party that Mike was born Michael is a hate crime”.
I bet you’re in the “slippery slope is a logical fallacy” camp, but now that mentioning a person’s birth name is thoughtcrime, I wonder how soon before mentioning the fact that he or she even had a different birth name will get you visited by the Stasi.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
*their
Re: Re: Re:5
No, it’s deadnaming if you use the deadname in any context. The point of my analogy was to note how calling people anything other than their legal or preferred name is inconsiderate bullshit that puts your comfort and your preference above someone else’s.
Direct example: I go by “Stephen” both because it’s my birth name and because I don’t prefer “Steve”. Calling me “Steve” would make you an inconsiderate shitbag regardless of whether you do that to my face. (And I’m sure you’re going to do that from now on because you can’t resist the attempt to needle me into some sort of angry response. I won’t be mad, disappointed, or surprised if you do it—just bored with how easy it is to manipulate your ass into doing it.)
The issue with deadnaming trans people is that their chosen name is a huge part of their identity. Deadnaming them is little more than an attempt to harangue trans people into shame, silence, or even suicide.
Can you point to any law in any state that explicitly criminalizes deadnaming? And if you can, how does that law punish the offender?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 More on birth names
(I don’t like to be unnecessarily cruel, I won’t call you by the shortened version of your name. I’ve been referring to you as Stone, and sincerely, if that’s objectionable, let me know and I’ll stop. I’m a nice guy when not being censored/attacked.)
Stone, I’m not saying your statements mean the exact same thing, but it’s close (I think.) You had the guts to answer my question, unlike Rocky the Poltroon of Techdirt, so thanks.
But whether you meant to or not, you sound like you’re contradicting yourself.
You said it’s deadnaming whether the subject individual knows about it or not. If I say Christine Jorgensen’s birth name, Jorgenson doesn’t know about it, being long dead and all.
Question: if deadnaming is “an attempt to harangue trans people into shame, silence, or even suicide”, how can a person be harangued if they don’t even know they’re being discussed?
If I say ___ Manning’s birth name to a buddy on a hike, Manning hasn’t heard it. Manning is not being harangued. or harassed. Therefore it doesn’t meet your or Rocky’s definition of deadnaming.
You could argue that you meant to say that me saying Manning’s birth name to a buddy, unbeknownst to Manning, still places Manning in danger – my buddy might do something crazy, or he might in turn tell someone willing do something crazy.
But since you didn’t say that, you’re at least admitting that there might be non-malevolent motives for uttering someone’s birth name. I’m certainly not trying to imply all reasons for using someone’s birth name (aware or unaware) are benevolent, but the “deadnaming is always and everywhere a manifestation of evil on Earth” is typical paranoid Leftist exaggeration.
Re: Re: Re:7
What you discuss in private are entirely up to you, but if you get your jollies from deadnaming people in that context you are just proving what a simpleton you are.
But the point was deadnaming people to their face in some fashion, and the only reason for doing it intentionally is to harass people.
It’s clear from your trollish behavior that you relish in the thought of deadnaming people just to make them feel bad, and people who go out of their way to make others feel bad are just projecting their own misery.
Re: Re: Re:7
Don’t lie to me.
Yes, it is. That they don’t know you’re deadnaming them doesn’t make what you’re doing any less an example of deadnaming—which is the act of referring to transgender/non-binary people by a name they used prior to transitioning (which can include their birth name). Even if it’s accidental, it’s still deadnaming.
Because you can still deadname a trans person in front of someone else, who may then deadname that trans person to their face or begin a chain of sharing the deadname that ultimately gets back to that person. Whether they know you deadnamed them first would ultimately be irrelevant.
Yes, deadnaming can be accidental. Yes, it could be used in the context of updating someone on a trans person’s new name (which is still kinda shitty). But deadnaming is often an intentional act of cruelty—a way of saying “no matter what you call yourself, I’m going to call you what makes me feel most comfortable”. It’s putting your feelings and your comfort above that of the person you’d be deadnaming. The cruelty, as the headline goes, is the point.
Show me where I said or even implied that. If you can’t: Stop shoving words down my throat that didn’t first come from it, you cruel son of a bitch.
And you’re one to talk about paranoid exaggerations, given that you’re on the side of people who are calling queer people and their non-queer allies “groomers” if they so much as say “gay people exist” to even one kid.
Re: Re: Re:3
Since when is that common practice outside of writing a biography or history book?
Re: Re:
That’s strange the neighbor’s dogs just started going nuts, wonder what got into them all of a sudden…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Stop approaching dogs’ rectums in a state of arousal and with a handful of KY jelly and I bet they’ll bark less.
Rape your own pets, Rocky. It’s cruel, but at least your neighbor won’t have to brain you with a tire iron and bury you under his new shed.
Unless the fear of getting caught and euthanized is part of the thrill…?
Well...
The problem comes when people/political parties decide to mask being an asshole as a political position, at which point they break out the fainting couch and scream ‘Political persecution!‘ any time someone tells them to stop acting like an abusive jackass.
When you’ve got people/groups like that it’s no wonder that people might fall for the lie that social media engages in political discrimination, because for those people it’s true they just miss that the way it’s true is not doing them or their ‘politics’ any favors.
Re:
You’re absolutely right. It’s the idea that so many right-wing people have to “own dem liberals” that we can’t have a civil debate any more.
How you debate someone when all they want to do is be a jerk and then whine when they get banned for being a jerk?
Re: It's OK to be a jackass
…but be a POLITE jackass.
excellent write up, Mike!
thanks
Re:
Could someone, anyone explain why this got flagged?
Re: Re:
Short generic comments with no noticeable link to the article tend to come from spambots and the name probably didn’t help with a company name within it. Between those two factors most people likely assumed bot, clicked flag and moved on.
Re: Re: Re:
I didn’t flag it (at least I don’t think I did), but if I had, that would’ve been the reason why.
Re: Re: Re:
Fair enough. Looking at their profile, though, they don’t appear to be a spambot, or at least not an obvious one.
Re: Re: Re:2
I was curious and checked as well after reading your comment and I would agree with you but if someone’s first impression is ‘another spam bot’ they’re probably not going to go through that extra effort.
Re: Re: Re:3
I know I flagged it as on a quick glance it looked like spam.
Re: Re: Re:4
I am also confused as to why it was flagged, but I can see why people not looking too closely may have noticed that it resembled some spam. I have no power to un-spam it, but if you DID click it as spam, it should still show your flag on your own account and you can unflag it…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5 There's a third way
The other option – telling your followers to read a comment before flagging it – that’s off the table?
That would be effective if the real purpose of the flag button was to hide ‘abuse/trolling/spam’.
If on the other hand its true function is hiding uncomfortable truths from delicate and fragile minds….
Re: Re: Re:6
You think people flagged it without reading it? I think it’s much more likely they read it, thought it looked like spam, and flagged it.
Re: Re: Re:6
I’m sure they did read it before flagging. It’s a short comment. But it did have some of the characteristics that normally are associated with commercial spam. Very short comments that often just say “thanks!” or “great writeup” are often used by spammers. Sometimes they have a link hidden somewhere in there or sometimes they do a comment like that first as a “test” run before submitting the one with links.
So, I’m assuming that people flagged it because they did read it and it did match many characteristics of spam. But I also see it no longer is hidden as at least some users unflagged it.
So, yes, of course commenters should read comments before flagging. I see no evidence that they don’t.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
No !
Secrecy is the essence of TD flagging/moderation process, because it can not be logically defended & contradicts the public TD stance on Content Moderation principles.
Re: Re: Re:
Most spam moderation is deliberately kept opaque or it will just instantly be gamed by spammers and trolls.
If people know any post featuring penguins will automatically get through, then all spam will mention penguins.
Re: Re: Re:
No matter how many times you try to spin ‘Act like an ass, get sent to time-out’ as some grand complex conspiracy that hasn’t been explained multiple times it doesn’t change what it actually is.
Re: Re: Re:
[Hallucinates facts not in evidence]
Re: Re: Re: Fuck your feelings
Nah it’s this simple. Act like an asshole, troll, or spam, get flagged.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Do you know which thread you're in?
formerqwest’s comment was flagged. His comment was literally thanking Mike for writing the article.
So, was his comment “asshole”, or “trolling”, or “spam”?
You said it’s simple. So which one is it?
Re: Re: Re:3
It appeared similar to actual commercial spam. You’d have to check the profile to know it wasn’t. It was an honest mistake by some, and, to my knowledge, this is the only time such a thing has happened. That there are mistakes doesn’t change the general rule, especially if such mistakes are rare.
Re: Re: Re:
Which publicly stated stance on content moderation by Techdirt is contradicted by a system in which users can flag comments they believe to be spam, trollish, or asshole-ish and comments with a certain number of flags get hidden (but still easy enough to read by simply clicking it) with some mistakes occurring? Please be specific.
I think Elon probably doesn’t see “becoming a bigger and bigger asshole” as a problem.
More of an aspiration.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Thats Why We Love Him
Thats why the rest of us love him. Its only looser like Mike’s misfits who cant appreciate it.
Duty Calls
https://xkcd.com/386/
Someone is WRONG in the internet.
Many of the people who want to “debate” you just want you to keep giving them their pellet, because you are the skinner box.
People can’t seem to learn the lesson that any response will be taken & run with.
Why are the “free speech” platforms ghost towns? because they all believe the same things, respond the same way, so there is no drama.
People get in their heads that they can “fix” the person on the otherside, if they just scream louder the other person will see the error of their ways and convert… as I have mentioned… Humans as fucking stupid.
Reasonable rational responses has no effect, so people keep going bigger & bigger making the shitshow worse for everyone.
People want to “win” not understanding that it isn’t a game, it isn’t black & white, there is not winner and loser. It makes them feel better to “fight” for their cause, and that poor dead horse is reduced to fewer & fewer atoms.
People invest time into trying to get “the truth” (as they think it is) out there & make people believe it… ignoring the medical evidence that telling someone they are incorrect makes them cling to the false belief harder. You tell them no, they scream yes louder, you yell no louder, etc etc and hey look at the toxic wasteland you’ve helped create because you had to win/be right.
I had ‘friends’ on Twitter that I disagreed with, but we had enough respect to avoid the topics we knew we disagreed on because it wouldn’t accomplish anything.
Helicopter Twitter, its a thing.
They like the Pinochet Skydiving School of thought, I too could get behind throwing some people out of helicopters but not always the same people.
If I felt strongly I would say something to them, I never expected them to agree with me but because I wasn’t harping endlessly about how they had to change and agree with me they would consider what I had to say, explain their position and we would avoid going to tit for tat.
Y’all don’t have to agree on everything with other people & if people stopped electing themselves the defender of ‘truth’ and engaging in pointless online wars over truth things would be better online.
Your tweet isn’t going to undo Covid misinformation, its not going to be the 1 thing to change peoples minds, but you spending 2 hours screaming in a threat will add to others considering maybe there is something to what the other person is saying because you’re screaming & are down to insults rather than facts.
As always-
Hate a word, fucking filter it out.
Hate an idiot, fucking block them.
Or
Keep behaving like y’all have been and wonder why the fsck y’all are always in a toxic hellscape.
watches the table flip over
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Sure, it’s not political or pushing an agenda AT ALL. NO! Don’t believe your lying eyes!
Re:
That’s subreddit moderation, not platform moderation. You weren’t banned for violating Reddit’s rules.
Re: Re:
It would also be interesting to see the discussion leading up to the point where moderators got tired and banned his ass.
Re: Re: Re:
Or what nonsense it was he was responding to. Im assuming that there’s some new conspiracy that vaccines cause obesity, or some such silliness? Sure, that’s why there might be more obesity, not because people have been caused to exercise less and work from home for much of the last 2 years because morons keep undermining attempts to fight the pandemic….
Re: Re: Re:
Especially since the mod comment said “this comment may have partially contributed to your ban”, meaning that it could simply have been the last straw.
Re: Re:
I concur, but if I had to guess why the subreddit’s mods did so (who, again, do not actually work for Reddit), I’d say they may have assumed you were sea-lioning or JAQing off, or felt that such discussions should not be in a political space but in a different subreddit.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: Inquiries and curiosity = hate crime
JAQing off may be my favorite Newspeak term to enter the leftist lexicon.
Civilization has fallen so far that now just asking questions – literally just asking questions – triggers the Ministry of Truth into action.
As shown quite clearly in this very comment section, pro-groomer leftists are so scared of discussion that they’ll do anything to wriggle out of stating how they really feel.
I guess the age old proverb is true: “It’s not rocket science, guys. They’re just evil and want to diddle kids.”
Re: Re: Re:2
Is it just me, or have the nazi right wing trolls gotten even stupider the last years? And why are they always talking about genitalia, diddling kids and how they really love fucking sissies? And why are they screaming all over the internet that they are being censored?
I’m Just Asking Questions…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
It’s just you. Teaching woke gender ideology and critical race theory to public-school children had taken off during these past few years, which is why the objections have ramped up over the same period. The school issue has also become a great way to motivate Republicans and swing voters, just as the insurrection was a great way to motivate Democrats and swing voters, so expect to hear lots of both this year.
Re: Re: Re:4
Bullshit. No one has EVER taught “critical race theory” to public-school children because “critical race theory” is a graduate level, narrowly focused area of academic study. You people are so stupid it’s beyond belief.
And no one is teaching “woke gender ideology” either to public school students. They’re teaching them how to RESPECT other people.
Something you would do well to learn.
Re: Re: Re:4
[citation needed]
Also, why do you keep bringing up that topic when it is even tangentially related?
Re: Re: Re:2
Asking questions isn’t a problem—so long as you want actual answers. Per RationalWiki:
Re: Re: Re:3
Thank you! It’d be nice if they’d, you know, actually read what I linked to rather than jumping to conclusions, but I guess we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion if they did.
Re: Re: Re:2
If you actually read the article I linked to rather than jumping to conclusions, JAQing off requires more than just asking questions.
Re:
Hmmm… you were banned from r/politics, not because you were posting political ideas.
What you were posting appears to be some kind on COVID denialist nonsense that is rightly being banned as idiots try to battle medicine with strawmen in the middle of a global pandemic. That’s not political in the minds of anyone not stupid enough to think that basic science is politcal.
I assume you’re still allowed to post elsewhere on Reddit, it’s just that the people who moderate r/poltics are just tired of JAQoffs who are trying to undermine real facts.
This was true way back in the BBS days. We had people always complaining that the moderators were out to get them, that the BBS or the network was specifically targeting them or their viewpoint. And always when you looked back at what got them suspended or banned, it was that they were being jackasses.
The difference was that on the BBS networks moderation was always done in public. When you were moderated and action taken, the message(s) that caused it were always referenced and were available for anyone to look at. If you wanted to dispute/appeal the decision, you had to do it in a forum that was open to everyone to view. You wouldn’t believe how many of the complainers refused to dispute the decision knowing that the very first thing that’d be posted in response to their dispute was their own words quoted from the messages that caused the decision and it’d be blatantly obvious from that that the decision was correct and they deserved what they got (or worse, many of the forum participants were of the opinion that the moderators had more patience than a saint when it came to the problem cases).
Maybe that’s what platforms should do from now on. When eg. a Twitter user gets banned, there’s an account where a thread gets opened for their ban quoting the tweet(s) that got them banned and a statement of which policies those tweets violated. Make it easy to pull their complaints about being censored into the context of not only what they actually said but of everyone else being “censored” for the same thing.
Re:
Unfortunately, allowing the comment to still be referenced would now be used as a means to extend an attack on a person or group.
Re:
‘Own your words’ would make for an entertaining moderation practice however as the AC above notes it would be really easy to weaponize as the comment in question would get a bunch of extra attention and if it was already problematic on it’s own that would just compound the problem.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Its Always True
Its always true. You have to ask your self what kind of people want to become a moderator. These aren’t good people. Moderators are usually worthless scum of the earth with no lives axes to grind.
No normal person would be a moderator. They are almost always psychos.
Re: Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
Re: Re:
Should fit you like a glove then except for the fact you are unhireable.
Reaction from Elon
So his tweet in response to this long, thoughtful post from someone with real-world experience?
Proof that Elon is still a man-child, unable to believe anyone else’s experience could possibly teach him something.
Re:
He isn’t entirely wrong, though. Twitter would probably benefit from some form of long-form blogging being built into its system.
You are right in one sense, though: A broken clock is still broken even if it’s right twice a day.
Re: Re:
I like to use a 24 hour clock, so then it reduces to somebody being right only once a day… which seems more appropriate in most cases.
Re: Re: Re:
My clock’s on 24-hour time, which is only possible because it’s digital. If it gets broken, therefore, it won’t be right at any time, just like the majority of those screaming about bans for posting misinformation.
Re: Re: Re:2 Wrong on 24-hour clocks being digital only.
You’re wrong that 24-hour clocks can’t be analog. Here’s one.
Here’s another.
Oh look, here’s another one!
All from a cursory google images search. I’d link more, but I’m at work and need to return to my job.
Re: Re:
“Twitter would probably benefit from some form of long-form blogging being built into its system.”
Tesla could probably benefit from some sort of petrol-driven engine in their cars for people who have problems with the range of the electric-only models.
Both would be dumb in the context of what the company does and what their entire business model and success have achieved, but there could be benefits in both cases to some individuals.
Re:
People post long things on Twitter. Twitter’s length restrictions don’t prevent people from making long posts, they just force them to awkwardly smoosh them to fit those restrictions, whether that means splitting a longer statement up into multiple smaller ones, or posting text as an image.
There are some pretty strong and objective arguments for why that’s inferior to just letting people post longer things.
None of which is a defense of Musk. I can think he’s an asshole and Twitter is a terrible format for anything but brief informational text and snarky one-liners.
Re: Re:
And many people use Twitter to notify and link to long form posts on Facebook, or Videos on YouTube etc. There is no rule that says a conversation needs to stay on one platform.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
There is an important difference between someone acting like a jerk, and someone being firm, assertive, and non-submissive against those who are in the wrong and hurting other people.
But good luck in being able to determine that difference objectively through an internet moderation system.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
I wonder if the people who don’t usually bother to expand Techdirt’s censored comments assume it’s all abuse/trolling/spam.
There have to be morbidly curious ones who check every once in a while, just to see all the bigotry and hatred.
Then they open the censored comment to see… this completely innocuous comment that in no way could be construed as abuse, or trolling, or spam.
I wonder what the percentage breakdown is of: a) those who know it’s not abuse/trolling/spam but love censoring those with whom they disagree politically (let’s call ’em Masnick useful idiots); b) those who realize Techdirt is just pro-censorship Big Tech corporate shillery and never return to subject themselves to its (let’s face it, poorly-executed and extremely obvious) lying; or c) same as the last, but instead of leaving, decide to stick around and make comments to vex degenerates. (grin)
Choice and understanding
There are different types of people and knowledge.
There are those that think
Those that listen
those that Discuss
And near the bottom are those who are looking for an explanation as to Why they are failing at something. Any reason will do, as long as its not their fault.
Rich people are silly
Mike..Your quote ”in the US, hate speech is entirely protected under the 1st Amendment”
Have you you had the Secret Service come knocking on your neighbor’s doors, knocking on your church door, asking about a long-term Member, a seven decade Quaker (not me) with a personal website that sports jpg’s of trump, risqué photos of mR. tRUMP as a misogynist, a man that advocates for laws belittling other-than-males as used human chattel? Sporting verbiage calling tRUMP a consummate lying sociopath? With No threat involved: I have.
Threatening the president of the United States is a class D felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871. It is punishable by up to 5 years in prison, a maximum fine of $250,000, a $100 special assessment, and up to 3 years of supervised release.
P.S. Musk equivocated the fire/theater example and moved on.
Re:
Nope but he did get a nice note from the Secret Service (IIRC or was it marshalls) asking him to remove a post & a visit as they were trying to gather information because some one posted something really stupid to say about a sitting Federal Judge. (Mind you this is all from memory so YMMV)
Hate speech is protected.
Making threats towards POTUS is an outcome of being free to say stupid things that get the Secret Service to come visit.
Threat is in the eye of the beholder & that orange skin is really really thin.
While I am sure you believe the person you know wasn’t being threatening, in that way, perhaps the phrase “Out of an abundance of caution” comes to mind.
Someone saw it/flagged it/reported it… and they have to go out and investigate because who wants to be the guy who didn’t investigate that one guy who then went on to make an attempt??
You are free to say whatever the heck you want, you however are not free from what those statements might bring down upon you allegedly.
If MTG called the Capitol Police to report Mr. Kimmel (which really is a coinflip moment) someone had to start a file, start an investigation, because she claimed it was a threat. Mind you what she was calling a threat, was a ‘joke’ and at worst was calling for a famous actor to slap her across the face… not exactly demanding death, not an actionable threat, but because of her position and ‘out of an abundance of caution’ they had to look into it.
Remember this is the nation where 99% of the see something say something calls to DHS were b/c dad didn’t like daughters brown boyfriend, or a brown person parked in “their spot” on the street.
Re:
Even if you’re being honest and that does violate what Mike stated is protected by the 1A, that doesn’t change the First Amendment. At most, that means that some people in the government have violated it. There are many articles on this site of people violating the 1A, including government officials (the others are about people trying to use the law to suppress speech they don’t like).
As for the law you cite, that is still subject to the Brandenberg restrictions of true threats. It’s also irrelevant if, as you say, the Quaker in your story actually made no threats, even allegedly.
As for “equivocating and moving on” regarding shouting fire in a crowded theater, I don’t see how that even matters. Nor do I think that he actually equivocated. Did he spend a lot of time on that particular example? No, but then the only people who do are the ones pointing out how it’s wrong. The issue is people using it as an example of “obviously” unprotected speech without realizing that it actually isn’t unprotected or that the ruling that that quote came from was later overturned, with the guy who wrote it joining the opinion that overturned it. Even if he used it briefly, it still shows he’s ignorant, which is the only point being made.
Re:
I had worked out a response, but the website ate it… and not even in the usual moderation way.
I cannot remember if they were Secret Service or US Marshals, but yes Mike has gotten that type of visit.
Someone posted a comment that was a “threat” to a sitting Federal Judge.
The 1st Amendment says you can say whatever you want, including hate speech… it however does NOT protect you from the responses to those things.
As the person you are speaking of directed their speech at Trump, the man with the thinnest skin EVAH!, it is possible that someone reported it.
This in turn required the feds to pay a visit to see if the threat was real or not.
No fed wants to be the guy who blew off what might have been a threat so they have to investigate.
Consider the poor bastards at the Capitol Police who, if MTG actually did what she claimed, and filed a report against Jimmy Kimmel. This means we have a federal investigation into the “threat” that Jimmy Kimmel will send Will Smith to slap the ever living fsck out of MTG.
You can say all sorts of things, but those things can cause reactions in others, sometimes those reactions make as much sense as having to remove your shoes in case there might be a bomb in them because 1 time something happened and out of an abundance of caution we have to be stupid.
Re: Re: Rich people are silly
The S.S. came looking for a real person, he has authored books on chess (nine of which are on Amazon) and a great novel about Saladin, the Crusades and Robin Hood.
Thanks guys for thoughtful responses.
Re: Re: Re:
S.S. : Schutzstaffel, Nazi paramilitary secret police
USSS: United States Secret Service, US law enforcement agency
Re: Re: Re:
And they have gone looking for homeless people who have no possible way to carry out the threats they make, but they still have to do the thing.
I am sorry your friend had this visit, but it is sort of like moderation online… someone reported it so it had to be treated as what it was reported as.
Re:
That isn’t hate speech.
And it is ridiculous that the SS can come looking for you if you wear a t-shirt disapproving of the Prez or whatever.
I agree
Yes, the problem is that lots of people are jerks.
They aren’t polite. They don’t honor the Principle of Charity. They name-call and cheer for their side. The fall for and promote every logical fallacy in the book. And more. All incompatible with reasoned argument and honest search for truth.
We all do it to some extent. Some of us are better behaved than others. But all of use would behave better if there were consequnces to being a jerk.
Few of us would behave this way with people we know in real life – if only for fear of getting punched in the nose.
But MODERATION isn’t a solution, it’s just a way of killing unpopular ideas. Most of the ideas we cherish were once unpopular.
The solution is FILTERING, by end users.
And fliltering based on politeness, among many other things.
Every reader should get to vote on every post they see – vote on accuracy, reasonableness, polieness, willingness to listen, seplling accuracy…and more.
Weight those votes according to the scores of the readers doing the voting – people who themselves behave well should get more weight than jerks.
Then present those scores to other readers so they can decide who to listen to. And who to ignore.
But it’s the READERS who must make those decisions. Not Guardians Of The Truth. There can be no such things.
Re:
You might want to go back to some of the previous articles about moderators getting PTSD due to the sort of content they have to wade through as their job, ‘just leave it to the community’ will quickly drive most of them away due to the sort of content they’d be facing on a daily basis.
Re: Re: Re ‘just leave it to the community’ will quickly drive most of them away due to the sort of content they’d be facing on a daily basis.
The idea is that every reader has the opportunity to provide feedback to the community on every post.
Bad posts from bad posters would get voted down quickly and shown to very few people.
The rate of viewing really bad posts ought to be low.
Of course those with weak stomachs could set their threshold higher. (See how Slashdot does it.)
Re: Re: Re:
And until they get down-voted by enough people every person who encounters it gets to experience the content. Yeah, I’m sure people will love the chance of playing content-roulette every time they log in.
Will it be a cute picture of a cat today or a snuff pic/vid? Someone’s vacation photos or a post about how [insert minority here] are subhuman and don’t deserve the same rights as real humans? Who knows!
There’s a reason why platforms with ‘(nearly) everything that’s not illegal goes’ rules aren’t the popular ones.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
That’s not the way. The way is for the services to provide moderation options that people can opt into as they wish. The services can provide the same filters they do now, and people who opt in will never see the posts they would find objectionable.
Re: Re: Re:3
Choosing a platform that moderates garbage is the user’s choice not to see it. You, being multiple levels of trash, want only to remove that right from readers.
Re:
Yes, end-user filtering is good. But moderation is a way to make sure end users need to do as little filtering as possible.
Also:
Which ideas are those, pray tell? Be very fucking specific.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Science, thats a bad idea. Males not being females, another bad idea. White people not feeling guilty for being white, bad idea. Being a man instead of identifying as a man, bad idea. Telling gay assholes if they touch me I will knock them on their ass, bad idea, they might not feel safe to try and fondle me. Point out that this forum is a cesspool of fake and paid idiots, really not a good idea. Read your previous 15,000 posts, Really Bad Idea!
Re: Re: Re: That's our job
“Point out that this forum is a cesspool of fake and paid idiots,”
No need to talk down about yourself honey.
Re: Re: Re:
So, you spend a lot of time in hate-filled cesspools with people selling you a fictional version of what’s happening in schools?
That’s nobody’s fault but your own, and I fail to see why thins means everyone else should be subjected to the fictions you’re subjected to just because your snowflake ass doesn’t like getting canned for spreading hateful lies.
Re: Re: Re:
I mean, there’s a lot ridiculously wrong in this post (and some that aren’t even wrong, while others are fractally wrong), but really, I think I can go with [citation needed]
Re: Re: Re:
I’d insult you, but you’re doing a good enough job of that.
Re: Re: Which ideas are those, pray tell? Be very fucking specific.
OK, for example “Gays should be imprisoned and have their civil rights taken away”. I read that as an example somewhere on the Internet just a few minutes ago.
Most people in most countries agred with that thru most of history.
That changed in the last 50 years because of free speech – the ideas behind it were challenged and defeated.
Without free speech we can’t correct our errors.
(BTW, when you use words like “fucking” and “bullshit”, even tho not directed at me or anyone else, it makes you sound angry, intolerant, and irrational. It’s part of what makes peopel perceive you as “a jerk” (quoting from Mike’s post yesterday). You’d have more success concinving people if sounded cooler-headed and more rational.)
Re: Re: Re:
I’d fucking respond to your bullshit properly, but since you want to play Tone Police and tell me how I should or shouldn’t fucking talk/write, I’m not gonna fucking bother.
Re: Re: Re:
And when you spend an entire conversation focusing on the importance of politeness and evenhandedness, it makes you sound like a sealion.
You are not participating in good faith, but you’re right about one thing: the proper response to bad-faith posters is user-side filtering. So I’ma just go ahead and add you to my user-side filter now.
Goodbye forever, sealion.
Re:
Not really, people who behave badly online tend to behave badly offline too.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/articles/study-says-people-who-are-jerks-online-are-likely-be-jerks-offline-too
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
This is a lie
Anything related to protecting your country or family is literally banned on reddit.
Take your lies elsewhere, scammer.
Re:
[citation needed]
Re:
“Anything related to protecting your country or family is literally banned on reddit.”
And by anything would you be suggesting genocide, xenophobia, deportation, racial cleansing or other openminded “solutions” as such?
Re:
And what exactly do you mean by “protecting your country or family”? Do you have any specific examples of things related to that that have banned on Reddit? Any evidence to back up your claims? Anything?
Re:
In the real world, banning domestic terrorism and vaccine disinformation is nothing but free speech that protects your country and family.
Re: Fuck your feelings
“This is a lie”
You’re not wrong. Though most liars try to hide it not title they post that.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Mike, it's time to quit digging the hole.
I’ve slowly stopped reading techdirt after numerous articles about how there is no lefty bias in moderation. Decided to come back to check the site out, and low and behold, here we are beating the same dead horse. At the time, in a response to one of the articles, I had pointed out about 5 or so different concrete examples of this happening, specifically of conservatives being censored, only for my post to be black holed because… well, I’ll leave it to you to figure out why my post was censored. Despite it being extremely polite.
So, the lefties won and I quit reading techdirt. I figure I can be mature and let bygones be bygones, so let’s try one more time.
Please, please, PLEASE, use your convoluted logic to explain to me how Twitter’s decision to not allow the Post’s story about Hunter Biden’s laptop wasn’t a clear cut case of liberal censorship of a story they didn’t like. And please, let’s avoid the red herring arguments, like twitter’s BS explanation that the materials were “hacked”. They certainly didn’t care when the shoe was on the other foot and it was hacked dirt on trump they were allowing to be posted. There is plenty of evidence of conservatives getting censored, from people in facebook content moderation bragging about it, to countless youtubers catching it in the shorts. Even breaking points, Krystal and Saager, former staff from “the hill” had multiple NEWS clips getting pulled from youtube because they posted stories that went against the liberal narrative. But please, let’s keep pretending that there isn’t bias in censorship. Let’s ignore common sense, human nature, and our own principles to push the narrative that the tech titans, who just coincidentally happen to be 95% far left liberals, are being, and have always been, completely even handed. I’m sure that will boost your techdirt readership.
Re:
It must be quite the world you live in where presenting actual facts scares you away from reading any more. We have, multiple times, presented what the actual evidence shows, including in a post earlier today:
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/04/18/fascinating-new-study-suggests-again-that-twitter-moderation-is-biased-against-misinformation-not-conservatives/
That you don’t care about the evidence and decide that you will cover your eyes and stuff your fingers in your ears rather than look at the evidence says all we need to know about you, and it’s this: go away and don’t come back.
Again, hundreds of millions of content are posted every day. Five examples is proof of absolutely nothing. Perhaps those people broke the rules. Perhaps someone made a mistake. Evidence does not work the way you think it does.
If I showed you five examples of left-leaning people dealing with moderation issues (which quite regularly hit people of color calling out racism or LGBTQ+ people calling out harassment), would you suddenly admit that the bias is against “progressives”? Or would you admit that content moderation is complex and hits all different kinds of people?
I have some guesses.
If I pointed out the actual evidence that both Facebook and Twitter actually changed their policies to create MORE exceptions for right-leaning political speech, because otherwise TOO MANY of them would get banned (i.e., the rules actually seem to favor conservatives, rather than the other way) would you admit you were wrong?
Even though it’s true?
I’m pretty sure I know the answer to that.
I literally explained that in that other story linked above.
Yes, actually, they did care when the shoe was on the other foot, and we pointed that out at the time. They banned an account that revealed hacked messages of law enforcement under the same policy.
The reason the later content was not banned was because of the outrage over how it was applied to the NY Post, Twitter (correctly, imo) changed how that policy was enforced.
Also, this is just one single example, and as we noted above, a single example out of context is not evidence.
Also (also, also, also), at no point did Twitter attempt to stop any discussion of what was in the NY Post report. It was just an enforcement decision to stop links to the documents out of a fear that they were hacked. You note, correctly, that the documents were not, in fact, hacked. What you forget is that at the time the decision was made, there was concern that they were, and that’s what Twitter based its decision on. You can disagree with that decision (I do). But you can’t say it was about censorship or bias, because there’s so much evidence to the contrary.
Also (also also also) you ignore that the blockng of that one link actually resulted in MUCH MORE DISCUSSION of that story, rather than suppressing it.
So, yeah, basically everything you say is nonsense, but we get it. You don’t want facts. You don’t want to think for yourself.
You want to be spoonfed stories that only agree with your world view because you’re unable to deal with a world that is more nuanced and complex than your frontal cortex can process. Go away you pathetic, insecure, sad person.
Re: Re:
Well damn… I make them pay extra to get me to spank them THAT hard.
Re: Re: Re:
I am so glad I wasn’t drinking when I read that because my screen and keyboard would have been ruined.
Re: Re: Re:2
Just doing my part. 😀
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 This answers the Fermi Paradox
The extraterrestrials scanning the electromagnetic spectrum for signs of life in our solar system are reviewing the data.
When they see stuff like one person high-fiving and fellating himself through three different sockpuppets, they decide to just nuke this place from orbit.
Re: Re: Re:4
checks
Nope I’m not Mike.
Nope I’m not That One Guy.
Yep I’m That Anonymous Coward.
What I find amazing is you didn’t manage to find any evidence that I exist outside of TechDirt.
Are you just that lazy & stupid?
If you are going to accuse someone of being a sock, perhaps find some evidence to support that.
I mean I get your special sock can stand up all on its own, but the day would need another 18 hours in it for someone else to be them & me.
It didn’t really hurt my feelings when he made the joke about spanking because he’s a sock… seriously this was the best way you found to comfort yourself?
I’m guessing that self spanking isn’t as much fun as when Mike does it for you.
I have to ask, to come up with the galaxy brain idea that I am a sock for Mike or someone else… did momma drop you a lot as a baby to hear that nice thumping noise?
Oh I know I know, you know I’m Mikes sock because you’ve never seen us in the same place at the same time.
But since no one knows what I look like, can you be sure of that??
Its all very mysterious and wacky…
To look at how and what I post and decide I HAVE to be someone else’s sock… when did you go full timecube?
You’ve been a mild diversion, thanks for playing, but once again you’re playing tic tac toe and everyone else is playing Go. Maybe take that hint and go…
BYE FELECIA!
Re: Re: Re:5
He could only possibly have been referring to bobmail and his low-creativity personas hyman gray, and nah.
Nobpdy else here sockpuppets like that.
Re: Re: Re:6
‘Every accusation a confession’ for some people…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Hey MM do you realize that you, as the author and owner of this site, are personally chasing people off the site EVERY SINGLE DAY? That seems extreme. Maybe you should consider a “members only” website. That would make more sense, and then you and your weird friends can jerk each other off in peace, and we wouldn’t have to listen to it. Maybe we need a Section 230 Amendment M4: Manadated Membership for Masnick Masturbators.
Re: Re: Re:
[citation needed]
If this is the best comedy you can come up with, I suggest applying for a gig with the Babylon Bee—because you sure as shit won’t get a job with any place that has even a bare minimum of standards.
Re: Re: Re:
Man. If I’m chasing people away so quickly, I must have a HUGE audience that I can spare so many people.
Can I ask where you live that Techdirt is mandatory reading? I’d really like to know!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Nope
“Man. If I’m chasing people away so quickly, I must have a HUGE audience that I can spare so many people.”
Nope you peers see you as a deluded dipshit. A Gen-X who got his foot in the door early and they cant get rid of you. You have a single claim to fame that is almost 2 decades old. You run around screaming ‘I invented the keyboard neck tie.’
Re: Re: Re:3
[citation needed]
Re: Re: Re:4
I mean, frankly, it would be nice if they didn’t keep asking me to speak to this or that group or policymaker. I’d have more time to write.
I think Chozen may be projecting again…
Re: Re: Re:5
Well the easy out would be offering me up as a replacement speaker. 🙂
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Useful Idiot
Have you heard the term “useful idiot”?
Re: Re: Re:6
Now now, Chozen, trust me, no one has ever described you as useful.
Re: Re: Re:6
You’re not useful.
Re: Re: Re: And yet here you are
Hate fucking yourself off to other people having fun jerking each other off isn’t really the cutting insult you ment it to be.
Re: Re: Re:
If you keep coming back, then he’s not chasing you off is he? Seriously, for a website that critics think is on the verge of dying, you naysayers just seem completely unwilling to let a website you hate pass on from natural causes. It’s like playground-level taunting of “I know you are but what am I”.
Like Parler?
Re:
I mean, all the evidence suggests there isn’t.
I mean, as long as conservative lawmakers keep making policy based on it, that horse is still alive, though, frankly, someone should really put it out of its misery.
I’m kinda sick of pointing this out, but the plural of “anecdote” is not “data”. The claim in dispute isn’t that conservatives get moderated; no one disputes that. It’s conservatives and conservative views get moderated disproportionately and unfairly compared to their liberal counterparts when all else is equal. I’m afraid that 5 examples is nowhere near enough to draw any sort of broad conclusion like that.
I’m also curious about the context of those five examples, but I suppose it ultimately doesn’t matter. 5 individual cases out of millions or billions of them is not indicative of a trend.
sigh… Another thing I hate repeating: unless the government, legal action, violence, or threats of violence or legal action are keeping you from saying it or you are not able to say it anywhere at all, it’s not censorship. You even (correctly) called it moderation earlier!
Again, you were not censored. You can still say it anywhere.
Also, excluding commercial spam, comments don’t get deleted here. They might get caught in the spam filter (especially likely if they contain hyperlinks, which seems likely for your case based on your description of your post) or hidden (but still possible to view for those who want to) if enough users flag it (which is especially common for posts that repeat the same old talking points that have been refuted many times), but only posts that are incredibly obviously commercial spam ever get deleted. And a lot of times, such spam is still up, so there are a lot of false negatives out there.
So, which are you alleging here: that it “got held in moderation” and never appeared, that it appeared but got hidden, or that it got deleted. If it’s the last one, suffice to say I am incredibly doubtful, but the other two are perfectly understandable.
Anyways, point is that tone is not the only reason posts get moderated.
I mean, there are also a number of libertarians who work for the site and who read it, and they aren’t lefties.
I mean, it’s right there in the article. It was believed (at the time) that the Post’s story contained hacked material, and at the time, Twitter had a policy against hacked materials, so they removed posts that linked to that article. Later, they decided to no longer remove posts believed to contain hacked materials and reinstated the tweets, and later still, it was discovered that the material alleged to have been found on Hunter’s laptop was not hacked as had been believed before, but even before that, plenty of tweets were left untouched that discussed the story because it was only links to the Post that were removed.
That you don’t believe the explanation is not my problem.
Actually, as mentioned in the article (which you clearly did not read), this is false. Liberals posting tweets that contained hacked material from law enforcement did get removed.
[citation needed]
Then by all means, show us.
[citation needed]
Again, the plural of “anecdote” is not “data”.
See previous response.
Again, it’s not censorship, but also, we’re not saying that there’s no bias in the moderation; it’s just not anti-conservative bias.
Common sense is a horrible way to determine truth. Ultimately, “common sense” is really just personal intuition and confirmation bias. It is very often completely wrong.
You mean the nature to be biased? I mean, again, no one’s saying that no bias exists at all; just that the specific bias you claim doesn’t appear to exist or is outweighed by other factors to the point that it might as well not exist.
Which principles are supposedly being ignored here? My principles include things like requiring actual data to support a claim about a trend before accepting it.
I mean, it’s not exactly a coincidence. There are geographical and economic reasons why the tech giants tended to end up in Northern California for reasons that aren’t worth getting into, and Northern California was majority-liberal since well before the founders of any tech giant or inventors of any of the relevant technology were even born, so it’s not exactly surprising that tech giants also tend to end up having a lot of left-leaning leaders and employees.
Though, they aren’t far left, even by American standards, and a lot of them are more libertarian than liberal, so the premise isn’t even entirely true.
I mean, mistakes happen, and there is some decent evidence that they’ve actually bent over backwards to avoid moderating prominent conservatives moreso than liberals, but so far, all the data we have shows no evidence of a bias against conservatives in particular.
Re:
Normally, I’d do what Mike and bhull did by tearing your ass a rather detailed new hole from the top of your comment to the bottom. But this time, I feel like one bit can do the trick.
There isn’t. The major social media services have a bias against harassment, queerphobia, mis- and disinformation, spam, and any other content that might drive away a sizeable segment of its userbase. That conservatives are more likely to post such content doesn’t mean those services are biased against conservatives—it’s that conservatives are more likely to post bullshit.
Your post makes me believe you’re thinking like this: “It must be against conservatives if it isn’t controlled by conservatives!” But look where that mindset has gotten conservatives: book bans in school (and public) libraries, whining about a legal theory that isn’t even taught in grade schools, and passing laws banning low-single-digit numbers of trans students from competing in high school sports.
Social media isn’t out to get conservatives. Social media is out to stop bullshit. Don’t blame Twitter if conservatives want to openly (and proudly) associate themselves with bullshit.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
“whining about a legal theory that isn’t even taught in grade schools”
You know perfectly well that the concepts of Critical Race Theory are taught in elementary schools, but dumbed down to a grade school level and called a different name. You also know the sole purpose of CRT and CRT-lite programs is to make White children hate themselves. (Self mutilation or suicide the desired endstate.)
But forget all that. Let’s say I don’t know you’re lying (you are, but let’s pretend I’m a typical unquestioning lickspittle Masnick-worshipper). You seem to like playing make-believe, so this’ll be fun.
If CRT were taught in grade school, would that be a good thing, in your opinion, Stone? Would you and your friends support minors being taught CRT or something CRTesque in school?
Because if the answer is ‘yes’, then even by your own logic , the anti-CRT parents are right – at least in their accusation that leftists (you) would like to teach anti-White hatred in school, to their kids.
Re: Re: Re:
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
No—because CRT is a legal theory that requires far more knowledge, far more time, and far more teaching than any given grade school could provide on the matter.
And before you make the leap: Yes, I believe facts about slavery, the civil rights movement, and America’s history of discrimination against people of color should be taught in grade schools at appropriate age/grade levels. No, I don’t believe in teaching them in a way that “shames white children” or whatever stupid bullshit you believe is taught when schools teach kids about slavery.
No one alive today is responsible for the institution of slavery. But we are responsible for the present and the future. We must be truthful about the past—the good, the bad, and the ugly—so we don’t repeat its mistakes. That means teaching children facts about the past of the United States, even if those facts make them (or us) uncomfortable. You’re not studying history if it never makes you uncomfortable—you’re studying propaganda.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Christopher Rufo had liberated tons of curriculum documents that show that critical race theory is being taught to children. Instead of sealioning, you could look them up yourself. But you won’t, because sealioning is the point. Woke ideologues will never admit to seeing things that are plain to everyone else, so they will always ask for “citations*, then dismiss and ignore them, and ask again.
Re: Re: Re:3
No he hasn’t. He flat out admitted that he was going to gaslight stupid ignorant Republicans into thinking that everything is “CRT” even though he knows full well it’s not.
And you fell for it. Because you’re an easily lead ignorant little sheep.
Re: Re: Re:3
Whenever anyone offers a citation for CRT being taught below university level (which is already incredibly rare), it is always either not CRT, not about it being taught below university-level, or obviously incredibly biased and vague without any evidence for the claims within. On this site, one of us has always pointed out why the offered citation(s) are not evidence any time it’s been given. (For example, a discussion I had with Lost in Lodos awhile back.)
Re: Re: Re:
… said nobody with any capacity for rational independent thought, ever.
Re: Re: Re:
No, neither I nor anyone else knows that, so [citation needed]
Again, no. CRT is just one of many theories used to examine American history and politics, and it’s only taught in universities. It’s purpose is to try to understand how racial iniquity still exists today.
As for “CRT-lite programs”, those don’t exist.
So, again, [citation needed]
Pretty easy to do since you don’t actually know that; you only think you know that.
No, because CRT is a complex and nuanced topic and is not to be used as the only way view things. High-school level, maybe, but definitely no lower. It’s also highly specialized and so should be taught only to people specializing in a relevant field.
Basically, I’d say no for the same reasons I don’t support teaching quantum mechanics in grade-school.
And since literally no one—including Stone—has ever answered ‘yes’, this really isn’t much of a gotcha.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: "Social media is out to stop bullshit"?
Wait, are you being serious? Do you sincerely think the purpose of social media is to ‘stop bullshit’??
Per your reckoning, based on your own words, social media isn’t to exchange ideas, communicate, discuss, share thoughts.
According to you, social media’s reason for existing is to ‘stop bullshit’.
Okay, I’m beginning to see why you’re always so confused and embittered.
Re: Re: Re:
Every social media service worth a good god’s damn tries its best to stop bullshit—which includes but isn’t limited to spam, harassment, mis- and disinformation—from overruning said service. The ones that don’t are the ones that don’t give a fuck about the “Worst People” Problem.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 But Here you Aare
But here you are proving why that is a problem. When people as insane as you are at the wheel you see anyone who commit any slight against your orthodox beliefs like using the wrong pronoun as the “Worst People.”
You are the example of why this doesn’t work. People like you are insane, certifiably insane, and you see everyone not exactly in lock step with you as the “Worst People.”
You are evil Stephen.
Re: Re: Re:3
When I look at the comment histories, you are the one who would use force against those who you disagree with, while Stephen is tolerant, and only get annoyed when people like you try to impose their morality on society. you and not Stephen is the evil one, who would use violence to impose their morality on everybody else.
Re: Re: Re:3
No, I don’t. When I bring up the “Worst People” Problem, I’m referring specifically to the kinds of people that can often drive the average person away from a social media service—e.g., spammers, harassers, and other such ne’er-do-wells. If that group happens to include bigots, that’s on their bigoted asses.
Do I dislike bigots? Yes. Do I believe the average dipshit bigot deserves to be shunned by anyone who doesn’t share his beliefs, even (and especially) if that includes family and friends in both meat- and cyberspace? Hell yes. Do I believe the average dipshit bigot deserves legal punishment, up to and including the death penalty, only for holding bigoted beliefs? Hell fucking no.
A bigot isn’t necessarily a “worst person” in the context of the “Worst People” Problem. But they’re still loathsome shitbirds who deserve every social consequence they have coming to them for holding and expressing their bigotry. Overt combativeness—i.e., defaulting to a “fighting stance” and vehemently defending their bigotry every time they’re called on it—is what often lands them in “worst people” territory. Those assholes love being open and loud and in-your-face about their bigotry. But if they shut their mouths for once, bigots might have the chance to hear the voices of the marginalized. Maybe listening to those voices will expand the horizons that the media bubble reinforcing their bigotry only ever shrinks.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 You Are a Bigot
You are a bigot Stephen. You see everyone who isn’t in line with you as the worst person. And you assume stereotypes. You assume that I’m straight, I’m not.
You are a bigot by definition.
Re: Re: Re:5
Not really.
Joe Biden is a centrist jackass because of his inability to both fight for literally anything he campaigned on and accept that the modern GOP will never want to work with Democrats in a bipartisan fashion on anything other than the bare essential legislation needed to keep the country going (and that’s if we’re lucky). But that doesn’t make him part of the “Worst People” Problem on social media.
The few remaining Republicans who haven’t gotten on both knees to kiss Donald Trump’s ass on a daily basis are also a bunch of assholes. That doesn’t make them part of the “Worst People” Problem on social media.
Supporting conservative causes such as attacking queer people under the guise of going after “groomers” makes you an asshole. That holds true even if you’re queer.
Besides, bigotry is about being biased against people for who they are. I’m biased against Republicans/conservatives/right-wingers for what they believe and the actions they take that those beliefs justify.
If this is the best attack you have on what I’ve been saying, you’re woefully underprepared for this discussion. Try again—and this time, attack what I’ve actually said instead of the strawman version of me you let live rent-free in your head.
Re:
What always baffles me about this topic is the fact that the NY Post’s article was never censored! Ever!! Full Stop!!!
If anybody wanted to read the article, they could just go to the fucking website and read it!!
But the idiot brigade seems to think that Twitter holds all the power of the internet and if they disallow something on their site, then the entirety of the internet can no longer see it and it has been censored.
So, explain to me how Twitter was able to censor the story about Hunter’s laptop when the story about Hunter’s laptop was still on their fucking website, available for anybody to read, the entire time!
Re: Re:
Even funnier is that Twitter didn’t even stop people from posting the link to the story—or, at the very least, didn’t suspend people who did post the link. It suspended the New York Post account for a brief period and that was it.
Re: Really no need to come back to tell us you’ve left
Door
Ass
Way out
<——
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Quit using the spam filter as an excuse for censorship.
Well, I tried to comment last night, as I disagreed with Mike, but it appears that dissenting opinions are not allowed. I’m sure that this is just a “mistake,” but getting pretty old to see the same mistake repeatedly keeping me from commenting. Odd how my comments that don’t disagree never get caught by the filter but every single attempt to post in the past 3 years that disagreed somehow get caught and deleted before anyone could see. Conservative views are censored. Here, on twitter, pretty much everywhere. Keep pushing your nonsense and enjoy living in the echo chamber, I’m sure that will help. Course, I don’t even expect this post to get anywhere, so I don’t even know why I bother. Not like any of you are going to change your mind, no matter what evidence is put in front of you. The most obvious example being Hunter Biden laptop story, cause it doesn’t fit the narrative. Odd how techdirt managed to miss the entire point, not a single blog post about how a story that the liberals didn’t like somehow becomes censored on twitter. Couldn’t possibly be an example of biased content moderation. nooo, that’s just impossible. Just keep your heads in the sand, it’s the best place for them.
Re:
WTF are you talking about? Your original comment, and a ton of replies calling out your bullshit are posted right above this comment?
Perhaps the problem is in your brain.
Re:
Also, wtf, I explained that to you above like 6 hours before you made this comment, and we DID have posts on it at the time.
My goodness are you bad at this.
Re: Re:
Dude, you need to charge more for the spankings.
They keep coming back with the same lazy ass attempts to get some more punishment.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Hacked?
What evidence was ever presented that the information was “hacked”. Are you saying that all a public figure has to do to kill a story is scream “hacked.”
Mind you the entire “hacked” policy at twitter and other social media was to prevent a future DNC e-mails which regardless of source were real and news worthy.
Re: Re: Re:
There were early reports, the morning the story came out, in which some national security officials claimed that it had signs of a Russian disinformation campaign. Twitter took that to mean that it might be hacked materials. They were on high alert, given the dumping of emails before the 2016 election.
And, no, you don’t just need to have people scream “hacked.” But there were questions about the material, as the NY Post’s sourcing on the story wasn’t just sketchy, but the person who originally wrote the article asked to have their name taken off of it, as they couldn’t stand by the story.
No, it was to prevent any such abuses, not “DNC” only. And it was a dumb policy, which we called out at the time (not that you’d ever acknowledge that simple fact), and which we were happy to see Twitter dump.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Collusion
“There were early reports, the morning the story came out, in which some national security officials claimed that it had signs of a Russian disinformation campaign.”
Yes I know. The Hill reported a few days ago that government agents were using back channels with Twitter in anticipation of the release of the laptop story to get Twitter to kill the story.
So Twitter was secretly acting as a government censor!
These stories of back channel communications between government agents and big social media to get those social media companies to act as their censor are far too common. People in both government and social media need to start going to jail for it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Prove it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 “We're flagging problematic posts for Facebook" - Psaki
Biden officials haven’t been caught blatantly stating they’re helping censor Twitter.
Facebook, yes, they’ll admit to censoring that, though.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to say “if the federal government will censor Facebook, they’ll do the same for Twitter”.
Re: Re: Re:5
Citation?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 No problem. From Newsweek...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqEvQKO5_gM
Did you think I was making up the Psaki quote?
Is this the first time you’re learning of this?
Re: Re: Re:7
It’s always very telling how dishonest someone is when they link to that specific segment or quote it out of context. Let me give you a practical example of your dishonesty:
Did I make that quote up or is is actually what you said? And if the quote is what you said we can only conclude that you make shit up and thus are a liar, right?
Re: Re: Re:7
A request for a reference is not an accusation of anything.
That was the administration using Facebook’s publicly facing tools to report content they thought was a problem. That isn’t even close to the government censoring Facebook. I figured that is what you were talking about but wanted to give you chance in case you had an actual point.
Re: Re: Re:6
He’a lying, same as every other post he’s ever made.
Here’s what happened back here in the real world:
https://www.techdirt.com/2021/07/16/no-white-house-isnt-colluding-with-facebook-to-silence-dissent-it-sure-could-have-handled-things-better/
Re: Re: Re:3
Wait, mr. I have 23 degrees and profess to be smarter than everybody else…
Answer my question from above, how did Twitter censor the article when anybody who is smart enough to use an address bar could just go to the NY post’s website and read it?
And adjacent to that question, how does Twitter control every site on the internet such that they were able to censor the article?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Freedom of the Press
Same way the English would prevent books like Common Sense from being widely read. They would pressure the major press in regionals to not press copies of the book.
This tactic of limiting access to the press persisted in the English Empire up until the 1960s when the Scottish independence movement was finally allowed access to television, radio, and print.
Freedom of the press doesn’t mean journalists. It means the printing press, the physical thing. What it means is access to the means of communication. When government agents at all levels have special back channels to big tech to get them to kick content off of their platforms that is an illegal violation of rights and both the government agents and those who go along with it at big tech need to go to prison for it.
18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights
This is the section, or similar section of state law, I hope to see Mike sent it jail under after his section 230 immunity is removed.
Re: Re: Re:5
That does not mean you can force the owner of a press, or other publication channel to publish your work, or that having your work published won’t cost you real money. Rather it means that the government will not stop you owning your own printing press, blog site or other means of publication, publishing what you want. If nobody want to read your work, that is OK, as there is no guaranteed audience.
Re: Re: Re:5
And you have evidence of the existence and usage of these channels?
Re: Re: Re:2
Giuliani tipped his hand as to the true origin of the laptop and its contents when he couldn’t help but to announce the “bombshell” he received while he was still in Russia with his handler.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: "My goodness are you bad at this."
Not really. He or she’s got you so frustrated and testy you’re swearing and throwing tantrums all over the comments section.
Well, I’m assuming greymatters is trying to induce a stroke or nervous breakdown.
Think of how much more pleasant and calm your life would’ve been if you had opted to keep Techdirt politically neutral and focused on tech, instead of the hateful direction you chose instead.
There had to’ve been a fork in the road as you were crafting the direction of your website, one route being what I outlined above, the other being the one you chose to take (anti-American, anti-free speech, and lately, apparently, pro-groomer.)
Of course, that neutral option was always off the table if you’re just a paid corporate shill for Big Tech. I’ve yet to see any evidence that you aren’t, though.
Welp, too late to go back now. You made your bed. Ah, what could’ve been, though, huh?
Re: Re: Re:
Think of how much more pleasant and calm your life would’ve been if you had opted to avoid trolling a blog because someone posted an opinion with which you disagreed.
Continually exposing yourself to things you hate, even ironically, doesn’t do you any good—especially if your goal is only to “own the libs” by doing so. What the fuck does that do for you in the end?
Re: Re: Re:2
Or, see Popehat’s Rule of Goats, which absolutely applies to the commenter you’re replying to.
Re:
I’ve had comments caught in the moderation filter several times since the new commenting system kicked in. Hell, I had a comment posted literally just before this one caught in the filter. It ain’t about “dissenting opinions”; it’s about triggering the filter, however that happens, and waiting for your comment to be approved (or not).
[citation needed]
Pray tell, which views are those? Be specific.
Oh, it’s funny that you bring that up, because I saw a nice little Twitter thread about that story earlier today. Turns out that a Washington Post investigation into the data found in the laptop concluded that while some of the contents were legit, someone most likely tampered with the hard drive.
Two things.
Got anything else to whine about? 🍿
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: The sequence
Day 1: “Hunter’s laptop? What bullshit. He never had a laptop, he doesn’t know how to turn it on, the repair shop is lying, it was a different Hunter Biden, it’s a completely invented story, none of it is true, it’s one of tRUMP’s Qanon Knights Templar secret agent Martian ReTHUGlicans planting a fake story in the media, what’s a laptop? there’s no such thing as a laptop, hey look over there, tRUMP hurt someone’s feelings what a jerk.”
Day 2: “Err, okay, ummm… there is a laptop, but it doesn’t belong to Hunter Biden.”
Day 3: “Ummm, I meant to say it does belong to Hunter Biden, but a totally different Hunter Biden you guys, not the President’s son.”
Day 4: “Ahem, uhh…okay, the laptop is Hunter Biden the President’s son’s, but like the uhh… the Russians! yeah the Russians, it was their secret invisible ninja NKVD Cheka Spetsnaz KGB agents who planted kiddie porn on there. Those were like those deepfake things. He was really having sex with fully-grown adult women, not little girls. Hunter was just using it for sending Mother’s Day emails to his mom, Dr. Jill Biden (who’s a doctor, a real doctor!) (Well, not an MD, but still a doctor you guyzz! Let’s call her doctor, ‘kay guyzz?)”
Day 5: “Okay, turns out the photos of child molestation and the whole Marion Barry act were true, it was Hunter Biden. But like Giuliani is a meany, and he implemented broken windows policing, which Mussolini and Robert E. Lee told him to do. Don’t pay attention to the President’s son fucking little girls. tRUMP. Did I mention tRUMP?”
Day 6: “We’ve always been aboveboard. We’ve said from day one that it was Joe Biden’s son’s laptop, the photos of him smoking amounts of crack that Gwar would blanche at and having sex with pre-pubescent girls in lingerie are all real. We’ve never hidden this information, we believe in free speech and hate censorship. Saying otherwise is a hate crime.”
Re: Re: Re:
Said by no one ever.
Can we bring this back around to reality and away from your fever dream?
Re:
Your sense of importance is grossly inflated. We have all gotten posts stuck in the spam-filter – but most reasonable people doesn’t really give a fuck because it’s just an inconvenience that happens on occasion.
Have you even considered how much time someone have to spend reading through every post deciding that ‘nah, I’ll just delete this’. There are numerous of shit-posters that show up on occasion that have no problems with their posts getting stuck, it’s just the ones suffering from a victim-complex that complain.
And why would anyone bother to remove any of your posts, they only confirm to everyone that you have a very myopic worldview and have zero sense how things actually work. If you say that “conservatives views are censored”, you better show 2 things:
1. Explicitly specify which views are being censored with actual examples of what was said in sufficient numbers so it’s not anecdotal.
2. Prove that this only happens to conservatives and not to others of a different political affiliation.
If you can’t, then you are just spouting emotional whiny nonsense which have no basis in fact and reality.
Re: Re:
We all know I am not that reasonable, it just bugs me when I trip it. sniffle
Re:
… said nobody capable of rational independent thought, ever.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: censors
[“Quit using the spam filter as an excuse for censorship.”]
Yup, this sudden SPAM-FILTER_EXCUSE emphasis is new with this thread.
I’ve followed this blog for many years and have directly experienced blatant censorship by the mythical “Community” (including this month).
My censored posts were polite, on topic, non-SPAM, no trigger words — but expressed direct opposition to the biased GroupThink within the Techdirt insider clique.
(I’m highly independent and disdain all the standard American political leanings)
I like this blog generally, though it is obviously Center-Left politically with that bias expressed daily.
IMO Masnick is sincere in his work but just cannot discern his own faulty political bias (as is the case with most people).
He’s the boss here and obviously likes the the cloaked political viewpoint censorship here.
Re: Re:
By all means, link to one of your comments that was flagged (yes, you can do that) so we can judge for ourselves whether you deserved it.
Ah, so you’re a Libertarian.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
1960s liberals: “NEVER trust a big business capitalist CEO. Free speech! Question authority! Kill your TV!”
2022 “liberals”: “Do whatever corporations tell you to do! Censorship always! Respect authority unquestioningly and submissively! Obey your TV!”
Re:
^
The irony is lost on “Nah” That the above lie is nothing more what his own TV programmed hi to parrot like a good little reich-whinger sheep.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Toom: “JUST DO WHAT THE CORPORATIONS TELL YOU. Obey authority.”
PS – Some of your comment looked like ECA’s confused and garbled rambling (i.e. “nothing more what his own TV programmed hi”.) You okay? Adjust your AZT dose.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
“This is why people on the left and people on the right both think they are being targeted”
Ha ha, this degenerate ‘Yishan’ is a hilarious liar.
Nobody on the right “thinks” they’re being targeted, they know it.
Nobody on the left “thinks” they’re being targeted – they know their views are fully endorsed by Big Tech no matter how anti-White or otherwise extreme and hateful – though they say so frequently and in high frequencies.
Re:
Quick question: If policies against speech like racism and queerphobia and spam end up dinging conservatives more than they end up dinging liberals, what does that say about conservatives if you implicitly associate that speech with them? Because conservatives aren’t being banned from social media for talking about “trickle-down” economics or deregulating industries.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Since you asked nicely, ‘what does it say about conservatives’ that so-called racism (aka ‘the N word, but for White people’) and so-called queerphobia (aka revulsion with groomers) are conservative policies?
It says that a) protecting children from you perverts and b) not hating White people are true conservative policies. So that answers that question. (Not sure the relevance of the ‘spam’ comment, since spam is a commercial and not political phenomenon.)
People have explained this to you before, Stone: economics are a distant consideration for the right wing, far behind social policy. You’re getting conservatives confused with men in grey flannel suits. They’re not synonymous and are in fact usually antonyms.
Reactionaries, conservatives, right wingers – call us what you want, but it’s good to see you so befuddled with what we actually believe.
TL;DR: yes, what you call “racism” and “queerphobia” are conservative policies. There’s no confusion that the left loves perverts and hates White children, and that the right wants to rid the world of child molesters and wants to protect White people.
Asked and answered. I’m here to help.
Because voodoo economics and allowing corporations to just do whatever the hell they want (‘deregulating industries’) aren’t ‘conservative’ policies.
In fact, they’re the opposite. Neocons aren’t conservatives – they’re on your side, and are traitors in the midst of the GOP. You have made the mistake of assuming warmongering foreign invaders like Podhoretz, Decter, Elliot Abrams, Kristol (hey, I’m noticing a pattern here…hmmm) are actual conservatives.
(PS – Please go on thinking the trickle downers and deregulators and other pro-corporation businessmen are representative of the right wing. It’ll be all the more shocking when Americans take their country back and do something to solve the problem finally.)
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, about that… how’d Jan 6th work out for you, from beneath the bus Trump threw his faithful soldiers under?
Re: Re: Re:
wut
Ah, yes, the “every queer person is a child molester” canard. Of course you’d resort to that bullshit.
Well, in your mind, maybe.
No wonder the economy tends to get fucked up hard when conservatives are in power. I mean, look at Greg Abbott—he put “culture wars” above economics with that “I’m blocking shitloads of imported food at the border” shit he pulled last week and fucked up the economy of both his state and the U.S. in general by hundreds of millions of dollars. Real buncha geniuses you got on your “side” there~!
No, I know what they believe. It’s easy to figure out when one spends time either reading about what conservatives actually say and do…
…or baits an idiot like you into saying the quiet part out loud.
I rest my case.
Okay but they are though. Conservatives have never met a regulation they didn’t want to roll back if they thought they could get away with it, and they still believe tax breaks for the rich will lead to massive economic growth if we all give the wealth a bit more time to trickle down.
Ah, the ol’ No True Conservative argument.
I will, thanks.
Take their country back from who, and take it back how, exactly? Is this going to involve extrajudicial violence against people who’ve committed no crime other than existing, or will there at least be something resembling a trial before you and your “take the country back” brethren start assaulting and killing fellow Americans en masse?
Re: Re: Re:2
FSM Damnit!
I thought after we got the right to marry and the entire planet didn’t explode that ‘teh gays’ were going to get a break from being the boogeyman.
But here we are, all gays are groomers.
Anyone who disagrees with what we demand, is a groomer.
Such binary thinking its almost like brain damage.
Here are some facts…
The random groomer bullshit people are throwing around has real world harm.
Children who are different or questioning hear this screamed over and over around them and it makes them sad.
Eventually that level of sad can lead to suicide.
Of course people will claim they had nothing to do with it, you were just protecting children…. just not ‘teh gay’ ones because to you they aren’t even human.
People engaging in this bullshit are the worst kind of humans, because its all 2 faced.
Gaetz allegedly touched underage girls & look at those who rallied around him, who then turn and suggest that Pete & Chastain are gonna rape little girls in the restroom because they are groomers.
They post pictures of the Clintons with Epstein trying to keep the whole DNC baby eating cabal thing alive… but have not a single fscking thing to say when they see Trump in the same sort of photos.
This level of dishonesty and mean-spirtedness is destroying the country they claim to love.
They blame the “others” for what is happening while actively killing democracy, cheering as we all get screwed… just as long as THOSE people get screwed over more.
These people are no longer rational, they wrapped themselves up in being the REAL victims in all of this…
Funny I’ve not seen a story about someone being beaten blind for being conservative but they did it to one of teh gays.
Funny no one set the RNC headquarters on fire, but dude burned down a gay bar.
Thousands of dollars have been spent replacing the sign showing where Emmett Till was murdered by white men because “someone” keeps shooting it up and trying to destroy it when did someone graffiti Jefferson Davis’s tomb last?
Of course Jim Bakker is warning that we’re coming to murder preachers in the pulpit… bitch sunday is for brunch not shooting bigots.
When was the last time an older white dude was beaten on the street for being white… happening to little old Asian people a whole bunch… but the white folk are the victim.
Y’all gave up your free will & brains to listen to what those who own you say is true. You jump when they say jump, you scream at those they tell you to scream at, you repeat lies & start to believe them… just remember those leaders you follow won’t ever let you into the big house, you aren’t worth serving their very special friends. Now get your ass back in the field & toil so you can afford to donate more to save the world from the horror of the spooky ‘pedophiles’ who are around every corner that we don’t place a Trump Branded Pedo Repelling Rock near, just donate $14.88 to have a rock placed to protect this great nation from the wild pedo attack!!!!!!!!!!!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Where did the 'extrajudicial' part come in?
I never said anything about extrajudicial, aka illegal, anything.
You think Americans will be able to accomplish anything of lasting value without getting back control of the courts?
re: Economics… Here I am very explicitly stating that capitalists and plutocrats are the enemies of the right wing. We’re against them most of all . (If you think I’m lying, which part is a lie: that I’m rightwing, or that I hate capitalism?)
We have way more in common in our economic beliefs, Stone, than you either think or at least purport to think.
Well, I can’t know that for sure . But based on your writings – and I bet I’ve read at least 75% of what you’ve written on Techdirt in the last 3-4 years – I reasonably believe we’re near-sympatico on that front. If anything, I bet I hate plutocrats and bugmen even more than you.
So listen: we agree! That’s halfway there to being pals.
It’s like when mortal enemies – moslems and feminists are the best example – team up against “The Man” aka the much dreaded White Male.
Sure, the leftist women choosing to side with moslems over the liberal West don’t realize that, after they ethnically cleanse White men, nobody will be around to save them from what the moslems will do to them. But at least the feminists got back at daddy.
Re: Re: Re:3
That would be a shock to them, I’m sure, considering how any American right-wing politician will explicitly deny being a socialist, communist, or anything but an “I bleed red white and blue” capitalist so they don’t have to worry about one of their conservative constituents seeking a “Second Amendment remedy” to that lawmaker being in office.
I’d rather take a bullet to the head than be your friend. Case in point:
I’ve only ever seen shitbag racists use this spelling of “Muslims”.
My being an atheist doesn’t put me on a “side” that stands against Muslims in general or the Islamic faith as a religious practice. My being an atheist means I don’t want any religious faith—Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, whatever—being imposed on anyone, by law or by some other kind of force. The overwhelming majority of religious people in the world don’t want to force their beliefs on others. I’m concerned about the ones with sociopolitical power who do want that. In the U.S., that means I’ll worry about conservative Christians (especially evangelicals) more than I’ll ever worry about any Muslim ever even being able to approach the idea of doing that in the U.S.
Take your Islamophobia and go back to Parler. It isn’t welcome here and you won’t get me to agree with you on it, no matter how nicely you say it. “Respectable” bigotry is still bigotry.
Re:
Twitter, Facebook and Youtube each all prove the polar opposite is true
Re: Fiscal responsibility? Reasonable regulations?
Nobody on the right “thinks” they’re being targeted, they know it
What exactly are they being ‘targeted’ for, be very specific.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: I've answered this, to you directly in fact, many times
Over the last few years I’ve answered your question (‘be specific’, ThatOneGuy. Probably a dozen times.
The ‘bE SpEcIFic’ thing a weird tic, like Toom’s copypasta about ‘evidence the facts of citation of evidence of and citation facts’ gobbledygook.
If you’re dead set on continuing the fantasy where you’re a tactical genius of Napoleonic proportions, that’s fine. (I do wish you gals would constantly throw in superlatives like ‘be fucking specific’ or ‘be very specific’, only because there’s no other option but to infer ‘specific’ means ‘leave no cards hidden’. We know what you mean by ‘specific’; no need to gussy it up with extraneous ornaments like a drama queen.)
Here’s specific: they (the censored) are being targeted for disagreeing with the Establishment, and saying so. Any resistance to positions taken by the federal government, Big Tech, Wall Street, Mike Masnick and his followers like you, mainstream media, SPLC, ADL, NAMBLA, the Society For Cutting Up Men, China, Zimbabwe, Israel, the ACLU, et al will lead to the suppression of the resisters.
Hard to get more specific than that. The only way I could is to list an infinitely long string of the anti-White pro-pedo organizations and entities – your side – that want to wipe me and mine out. No point in that, since you’re smart enough to understand that the Establishment is a monolith.
(Okay, obviously the inclusion of S.C.U.M. was a joke. Solanas was crazy enough where even most Leftists want to distance themselves from her. Imagine how insane and unbalanced someone has to be for that to happen.)
I am going to bookmark this page. When I decide to come back and make you Techdirters dance my tune again, I’ll just copy/paste this in answer to future ‘be specific’ demands.
Cool?
Re: Re: Re:
You have a weird definition of specific because that is very unspecific.
Re: Re: Re:
What kinds of speech are being targeted in this regard? Be specific and cite examples.
Re: Re: Re:
Like the time you were so sure Prenda Law was going to win their appeal?
Re:
No, drug-induced hallucinations are not admissable evidence, no matter how strongly they’re perxeived to have been reality.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
“Perxeived”?
Lower your state-mandated chemical castration dosages, if the judge will let you.
You know, humanity has been a real big letdown for me.
When Covid hit, I really really hoped it would thin the herd of stupid. The thing I didn’t account for is that the most rabid anti-masker/vaxxers would secretly get the vaccine as fast as they could while claiming to have avoided it.
They are all still here and its really painful how the stupid has flourished.
Perhaps I should get someone to make a nice color chart with big lettering suggesting that the GOP not support any candidate who tests positive for having Covid antibodies, as obviously they don’t have the true faith they claim to have.
Forget seeing the tax returns, lets see the antibody tests!
(random thoughts)
The only thing shittier than mentally damages trash like Hyman Rosen/Chozen/Nah/Bobmail, is the useless animation netcode that crashes mobile firefox when the comments get over a dozen nests deep.
Here’s what Hyman Rosen looks like:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-arrested-allegedly-threatening-merriam-webster-definition-female/story?id=84253350
wrong wrong and wrong again… you are so brainwashed!! Hahahahha. And so soft. Everyone is so soft now,
Re:
You would speak from experience.
THE MODERATION TEAM
is a group of tiny pencil dick tweenies, whom giving a tiny amount of power. Think they became God
I say ANYTHING on reddit, and its suspension and ban, because THE OTHER PERSON DISAGREED with my opinion
Reeddit has been a cesspool for over 15 years. I stopped using it for genuine information LONG TIME ago
I will say it again. Reddit is a cesspool