If You Think Free Speech Is Defined By Your Ability To Be An Asshole Without Consequence, You Don’t Understand Free Speech (But You Remain An Asshole)

from the free-speech-is-not-that dept

One of the more frustrating things about the various “debates” regarding “free speech” lately, is how little they are actually about free speech. Quite often, they are actually about people who are quite upset about having to face social consequences for their own free speech. But facing social consequences has always been part of free speech. Indeed, it’s part of the vaunted “marketplace of ideas.” If people think your ideas aren’t worth shit, they may ignore or shun you… or encourage others to do the same.

Over at The Bulwark, Prof. Nicholas Grossman has a really good article exploring Elon Musk’s attempt at reframing the debate over free speech. It is well worth reading. The crux of the argument that Grossman makes (in great detail that you should go read to have it all make sense) is that when you break down what Musk actually seems to be thinking about free speech, his definition hews quite similarly to what a lot of trolls think free speech means: the right to be a total asshole without consequence.

The article highlights what many of us have said before (disclaimer, it does link to some of my writing on the subject), that the real underlying question is not actually about free speech, but where society should draw the line on what is, and what is not, acceptable in public company. And that’s really what this is all about. Free speech, as a concept, has to fall back on whether or not the government suppresses speech. For all the talk about social consequences of free speech, or whether or not there is a “culture of free speech” or “principles of free speech,” everyone has some level of internal voice that notes what kind of speech they feel goes too far for polite company — even if they don’t think such speech should be illegal.

But, then, the question becomes, if there is some speech that I, personally, don’t wish to associate with, should others be forced to do so? And that’s where the debates over content moderation actually live. In that space that says “where should the line be drawn” for what is acceptable and what is not. And when you look closely at the actual debate, it always comes down to “I want to be a disrespectful asshole to people I don’t like, and I don’t want to face any consequences for it.”

As Grossman aptly notes, a private company deciding whether or not to host your content, isn’t really a free speech issue at all. Every platform agrees that some moderation is necessary. Every platform that has tried to do otherwise, changes course, often within days.

Multiple Twitter alternatives have been tried, all vowing to be “free speech” platforms that don’t moderate content. Every one of them—Gab, Parler, Gettr, etc.—has ended up moderating speech and enforcing rules, because what their “unfettered free speech” resulted in was doxxing, promotion of violence, and various other depravities that underscored why content moderation became the norm on the internet in the first place. And all these alternative platforms have flopped as businesses because “Twitter for people who want to post things you can’t post on Twitter” isn’t appealing to most users.

For business reasons, if nothing else, Twitter under Elon Musk would still moderate content. It might, however, change which users it prioritizes.

On top of that, he demolishes the idea that content moderation is about “leftists” trying to “censor” conservative voices:

This supposed bias is an article of faith for large swaths of the right, but when serious researchers have gone looking for it, they don’t find empirical support. A 2021 study found that, across seven advanced democratic countries, Twitter’s algorithm boosts posts by right-wing politicians and parties a little more than posts by left-wing politicians and parties. Another 2021 study set loose some politically neutral “drifter bots” on Twitter and found strong evidence of conservative bias, but “from user interactions (and abuse) rather than platform algorithms.”

Content moderation decisions can be haphazard, not least because the Big Tech business model means a small number of employees rely on algorithms and user reporting to oversee far more content than they can possibly handle. Public perception of these decisions often derives from a few anecdotes repeated by interested parties, and doesn’t match the data. For example, a 2022 paper found strong support in the U.S.—from both Democrats and Republicans—for social media companies taking action against misinformation. Of accounts banned or suspended for misinformation, more were conservative than liberal, but there was no evidence of political bias in enforcement decisions. Every banned or suspended account had clearly violated terms of service, it’s just that people on the right happened to break misinformation rules more often.

So, if there’s no actual evidence of bias, and everyone (even Musk) recognize that there needs to be some level of moderation, what is this “debate” really about. As Grossman highlights, it basically all comes down to whether or not you can be a total asshole without having a social media site say “that crosses our line of what we feel is appropriate here.” He uses the example of the Babylon Bee, whose Twitter suspension for misgendering someone has been pointed to as the catalyst for Musk to decide to buy Twitter.

But is that actually a “free speech” issue?

Of course not. You can be an asshole all you want, and you can disrespect people in obnoxious ways, proudly highlighting your own moral degeneracy all you want. You just can’t expect everyone else to support you in doing it, and not tell you when they feel your behavior has crossed their specific line, their terms of providing service.

So, yes, Elon Musk can take over Twitter, and then he can have every right to change the rules to whatever he wants. Just like Gab and Parler and GETTR and Truth Social and others have every right to set their own rules as well. But none of those are actually battles about “free speech.” They’re battles about where private entities draw the line of what they feel is and is not appropriate on their own property.

And when you look at it that way, you realize that none of Musk’s arguments are actually for free speech. They’re for his desire to redraw the line to allow more assholes on one site, without consequence. And, as Grossman notes, this insistence that it’s about free speech, really really distorts the underlying principles of free speech.

Twitter is a private company, and its rules are up to its owners, whether that’s Elon Musk or anyone else. As a supporter of the First Amendment, I accept that, even if I don’t agree with their choices. But as someone who greatly values free speech—not just legal protections from government, but a culture that fosters expression and dialogue—I refuse to cede the concept of free speech to those who think a defining feature is trolls trying to drive trans people and other minorities off social media.

And that’s exactly right. I’ll fight more than anyone to actually protect the 1st Amendment, and your rights to say what you want and to be an asshole on your own property. But there is nothing “free speech” about just demanding that private entities draw the line for “what level of asshole do we allow” somewhere more assholish.

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: twitter

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

Comments on “If You Think Free Speech Is Defined By Your Ability To Be An Asshole Without Consequence, You Don’t Understand Free Speech (But You Remain An Asshole)”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
393 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Can't violate a right you don't have

If someone wants to frame free speech as consequence-free speech then they have essentially neutered the term and made it useless since they are describing something that has never existed.

Even when you may be free from government penalties for acting terrible there has always been social consequences for acting in ways that the society around you doesn’t agree with, from people not wanting to be around you to active shunning you, so someone complaining that social media is ‘attacking free speech’ is essentially complaining that something that the speaker never had is under assault.

Angela neal says:

Re: Re: Free speech and so called prompts to limit free speech to supposed society approved speech

The whole point of free speech is to bring attention to typical behaviors like your little speech on only accept pack social etu mentality ideals that allow people to be bullied violently violated and abused just because their views go against the stupid wealthy lazy servant wanting pretentious people with fake no substance ideals that cause huge amounts of harm and slaughter in order to fulfill unrealistic ideals of bullshit kingdom slave possessing inhumane ideals ,I love the fact that people who come up with new and innovative perspectives and experience of different life experiences that oi can gain other knowledge from and get inspired and enhance my knowledge and creativity I welcome it with open arms and openmindedness that I only gain from having access to invited unvitoed ideas and experience that is honest I use it both to better inform myself and as an education tool as brainstoing with many people is so much more successful than your obvious sheltered does and don’ts life that is only encompassed by supressive laws and since most people in the world can’t manage to live by only ten commandments that these same people think that everyone should observe millions of rules that only serve to suppress and abuse instead of allowing freedoms you can always agree to disagree you docile fucking twat

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

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

Chozen (profile) says:

So You Can Sue Twitter

So a doctor can sue twitter if twitter calls the doctors medical opinion disinformation?

If your argument is the twitter is entitled to publishers free speech rights then they should be sue for libel when they defame others … consequences after all …

Oh wait no they cant be sued because section 230. The only immunity in the entire fucking world your moronic hypocritical ass seems to like.

Mike you are a sociopath. The only reason you like section 230 is because its the immunity that applies to you. That is a textbook sociopath, dont think rules shouldn’t exist just dont like rules to apply to me.

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

Re:

The only reason you like section 230 is because its the immunity that applies to you.

What immunity?

Like when I call you a goat fucker, because you are one, you can’t sue Mike?

That makes perfect sense to me, since Mike didn’t call you a goat fucker, I did.

And since my speech is protected under the 1st amendment, Mike has no obligation to remove it either.

If you want to come sue me for calling you the goat fucker you are, then come at me bro!!!

God you’re an ignorant fucking asshole that wants to be the fucking asshole goat fucker you are in all the places that have told you to fuck off.

Talk about a real piece of shit you are.

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I have said that very effective criticism, including successful satire, that demonstrates the weakness of someone’s position to the extent that they are ashamed to continue holding and stating it, is good. That is not silencing, that is winning the argument.

Woke ideologues do not believe in reality, only power, so naturally they see such winning as forceful silencing rather than the triumph of truth over lies.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Meanwhile, NeoNazis like you prefer to bully, intimidate, harass and murder people to win arguments, since smarter people than you can and have won arguments against your ilk by simply having better evidence, better logic, and, oh, at least wanting to listen to your deranged, violent drivel before dismissing it and calling the FBI.

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

It is woke ideologues who like to call unassailable arguments against them “violence”. It was the same woke ideologues at the tech platforms whose viewpoint-based censorship led to the creation of Parler that removed Parker from their app stores and payment processing. Woke ideologues cannot win arguments by truth, because their ideas are lies. They can only win by force.

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

Re: Re: Re:4

It is woke ideologues who like to call unassailable arguments against them “violence”.

Can you give us even one example of this? Just for a laugh?

And haven’t you got anything better than “woke ideologues”? It’s genuinely the stupidest sounding of the current conservative talking point insults.

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

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

Re: Re: Re:4

It is woke ideologues who like to call unassailable arguments against them “violence”.

What arguments? BE SPECIFIC. STATE EVENTS. DATES.

Becayse you fucking NeoNazis actually engage in actual fucking violence. Buffalo. Charlottesville. And then there’s the political harassment, threats and flat out bullying in Idaho, led by proud NeoNazis.

It was the same woke ideologues at the tech platforms whose viewpoint-based censorship led to the creation of Parler that removed Parler from their app stores and payment processing.

Visa is so fucking conservative they told Onlyfans to fuck off.

Oh, and I’m sure AWS being so exceedingly polite and “offering” to help Parler with its moderation problem before removing them from the premises is about as “woke” as it gets.

Or that anyone who doesn’t want getting investigated by ALL THE ALPHABET AGENCIES would think it wise to disassociate with any entity endorsing and encouraging INSURRECTION.

Woke ideologues cannot win arguments by truth, because their ideas are lies. They can only win by force.

Funny that the majority of all the violent acts, then, are linked to Trump, the Republican Party, NeoNazi ideals and white supremacy. Funnier then is how the rich and powerful NeoNazis are being left alone as well.

Outside of threatening sitting Presidents (something frowned on because, well, there’s been at least 2 successful attempts made by actual enemies of the state and countless other failed attempts by actual nutters), we’ve been watching, horrified, as the people in power let your fucking filth wreck the country and spread your hateful ideology out of America.

It is YOU who are resorting to political violence. Both of the physical and ideological kind.

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

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

Could you explain how those support your claims or detract from theirs? The second and third don’t even appear to be related to the topic at hand at all.

(And no, the fact that the killers were black is not enough to show relevance; not every black person is a “woke ideologue”, and even if they were, this wouldn’t show that their actions were motivated by “woke ideology”. Moreover, the other person never claimed that only white supremacists and similar white or anti-black ideologies commit violence, so simply citing three examples of racist or antisemitic violence committed by blacks doesn’t disprove the claims actually being made.)

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

As with Black-on-Black crime, it’s a matter of focusing attention. Woke ideologues bring notice to any case that can be construed as racist white people attacking people of color while de-emphasizing the opposite. Indeed, woke ideologues often deny that Black racism is even possible, because they say that it requires power to be racist that Black people don’t have. I didn’t even mention the despicable piece of filth Louis Farrakhan who is still enormously popular in the Black community.

So, for example, woke ideologues will talk endlessly about the beliefs of the Buffalo store shooter but say nothing about the beliefs of the New York subway shooter.

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

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

Re:

So a doctor can sue twitter if twitter calls the doctors medical opinion disinformation?

I’d invite all of you persecuted fucktards to sue Twitter over your banned posts. At least that way we’ll finally know what they are since none of you have the balls to answer.

John85851 (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Exactly this.

I want right-wing conservatives to come out and say what posts are getting deleted and why think the posts should be reinstated.
The last time I checked, Twitter wasn’t removed posts that talked about conservative issues such as smaller government or fiscal responsibility l.
So come on, let’s see what the deleted posts said and see how people defend the right to post them.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Nothing like the classics

Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views
Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?
Con: LOL no…no not those views
Me: So…deregulation?
Con: Haha no not those views either
Me: Which views, exactly?
Con: Oh, you know the ones

(All credit to Twitter user @ndrew_lawrence.)

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

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Jono793 says:

Re: Re: Re:3

The left: You lost your coal mining job? Learn to code!
The right: Media writers lost their jobs? Learn to code!
The left: I’m going to ban you for that

And that’s exactly the kind of over-simplification and taking out-of-context that Mike is talking about!

Re the Learn to Code Situation: Its originated from a bunch of news stories from Left-wing (sorry, “Left-wing”) publications, like this one talking about re-training initiatives for coal miners. You can like or hate these articles; personally I think they’re pretty elitist and incredibly out of touch with the people they’re talking (down) to. But the fact of the matter is, these were published news articles.

In contrast, from The Right (sorry, “Right”): In 2019, After a round of layoffs from organizations like Buzzfeed and Huffington post, there was surge of DMs and replies targeting former staffers, spamming “learn to code” or some variation. To the point that it reached harassment-level events for those concerned.

Whether this was a coordinated effort, or grew out of organic sense of frustration and schadenfreude, who can say? But either way, Twitter identified the vector of attack, decided that it violated existing rules on spam, harassment, etc. and took action to stop it from happening.

You can have disagreements with the moderation decision. I certainly do! But it’s absolutely not the case that two actors did the identical things, and one was censored becaue politics!

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

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

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Since transwomen are—at least under some reasonable definitions of the terms—women and not men (though they are typically male), but no credible argument could possibly be made that people can fly by flapping their arms, the comparison is inapt. Also, your denial of the terms as such despite the scientific backing behind them is itself a denial of reality.

The point is that misgendering is bigoted (you claiming it’s not doesn’t change the reality of the situation), and it is perfectly reasonable that Twitter would not want to host such content. That is not an example anti-conservative bias but anti-bigotry bias, and I have no problem with that kind of bias.

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

There are always people who assert that their own beliefs are so unassailably correct that no dissent needs to be tolerated. The Inquisition burned its heretics and the Communists put opponents in lunatic asylums.

Transwomen are men. You can redefine the words any way you like, but you don’t get to force anyone else to adopt your definitions. You can try to hound dissenters into silence, but you don’t have the numbers to succeed. And places like Florida and Texas are going to return the favor, to the detriment of everyone.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

There are always people who assert that their own beliefs are so unassailably correct that no dissent needs to be tolerated. The Inquisition burned its heretics and the Communists put opponents in lunatic asylums.

You haven’t even alleged that that’s the case with Twitter and its actions regarding transphobic rhetoric.

Transwomen are men.

No they aren’t.

You can redefine the words any way you like, but you don’t get to force anyone else to adopt your definitions.

I can tell you that, on my platform, that’s not the definition we use, so any other definition is to be ignored. I can also say that your definition is wrong in this context. Most importantly, my point was that your comparison was inapt.

You can try to hound dissenters into silence, but you don’t have the numbers to succeed.

Who said I’m trying to silence you? I’m saying that Twitter deciding it doesn’t want to host the “dissenters” because they are bigots in Twitter’s view is not a problem in my view. I’m also saying that the “dissenters” are bigots.

And places like Florida and Texas are going to return the favor, to the detriment of everyone.

If they even mentioned transphobes being banned, you might have a point, but they don’t. They just assert that “conservative” views are being “censored”. Moreover, those laws are blatantly unconstitutional and will ultimately be made void for that reason.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Not about right or wrong. It’s about not being an asshole. The whole point is that when you say things like that, you are coming off as an aggressive, abusive asshole. And that drives people away. And websites who want people don’t want asshole mucking things up.

So, even if you think you’re not a bigot, you’re still an asshole.

So… maybe stop that?

Do you also walk up to people you think are ugly and tell them that? Or do you have the common sense and decency not to. Think of it like that. If you know enough not to insult people, why do you feel the need to do that in this particular case?

It is almost as if you want to show off that you’re an asshole because you simply do not like the way some people live their lives.

The problem, once again, is with you.

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Not liking the way other people live their lives is something lots of people do. You might remember candidate Obama complaining about those Americans who “cling to guns and religion”.

The beliefs of woke gender ideology are false. Transwomen are men. Woke gender ideologues demand that everyone accept the opposite, and seek to force real women to allow these delusional men into women’s single-sex spaces. They seek to have public schools conceal children who are expressing such delusions from their own parents. They seek to have some gender ideology taught as true in public schools. None of that is about not liking how people live their own lives. It is all about not allowing a false ideology to be imposed upon people who correctly refuse to accept it.

Dr. Rachel Levine and Lia Thomas and Donald Trump are public figures. Public figures can be subject to satire and mockery and criticism in ways that are typically off limits to private individuals.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

The beliefs of woke gender ideology are false. Transwomen are men.

You keep saying this, but you still have presented no evidence to support these claims.

Woke gender ideologues demand that everyone accept the opposite, […]

Or stop shoving their outdated views on human sexuality on others and such, which is what they’re actually doing.

[…] and seek to force real women to allow these delusional men into women’s single-sex spaces.

Again, they are neither delusional nor men, and you have yet to successfully support the idea that this is a problem or that it actually is forcing their beliefs on others.

They seek to have public schools conceal children who are expressing such delusions from their own parents.

You have given no evidence to support this claim, nor have you rebutted my point that this is far from exceptional given that there are a variety of circumstances where public schools and mental health professionals conceal such for just about any mental health condition.

They seek to have some gender ideology taught as true in public schools.

You have provided no evidence that actually supports this claim. The one piece of evidence you offered to try to support this only supports the claim that they stopped explicitly referring to people with penises as “men”, “boys”, or “he”, which a) is not affirmatively teaching anything in support of pro-transgender ideas and so isn’t “hav[ing] some gender ideology taught as true”, and b) is actually true even ignoring transgender people since intersex people exist and include some people who, without any surgery or treatments or such, are naturally female in just about every way but also happen to have a penis. I’m sorry, but that simply doesn’t support your assertion at all.

None of that is about not liking how people live their own lives.

The bathroom thing and the “concealing it from the kids’ parents” thing are about not liking how people live their own lives, and the only other specific claim (about teaching that some gender ideology is true) is an unsupported claim, so it can be discarded until you demonstrate that it’s actually true.

It is all about not allowing a false ideology to be imposed upon people who correctly refuse to accept it.

Again, you have failed to demonstrate that it is a false ideology, and you have failed to demonstrate that people are attempting to impose it on anyone. No one’s forcing you to be transgender or to date or have sex with a transgender person if you don’t want to.

Dr. Rachel Levine and Lia Thomas and Donald Trump are public figures. Public figures can be subject to satire and mockery and criticism in ways that are typically off limits to private individuals.

But that satire should not be bigoted. The so-called satire of Dr. Levine is only satirizing her for being transgender and no other reason, and it only made fun of her transgender-ness. If people satirized Trump for being a straight white cis male and for no other reason and only made fun of that part of him, I would say that’s off-limits as well. Face it: if Levine wasn’t transgender, she would not have been satirized at all. Bigotry is not acceptable regardless of the identity of the target of the bigotry. That some level of satire is acceptable for public figures that is unacceptable for private figures doesn’t mean that no level of satire can cross the line if it’s only about a public figure.

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

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Dr. Rachel Levine and Lia Thomas are quite obviously men. They incorrectly claim to be a woman. Satirizing them is a way of demonstrating and arguing that trans ideology is false, and that transwomen are men.

There is no way to make such arguments to the satisfaction of woke gender ideologues, because to woke gender ideologues, the very claim that transwomen are deluded men is bigoted and evil. The fact that the satire is effective only makes the opposition from woke gender ideologues more heated.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

All can take this as they will: idgaf

There is something to be said to the aspect of them being gay effeminate men/women.fearing the term gay as of itself.

At the same time there is a legitimate aspect of genetics that verifies damaged (that is the correct term) DNA links which create gender (scientific use) abnormalities. Many of which are shown in various levels of ‘trans’ lifestyle.

Before anyone jumps on that do keep in mind a SIS study in Gene (journal) suggests an estimated 89%-92% of all living humans having damaged DNA. Sexual balance is but a minor aspect of a greater premise.

But I can just as easily jump to the evidence-lacking conclusion that being purely and absolutely straight is a deformity. Or societal induced illness.
Poor brainwashed heteros.

One equally could wonder if damaged DNA is part of evolution or because of it.
Apx 175mya amphibians developed true transsexuals. Fluidic gendering. Based on population needs. That came to standard (eat) in the Cretaceous and continues to this day. Where they were generally Sequential hermaphrodites, one gender at a time, they developed into a presentational hermi lifestyle.

This as opposed to Simultaneous hermaphroditism where both genders exist at various levels of development from Pseudo to Full. Metals and reptiles both have large populations of Simi hermi population. From the pseudo of canines (esp Hyaenidae) where females are born enlarged and their part decreases in size with age. To Chimps and Humans that often m, when rarely complete, are fully dual and fully functional.
Full function is found in small pockets of larger reptiles as well. And with Birds.

So I take both sides of the viewpoint.
Many trans people are just lying to themselves about what they really are.
AND
Many are truly partially multi-gendered. .

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

We make fun of flat-Earthers and television evangelists and ivermectin takers. People who express obviously false beliefs and wish to force those beliefs on others or spread those beliefs are appropriate targets for satire and mockery.

The difference between schizophrenics and trans people is that there is no schizophrenic ideology that demands that people believe that schizophrenic hallucinations are real and external. So we shouldn’t mock people who are suffering from schizophrenia, but we should mock men who politically insist that everyone affirm them as women or vice versa.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10

We make fun of flat-Earthers and television evangelists and ivermectin takers.

Because they deny science and obvious reality. Transgender people don’t. Again, they don’t claim that they can change their sex or that their sex is something it isn’t; they claim how they identify, which is a claim about a belief about themselves in a more abstract sense, not a tangible sense. There is also scientific evidence supporting their claims.

People who express obviously false beliefs and wish to force those beliefs on others or spread those beliefs are appropriate targets for satire and mockery.

You have failed to demonstrate that their beliefs are actually false, let alone obviously false. At best, you defeated a strawman version of transgender people. You have also failed to demonstrate that they wish to force their beliefs on others.

The difference between schizophrenics and trans people is that there is no schizophrenic ideology that demands that people believe that schizophrenic hallucinations are real and external. So we shouldn’t mock people who are suffering from schizophrenia, but we should mock men who politically insist that everyone affirm them as women or vice versa.

See, this is why you should probably actually learn more about psychology and what psychologists actually say before making assertions about how psychology is invalid. If you did, you’d know that those two conditions have literally nothing in common at all, that many—if not all—schizophrenic people actually believe that their hallucinations are external and real and sometimes do try to convince others to believe them, that transgender people don’t make any claims about their externalities that contradict reality, that transgender people are no more prone to hallucinations than cisgender people, etc.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

Dr. Rachel Levine and Lia Thomas are quite obviously men.

No, they are obviously bad at presenting female. So are some ciswomen. This is also irrelevant to my point.

They incorrectly claim to be a woman.

No, they correctly state that they are women under the definition of women that they use. That they don’t use the same definition you use doesn’t make their claims incorrect as they were intended.

Satirizing them is a way of demonstrating and arguing that trans ideology is false, and that transwomen are men.

Using satire to present a false and bigoted view is still bigotry. This doesn’t help your case at all.

There is no way to make such arguments to the satisfaction of woke gender ideologues, because to woke gender ideologues, the very claim that transwomen are deluded men is bigoted and evil.

Given that the “deluded” part of the claim is contrary to the expert consensus on the matter, that claim is bigoted.

You can make arguments opposed to transgender people without calling them delusional. You could say that their gender identity should not dictate language or others, or that the physiological or genetic sex should determine the use of single-sex spaces or sports or whatever. You can oppose things transgender people ask for without calling them deluded and without necessarily being bigoted. However, the specific argument you are complaining about is bigoted.

The fact that the satire is effective only makes the opposition from woke gender ideologues more heated.

No, the satire is not “effective” because it won’t change any minds. No one who supports trans rights believes that every transwoman presents female well (or even at all), and most anti-trans people are under the (false) impression that no transwomen can pass as female very well at all. Same goes for many who are on the fence: they are mostly either already fully aware of the fact being demonstrated, assume that fact is true, or already thought that transwomen can’t present female well.

Since it doesn’t call out anything anyone actually claims, doesn’t present anything people don’t already know or assume to be true, and doesn’t convince anyone not already convinced, it is not “effective” except in terms of causing offense, which is not what I consider a worthy goal in a discussion.

ECA (profile) says:

Re: Chozen

Think first, Speak later, works best.
#1, most sites get Fact checkers to do the work. THATS a 3rd party. You can Sue Those folks if you think they Need to correct FACTS.
#2 The Person who Published this and Made personal remarks In the beginning, is a person you Could sue. But most of this is from other articles,so you need to KNOW WHO to sue. Whose opinion, you are wanting to contest.
#3 Those that get to Published here, May be considered Independent Aggregators more then anything else. They Gather from the net, and MAY add their OWN comments(which I would suggest they add in the comments section, as a personal Addon to the topic)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

First off, PSYCHOPATHY is a DSMV mental disorder, meaning, you really should be a mental health professional to make that call. And you are a white-worshipping race traitor, not a mental health professional.

Secondly, you have a problem with both the First and Fourth Amendment.

Thirdly, we also do not want to associate with your bloodthirsty, NeoNazi ass.

Lastly, get the fuck out before you murder someone. We know you wanna.

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

Re:

‘I should be allowed to say whatever I want but you shouldn’t be allowed to return the favor’ is such a delightful bit of hypocrisy that exposes that the complaint isn’t about free speech but the consequence-free speech and free reach that they think they have a right to.

Wyrm (profile) says:

Re: Re:

They want pretty much three things, implicitly or explicitly.

  1. The right to say anything, as abhorrent it might be.
  2. The right to impose their speech on any audience.
  3. The right to not be criticized back.

The first one is partially a free speech issue. One is indeed free in the US at least, to say pretty much anything except for a very few narrowly defined exceptions. (I think it all comes down to defamation, fighting words and incitation to crime.) It’s also contingent on the time and place. (The second point gets into more details about this.) In short, free speech has never been absolute to begin with.

The second one is purely based on the rules of the location, real or virtual, of your intended audience. Not a matter of free speech. Even public places might have rules, they simply can’t apply viewpoint-based discrimination.

The third one, as you mentioned, has never existed. Not ever, not anywhere. When you act, even through speech alone, there are consequences. People might approve, people might disagree, and they are free to speak their reaction within the same limitations you have to abide by.

They hide this implicit third point as they pretend that opposite speech is an attempt to silence them. Funny enough, by their own standard , they shouldn’t be allowed to speak a lot of their opinions since a ton of their speech is reactionary, if not downright antagonistic. (I’m always having fun thinking about applying their ideas to themselves.) Their hypocritical selves won’t understand that of course, but replying to someone is not “silencing speech”, it’s “adding speech”.

(An example is the possible reversal of Roe v Wade. The conservatives “Justices” are criticizing the 1973 decision, saying it was wrongly decided. That’s an attempt to censor the seven Justices who wrote and approved it at the time. By their standards, not ours.)

Winning a debate – or having a debate for that matter – is not censorship, it’s the exchange of ideas that they pretend they’re in favor of.

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: The Projection Is Strong

1. The right to say anything, as abhorrent it might be.

Roughly accurate, but not extending to spam, personal harassment, or literal racism and hate speech. (The real thing, not as defined by woke ideologues.)

2. The right to impose their speech on any audience.

False. Instead, not to have platforms censor their speech, so that people who want to hear it may.

3. The right to not be criticized back.

False.

Of course, all three of these things are what woke ideologues demand.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

“Instead, not to have platforms censor their speech, so that people who want to hear it may.”

why should you get to have your speech forced on Twitter? why shouldn’t they have the right to say “no”?

holy shit are you a rape apologist? your’e one of those incel types, arent you?

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

I don’t want any speech forced on Twitter. I want Twitter to decide for itself not to censor speech. This should be because Twitter decides for itself that free speech is more valuable and desirable than viewpoint-based censorship. I want that to happen through constructive criticism, or by change of ownership to someone who holds those values.

This summer is my twenty-fifth wedding anniversary.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

and if they don’t change their mind, that’s good enough reason to call in the feds and make them change their mind, right?

btw you wouldn’t be saying any of this “carry my anti-transgender crap on your platform or else you’re an enemy Of free speech” stuff about a mastodon instance geared towards LGBT people

so why should Twitter have to host your anti-transgender bullshit – because it’s got more users?

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

No, Twitter should never be forced to change their mind, only convinced, or be bought by someone of different mind.

It Twitter chooses to engage in viewpoint-based censorship, it is an enemy of free speech. That’s what being an enemy of free speech is.

Having clearly marked affinity groups within a service that stay on topic or decide within the group that certain discussions are off the table is different. (For example, Facebook has a Kosher Trader Joe’s group and a Kosher Costco group. The former does not allow discussion of which kosher certification marks are “acceptable” and the latter does.) As long as the service permits affinity groups to form as the members wish, they are upholding free speech principles. It’s cross-group site-wide viewpoint-based censorship that makes a platform an enemy of free speech.

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

No one “deserves” a right. Twitter has the right to moderate as it wishes. Twitter should not use viewpoint-based censorship because that is antithetical to the free speech of its users, and Twitter should prefer free speech to censorship. Criticizing Twitter is a way to try to convince it that its current principles are wrong and that it should do better. They have the choice to listen or not, and they might be bought by someone who will have different principles.

It’s not that Twitter is too big to be allowed to moderate. It’s that Twitter, and Facebook and similar platforms, are set up as generic speech platforms where people come with an expectation that they can discuss anything they like. The platforms are allowed to violate those expectations, but they shouldn’t.

Nine of this is about coercing the platforms to change (except for the Texas law, which is unconstitutionally awful), only about encouraging them to change.

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

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Even if they were right, they'd still be wrong

The censorship bit is right out but the viewpoint-based moderation claim could be seen as true however which viewpoints is the real sticking point.

For example a store with a ‘if you start making racist/sexist comments your ass is out the door’ could technically be considered to have viewpoint-based rules, but other than bigots most people are likely to be perfectly fine with rules like that because they have no interest in listening to bigots when they’re just trying to shop/eat.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

  1. The right to say anything, as abhorrent it might be.

Roughly accurate, but not extending to spam, personal harassment, or literal racism and hate speech. (The real thing, not as defined by woke ideologues.)

I’m sorry, but you don’t get to decide what is or isn’t hate speech. Whether or not you consider it such, deliberate misgendering and deadnaming people outside of very specific circumstances is hate speech. This isn’t an extremist position despite your insistence to the contrary.

  1. The right to impose their speech on any audience.

False. Instead, not to have platforms censor their speech, so that people who want to hear it may.

As I’ve already told you, this is a distinction without a difference. That is imposing their speech on those platforms’ audience.

Also, that Twitter and Facebook ban such speech from being on their platforms doesn’t mean that that speech can’t be found elsewhere on other platforms. Anyone who wants to hear it still can.

  1. The right to not be criticized back.

False.

I note that you don’t actually clarify what your position on this actually is; you simply state that this characterization is false without explaining why it’s wrong.

Of course, all three of these things are what woke ideologues demand.

Absolutely not. Heck, even by your own claims, this is clearly false because, even under your characterization of “woke ideologues”, #1 is very much not something that they demand; quite the opposite, actually, based on your own assertions about them.

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

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

To elaborate, I was responding to the false characterization of “what we want”, or at least what I want.

Since I am describing what I want, I do get to also define hate speech the way I want.

Dr. Rachel Levine and Lia Thomas are men. To refuse to allow such “misgendering” to be stated is to refuse to allow woke gender ideology to be contradicted. This is why I said that the supposed things I want are actually what woke ideologues want – the ability to define what speech is out of bounds and the refusal to allow criticism or contradiction.

And, as usual and no matter how many times the woke ideologues here will not hear it, I am not seeking to impose anything on any platform. I, and others with more influence, are seeking, through criticism, to get the platforms to understand that viewpoint-based censorship is against the principles of free speech and that they should do better.

When those people who took the “go elsewhere” advice seriously and went elsewhere, woke ideologues pursued them and tried to shut them down at their new location. Even without that, censorship on a platform is still censorship. Woke ideologues claim otherwise when the censorship is in a direction they like. But when Florida public schools adopt a curriculum that does not let woke ideologue teachers speak in the way they would like, woke ideologues squeal in dismay, instead of saying that those teachers can go teach elsewhere.

Finally, the reason I simply said that the last claim was false is that I do not seek the right not to be criticized back. What else should I have said to that?

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Dr. Rachel Levine and Lia Thomas are men. To refuse to allow such “misgendering” to be stated is to refuse to allow woke gender ideology to be contradicted.

What you call “woke gender ideology” appears to be nothing more than “anti-transphobia”, which is not an extremist or false position, nor is it a position that I would have a problem with. It’s also a subset of “anti-asshole”. Deliberately misgendering someone is being an asshole. You don’t have to agree, but you keep making it sound absurd or extremist when it’s not.

This is why I said that the supposed things I want are actually what woke ideologues want – the ability to define what speech is out of bounds and the refusal to allow criticism or contradiction.

With regards to what is respectful or should have social consequences (and yes, Twitter not hosting your speech is a social consequence), yes. I fail to see the issue.

And, as usual and no matter how many times the woke ideologues here will not hear it, I am not seeking to impose anything on any platform. I, and others with more influence, are seeking, through criticism, to get the platforms to understand that viewpoint-based censorship is against the principles of free speech and that they should do better.

And I am stating that you are objectively wrong on that by any sensible definition of “free speech” and that you have failed to back up your position as sensible. I am also stating that you are essentially telling the platform to host speech that they don’t want to host, and that your attempts to distinguish your position from “imposing your speech on a particular audience” are inadequate, particularly since you continually insist that “woke ideologues” are attempting to force platforms to ban certain content when what they are actually doing based on your allegations is not materially dissimilar from what you’re advocating.

To my knowledge, I have never asserted that you are taking the position that governments should impose a law on platform, at least not since you specifically disclaimed that position.

When those people who took the “go elsewhere” advice seriously and went elsewhere, woke ideologues pursued them and tried to shut them down at their new location.

I still see no evidence of that.

Yes, Parler was removed from Amazon AWS, the Google Play store, and the App Store after the 1/6 insurrection, but everything points to that being those platforms taking action when Parler failed to abide by the terms and conditions for those platforms, which is not an instance of woke ideologues pursuing them and trying to shut them down, and, notably, this didn’t happen until after the insurrection—long after Parler started—and never happened to similar platforms like Gab or Truth Social, the former actually predating Parler by many years. It’s also worth noting that Amazon had been taking action on enforcing its T&C on Parler since well before the 1/6 insurrection but well after Parler had begun, and Google and Apple’s actions were not terribly damaging for Parler since neither’s phones, OSes, or browsers actually prevented you from accessing Parler’s website, which is not substantially and meaningfully different from its app. On top of that, none of the reasons for any of the demands or for the actual suspensions/removals appeared to be related to any woke ideology I’ve ever heard of.

So, yeah, the evidence seems to indicate that you’re completely wrong on that.

Even without that, censorship on a platform is still censorship.

Again, repeating the same thing over and over again doesn’t make it true.

Woke ideologues claim otherwise when the censorship is in a direction they like. But when Florida public schools adopt a curriculum that does not let woke ideologue teachers speak in the way they would like, woke ideologues squeal in dismay, instead of saying that those teachers can go teach elsewhere.

Setting aside the fact that the actual objections had virtually nothing to do with “woke ideology” and were also made by plenty of people who are not terribly in favor of trans rights generally, those restrictions were far more severe than Twitter’s rules on hate speech (with far worse consequences) and were imposed by a government actor, which is a decisive difference between the two things your comparing. Once again, you compare apples and oranges. A public school is not a social media platform. And it wasn’t just the curriculum, either, as it also imposed restrictions on what teachers could say to students outside of what is being taught.

Finally, the reason I simply said that the last claim was false is that I do not seek the right not to be criticized back. What else should I have said to that?

I was just making the observation. I wasn’t drawing any conclusions from that.

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

I could just restate my position again, but it would be useless. What I attribute to malign activity by woke gender ideologues you attribute to supposedly value-neutral terms violations. What I think are correctly stated arguments against woke gender ideology you think are transphobic bigoted hate speech. I think that viewpoint-based moderation is censorship and you don’t. So be it.

And really, “a public school is not a social media platform”? Are you joking? A public school is a much more restrictive forum than a social media platform, and the state has the right to set the curriculum as it wishes.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

I could just restate my position again, but it would be useless.

I agree. After all, your position is quite clear. The problem is that you fail to support your position.

What I attribute to malign activity by woke gender ideologues you attribute to supposedly value-neutral terms violations.

Because you haven’t demonstrated your claim, and you have the burden of proof here. Hanlon’s Razor.

Of particular note, many of the things you claim “woke gender ideologues” oppose aren’t being moderated against on Twitter in the first place. Of the rest, many fall under the category of things that could reasonably be interpreted as bigotry. Whether or not you agree with that interpretation is irrelevant.

What I think are correctly stated arguments against woke gender ideology you think are transphobic bigoted hate speech.

No, they are all either arguments against positions held by no one, invalid, unsupported, ignorant, irrelevant, denying science, based on definitions we don’t agree on, not being moderated against by Twitter in the first place, and/or transphobic or otherwise bigoted. Not all of your arguments are bigoted; just some of them.

I think that viewpoint-based moderation is censorship and you don’t.

I’ve actually tried to accommodate your definition of “censorship” for the sake of argument on multiple occasions. I’ve noted that I disagree with that, but that’s about it on that front.

Where we truly disagree in this area is whether or not such a thing is occurring on Twitter and whether or not such a thing is inherently bad (or ought to be changed) when done by private parties regarding what’s on their property.

And really, “a public school is not a social media platform”? Are you joking?

No. I’m completely serious.

A public school is a much more restrictive forum than a social media platform, and the state has the right to set the curriculum as it wishes.

A public school is run by the government and so is subject to the 1A. A social media platform is neither of those things. My entire point is that the two are completely different beasts and are entirely incomparable in this respect.

Also, as far as the curriculum is concerned, a public school isn’t a forum at all, and as I specifically stated, what was being objected to wasn’t just about setting the curriculum. On top of all that, you have specifically stated that just because someone can do something doesn’t mean that they should, and an objection to how a school’s curriculum gets set because it is based on bigotry and ignorance is perfectly consistent with this.

Finally, although you don’t appear to care whether or not it’s the government doing viewpoint discrimination or a private party, I—and many others—do. A public school’s restrictions on speech within that school are completely distinguishable from a social media platform’s rules about the content on that platform on that basis.

Wyrm (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

I’m late on this reply.

First, thank you for sharing your opinion.
If you are honest, you are not the loud hypocrite that many other conservatives are. But your anecdotal opinion doesn’t weigh much in the face of a number of other cases.

Second, I’m talking about many loud conservatives who whine that they are “censored” any time they are 1. banned for bad behavior or 2. replied to in anything but complete agreement.
Since you’re definitely not one of these, I’m amused that you felt targeted.

If you really want to disprove my point, you can’t just talk about your own personal expectations. You’ll have to show that conservatives never (or very rarely) complain about being censored when someone tells them they’re wrong. As there are several high-profile conservatives who did this on camera and in public statements, you have a high bar to meet. (e.g. Politicians complaining about social media platforms adding information banners on top of their posts.)

Finally…

2, The right to impose their speech on any audience.

False. Instead, not to have platforms censor their speech, so that people who want to hear it may.

Thanks for agreeing with me despite starting with “False”. You literally described the same thing I did. You added an “objective”, but the means is the same. And still no, you are not allowed to impose your speech on everyone anywhere with the excuse that a few are willing to listen. You can choose a venue that will allow it instead.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

  1. banned for bad behavior or 2. replied to in anything but complete agreement.

I think a large part of the problem is exactly that!
The Republican line on censorship is so far away from reality that they’ve damaged the argument for us more strict hardliners. Myself included.

Being thrown off a platform is not censorship. Noting, flagging, tagging… not censorship. Deletion of your comment—is!
In order to actually l be censorship the censor must deny or otherwise disruptively bar access.

Not printing a book is not censorship. Neither is refusing to sell it. Or stock it. Or refusal of more copies.
It does not become censorship unless you remove copies you have from an audience.

The other case where there is actual censorship is in modifying.
Let’s take an easy extreme example. Porn.
Warning notes are no different than black plastic bags.
Flagging/tagging is no different than placing it behind the shelf.
Opening it up and taking a sharply or yuck stickers over all the ‘naughty’ stuff is censorship. Removing pages or parts of pages is censorship.

Want a conservative example?
Removing the Song of Songs is censorship. Placing a warning before it is moderation. As is placing it out of order in the back.

The dropping of Trump and other republicans is not by itself censorship.
My concern was two fold on the deletion of tweets from a blocked account.
Deletion is censorship. And! In the case of sitting politicians deletion is counter to federal records retention statutes.
They are working on the latter.

Not once did I demand or say they must host speech.
My belief that they should host sitting members of government does not equate to saying the must.

Too many Republicans demand hosting.
And most Dems demand actual censorship. Both sides are completely in violation of 1A.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

because the sort of people that statement applies to never listen no matter how many times you explain it to them

It’s not so much that they never listen, it’s that they don’t believe that they are the ones being the assholes.

Take some of the regular trolls around, a couple of which are truly in the fucking asshole category, but they continue to think that they should be able to force themselves onto any platform they want, regardless if they have already been told to fuck off.

They probably think we are the assholes and they are just acting like normal people.

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

Dennis F. Heffernan (profile) says:

Nope, can't agree

a) The only speech that requires defense is unpopular speech. If we’re not going to permit people to speak against popular opinion then we’re not supporting free speech.

b) Anything you can do to “an asshole” can be done to you when someone decides you’re the asshole. Since everyone offends someone sooner or later it’s in you own best interest to curtail what can be done when the pitchforks and torches come out.

c) The issue is being muddied by throwing in things like doxxing or overt incitement to violence. No one, except the people doing those things, is saying these activities should be protected. Throwing someone off a platform for “misgendering”? Not so clear. People losing their jobs for speaking against a narrative? Unacceptable in the general case. If someone is perceived as being the “public face” of a corporation or such then that entity should have the prerogative to limit that person’s public discourse. I’m thinking of something like Disney firing Gina Carano here, which I believe was within their prerogatives.

d) I find it interesting that the same ideological faction that thinks corporations should be legally forced to act in the public interest also thinks social media platforms should have carte blanche about what’s posted on their sites. In my opinion (e.g.) Twitter can’t hide behind the “it’s our printing press we decide what’s published” trope. Just as someone who publicly represents a corporation can have their speech restricted, social media platforms have voluntarily, if implicitly, accepted a responsibility to allow speech without undue censorship by virtue of acting as public forums. If they want the protection of the press let them hire editors and publish articles like any other news site.

e) Maybe time to reread “An Enemy of the People”. It’s got some rough spots but still. And notice its date. Those who forget the past may be doomed to repeat it, but those who remember it have to facepalm for eternity watching it be repeated.

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

Re:

“In my opinion”

Thanks for sharing. Good thing your opinion isn’t the law. If Twiiter decides not to allow certain speech, it isn’t censorship. The people posting on Twitter have other avenues to being heard. They can go to Pravda Social, Gab, 4chan, etc. Hell, they can get a job at Fox news.

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

Re:

1.) Being banned from Twitter or Facebook doesn’t prevent you from speaking against popular opinion. You aren’t owed a spot on those platforms and I’ve got a long-ass copypasta of two legal citations that says those platforms aren’t public fora.

2.) Life is pain. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.

3.) The First Amendment gives any business, platform, or individual the right to associate with anyone they wish. As with religion, the freedom to associate must have protection against being forced to associate. An employer can fire an employee who said some racist shit or misgendered a trans employee who works for that same employer; if you don’t like that, you can always bitch about it on social media.

4.) Do you really want me to break out the Halleck/PragerU vs. YouTube copypasta? Because I’ll give you this tl;dr as the last warning against that: No privately owned interactive web service is a public forum by virtue of being open to the public.

5.) Yes, yes, you think you’re a grand hero for trying to stand up to the mean ol’ libs or whatever. Jerk yourself off somewhere else.

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

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

No privately owned interactive web service is a public forum by virtue of being open to the public.

Sure. Buck v Bell was decided by a court, too (8 to 1!). It hasn’t been overturned. Do you stand by that ruling?

Twitter, et al., can’t say, “We’re open to EVERYONE!” then decide later to censor people. That’s the divide between those who like free speech (me and others on the right side of history), and those who don’t (you and your ilk).

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Twitter, et al., can’t say, “We’re open to EVERYONE!” then decide later to censor people.

If Twitter could censor people, you would have a point. But it can’t. So you kinda don’t. Buuuuuuuuuut…

Yes, Twitter can say “we’re open to everyone” then decide later to kick people out for breaking the Terms of Service. Any public-facing business can do that. Or do you think a bar can’t kick out an unruly patron without first signing 274 forms in triplicate and waiting six months for permission to do exactly that?

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

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Or do you think a bar can’t kick out an unruly patron without first signing 274 forms in triplicate and waiting six months for permission to do exactly that?

The difference is: in a bar, you can’t easily click a button and block seeing or hearing someone. On Twitter you can, and it’s your choice who you want to read or not, not anyone else’s.

You would have to be an authoritarian to think you know better what other people want to read, see, or hear.

Stop with your Nazi nonsense.

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

Re: Re: Re:3

The difference is: in a bar, you can’t easily click a button and block seeing or hearing someone. On Twitter you can, and it’s your choice who you want to read or not, not anyone else’s.

So what? Twitter admins still have the right to decide whether Twitter will or won’t host the speech of a given user. In the bar:Twitter analogy, Twitter admins would be bartenders: They can kick out someone yelling racial slurs regardless of what other patrons say (or don’t say) in response. The unruly patron can then go to another bar (i.e., social media service) and keep saying their dumb bullshit until they either get kicked out or welcomed.

The law gives Twitter as much right to kick an asshole off the platform as it gives a bar the right to kick an unruly patron off the premises. But hey, prove otherwise if you can (spoilers: you can’t and won’t) and I’ll concede the point.

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

Re: Re: Re:3

You would have to be an authoritarian to think you know better what other people want to read, see, or hear.

Twitter knows what the majority of their users want to see, or more importantly, don’t want to see, because users have been telling Twitter for years. A company that needs advertisers for income listens to that feedback and creates policies that attract the most users and hence the most advertisers. This is capitalism 101, why are you so confused about why Twitter does it?

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

Re: Re: Re:4

‘Let the users choose what speech they want to see!’

‘They do by picking which platforms and therefore moderation rules they want to use.’

‘I meant in a way that allows me to post whatever I want wherever I want!’

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Twitter, et al., can’t say, “We’re open to EVERYONE!” then decide later to censor people. That’s the divide between those who like free speech (me and others on the right side of history), and those who don’t (you and your ilk).

Ummm…. smart guy, the telephone system is a life-saving network that is of utmost importance in times of life and death situations, but please do tell me how not being allow to tweet something is the same as not being able to call the fire department when your house is burning down. Also, when you make a phone call to somebody, how many people are able to hear your “speech” such that it could be curtailed?

Also, free speech is not something that a private entity needs to “protect”. Free speech means we are allowed to say what we want without GOVERNMENT interference.

Social media will never become the government w.r.t. the 1st amendment… no matter how hard you wish it to be.

And to think that your idea of free speech, which at its core RESTRICTS the free speech of others, is the right side of history? Where the fuck do you people come up with this shit?

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

Re: Re: Re:

sorry, when did Twitter say “we’re open to EVERYONE”?

Because their terms of service say:

You may use the Services only if you agree to form a binding contract with Twitter and are not a person barred from receiving services under the laws of the applicable jurisdiction. In any case, you must be at least 13 years old, or in the case of Periscope 16 years old, to use the Services. If you are accepting these Terms and using the Services on behalf of a company, organization, government, or other legal entity, you represent and warrant that you are authorized to do so and have the authority to bind such entity to these Terms, in which case the words “you” and “your” as used in these Terms shall refer to such entity.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:

Sure. Buck v Bell was decided by a court, too (8 to 1!). It hasn’t been overturned. Do you stand by that ruling?

Funnily enough, a case doesn’t need to be overturned for it to become legally irrelevant, like for example when another case establish another precedent or if the law is changed or amended – which happened to Buck v Bell.

I’m sure you are proud of that strawman, but it is still just a strawman.

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

Re: Re: Re:2

Contrast the real-world facts here – Supreme Court precedent cited by the 9th Circuit when they shut down PragerUwu’s attempt to censor Youtube’s free speech – to Anonymous Coward’s pig-ignorant lies:

Shifting gears slightly, PragerU posits that a private entity can be converted into a public forum if its property is opened up for public discourse. This theory finds no support in our precedent. As the Supreme Court has explained, to create a public forum, the government must intentionally open up the property to public discourse…. That YouTube is not owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the government undermines PragerU’s public forum theory

PragerU’s attempt to foist a ‘public forum’ label on YouTube by claiming that YouTube declared itself a public forum also fails. YouTube’s representation that it is committed to freedom of expression, or a single statement made by its executive before a congressional committee that she considers YouTube to be a ‘neutral public fora,’ cannot somehow convert private property into a public forum. Whether a property is a public forum is not a matter of election by a private entity. We decline to subscribe to PragerU’s novel opt-in theory of the First Amendment.

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

Re: Re: Re:

What in the fucking fuck does Buck v. Bell have to do with social media, you red-hat simpleminded moron?

For anyone who thinks this goof has some kind of point…

In Buck v. Bell, decided on May 2, 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a vote of 8 to 1, affirmed the constitutionality of Virginia’s law allowing state-enforced sterilization.

And this little nugget for the dipshit who thought he had a point:

Virginia repealed the law in 1974 and in 2002 apologized to its victims.

Who told you this case was a good idea to cite? I’d bitch-slap that idiot for making you look like a fucking fool.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
@Section_230 says:

Re: Re: Re:

Private property does not “lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes.” Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 569.

I think People don’t understand the difference between “censorship” and “moderation”.

The way I see it…

Moderation is a company saying “you can’t do that here”.

Censorship is the Government saying “you can’t do that anywhere”.

“Twitter” cannot censor you unless you believe they’re the only site/app available to everyone (they’re not) and that getting kicked off those sites/apps means you’ve lost your right to speak freely (you haven’t).

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

Re: Re: Re:

Twitter, et al., can’t say, “We’re open to EVERYONE!” then decide later to censor people.

Of course they can! Your entire argument is based on this completely ridiculous claim that doesn’t hold up in any similar situation. To think that a private business can’t do this is mind-bogglingly stupid. Try your luck in any physical store if you’re so sure of yourself.

That’s the divide between those who like free speech (me and others on the right side of history), and those who don’t (you and your ilk).

No, as is clearly explained above, you don’t want free speech, you want consequence-free speech. You want to be an asshole on private property; Twitter wants to be more attractive to more people by hosting fewer assholes.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Sure. Buck v Bell was decided by a court, too (8 to 1!). It hasn’t been overturned. Do you stand by that ruling?

  1. That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with free speech, freedom of association, internet platforms, common carriers, the public square, §230, moderation, third-party content, social media, etc. That case was solely about a specific forced-sterilization law in Virginia at the time.
  2. The main reason why that decision hasn’t been overturned is because that specific law and all others like it within the US have since been repealed, so there is no “case or controversy” that would give courts jurisdiction over the issue in order to potentially overturn it.

Twitter, et al., can’t say, “We’re open to EVERYONE!” then decide later to censor people.

  1. It’s moderation, not censorship.
  2. “Open to everyone” just means that they’ll let in anyone who asks and who hasn’t already been kicked out. It doesn’t mean that the permission to use the platform is unconditional or that you can’t or won’t get kicked out later if you break the rules or are overly disruptive, and it certainly doesn’t mean that they can’t or won’t remove or suspend any content that breaks the rules, either. This is true for every privately-owned property that is “open to everyone”.
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Twitter can’t hide behind the “it’s our printing press we decide what’s published” trope. Just as someone who publicly represents a corporation can have their speech restricted, social media platforms have voluntarily, if implicitly, accepted a responsibility to allow speech without undue censorship by virtue of acting as public forums.

You’re missing the point entirely. Twitter didn’t ask to become the “public square” nor can it ever be considered as such.

Twitter is free to chose which speech it allows on its private property and which speech to deny. That is their prerogative, and more importantly, that is their 1st amendment right.

The Twitter community is bound by the rules and TOS that Twitter imposes, and if somebody does not like those rules, then there are other places that will be more accepting of them.

You seem to be part of the crowd of people who think that because Twitter is big enough, they somehow magically become the public square and thus should be bound by the 1st amendment and allow everything that anybody wants to post.

But the biggest point you are missing, is that Twitter has become as large as it is precisely because of its moderation policy and that includes banning users for nothing more than acting like assholes.

The people who are the regular daily Twitter users are there because they are slightly shielded from the racists, homophobes, bigots, xenophobes, and the just plain old assholes.

Changing their policies to be more like you “freeze peach” people will not make their service any better, and in fact, will ultimately ruin it.

Twitter should not have to bend to the whims of a minority of people when there are other sites that are more than welcome to accept the outcasts of Twitter.

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Public Square

The Supreme Court disagrees with you: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=285661631352488303

“Social media allows users to gain access to information and communicate with one another on any subject that might come to mind. With one broad stroke, North Carolina bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge.”

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

The Supreme Court literally says here that social media is the new public square. That doesn’t necessarily mean anything for whether the platforms can censor their users, but it does that mean that the woke ideologues here who enjoy that censorship and wish that it continues and therefore say that social media is not a public square are contradicting the Supreme Court.

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Sure. The woke ideologues here like to use constricted definitions so that they can “win” dictionary arguments.

When normal people think of a public square, they imagine a place where people can freely gather to speak about any topic. The large platforms like Twitter act like a public square, so when they decide to impose viewpoint-based censorship, naturally people get annoyed. To the woke ideologues here, people should never have thought of the platforms as a public square because they’re not government-owned, and therefore the people should stop complaining. (Of course, when the government of Florida exercises its right to set the public school curriculum, the woke squeal in outrage.)

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

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

Techdirt and its woke commentariat keep insisting that Twitter’s censorship is not about free speech because Twitter is not the government. That is a false and constricted view of free speech, because free speech is a broader concept than simply a restriction on what governments may do. The 1st Amendment is only a partial implementation of free speech.

The reason Techdirt and the woke commentariat do that is so they can insist that they support free speech while at the same time supporting censorship.

So that’s why I argue. It usually leads into more arguments about other woke claims that are being buttressed by the censorship.

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

It depends. Woke gender ideology is false, so a generic ban on saying so is viewpoint-based censorship. Noting that people have gone by other names in the past is also legitimate. Satirizing public officials who are trans is also fine. So are generic comments that trans people are suffering from delusions. And so on.

Attacking specific trans people in situations where their gender beliefs are not germane to the discussion is wrong, as is raising the matter at all when it is off-topic.

So, for example: the Magic the Gathering collectible card game has a number of designers who are transwomen. If a forum is dedicated to the design of the game, bringing up the gender of the designers is irrelevant. If a discussion were to arise about the severe lack of women designers of the game, and someone pointed to the transwomen designers as examples of women, it would be appropriate to say that transwomen are men, but not to attack the designers by name individually. That last would never be appropriate.

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10

Woke gender ideology is false and transwomen are men. In any discussion that involves some people asserting that transwomen are women, it is appropriate to assert that transwomen are men. If trans people feel harassed by this, they need to realize that it is physical reality that is to blame, and that they should not be expecting people to lie about physical reality in order to support their false beliefs.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11

good, we’re clear that you think trans peopel deserve to be harassed outside of any space that is only for trans people

the next time a trans person is murdered for being trans, I’ll remember that you justified it by saying it was appropriate to harass trans people

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

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13

Dude, what they said had nothing to do with prostitutes. It was about what you said about that MtG forum. This post doesn’t address anything they said.

Also, as I and Lostinlodos have pointed out, this is a complete non sequitur, has nothing to do with race, and is logically and factually deficient. You fail to back up the initial assertion (that a majority trans people (previously included “of color” and also specified “transwomen”) who are murdered are black prostitutes); you then make an assertion that does not follow and for which you offer no evidence (the victims were young, the victims were criminal or criminal-adjacent (again, prostitution is not illegal in all jurisdictions), the victims were male (only for this iteration, since you expanded from transwomen people of color trans people), the killers were black, the killers were young, the killers were men, and previously that the killers were criminal or criminal-adjacent); and then, from all that, you draw a conclusion which also doesn’t follow, doesn’t actually relate to anything in the discussion up till then, and appears to be factually incorrect (that these killings were no different from “the way normal criminal and criminal-adjacent young Black men are murdered by other young Black men”).

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

Woke gender ideology is false and transwomen are men.

You can repeat that all you like, but that doesn’t make it true or not bigoted.

In any discussion that involves some people asserting that transwomen are women, it is appropriate to assert that transwomen are men.

Again, I and many others would disagree.

If trans people feel harassed by this, they need to realize that it is physical reality that is to blame, and that they should not be expecting people to lie about physical reality in order to support their false beliefs.

No, the problem is that some people refuse to recognize that physical reality isn’t as neatly organized as they’d like and that transwomen aren’t expressing false beliefs when they say they are women. They also refuse to modify their language to avoid offending people needlessly in discussions where the issue is ultimately irrelevant. Again, just say “ciswomen” or “females” are what you are excluding transwomen from, and then there’s no problem. Insisting that your definitions of “men” and “women” are the correct ones and are beyond reasonable debate—particularly in a discussion where the topic isn’t actually about transwomen—is just being stubborn at best. Just sidestep the debate altogether.

It is not appropriate to turn the discussion into a debate about whether transwomen are men or women just because you see that any giving ground—even by just changing the words you use to clarify what you originally meant by “women”—is “affirming their false beliefs”, which apparently is simply never acceptable to expect under any circumstances at all, not even to avoid sidetracking the discussion into a hot debate about definitions. I’m sorry, but that’s not how it works at all.

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12

It is not sidetracking. A major argument of TERFs is that woke gender ideologues are having men who claim to be women usurp the positions of real women. Naturally, woke gender ideologues would like to forbid such arguments from being spoken, but those arguments are very much to the point.

Magic the Gathering has very few women game designers, and claiming that some of its designing men are women does not change that.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13

It is not sidetracking. A major argument of TERFs is that woke gender ideologues are having men who claim to be women usurp the positions of real women.

No, it is sidetracking. TERFs, as the name suggests, are a radical subset of feminists; they don’t speak for even a majority of feminists. The discussion wasn’t about TERF objections, specifically, or the aspects that separate TERFs from other feminists, but a general feminist issue (female representation in a given industry) with respect to something not directly about transgender people at all or the feminist movement as a whole (the makers of MtG, specifically). If they want to have the debate about whether or not transwomen “count” as women in feminism, that’s a separate issue they should have on a forum only regarding feminism or transgender people or on their own platform. The fact is that the original discussion wasn’t about whether or not transwomen are women, and there is no need to make it into such a discussion, so it is sidetracking from the original discussion.

Naturally, woke gender ideologues would like to forbid such arguments from being spoken, but those arguments are very much to the point.

No, that discussion is separate. If you want to specify that you mean “females” or “ciswomen”, fine. That is fair and reasonable, and it doesn’t generate a separate discussion about whether transwomen are X because no one disagrees with the notion that transwomen are not female or ciswomen. There is no need to get into a semantic debate about the definition of “women” here.

Magic the Gathering has very few women game designers, and claiming that some of its designing men are women does not change that.

Replace the “women” in “women game designers” with “female” or “ciswomen” and the “men” in “designing men” with “males”, and there would be no disagreement with that statement, nor would that be transphobic or sidetracking the discussion or offensive to anyone or anything. Do you disagree with the statement as I rephrased it? If not, then there is no need to start a debate about the definition of “women” to resolve the issue, so such a debate would sidetrack from the original issue. That’s what “sidetrack” means: it is not necessary to resolve it to resolve the underlying issue.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12

There’s a pit of truth to the idea of woke vs support.. A tiny bit.
Some people irrationally demand immediate change.

More realistic and rational people recognise we must work to undo centuries of brainwashing about sexuality. Modesty isn’t morality, it’s power control. Like all aspects of what is, and what comes from, organised religion. The sole purpose is tight control on the populace.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

It depends. Woke gender ideology is false, so a generic ban on saying so is viewpoint-based censorship.

Not exactly. I mean, it is viewpoint-based moderation, but that’s true whether or not the statement is true. In this case, it’s false and also bigotry (at least as broadly as you define “woke gender ideology”, which includes basically any position that isn’t either transphobic or acquiescence to transphobic claims), and I have no problem with viewpoint-based moderation of bigotry.

Noting that people have gone by other names in the past is also legitimate.

In specific contexts not generally applicable to conversations on Twitter. If you are doing so to correct someone else who’s mistakenly using their dead name, that’s actually a good thing. It’s also fine in a biography or something like that, but that’s not something you do on Twitter, so that’s irrelevant to this discussion. And it’s forgivable to deadname someone by mistake as long as you apologize and try not to repeat the same mistake.

Satirizing public officials who are trans is also fine.

If you mean that satirizing public officials who just so happen to be trans, then sure, but satirizing them because they’re transgender or for being transgender is not “fine”.

So are generic comments that trans people are suffering from delusions.

Absolutely not, and it’s absurd that you think that it is.

Attacking specific trans people in situations where their gender beliefs are not germane to the discussion is wrong, as is raising the matter at all when it is off-topic.

On that we agree, though I should mention that you have done the latter on multiple occasions.

So, for example: the Magic the Gathering collectible card game has a number of designers who are transwomen.

Probably. That’s unremarkable enough that I can take that as true.

If a forum is dedicated to the design of the game, bringing up the gender of the designers is irrelevant.

True.

If a discussion were to arise about the severe lack of women designers of the game, and someone pointed to the transwomen designers as examples of women, it would be appropriate to say that transwomen are men, […]

I would disagree with that. It would be appropriate to say that transwomen are not ciswomen or are not female, and that that’s what was meant by “women designers”. However, saying they are men is not okay.

[…] but not to attack the designers by name individually. That last would never be appropriate.

Why does it have to be by name? I agree that it would never be appropriate (though, again, you have previously asserted otherwise), but that seems needlessly specific.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

The Supreme Court literally says here that social media is the new public square.

As it pertains to the government’s ability to restrict access to them, not in regards to what is expected of moderation by private actors or whether the government can force the owners to host content they don’t want to.

Basically, when they say it’s not a public square, they don’t mean legally. Words have different meanings in different contexts.

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

Re:

a) I’m wondering what you mean by unpopular speech. I’ve yet to see any platforms removing unpopular speech, but you are of course free to give examples you think explains your point.

b) Everyone are an asshole on occasion, but only real assholes complain about the consequences.

c) It’s not muddled because there are assholes who think that free speech means they are entitled to say anything they want on social media and if the platform moderate or kick them off they call it censorship.

d) What ideological faction are you talking about? Considering the topic we have people on the right that think corporations (ie Big Tech/social media) should be forced to carry all speech because they say it’s in the public interest. Then we have some of the centrist (colloquially called the left/democrats in the US) who think the opposite, that social media et al should remove speech like misinformation etc because it’s in the public interest.

e) Ibsen’s book wasn’t about unpopular speech per se – it was about how hypocritical people where when it comes morality and sexual mores. If you want to equate that with hate-speech, harassment, incitement to violence etc, go ahead, but Ibsen would be the first one to call you out on it if he was alive.

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

Re:

Tell ya what…I was always taught to make sure my own house was clean before demanding someone else clean theirs.

These are some of the terms of service from social media other than Twitter…

FrankSpeech (The Voice of Free Speech):

We have the right to:
Remove or refuse to post any user contributions for any or no reason in our sole discretion.

Parler (Where Free Speech Thrives):

You agree not to:
…(e) to harass, abuse, insult, harm, defame, slander, disparage, intimidate, or discriminate based on gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, race, age, national origin, or disability; (f) to submit false or misleading information

Then there’s Truth Social, where the moron with the biggest mouth on free speech puts these in his TOS:

As a user of the Service, you agree:

  • your Contributions are not false, inaccurate, or misleading. <– I giggled at that one
  • your Contributions are not obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, violent, harassing, libelous, slanderous, or otherwise objectionable. <– Little vague, no? Wait for this one:

-We have the right, in our sole and absolute discretion, (1) to edit, redact, or otherwise change any Contributions; (2) to re-categorize any Contributions to place them in more appropriate locations on the Site; and (3) to pre-screen or delete any Contributions at any time and for any reason, without notice.

Tell the big mouth “champions of free speech” to lead by example. Or else fuck off, hypocrite.

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

Re:

…social media platforms have voluntarily, if implicitly, accepted a responsibility to allow speech without undue censorship by virtue of acting as public forums.

…said no social media platform ever.

You’re making this crap up out of whole cloth. Your opinion may be that you’d like it to be this way, but there is historical basis or social precedent for this.

nerdrage (profile) says:

the First Amendment applies to the government

The First Amendment says the government cannot infringe free speech. It doesn’t say corporations can’t.

Twitter, Facebook, etc are not government. They are corporations that make their profit from pleasing their paying customers, namely the advertisers. Not users.

Users are the product. If the product thinks a corporation owes them free speech, then they are wrong in multiple ways.

Everyone is free to leave Twitter, Facebook etc if they object to how they do business. I never use them because I am not a product and don’t intend to allow a corporation to treat me as such.

Those who use social media are agreeing to be treated like a product and they can accept the consequences of this decision. I got no sympathy.

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re:

“Users are the product” is one of those things that sound wise but are actually idiotic. Unless you’re expecting other people to give you things for nothing (which I suppose is woke Communist ideology), receiving services is always in exchange for something. It can be money, it can be attention, it it can be information. You are free to refuse the exchange, but you are not especially brilliant or insightful for doing so.

The 1st Amendment doesn’t apply to corporations, but the 1st Amendment is not all there is to free speech. Corporations don’t need to honor freedom of speech, but they can choose to. If they want to claim to do that, they should do more than pay lip service to the concept.

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

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Ah, right, you don’t even believe in online privacy or that your Social Security Number can be stolen.

I bet you don’t even believe in identity theft, either. Or that modern advertisers have a ton of data that we willingly give to them, via pretty much what we do online, vital or otherwise, because we NEED the Internet to do those things.

I bey you don’t even believe that countries know of this treasure trove of data and want to use it to control the population to do whatever they want.

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

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Good.

And now that we have that on record…

I’m also gonna say that thankfully, everyone important considers identity theft an actual fucking crime. A crime so fucking serious that countries actually cooperate to fight it.

And it’s mot limited to the Internet, Google and related services, either.

Yes, banks also consider Identity Theft a most serious matter.

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

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

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

The Babylon Bee incident is very clarifying. Woke gender ideologues insist that the post is unjustified targeted harassment against a particular trans person and deserves to be banned. The other side believes that the post is an extremely effective attack on woke gender ideology (because Dr. Levine does not make a convincing woman) and is being banned precisely because of its effectiveness.

Political debate has always been replete with insults, mockery, vituperation, and personal attacks. Platforms that value free speech should err on the side of allowing speech to stand.

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

Re:

Ummmm, you do realize that Twitter is not the entirety of the internet… don’t you?

Just because their Twitter account was suspended does not mean that their entire existence online was removed. In fact, it was still available to anybody who wants to go to their site, or follow their Facebook page, Gab account, Truth account, etc, etc, etc.

So if you don’t like Twitter’s moderation policies, then why don’t you just fuck off to somewhere that wants people like you.

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

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

Re: Re: Re:

Why should Twitter have to change their policies just to appease a small minority of people?

Twitter is as large as it is precisely because of it’s moderation policies.

Fortunately for the rest of us, the assholes like you are definitely in the minority!!

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Twitter is as large as it is precisely because of it’s moderation policies.

Exactly right. There is a reason the ‘alternative’ social media options aren’t as popular or populated as the ones most people use and it’s because they are less welcoming to toxic people and content.

If a majority of people wanted to be surrounded by that other content then those other platforms would have quickly overtaken the current ones in popularity when they showed up, that they haven’t says plenty about what sort of experience most people are looking for regarding social media.

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

They don’t have to change. The point of criticism is to get them to realize they’re wrong and change voluntarily.

Woke ideologues are committed to the notion that people criticizing the platforms want to force them to change, because then they can hide behind the 1st Amendment and say that the platforms don’t have to change. But criticism is not force.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

But criticism is not force.

The problem with that statement is people like you seem to want the government to step in and force social media companies to host speech that they do not want to host.

Criticize all you want, just don’t ask / expect the government to step in and enforce your criticism.

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

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

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

Re:

(because Dr. Levine does not make a convincing woman)

Only a bigot would frame a trans person’s legitimacy around how convinced they are.

Political debate has always been replete with insults, mockery, vituperation, and personal attacks. Platforms that value free speech should err on the side of allowing speech to stand.

Someone who wants the absolute worst parts political discord to be celebrated instead of discouraged is not here for a serious discussion.

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Transwomen are men. That is true independent of how convincingly the men are costumed as women. But often, transwomen are presented in the best possible light for their appearance, such as Caitlyn Jenner having the benefit of makeup artists when appearing on magazine covers, and that can help sway opinions. Presenting unconvincing transwomen, whether it’s Dr. Levine, or Lia Thomas looming over the other members of the swim team, can help sway opinion in the other direction.

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

Re: Re: Re:

Why should the general opinion sway back to transphobia? Why should society in general become less accepting of trans persons, what do we stand to gain by reverting back to this attitude?
Comedy? Mocking trans women and masculine women for not looking daintier and fitting your idea of feminine? I don’t know that those “jokes” really would ever hit the same when we know the real people that make up the trans community, our friends and family.
A healthier reality based lifestyle for all? If you want to argue that society is indulging mentally ill folks in too much fantasy, then explain what is the new best practice that the woke folks have suppressed? Because we already know that forcing someone to live as their sex assigned at birth and rejecting who they know they are just results in their misery and often suicide. Accommodating a trans person by simply accepting them as they present themselves, and respecting their right to privacy as it concerns their health and medical history just like we would for everyone who fits a narrow definition of sex and gender norms seems like the easiest and most beneficial to the most people. I mean, aside from some competitive sports that need careful consideration to determine the fairest rules, who is harmed? And please, save the bathroom/locker room privacy garbage, I don’t know what men thinks goes on in ladies spaces like those but it’s not whatever they fantasize. Also, I know some very good women going through menopause that have facial hair, who are not particularly feminine, and I dare someone to ask them to produce proof of their biological sex. I feel especially defensive of them because I know them, but my gut tells me I would find myself similarly enraged whether I knew them, or private information such as their biological sex, trans status or menopausal state. Enforcement of formal/legal restrictions on public bathrooms or otherwise sex segregated spaces would end up requiring expensive and resource intensive system, and I’m not cool with scanning my ID to enter a public restroom.
Getting back to the benefits of shaming trans folks… Ah yes, to protect the children from the trans agenda (whatever that is) or from idolizing trans lifestyle and becoming trans themselves, or to eliminate the novelty factor so that parents don’t force their kids to be trans. The protect the children trope. Do we really need to breakdown how stupid this is? You can’t make a kid be trans, and it’s dehumanizing to say that parents force their kids to be trans like a fashion accessory. We heard this bullshit about homosexuality and it’s exactly that- bullshit. Most people want to teach their kids to love and accept everyone, that diversity and inclusion are strengths in society. I don’t see bringing back the hate as a winning ideology, or one that people want to give room to thrive (considering the conspiracy theories spouted from hate revivalists, I can see why)
What did I miss here? What benefit to society does trans exclusion bring? What supports your feeling that you should work to prevail over the so-called woke ideals of accepting and loving everyone and treating everyone with dignity? What was better before trans people had acceptance? You won’t get booted off TechDirt for explaining your position, though readers will probably have to choose to read it as I suspect it will come from vile and hateful ideals

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

The fundamental thing wrong with woke gender ideology is that it is false, and yet woke gender ideologues demand that woke gender ideology must be affirmed by everyone. Men cannot be changed into women, there is no such thing as gender apart from sex, and you are only ever the sex of your body, and no one is “assigned” a sex.

Societies have religious, social, and cultural taboos involving single-sex spaces. People who delusionally believe that they are a sex different from their bodies should not be allowed to force their way into single-sex spaces for which their bodies disqualify them.

Public schools should never be permitted to hide the mental illnesses of students from their parents.

Woke gender ideologues do not want trans acceptance, in the same way that gay people wanted acceptance for same-sex marriage, which was live-and-let-line. Woke gender ideology wants to force everyone to accept its false beliefs and punish people who refuse.

In terms of actual acceptance, the Supreme Court has already decided that employers cannot fire trans employees for choosing to present and dress as the sex they wish they were.

We do not “know” what best practices for trans people are. Psychology is political and its science is generally unreplicatable garbage. Woke gender ideologues who claim that their theories are “settled science” are knaves or fools.

Naughty Autie says:

Re: Re: Re:3

In terms of actual acceptance, the Supreme Court has already decided that employers cannot fire trans employees for choosing to present and dress as the gender they actually are.

FTFY. YW. FYI, just because you hate people for not being cisgender like you, that doesn’t give you the right to cast them as ‘other’. BTW, you’re right that no one is assigned a sex, but we are all assigned a gender (which is listed as ‘sex’ on the birth certificate), and in about 1% of the population, that assignation is incorrect. What is your problem with people who want to correct that mistake?

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

A person’s sex is observed and noted at birth, or often earlier. That a small percentage of people develop a delusion that their body is the wrong sex does not change the fact that their sex has been correctly noted.

We should not allow people to change their sex designation in a way that requires others to allow them into single-sex spaces for which their bodies disqualify them.

Understanding that people believe in a false ideology is not the same as hating those people. Correctly understanding that gods do not exist does not mean hating religious people. It does mean pushing back hard on attempts by religious people to force others to affirm their beliefs. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and vegetarians can choose not to eat bacon cheeseburgers. They should not be permitted to force the cafeteria to stop serving bacon cheeseburgers.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

A person’s sex is observed and noted at birth, or often earlier. That a small percentage of people develop a delusion that their body is the wrong sex does not change the fact that their sex has been correctly noted.

  1. That is not being argued against, at least concerning most or all transgender people.
  2. Again, that is not a delusion. Their body is the wrong sex for their brain’s gender. This is a scientific fact.
  3. That some people have had their sex noted where it has differed from their physiological and/or genetic sex or have had surgery done without their knowledge or consent or medical necessity to remove “extraneous” parts involved in human sexual dimorphism before having their sex noted is evidence that the noted sex isn’t necessarily accurate and/or can be somewhat arbitrarily chosen.
  4. That does not actually address the argument being made here at all, even with a charitable interpretation.

We should not allow people to change their sex designation in a way that requires others to allow them into single-sex spaces for which their bodies disqualify them.

You have failed to support this assertion. You simply state it as fact as though it is indisputable (which it isn’t). The most you’ve done was allude to social, cultural, and religious taboos held by a portion of the population of some countries, which isn’t even a good argument in favor of your position, and we’ve already presented counterarguments to that that you have yet to refute.

Understanding that people believe in a false ideology is not the same as hating those people.

When you deliberately ignore all the evidence that it is not false without having any factual evidence that refutes that evidence, even if you don’t hate them, you are deliberately acting in a manner that is hateful, the distinction being made is pretty small. (And no, hating someone is not necessary in order to be hateful towards them.)

Correctly understanding that gods do not exist does not mean hating religious people.

Technically true (except that it’s not necessarily “correct” as the claim that at least one god of some form exists is unfalsifiable), but there is no objective evidence that strongly supports the claim that any gods exist, but there is objective evidence strongly supporting the claim that transgender people have a brain whose gender [identity] differs from their body’s physiological and/or genetic sex. Also, it can be hateful if you, without being asked, approach a theistic religious person and say that they’re deluded because they believe at least one god does exist even if you don’t actually “hate” them.

It does mean pushing back hard on attempts by religious people to force others to affirm their beliefs.

True, and no one is saying you have to affirmatively say that you agree with transgender people, nor is their any belief that requires or requests you to actively do anything other than leave them alone and be polite.

Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and vegetarians can choose not to eat bacon cheeseburgers. They should not be permitted to force the cafeteria to stop serving bacon cheeseburgers.

Yes, and no one is forcing you to have any sort of gender reassignment treatment or to be transgender, nor is anyone forcing you to not be an ignorant or hateful, transphobic asshole. They are saying that you are factually incorrect, saying hateful things, and/or behaving in a hateful manner, that you should stop it, and that social consequences should be imposed on hateful words and behavior. (And yes, deadnaming and misgendering someone deliberately (outside of a biography or something) is hateful, much like telling a gay person and their spouse that they aren’t or should not be married is hateful.)

And no, them using a different restroom or locker room than you think they should is not forcing you to do anything or forcing you to stop doing anything. I fail to see any significant, material difference between this and the same-sex marriage thing in this regard.

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

You cavalierly dismiss the religious, social, and cultural taboos against mixing sexes in certain contexts. But you do not get to ride roughshod over those beliefs, no matter how much you want to. Instead, you should expect the pushback that you are seeing, because large numbers of women are going to object strenuously to allowing men into their single-sex spaces, no matter how much those men claim to be women, ad no mater how much woke gender ideologues think those objections should not exist.

There is no such thing as brain gender. That is pseudo-science made up by woke gender ideologues to support their false beliefs. Woke ideologues claim belief in science only when it supports the things they already believe, and otherwise fight it tooth-and-nail.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/17/magazine/antipsychotic-medications-mental-health.html

This long article in the New York Times Magazine is illustrative of just how little psychology and psychiatry understand human minds, normal or aberrant, and how little they are able to fix them. The notion that this same science has established anything about delusional people who think they are the wrong sex for their bodies is simply ludicrous wishful thinking.

JMT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

…because large numbers of women are going to object strenuously to allowing men into their single-sex spaces…

It’s not “large numbers”, it’s a small vocal minority of ignorant bigots. But why don’t you explain why women would object to sharing a bathroom with a transgender woman. Are you leaping to the grotesquely hateful assumption that transgender woman are really just sneaky rapey men? I hope you have better reason than that but I suspect not.

Cattress (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

Yeah I don’t get this either. Should I also be afraid of lesbians sharing the bathroom with me?
I mean, if I could be so picky about who I share a public restroom with, I mostly just want people who put their rear firmly on the seat instead of hovering and peeing/dripping on the seat. Men who lift and lower the seat after peeing is fine by me. And people who always flush, and don’t get water all over the counter when washing their hands.
For all the rapey men these paranoid people think are lurking everywhere, they are not very concerned about their little boys.

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

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

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10

Hiding the truth won’t make it go away. The Sumerians believed that a non-binary sex was created, but the tablet chronicling that legend was shattered and lost to time, because straight people were too scared that their narratives would be challenged.

The Greeks were an enlightened race who understood that you could be married to a woman and have a younger boy who you loved more on an intellectual level. The fact that such norms were destroyed ties in with why this world is presently so hateful – because straight people are in charge. It’s high time the pendulum swung the other way.

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

Transgender women are men, and there are religious, cultural, and social taboos against men being in women’s single-sex spaces. Those taboos include women not wanting to be seen naked by strange men or seeing strange men naked. The fact that a delusional man thinks he’s a woman does not give him permission to enter a women’s locker room where both of those things will happen.

The rapey men issue comes into play when these delusional men are also criminals and demand to be incarcerated in women’s prisons: https://nypost.com/2022/04/25/transgender-rikers-inmate-gets-7-years-for-raping-female-prisoner/

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

Men rape transwomen in men’s prisons far more frequently than transwomen rape women in women’s prisons. Indeed, as far as I can tell, the latter has only ever happened once, while the former is actually fairly common.

Additionally, you’re the one who brought up prisons here. Everyone else was only talking about restrooms and locker rooms, and any safety concerns regarding the rape of ciswomen there appear to be either vastly overblown or completely unrelated to whether or not transwomen are allowed in there. Whether or not some subjects in the debate may have some merit of being debated, we’re talking about a completely different subject of the debate, so don’t change the subject.

Also, again, they are not delusional, they are not men (though calling them male is fine), you shouldn’t be seeing anyone else naked or be seen naked by anyone else in such situations to begin with, you often can’t tell the difference anyways unless you’re doing something you shouldn’t, and that transwomen in men’s locker rooms often get raped there (far more often than women get raped by transwomen in women’s locker rooms, which seems to be virtually never) carries more weight than mere discomfort or social and cultural taboos.

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10

I did not bring up safety concerns in bathrooms or locker rooms at all. Religious, cultural, and social taboos are real, and no one is required to demonstrate fear as a reason to keep them. They exist, and delusional people don’t get to override them for the sake of their own delusions. In our society, it is recognized as legitimate for a woman to not want to be seen naked by strange men or to see strange man naked, not because she is afraid of the strange men, but simply because that is how she was raised. She is not required to accept that a delusional man is a woman no matter how much he insists that he is, and she is not required to raise any extra justification beyond the fact that this is a socially accepted taboo.

Woke gender ideologues are welcome to try to convince women to change their minds, of course.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11

Culture, society, and even religions change over time.
That something was or is taboo does not mean that it will continue to be taboo in the future.

You seem to oppose the idea that such things can change, though, as if a particular societal belief is immutable law. But if that’s the case, I must remind you that there were points in the past when Christianity was taboo and pederasty wasn’t.

Also, “that’s how they were raised” can be used to justify all sorts of terrible things. “That” may be how a person was raised, but that doesn’t make it right, nor does it excuse continued bad behavior.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

I did not bring up safety concerns in bathrooms or locker rooms at all.

I never claimed you did. Others have, but regardless, that is not germane to anything I said.

Religious, cultural, and social taboos are real, […]

In that people have them, yes.

[…] and no one is required to demonstrate fear as a reason to keep them.

If they are being used to justify ignoring actual fears or something or to enforce bigotry, then yes, they do need to offer more than just the existence of taboos. Again, taboos exist against same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, integrated public spaces and restrooms, crossdressing, and defying gender roles, and yet you have no problem ignoring those taboos.

They exist, and delusional people don’t get to override them for the sake of their own delusions.

Again, it’s not a delusion, and I already said that this isn’t just an issue of the fact that they wish to use the other restroom or locker room based solely on their gender identity. You should really stop repeating this since it makes it look like you aren’t even paying attention to what I say and just focus on your script.

In our society, it is recognized as legitimate for a woman to not want to be seen naked by strange men or to see strange man naked, not because she is afraid of the strange men, but simply because that is how she was raised.

No, it’s still primarily the safety thing that gets used to justify it, along with privacy (but, frankly, that’s an unconvincing argument given the fact that lesbians are still acceptable in the same situation), but more importantly, as I’ve already stated, you shouldn’t be seeing anyone naked or be seen naked by anyone in these spaces, period, so it’s a non-issue.

Additionally, if the reason for the man seeing the woman naked is because otherwise the man would likely be in genuine danger, the mere existence of the taboo against that is insufficient. The mere existence of a taboo is largely an “all else being equal” resolution of the issue when it comes to governing others’ behavior. If all else is not equal, then there generally needs to be something more to justify keeping it.

She is not required to accept that a delusional man is a woman no matter how much he insists that he is, and she is not required to raise any extra justification beyond the fact that this is a socially accepted taboo.

And since we’re not talking about a delusional man, this doesn’t apply, especially since there are actual safety concerns if the transwoman uses the men’s room. I also reject the contention that the taboo as you specify it is “socially acceptable” as opposed to other similar taboos that would not be violated.

Woke gender ideologues are welcome to try to convince women to change their minds, of course.

The irrational stubbornness of a small subset of women about tradition should not be used to justify endangering people, particularly where they would never even notice it and may never even have to deal with it themselves while others who do have to have no problems with it.

Look, you seem to claim that there are no circumstances under which social, cultural, or religious taboos should give way, but that’s simply not the case even based on your own positions on anything other than this single, specific issue.

So tell me, why do these specific taboos trump the safety of others, especially where the violation of these taboos can be done without being discovered and without ill intent?

For that matter, why do some people’s taboos trump others’ taboos? See, you keep talking about taboos regarding same-sex spaces regarding bodies (so only males in the men’s room and only females in the women’s room), but others have taboos that conflict with them (e.g. only men (both cismen and transmen) in the men’s room and only women (both ciswomen and transwomen) in the women’s room). If one choice violates one taboo but the other choice violates another taboo, clearly the mere existence of the first taboo is not enough to resolve the issue. (There are also more limited taboos which only say that cismen shouldn’t be in the women’s room and ciswomen shouldn’t be in the men’s room.)

Oh, and one last thing: There is an exception to those taboos when it comes to parents taking a minor of the opposite sex to the restroom. This is more evidence that we make exceptions to taboos under certain circumstances. We do the same thing regarding taboos against public nudity for breastfeeding in public. It’s not like those taboos simply went away; there are still plenty of people who object to these exceptions. However, again, the mere existence of taboos doesn’t trump everything else.

Cattress (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

I’m a cis woman. Discomfort (insert any more appropriately descriptive word such as embarrassment, shame, fear, unexpected arousal for discomfort) in seeing another person naked, or them me, has nothing to do with the sex, sexual orientation or gender expression of the other person. It’s all about context. Where and what circumstances did this likely unintended incident occur. Nobody, at least in the women’s bathroom, is getting naked, and all nudity associated with using the toilet occurs behind stall doors. In most all locker room/shower set ups, very, very few women get openly and freely undressed- maybe it’s modesty, but I’m betting on it’s our own self consciousness & shame about our body’s appearance; and there is general expectation and applied practice of looking at the floor. Of course I don’t think anyone should feel ashamed of their body, but it is what it is. I can only imagine that trans women have the same body hang ups, if not more so, and they patiently wait for a curtained changing area to open up while staring at the floor like the rest of us. It never looks like the opening to the movie Carrie, that’s a ridiculous fantasy from a fictional story.

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12

In men’s locker rooms I have been in, there are plenty of men who walk around naked without covering anything. I have done that myself. I have no idea what goes on in women’s locker rooms.

The recent French pro-abortion movie, Happening, had the same sort of locker/shower room scenes as in Carrie, with women walking around nude and talking with each other, and no one covering up. Perhaps you’re right that it doesn’t happen in real life, but these movies illustrate a social assumption that it does.

We certainly know, from the #MeToo movement and plenty of other examples, that there are men who get sexual thrills from exposing their genitalia to women who don’t want to see them, and men who get sexual thrills from seeing women naked who don’t want to be seen by them. Women should not be required to interrogate men who come into their locker rooms to determine their reasons for being there; those men should simply not be allowed in unless the women already there have consented to it.

Cattress (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13

Nudity in most of Western Europe is not taboo the way that it is in the US. They have healthier attitudes and social norms around sex and nudity than the regressive US. So the movie you are talking about might be an accurate depiction of the French, but not the US. It would be interesting to know how the issue is being approached where nudity and sexuality are more socially acceptable.
Yes, I’ve heard about the men’s locker rooms being a comfort zone for nudity. I would still speculate that trans men are more likely to maintain some privacy to avoid potentially dangerous interaction, and may not have fully shed the “modesty” drilled into him as a female child.
That said, you are drawing an unfounded connection between trans women and sexual deviancy. Do you think trans women are sending unsolicited dick pics of the very genitalia that they feel betrays their true self? Does a trans woman present a statistical probability greater than cis woman to be a voyeur or sexual predator? Does the danger, in your opinion, lessen with those on hormone therapy, or bottom surgery? Where is this presumption of danger, or at minimum, the likelihood of inappropriate/offensive behavior come from? As a cis woman, I don’t see the risk to myself or my daughter increased by trans women sharing these otherwise segregated spaces, and I am way more over protective of my daughter than I’d like to admit.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13

The solution to thrill issues is more naked more often.
Trasgredire open with much my premise.
When a flasher pulls it out, the lead hikes up her skirt and shows her, um.
The reason flashers are a thing is there are prudes. Stop reacting!

So what if someone is naked. We’re creating this society of perverts by being so secretive!
Btw, if parts bother you you have serious issues. Stop hiding them and go to a dr to get some help.

Cattress (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14

I hate to go to the ‘but the children’ trope, but I think it’s less cut and dry than you’re making it.
When I was 13, I was babysitting my 7 yr old neighbor girl, and we were down at the creek, where we had spent countless hours as one of the last generations that really played outside, when some dude walked out of the bushes wearing nothing but a baseball hat and high top sneakers. He was probably in his mid twenties. We were on a sandbar (rocks actually, that were always accessible unless of flood conditions) and could not easily cross to the other side of the woods because the water was a few feet deep and home to lampreys and snapping turtles, and he was essentially blocking the exit back onto the path into the woods. I don’t remember feeling scared exactly, more shocked and a bit panicked that I didn’t have a sufficient way to protect the little girl, my friend. This was in 94, the video for Soul Asylum Run Away Train haunted me and crime was high. Fortunately this dude probably did only want to shock us, and after I finally found my voice to tell my little friend that it was time for us to leave, he wondered away from the path’s entrance. Neither of us was particularly innocent to the sight of a penis, and perhaps that’s why neither of us was scarred for life, but it was still shocking. And I don’t think that sort of situation, or anyone in situation where they are generally secluded from other people, that it would be a good idea to flash beaver or do anything aggressive or provocative.
In general though, I agree we are too uptight over sex & nudity. That doesn’t mean I know exactly how to instill healthier values and attitudes with my daughter, but I have read a little about different European approaches. She’s still little and a somewhat delayed, so ownership over her own body is all I’m worried about for now.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15

Generally, I believe there’s some middle somewhere.

The majority of my friends are female. And the majority of them would do just that: Flash back. [I know, none of us are normal]

Personally, I’d whip out my phone and take pics to post on the web. Little worm tried to frighten me.

There’s a difference Between flashers and Exhibitionists.
Flashers seek dominance by discomfort. The majority are prone to inaction.
Returning the assault, of sorts, turns them into cowering globs of man-goo.

People freak over dick picks. WHY!
The fastest way to do major damage is to reply
Here’s three favs from my friends.

You call that a dick?
If that’s as big as it gets you need to see a dr
There’s a hole in your pinky.

As a pan male I’m more aggressive. ‘Your place or mine’.
I’ve never got a reply.

Here’s an Jones question though: why do I never got air drop kitty pics. Only worms!
Seriously!

Cattress (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16

I think women flashing or kitty pics are just more difficult in a practical sense. If I pull my pants down, all that’s visible is bush (I prune what’s needed to wear a swimsuit, but I gave up all that hair removal business in my 20s when I discovered it did nothing to enhance my pleasure, quite the opposite). I’d have to get my pants off and contort myself to kinda show actual muff. And snapping a snapper selfie, in addition to the contortion, you gotta worry about getting some decent lighting to see the bits; you need a selfie stick or stand with remote to actually take the picture, which is going to be tough to see while also spreading and bending while staying in the good light. And while there is great, beautiful variation across the female anatomy, I just don’t think it presents the same “personality” as the uh, worm. Maybe it’s the ability of independent movement that gives a sense of liveliness to men parts, but women’s parts, again still beautiful, look more like a pile of drapes. Not bad, just different.
I guess mooning is a practical option, but it just doesn’t feel right for that situation. Mooning is more for offending the uptight, and comical purposes.
I don’t really need to complicate the already complex relationship I (and likewise many other women) have with my breasts by adding a new dimension of flashing a stranger. Me and the girls have been through a lot together, some douchebag trying to upset me doesn’t deserve a lookie-loo.
I’m not sure that mocking a flasher is guaranteed to end with the flasher retreating. They have already demonstrated they are deranged by flashing, a violent outburst isn’t beyond the pale. For anyone who isn’t trained or experienced in self defense, like me, is best to give minimal reaction and get away. I have put myself at risk a number of times shooting my mouth off and I don’t think I should push my luck.
I have received a few unsolicited dick pics and my reaction has been immediately cutting communication. I’m no prude, and that is aggressive and presumptive in all the wrong ways.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:17

Granted and accepted understanding.
I forget at times most women don’t go through the learning process of personal defence. Unfortunate. Though it’s becoming a standard aspect of HS education now. Most of the youngins my friends have (girls) will easily kick the crap out of the average grown man. Most I trained, at least initially.
Shins, balls, chin, balls, heart
Kick grab punch kick punch.

i suggest you look that up and teach your daughter.
It’s a combo that will take down nearly all men. Replace balls with an aimed targeting of clit and you take down aggressive women too!
I’ve been mugged twice. Both times I was the one the cops held.
One friend’s then-17yo daughter spent a weekend in jail for putting some drunk redneck in the hospital before the charges were dropped it’s a sound method of attack that works.
(He’s still in jail serving 7yrs for sexual assault and corruption of a minor).

I grant you not all flashers will back down. But I’d posit the majority will. The very act of offence based flashing is in the ‘threat’ and offensiveness.
Those that don’t? Kick their arse!
Seriously, this country needs to start toughening up the female population!

Seriously: the greatest warriors throughout history were all women. The Valkyrie, the Amazons, the Whores, the Vickans, the Wraith.
What the fuck happened?

Ps: pics. Guess that makes sense. You can’t exactly ‘whip it out’ can you?’ I find worm pics more annoying or funny than disturbing. Along with my your place or mine, I also use “wow, you should see a dr about that” and “does that hurt?”

And
Good on you for not shaving. A generally a worthless pointless practice that reduces satisfaction for both partners. Regardless of gender.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13

In men’s locker rooms I have been in, there are plenty of men who walk around naked without covering anything. I have done that myself.

In men’s locker rooms I have been in, that is very much not the case. In my personal experience, you don’t look at other people while they’re naked in locker rooms, and you spend as little time naked in there as possible. In fact, most of the time, you at least keep your underwear on, so you’re still at least partly dressed.

I have no idea what goes on in women’s locker rooms.

And yet you argue based on your assumption that people see each other nude in there.

The recent French pro-abortion movie, Happening, had the same sort of locker/shower room scenes as in Carrie, with women walking around nude and talking with each other, and no one covering up. Perhaps you’re right that it doesn’t happen in real life, but these movies illustrate a social assumption that it does.

In France, sure, but not in the US, which is what we’re talking about here.

We certainly know, from the #MeToo movement and plenty of other examples, that there are men who get sexual thrills from exposing their genitalia to women who don’t want to see them, and men who get sexual thrills from seeing women naked who don’t want to be seen by them.

None of whom were trans, or in women’s restrooms, or in women’s locker rooms, so it’s irrelevant.

Women should not be required to interrogate men who come into their locker rooms to determine their reasons for being there;

I agree. Unless they have reason to believe that they are male and not accompanying a female child, the women should just mind their own business. No interrogation necessary.

those men should simply not be allowed in unless the women already there have consented to it.

Again, how would you enforce this? While not all transwomen pass as female and not all transmen pass as male, many of them do so at least as well as most ciswomen/men, and some ciswomen look indistinguishable from a cisman (and vice versa). How would you even know?

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14

In fact, most of the time, you at least keep your underwear on, so you’re still at least partly dressed.

I’ll interject here. Obviously there’s a location dislocation. It’s not all day naked sway but … your premise of it ( unity) being minimal is definitely not the norm I’ve come across.

In fact I can count the number of locations where steam, sauna, ext didn’t specifically state to please “sit ON your towel”. (Emphasis mine).
Some will wrap the towel over. Most don’t.

Here I believe your idea of prevalence is wrong… and his concern is unwarranted.

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

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

Since we’re talking about transwomen specifically and not all males, and transwomen in general are statistically far less likely to commit rape at all than cismen (in prison or otherwise), there is no need to go so far as to say that there should be no sex-specific prisons. That you can stretch the argument beyond its terms to make it into a less sensible argument doesn’t refute the argument that was actually being made.

Seriously, if you keep attacking strawmen like this, you’re probably gonna run out of straw pretty soon.

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12

The MCAS system of the Boeing 737-MAX was responsible for only two crashes out of hundreds of thousands of flights. Surely no one should worry about such a low percentage problem?

Sorry, but human nature is such that even a single rape incident resulting from woke gender ideologues having forced the state to lock women prisoners up with men prisoners is going to result in a great deal of negativity, especially when correctly publicized by opponents of woke gender ideology.

The reason is simple – don’t lock in women prisoners with men prisoners, and you will have zero rapes of women prisoners by men prisoners. It is then straightforward to point out that woke gender ideologues don’t care about real women, but just want to force their beliefs on people who don’t share them, no matter who might get hurt in the process.

Sure, that’s tendentious, but the point is to win the culture war, not to be nice about it.

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

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14

Rowling’s name is all over the most recent Potterverse movie as writer and executive producer. We have an elaborate Harry Potter sure here in New York City. The first six books on Amazon’s “most read” list this week are all Harry Potter books: https://www.amazon.com/charts/2022-05-22/mostread/fiction/

Woke gender ideologues have utterly failed to cancel Rowling. I think woke ideologues use her as an example of cancel culture not existing, seeking to have people forget that it’s not for lack of their efforts.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:15

Give it time. Who do you think readers on this site would rather defend – an anal vore Rule 34 artist, or a transphobic freak of nature like you? We didn’t “cancel” J.K. Rowling. We made her see the consequences of her hateful beliefs. You might argue that is a distinction without a difference. Tough.

Cattress (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13

Plane crashes are not analogous of this situation.
Frankly, the idea of bringing up a subject like prison rape and focusing on that one time it was supposedly committed by a trans woman, when the only predators in women’s and a statistically notable amount in men’s prisons are fucking employed by the institution, and paid with our tax dollars, is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard and makes it impossible to take you seriously.
Don’t pretend that you give a fuck about women and then point to an imaginary boogie man when a real pack of wolves is attacking in plain sight.
You are the gender ideologue, not me. You are the one demanding that sex specific segregation be strictly adhered to for no reason other than tradition, and regardless of how it harms already marginalized people. You want to go around and attack the dignity of people who have zero impact on your life or that of your loved ones, and to do so with impunity. You are the one refusing to believe any research that doesn’t comport with your opinion, and declaring with zero evidence that essentially the only reason you don’t have evidence to support your view is that it’s being suppressed; that all of the scientific and medical community are completely unethical and/or compromised by Democrats (and shit, Soros is really to blame amiright?
You still can’t explain what society stands to gain by rescinding acceptance of trans people denying their dignity by imposing your gender ideology on them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:16

It sounds like you’re worried, boomer. Unfortunately for you, nobody believes the alt-left exists. Everyone here knows that the alt-left is a bogeyman invented by Trump voters to stir a moral panic. No more. The tyranny you straight breeders inflicted on us will come to an end. Sooner, rather than later.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:17

Use whatever term you want. People who demand immediate change and the process, results, and consequences be damned.
Most of us are a far more logical.
Because “alternative” was used by many progressives since the mid-2000s to self identify.
Since progressives are an alternative to the Democrat proper, and they are “further left” then that… alternative left is quite accurate.

What the hell is a straight breaded? If you mean heterosexual your so far off the mark it’s past funny. You’re just a projecting fool.

I don’t even know who your are! What tyranny have I inflicted on you?
Be specific now.

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14

You are correct that I disbelieve that science has proven the claims of woke gender ideology. If I live long enough and the science stands the test of time, I’ll change my mind then.

For now, I believe that woke gender ideology is false, and therefore no amount of dignity or harm reduction or anything like that is going to get me to affirm those beliefs. I expect trans people and woke gender ideologues to live their lives unconcerned with what I think of them, as they should.

As for single-sex taboos, it is not that I particularly care about them, or about women. It is merely that people who hold a false and delusional ideology do not get to impose their beliefs on people who don’t share them. That’s what living in a free society means. You get to be crazy in your own way, but you can’t push your crazy on other people. They’ve got their own crazy to deal with

Cattress (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15

Rather revealing. You do realize that you are just recycling homophobic talking points against the “gay agenda” and applying them to the trans community, while adding a dose of ableism and science denial?
The whole ‘we don’t care what they do behind closed doors so long as we don’t have to see it’, or ‘gross, I don’t want to see them holding hands or kissing in public! (clutching pearls) how do I explain that to my children?!!’, the don’t ask don’t tell policy. Ridiculous fears that some how kids could be turned gay by teachers, scout leaders, gay or politically correct liberal parents. Fears that the gay community is predisposed or even a cover for pedophilia. Or gays will sexually harass straight people and try to spy on them in the bathroom. Do you see the correlation here?
Homosexuality was a certified mental illness with a long record of inhumane and damaging “treatments”, which were also used on people who openly admitted to being trans as well as anyone who did not comport with society’s gender rules (like effeminate men and women who wore pants). Frankly, science and medicine comported with your gender ideology for far too long and was not just an abysmal failure, but atrocious and antithetical to the Hippocratic Oath. While gender dysphoria is still a diagnosis, it doesn’t necessarily apply to all Trans people, and the current treatment is something they choose to undertake at the pace and to the degree that they choose, informed and guided by the latest research and professionals from different medical disciplines. People are getting ethical care, with their dignity in tact, and overall gaining better mental health.
You complain about the “craziness” being imposed on others, in this free society. Ever consider it’s your incredibly narrow ideas of “normal”, dictated by people whose entire goal has been to control society in order to preserve their own power, that’s being imposed on us “crazies”? That would be the historically accurate account of society. Accusations of mental illness and moral turpitude have been the go to strategy every time a minority or misunderstood group challenges the social power structure. Of course, you don’t care about women, so you probably are totally ignorant to the history I’m talking about, but it encompasses many issues of today including abortion.i don’t remember if you mentioned Buck V Bell or someone else did, but it’s a perfect example of powerful people inflicting their idea of normal & morally superior ideas on women who came from certain backgrounds such as poverty or Catholicism, or suffered from a medical condition like depression or epilepsy, who were poc or consorted with poc voluntarily, who were or perceived if easy virtue, who drank and danced, were unmarried or with no family, or just pissed off a man with power.
It’s not that your personal opinion matters on an individual basis, it’s that you favor politicians who think likewise and can use the power of government to hurt and suppress the disfavored groups. Even if you aren’t a voter, by signaling that certain people are getting something they don’t deserve or at the your and the people like you, personal expense, or that they pose a threat to the safety of women and children, a threat to the moral fabric of the nation, that they are criminal or deranged, you create and support hostility which is conducive to violence. You signal that violence against the disfavored group is deserved, will go unpunished, or even a moral, sanctioned act in the eyes of God.(you needn’t believe in any god for others assume you are aligned spiritually. None of the hate is sanctioned by God, people just manipulate scripture to justify bad things to control the masses).
And with no sarcasm, I hope you never become gravely ill. Because if you think medicine and science are so morally bankrupt that they intentionally inflict harm and reject evidence in favor of ideology that is the complete opposite of the past, then I can’t imagine how you could possibly feel safe getting care, or confident it would work. To believe that politics have corrupted science to thoroughly would mean that you might be targeted not to survive, or that studies showing effectiveness of a drug or procedure are at minimum faulty. Perhaps there is more radical environmentalist using the woke agenda and undermining proper sanitation, like single-use disposable items. There is quite a rabbit hole of possibilities if you buy one conspiracy theory that you might as well consider.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15

You are correct that I disbelieve that science has proven the claims of woke gender ideology. If I live long enough and the science stands the test of time, I’ll change my mind then.

For now, I believe that woke gender ideology is false, and therefore no amount of dignity or harm reduction or anything like that is going to get me to affirm those beliefs. I expect trans people and woke gender ideologues to live their lives unconcerned with what I think of them, as they should.

As Cattress pointed out, this is more-or-less identical to what people have said about the so-called gay agenda.

Also, incidentally, the science on transgender people has been around for quite some time; I learned about it before I was in high school (though I don’t recall exactly when I learned about it). It appears to me that you’re only denying the science because you don’t like what it says.

As for single-sex taboos, it is not that I particularly care about them, or about women.

You know, you keep saying you’re not a bigot or an asshole, but you are really bad at not sounding like one.

That said, I should probably be surprised by you saying you don’t really care about single-sex taboos, but I’m not. You’ve already demonstrated that you don’t really understand them or that they are not the same amongst all who have such taboos.

It is merely that people who hold a false and delusional ideology do not get to impose their beliefs on people who don’t share them.

Since you have failed to demonstrate that these are people who are delusional or have false beliefs, and that they are trying to impose their beliefs on others, this is simply an unsupported assertion on your part.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15 It’s not about science

It’s about language.

You are correct that I disbelieve that science has proven the claims of woke gender ideology.

You simply misunderstand the current use of the term “gender”
It’s your choice of the older definition that is putting you at odds.
You would at least have less places to be attacked if you discussed people with or whiteout penises and vaginas. Rather than “gender”.

Those that seek to push gender identity over the social norms of gender=sex are never going to consider anything as valuable input if you flippantly refuse to even recognise their choice of definition.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16

That does seem to be a major sticking point for him. He keeps saying that trans people claim that they can change from men to women (or vice versa), or that gender or sex can be changed, but that’s just not the case. They just don’t define gender the way he does, and he refuses to acknowledge that anyone could possibly use any definitions other than his, so he argues against a strawman instead.

There is also scientific backing for this, but really, you shouldn’t need that to at least understand that the issue is one of definitions, not delusions.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:17

We are what we are based on what we say and what we feel. We are non-binary and genderfluid and everything in between that doesn’t fit the warped pigeonholed view of straight people trying to run the world into the ground, like they always do. Anyone who disagrees is a bigot just like that freak of nature Hyman Rosen.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:17

The fact is gender has always been, no pun intended here, fluid in science. Reptiles and amphibians both can change sex randomly.
Effeminacy is common in felines. Especially in larger consistent groupings.
Gay, both male and female, sexual activity is normal for many species primates. And some species of Canis.

Gay male sexual activity is common in water birds. Especially in juveniles and adults after mates nest.

That the multi-definition term gender has long been used for “sex” specifically… doesn’t make the other definition, now used by many, and less accurate.
Some people get hung up in lack of understanding.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13

The MCAS system of the Boeing 737-MAX was responsible for only two crashes out of hundreds of thousands of flights. Surely no one should worry about such a low percentage problem?

Given that a single crash generally has dozens of victims or more while a single rape generally only has one victim, and given that there are more flights generally than there are prisoners who are transwomen generally, the scales are completely different in every conceivable way.

Also, I was comparing two percentages, not simply citing a single one and calling it low.

Sorry, but human nature is such that even a single rape incident resulting from woke gender ideologues having forced the state to lock women prisoners up with men prisoners is going to result in a great deal of negativity, especially when correctly publicized by opponents of woke gender ideology.

Sorry, but just because something gets a negative reception doesn’t mean it’s still reasonable to fear it happening again when all things are considered. Frankly, the fact that such a story would get broadly negative reception but that this does not happen when men rape other men is itself a problem.

You can talk all you like about human nature, but it is also human nature to be irrationally wrong and/or paranoid about certain things. That doesn’t mean that their concerns should outweigh the actual data.

The reason is simple – don’t lock in women prisoners with men prisoners, and you will have zero rapes of women prisoners by men prisoners.

And yet the number of rapes of prisoners by other prisoners will not decrease. Male prisoners will rape male prisoners, and female prisoners will rape female prisoners.

See, my problem with this is that it solves the wrong problem. You want to reduce rape of female prisoners by male prisoners. I want to reduce rape in prisons entirely.

It is then straightforward to point out that woke gender ideologues don’t care about real women, but just want to force their beliefs on people who don’t share them, no matter who might get hurt in the process.

It is then straightforward to point out that you haven’t actually solved the problem but simply moved it elsewhere, so people like you don’t care about prisoners.

It is also straightforward to point out that ciswomen get raped by ciswomen in prison and transwomen get raped by ICS men in prison more often than ciswomen get raped by transwomen at all, so your argument is invalid.

Sure, that’s tendentious, but the point is to win the culture war, not to be nice about it.

That you care more about “winning” than you do about actually being right or actually solving real problems says a lot about you, none of it good.

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

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

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

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14

“Anyone who is not with us is against us”, huh? Sorry, but no, it is not at all the same thing to be a transphobe who approves of murdering transgender people as it is to be a transphobe who doesn’t support (or even actively denounces) murdering transgender people. Hymen is clearly in the latter camp.

Again, stop making me support Hymen.

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

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:15

Calling our beliefs a delusion puts them in the same camp. They simply do not believe our concerns are legitimate.

You choosing to defend him is disappointing, but going by your post history, I believe you will not be swayed by him for long. The shifts in narrative will favor us eventually. It is a good thing that calling someone a bigot actually has some teeth these days.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16

For the record, I am only saying that actively supporting murdering someone is not the same as disregarding the concerns by that person that they might be murdered. As far as defenses go, it is an incredibly weak one, but it is also important.