bhull242 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (6617)

• On the post: Hey Elon: Let Me Help You Speed Run The Content Moderation Learning Curve

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2022 @ 01:16pm

  Many people have religious, social, and cultural taboos against mixing sexes in certain contexts.

  I have yet to see how that is sufficient to trump the legitimate health and safety issues encountered by trans people.

  The fact that some people falsely believe that one sex can be turned into the other […]

  As far as I can tell, literally no one (transgender or otherwise) believes or claims that (at least not with our current technology). I (along with others here) have told you that that is a strawman numerous times, and yet you still repeat it. You don’t even bother to try to refute our arguments that you’re attacking a belief no one actually holds or claims to have; you just keep attacking that same strawman over and over again and claim (without evidence) that that is a belief held by transgender people. It is not.

  […] does not obligate the people with the taboos to accept people into single-sex spaces for which their bodies disqualify them.

  The fact that some people are bigots does not obligate others to conform to their bigoted “taboos”, particularly where so conforming would increase the risk to their health and safety and the taboos do nothing to reduce any such risk, which is the case here.

  In particular, many women do not want men in their prisons, locker rooms, or sports teams, and do not want men in positions of power in their feminist organizations.

  The issues with sports teams and feminist organizations have nothing to do with any “taboos” like you spoke of. The former has more to do with the potentially legitimate question of fairness, and the latter is just bigotry, not taboos, at work. With locker rooms, the arguments I’ve heard there that have even the slightest bit of merit—at least without doing research—are based on privacy (based an actual taboo some people have, but one easily remedied and still not sufficient to overcome the health & safety issues from the alternative), safety (which are greatly overblown and still less statistically significant that the safety risks of the alternative), and fairness (which is just the same as the sports teams, except that locker rooms are used for more than organized sports like that, so this isn’t a real issue). Frankly, if you’re in a position such that if you are trans, you would be doing something problematic, your sex/gender is pretty much irrelevant, and you likely shouldn’t be doing that anyways. As for prisons, I frankly don’t know enough about the statistics to make a decision on that, but to the extent it’s an issue, it isn’t really about taboos but about safety. And on that front, there appears to have been only a single isolated incident where a trans person sexually harassed/assaulted a cis person (or at least attempted to do so) in a prison, which is a lot lower as a percentage than cis men raping cis men, cis women raping cis women, or cis people raping trans people, so even there, I suspect that the fears are being blown out of proportion and not sufficient reason for trans women not to be put in women-only prisons. However, I’ll admit I don’t have enough information on the matter to make that call.

  The people with false beliefs about gender […]

  You have yet to cite any beliefs about held by actual transgender people or pro-trans activists that are actually false. By contrast, you have said many things that reflect false beliefs about gender that you have. Given that, are you talking about people like you?

  […] can attempt to convince others to treat them as if they were the gender they wish to be, […]

  It’s the gender they identify as, not the gender they wish to be. I know you use gender and sex as though they are identical in meaning, but trans people (and most experts in the field) don’t, and we’re talking about their beliefs and feelings, not yours. While some transgender people wish to change their sex to match their gender identity (while recognizing that that is currently impossible), that is a separate issue and not a universal desire among transgender people.

  […] but attempts to compel that behavior will fail, […]

  The same goes for attempts to compel respectful behavior from any bigot. Why should transphobes get a pass?

  […] as will attempts to teach those false beliefs in public schools against the wishes of parents.

  1. Again, you have not demonstrated that any of the beliefs you object to are both false and held by actual transgender people and/or pro-trans activists.
  2. You also have not demonstrated any schools that attempt to teach any of the beliefs you have objected to, or even the beliefs actually held by transgender people and/or pro-trans activists. The best you presented was a change so that textbooks said “penis” instead of “man’s penis” or something like that, but given that intersex people exist, such changes to the text are simply reflecting reality (which is that not only men have penises and not only women lack penises) and don’t really have much (if anything) to do with transgender people to begin with; it’s also completely benign and minor regardless of your position on transgender people (unless you have a persecution complex or something). Not going out of your way to specify the gender of the person with the specific genitalia is not teaching the belief that sex can change, gender can change, or that sex and gender are different. It also doesn’t really contradict with any of the beliefs you have presented on the issue.
  3. As implied by (if not outright stated by) the above, you have not demonstrated anything actually being taught in public schools that is false or that is both conforming to transgender beliefs and against the will of the parents, let alone that is false, conforming to transgender beliefs, and being taught against the wishes of the parents, which is what you claim. You offer no examples, citations, or statistics to support such a claim (again, the only attempt you’ve made on this front simply doesn’t support your claim).

  Seriously, we’ve already been over this.

• On the post: Bullshit Reporting: The Intercept’s Story About Government Policing Disinfo Is Absolute Garbage

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2022 @ 12:23pm

  I’d just like to protest the implication that “autistic” is insulting, though I do understand that (unfortunately) many of these people seem to use it that way.

• On the post: Bullshit Reporting: The Intercept’s Story About Government Policing Disinfo Is Absolute Garbage

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2022 @ 12:22pm

  The Intercept article must be directly over the target to get a three-times-longer-than-normal screed trying to discredit it.

  First, if something’s over the target, that means it missed. Perhaps you meant “on target”? Second, a good refutation to a claim is often much longer than the claim itself. It generally takes much less time and space to make a ridiculous claim than it takes to refute it, and making multiple ridiculous claims doesn’t take much more effort than making just one but often does require exponentially more effort to refute. Ever heard of a Gish Gallop?

• On the post: As Musk Speedruns The Content Moderation Curve, Some Of His Biggest Fans Are Getting Mad At Him

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2022 @ 12:11pm

  I imagine those viewpoints are among the ones being censored, yes.

  So bigotry and medical disinformation? That only shows that you don’t have any idea what reasonable moderation is.

  Freedom of speech includes the freedom to express the most vile opinions without being silenced. Recall the ACLU defending the right of Nazis to march through a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie where Jewish Holocaust survivors lived.

  ”Silenced” in that context means being killed or otherwise physically harmed, being threatened with violence, being sued or threatened with suit, otherwise having the law used to coerce a third-party to no longer host you and/or your speech, or being penalized by the government or another state actor for your protected speech. It does not include a private entity not acting as a state actor choosing not to host or listen to/read you and/or your speech (outside of very limited circumstances involving public utilities, of which social media is not one) or from inflicting other consequences that don’t involve violence, threats of violence, legal action, or legal threats on the basis of your speech. The ACLU does not stand for the right for, say, Neo-Nazis to force Facebook or a Jewish forum to host their antisemitic speech. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of their mission and what they were fighting to protect in that lawsuit. That was about speech made on public property.

  Non-governmental platforms are allowed to both moderate and censor. But in a society that regards freedom of speech as a foundational value, large generic speech platforms should not censor opinions based on viewpoint.

  You have yet to offer justification as to why they shouldn’t.

  I no more hate trans people than I hate religious people.

  I’ve seen you complain about trans people a lot more than you do religious people, and, frankly, I’m not entirely convinced you don’t hate religious people.

  Both believe false things about themselves and the universe.

  You still have failed to offer any evidence that any claims actually made by transgender people (or any beliefs they actually have) are actually false. (You also haven’t demonstrated that for religious people, but I’ll let that one slide for a number of reasons.)

  They are, and should be, allowed to do so, but they should not be allowed to force anyone else to affirm those beliefs or to act as if those beliefs are true.

  No one is trying to force anyone else to affirm the beliefs you attribute to trans people that you believe are false. However, not talking about it any chance you get, not calling them delusional or mentally ill, not deliberately misgendering them (you can just use “they”), not making false claims about what they believe, and letting them use public restrooms when you can’t even tell the difference is not affirming anything. It’s being polite and not being a bigot or an asshole.

  Men cannot ever be women.

  No one says otherwise, at least not with current technology. That you don’t agree with how they define “man” and “woman” as distinct from their sex is irrelevant. The point is that the claims they make do not contradict this statement.

  Men who think they are women are allowed to ask others to be treated as if they are women, but they should not be able to force others to treat them as women, just as Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and vegans can choose not to eat bacon cheeseburgers but cannot force cafeterias to stop serving them.

  Those two things are incomparable. The first is asking for others to treat them as they identify (respecting their beliefs); the other is forcing others to be treated as though they are part of the same group that doesn’t want something for religious reasons. The latter is more like if transgender people insisted on cis men to be treated as women and cis women to be treated as men. Imagine someone serving bacon to Jews, Muslims, or vegans or beef to Hindus or vegans (to my knowledge, Hindus have no objections to eating bacon; it’s only cows they object to) even after being told of their dietary restrictions and that they won’t eat bacon/beef. This is roughly analogous to misgendering trans people. You don’t have to agree with their beliefs, but not respecting their beliefs at all is being disrespectful. You could simply be neutral (use “they” and “person” instead of “he”/“she” and “man”/“woman” if it bothers you that much).

  They can ask the cafeteria to provide alternatives, and it’s up to the cafeteria whether it will oblige.

  The difference being that sometimes a cafeteria is unable to oblige without substantial changes to their menus, ingredients, or preparation methods that they may decide is too costly to be worth it. I fail to see how not misgendering someone is anything like that. It is not impractical or costly to avoid using the pronouns that the other person disfavors. Another difference is that, should the cafeteria choose not to oblige, the result is the customer not getting any food rather than forcing them to eat the bacon/beef anyways (basically, choosing to take inaction and not offending them in the process). By contrast, a person not obliging transgender people is taking an affirmative action to go against their wishes rather than simply not doing anything.

  I like being civil, especially in the face of spittle-flecked, invective-laced screeds from those who cannot tolerate having their beliefs contradicted.

  Calling someone “mentally ill” against the scientific consensus and/or calling them delusional is not being “civil”. Nor is attributing false beliefs/claims to them even after being corrected over and over again. Nor is going after them in discussions that have nothing at all to do with what you’re “contradicting”. I seriously don’t think you know what being “civil” means. At any rate, a civil bigoted asshole is still a bigot and an asshole regardless of how “civil” they may (try to) be about it.

• On the post: As Musk Speedruns The Content Moderation Curve, Some Of His Biggest Fans Are Getting Mad At Him

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2022 @ 11:21am

  The larger generic sites currently moderate much more against conservative opinions than liberal.

  First, [citation needed] Second, even if people expressing conservative opinions are moderated against more often, that could just be because more of those people are likely to break the rules on those sites and not because there is some sort of viewpoint or political bias.

  Trans people are mentally ill.

  False. While many are mentally ill (mainly those with gender dysphoria or depression), trans people as a whole are not mentally ill.

  It is not harassment to say that in a discussion about gender ideology, any more than it’s harassment to say that gods do not exist in a discussion about religion.

  1. The gender ideology you oppose doesn’t appear to actually exist outside of your mind based on your description.
  2. You have frequently made that claim and similar claims in discussions that had nothing to do with transgender people or “gender ideology”, so that is not a defense you can use.
  3. It’s just as much harassment to say that all trans people are mentally ill as it is to say that all religious people or all homosexuals are mentally ill, which it definitely is.
  4. Repeatedly saying that after being asked repeatedly to stop, especially in discussions that were only ever about gender identity, trans people, or so-called “gender ideology”, is definitely harassment no matter how you look at it. The same goes for repeatedly saying “gods don’t exist” after pretty much everyone else has repeatedly asked you to stop and in discussions that did not previously involve god(s) or religion at all, even though saying “gods don’t exist” wouldn’t normally be considered harassment in most contexts. (It would also be harassment if you entered a church during service and repeatedly say “gods don’t exist” even after being asked to leave or quiet down.)

  In contexts where a person’s sex doesn’t matter and gender ideology isn’t being discussed, it would be harassment to bug them about being trans, and I don’t do that.

  Yes, you absolutely do do that. You are almost always the first one in a discussion to bring up transgender people and “gender ideology”, and in those contexts, a person’s sex didn’t matter. Your lack of self-awareness is incredible.

  Note that the Babylon Bee awarding a Man of the Year award to Dr. Rachel Levine is also not an instance of harassment. It is a satirical attack on the entirety of gender ideology.

  Being a satirical attack doesn’t make it not harassment (there is no exception to harassment for satire), and that case falls afoul of your own rules that you literally just described, namely that it was not in a discussion that previously involved “gender ideology” and the person’s sex didn’t matter until the Babylon Bee unilaterally decided that it did. Moreover, the main complaint was that it was bigotry, not that it was harassment.

• On the post: As Musk Speedruns The Content Moderation Curve, Some Of His Biggest Fans Are Getting Mad At Him

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2022 @ 10:57am

  Gender dysphoria is […] a mental condition where the holder either profoundly wishes or else believes that they are not the sex of their body.

  That’s not what gender dysphoria is. Gender dysphoria is the condition of having severe negative feelings when identified with or made to conform to a gender they do not identify as but that corresponds with their sex-as-identified/assigned-at-birth as well as severe discomfort with the physiological traits of their sex to the point where it is mentally and emotionally hazardous for the patient. It is not a belief that their sex is not what their body says it is, as that is a completely different and unrelated condition, and merely wishing to be a different sex is insufficient as well. There is also a separate condition called gender euphoria, where the person doesn’t feel the negative aspects like someone with gender dysphoria but does experience positive feelings from a) being identified/treated according to their gender identity that differs from their sex-identified-at-birth and/or b) having their body changed to better conform to their gender identity. This is not considered a mental disorder as it is not hazardous to their mental health and does not prevent them from functioning in society without treatment.

  But they will always be the sex of their body. Their dysphoria does not obligate anyone else to believe that they are a sex other than that of their body, any more than anyone is required to affirm that anorexics should continue not to eat.

  And neither people with gender dysphoria, other transgender people, nor trans allies dispute that. They just recognize that sex and gender identity are not the same thing and don’t correlate perfectly, that transgender people simply have a gender identity that is distinct from their sex-identified-at-birth, that some of those people wish to (and should be able to) have their bodies modified to better conform to their gender identity even if it doesn’t and can’t “change their sex”, and that others should recognize their gender identity or at least give some basic respect for it. None of this requires anyone to believe that people can change their sex.

  Mental illness by definition causes people to believe things that are not true.

  Absolutely not! Many mental illnesses/disorders (chronic depression, bipolar disorder, binge-eating disorders, autism (if you count that as a mental illness/disorder), ADHD (ib id), Down syndrome’s psychological and neurological components, phobias, obsessive-compulsive disorder, many other anxiety disorders, psychological and behavioral addictions, psychopathy, sociopathy, Tourette's, Alzheimer’s, dementia, etc.) don’t necessarily involve believing false things or any delusions at all. This is a very harmful and false stereotype. While it is not altogether uncommon for people with certain of those (mainly chronic depression, Alzheimer’s, dementia, phobias, and anxiety disorders) to have, connected to those conditions, delusions of some sort, and there are mental illnesses (like schizophrenia, anorexia nervosa (a subset of anorexia, as some forms of anorexia don’t require a belief that they are fat but simply a discomfort with their body leading to anorexic behavior is sufficient, but anorexia nervosa specifically requires such a delusion), or paranoid disorder) which do necessarily involve delusions or obviously false beliefs, saying that having a mental illness necessarily entails having a delusion or false belief is completely erroneous and a categorization fallacy. Likewise, gender dysphoria does not necessarily entail false beliefs or delusions. It’s about having negative feelings associated with certain physical traits of theirs and/or being misgendered that are bad enough that they are unhealthy and disruptive if untreated or unaddressed. (Also, being transgender—which doesn’t require having gender dysphoria—is not a mental illness or mental disorder at all. Having a gender identity that differs from your sex-identified-at-birth is not in itself unhealthy or disruptive, nor is it a delusion. Gender euphoria (another condition found among many transgender people and almost exclusively in the trans community) is also not a mental illness for the same reasons.)

• On the post: As Musk Speedruns The Content Moderation Curve, Some Of His Biggest Fans Are Getting Mad At Him

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2022 @ 10:01am

  They do not get to force their way into single-sex spaces for which their bodies disqualify them unless the people already in those spaces give them permission. They do not get to have their beliefs taught as truth in public schools.

  None of this is actually happening.

  TERFs do not want men assuming positions in women’s organizations that they feel should be held by women. They do not want men convincing women that they are not women when they do not want to conform to social gender stereotypes. They do not want lesbians deciding that they are not women.

  Again, none of this is actually happening. Also, I fail to see how “lesbians deciding that they are not women” is any of their business.

  Gender ideology is […] rejection of physical reality in favor of delusion.

  You have yet to give any examples of so-called “gender ideology” that both rejects physical reality (or is delusional) and is actually held by anyone.

  People can believe it if they want, but if they continue to try to force people who don’t believe it to affirm it anyway, […]

  Again, nobody is doing that.

• On the post: As Musk Speedruns The Content Moderation Curve, Some Of His Biggest Fans Are Getting Mad At Him

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2022 @ 09:43am

  Banning a former president from the platform.

  That doesn’t say anything about viewpoint. You don’t even imply an allegation that would impute motive. That the target is a former president says nothing about why they were targeted.

  Banning satire that mocks false beliefs about gender.

  I have yet to see evidence that the alleged beliefs being mocked are both false and genuinely held or claimed by anyone. That also doesn’t necessarily mean it’s viewpoint-based any more than banning any other form of bigoted satire.

  Banning the use of “groomer” to disparage people who want to encourage troubled children to pursue gender transition while hiding this from their parents.

  Because that’s not what’s happening, not what “groomer” means, and bigoted.

  In general, trying to be an arbiter of truth instead of just being a platform where people can speak to each other.

  Outside of specific topics (potential election disinformation, conspiracy theories, and medical disinformation), Twitter doesn’t try to be an arbiter of truth, and even then, they usually post fact-checks, which is their own exercise of free speech. (I also fail to see how fact-checking is viewpoint-discrimination.)

• On the post: Dude Who Filed Ridiculous Lawsuit Over Title Of Mariah Carey’s Most Famous Song Drops Case After Pretending They Sound The Same

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2022 @ 09:26am

  Unfortunately…

• On the post: Top EU Court’s Advisor Says Companies Licensing Copyright Material Know And Must Accept That People Use VPNs To Circumvent Geoblocks

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2022 @ 08:56am

  Bold of you to assume that “violation technique authors” will eventually get tired of that, especially given that that has never actually happened in the history of copyright law.

• On the post: Court Tells Florida Town That Law Forbidding Resident’s ‘Fuck Trump’ Sign Is Unconstitutional

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2022 @ 08:24am

  Correct. As that case states (which was with regards to trademark law) public display or use of swear words that in other contexts may be used to reference sexual acts/parts but not in the specified contexts cannot be blanket-banned by the government.

• On the post: Court Tells Florida Town That Law Forbidding Resident’s ‘Fuck Trump’ Sign Is Unconstitutional

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2022 @ 08:14am

  People flag comments that are needlessly offensive, spam, bigoted, trollish, harassing, irrelevant, repeating bad faith arguments, conspiracy theories, insulting people out of nowhere, and/or not worth reading for anyone, as well as comments from people who have a history of falling afoul of these “rules” (though that likely doesn’t apply in this case). While it certainly does not fit all of those categories (spam, bigoted, bad faith arguments, conspiracy theories, or harassing), it does arguably fit others (needlessly offensive, possibly trollish, insulting people out of nowhere, not worth reading). And no, it’s not just because it’s got some swear words directed towards Techdirt. As I said, it was (arguably) needlessly offensive to get the point across and came out of nowhere.

• On the post: Court Tells Florida Town That Law Forbidding Resident’s ‘Fuck Trump’ Sign Is Unconstitutional

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2022 @ 08:04am

  Maybe they’re actually, genuinely fiscal conservatives; a fairly rare breed nowadays.

• On the post: Hollywood Whines About Mandatory Release Windows (Which They Used To Support) Fueling Piracy

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2022 @ 08:00am

  You paid for a subscription? I think you got ripped off.

• On the post: Hollywood Whines About Mandatory Release Windows (Which They Used To Support) Fueling Piracy

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2022 @ 07:58am

  I actually agree with the MPA for once. …That felt weird to say. Anyways, yes, I agree that these release windows contribute to piracy. Many copyright holders and copyright maximalists fail to realize that a lot of people who turn to piracy don’t do so because they are unwilling to get a legitimate copy through legitimate means. It’s not even necessarily the case that they do not have the money to pay for it (though that can be the case for some or for cases where a legitimate copy is prohibitively expensive). Often, they do so because it is not available in a manner that works for them. Some people don’t like theaters or are unable to go to theaters, so they pirate movies during that release window. It’s really just common sense, as literally the only ones who benefit from release windows are the theaters themselves, and whenever the consumer is inhibited or inconvenienced by such a self-serving measure, piracy will increase. I’m just glad that the MPA is finally understanding the problem, though it’s likely that the pandemic is what made them realize just how problematic release windows are for them.

• On the post: It Appears That Jason Miller's GETTR Is Speed Running The Content Moderation Learning Curve Faster Than Parler

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2022 @ 02:19pm

  He’s usually talking about sites like Twitter, Facebook, Gettr, etc. He sees Techdirt’s method of moderation as ideal.

• On the post: It Appears That Jason Miller's GETTR Is Speed Running The Content Moderation Learning Curve Faster Than Parler

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2022 @ 02:17pm

  They’re actually consistent on this issue, unlike many others who conflate moderation and censorship.

• On the post: It Appears That Jason Miller's GETTR Is Speed Running The Content Moderation Learning Curve Faster Than Parler

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 29 Oct, 2022 @ 02:14pm

  If they were actually trying to block dissent, why would you get in now? Maybe it’s because they aren’t targeting you, specifically. Have you ever considered that? Also, maybe just wait to see if it gets through after getting caught in the filter instead of spamming the same thing over and over again.

• On the post: New York Wants To Destroy Free Speech Online To Cover Up For Their Own Failings Regarding The Buffalo Shooting

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 20 Oct, 2022 @ 06:16pm

  I don’t recall any significant complaints about the process for 2004, nor about the process for 2016. The complaint about 2000 was the way that a single state’s ballots were miscounted objectively and that the USSC essentially unilaterally decided the results. This was dropped pretty quickly. Did Democrats complain about the results? Sure. Did they claim the results were fraudulent? No. Did they engage in riots or insurrection to protest or change the results? No. Did they say that the results should be invalidated by the courts or legislatures? No. Did they accept that the Republican won? Yes. Basically, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

• On the post: New York Wants To Destroy Free Speech Online To Cover Up For Their Own Failings Regarding The Buffalo Shooting

  

  bhull242 ( profile ), 20 Oct, 2022 @ 06:09pm

  1. There is nothing in Dobbs that says that the federal government cannot pass a law that prevents states from banning abortion.
  2. Section 230 doesn’t immunize anything that wasn’t protected under the 1A.
  3. You’re comparing speech and conduct.
  4. Section 230 was intended to remove disincentives to moderate (or not moderate) however the platforms wish. It is also content-neutral.

Next >>