Re: Re: Depends on how you're defining 'conservative'
that biological sex is an important reality, and that segregating latrines, prisons and athletic competitions on its basis is a benefit to women -- is "bigotry" and not worthy of consideration because the latest cause celebre, that people who are unhappy with their biological sex, and either wish to be the opposite sex, or are under the delusion that they are, are "excluded" from facilities on the basis of the age-old separation not by "gender" but by sex. (If you don't understand why this is not bigotry, biologically female humans, what we used to call "women" without any ambiguity of meaning, who run competitively or who have been imprisoned after commission of a crime can explain to you why the biological segregation makes sense on the basis of their lived experience.)
So the discrimination is okay because it’s not based on gender but on sex? That’s still bigotry even if it’s traditional. You know what else was unremarkable throughout the “vast sweep of human history”? Racism, religious discrimination, slavery, incest among nobles, serfdom, and discrimination against women. Your assertion doesn’t actually prove your point (that liberals are going too far and the current pro-trans movement is unprecedented).
And as for “age-old”, the separation of bathrooms based on gender isn’t that old to begin with, same goes for the separation of prisons, and sports didn’t allow women at all until recently (the separation of gender was more of a compromise). So yeah, that’s not something that’s
Also, let’s say you’re right for the sake of argument. How do you propose we enforce such a separation? Lots of transwomen and cismales look no different from cisfemales, lots of transmen and cisfemales look no different from cismales, and there are some cases where you simply cannot tell whether a given person is male or female at all. The only distinguishing feature is something you shouldn’t see to begin with, so why should you care?
Re: Re: Depends on how you're defining 'conservative'
Conservative thought in general is being pushed out.
Define “conservative”, then provide examples, then provide data. Otherwise, I cannot even say whether or not this statement is true, let alone what it’s ramifications are.
Twitter and Facebook have long been hostile places even for moderate conservatives.
Well, with Facebook, we’ve actually seen data and evidence suggesting the opposite. As for Twitter, again, we need data and examples to say whether or not this is true and, if so, what, if anything, should be done about it.
Conservatives and centralists in main stream media are being forced into quitting, the New York Times being just one example.
Again, some examples would be nice.
And higher education is way ahead of the curve in being hostile to conservatives.
Look, stop using generalities. Which “conservative ideas” are being discriminated against? Where is your evidence?
The chromosomes argument is flawed, as most people have no clue what it actually is, and probably never find out.
Irrelevant. The point is that there are more than two options.
Transwomen presenting as a women externally is indistinguishable wearing clothes...so what you're saying is the wide range of makeup and clothing can actually disguise what someone really looks like? That's some ground breaking information right there...who would have thought?
What it means is that there is no good reason to discriminate against transgender women. Additionally, there are a number of men who naturally look like women without makeup and vice versa. So, again, whether or not they identify as the gender corresponding to their sex-assigned at birth is none of your business. That’s the point.
Again, stating very rare situations/genetic flaws does not equate to their being more genders....it just means the baby was born "incomplete" or with a "mutation".
I never said anything about the number of sexes. I was talking about whether biological sex is strictly two possibilities without intersection or exceptions. While the majority fit neatly into one of two categories, not everyone does.
Like are we going to teach kids in school that 4 fingers and 1 thumb is not normal either because 2% of the world was born with an extra finger? Like where does it stop?
As John Oliver said, “Somewhere.” Also, I don’t see why it matters what we teach about what is normal about hands. I’m not discussing normality at all. That seems to be the problem here. You’re thinking I’m trying to change “normality”. I simply don’t care about some random person’s definition of “normal” and don’t believe that we should exclude anything outside of “normal”.
This is the problem with your mindset...you just take everything logical and throw it out the window for the sake of 2%. It's mindblowing.
No, we’re recognizing that some things aren’t black-and-white as shown by the existence of 2% (which is significant, BTW, given the size of the population). Why should we exclude the 2%? How does it hurt you?
What you call “logical” appears anything but to me. It’s not “logical”; it’s simple and traditional. Unfortunately, life and reality aren’t always simple, and I’ve never been a fan of traditions for tradition’s sake, especially if they exclude people.
We're not saying to burn them at the stake, we are simply saying we can be nice to everyone...but don't force/teach this crap to our kids and to also use completely different language.
What “completely different language”? I’m not talking about going overboard; I’m talking about basic decency. You don’t want to use the made-up pronouns like “xe”? Fine. If they prefer “he” over “she” or vice versa, use what they prefer. Otherwise, or if you can’t abide by that, use singular “they”. Nothing I’m suggesting involves saying anything complex or outside the English language. I’m not even asking you to use complicated rules for your speech. These are very simple rules that are very easy to abide by.
No one is asking you to “force” anything on your kids. A lot of transgender people knew they were transgender without even knowing that it was a thing, anyways. As for teaching, if it doesn’t come up, then I don’t have a problem. However, when I was a kid, we were taught about genetic disorders like sickle cell anemia and extra or missing fingers. What’s wrong with teaching about transgender and homosexuality stuff or sex-related genetic disorders later in life? Why is it so offensive to you to know or teach that not everyone fits in the category of “normal”, and that’s okay?
Freedom of speech means I can call you whatever I want, and I don't need you, or Twitter, or Facebook telling me it's correct or not.
Freedom of speech does mean you can call me or anyone else what you want without fear of violence or government intervention (for the most part, at least), but it does not give you the right to say it without me, Twitter, or Facebook telling you whether it’s correct or not. In fact, freedom of speech means that everyone has the right to tell you whether you’re right or not. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism of your speech or freedom from social consequences for your speech.
You don’t have to like it, but the very essence of free speech involves one person saying something and another person disputing it. That back-and-forth is what the Founding Fathers envisioned.
That is what CENSORSHIP is...and were not living in fucking China.
How the hell is saying, “You’re wrong,” censorship by any meaning of the term?
And while we’re on the subject, let’s get back to the original point under discussion: Facebook and Twitter’s treatment of what they feel to be transphobic speech on their platforms. That’s not censorship, either, though it’s a hell of a lot closer than the criticism of your speech. Censorship means you can’t say it at all without government interference. A platform holder telling you to take speech they dislike somewhere else is not censorship; it’s moderation of their privately owned platform, something they have every right to do. If you don’t like their rules, take your ball somewhere else. You don’t have the right to force Facebook and Twitter to host your speech if they don’t want to.
This is where hyphenation would be helpful. In future, I’d advise using “gay-wedding cake”. It’s like the difference between a criminal-defense attorney and a criminal defense attorney.
Are you saying you were inside the building? Because that’s a crime and contradicts your earlier statements.
More importantly, we’re talking about people shown on video to be engaging in illegal actions who have been clearly identified as Trump supporters and who are even now calling themselves Trump supporters and did so well before this event. Many of them were also carrying or wearing Confederate flags and/or outfitted in the same clothes that other Trump supporters were. If you were not inside the building, then you did not personally see what happened inside the building, which is what we’re discussing, and thus your eyewitness account is of little relevance.
Now, you say you saw Antifa members on site doing illegal things. I should point out that you can’t really prove someone is an Antifa person rather than a Trump supporter by their outfits unless they include Antifa slogans. Do you have specific evidence of these people actually being Antifa or just speculation because they happened to be dressed differently?
Notice I’m not saying anything about what you witnessed beyond your own claims. I’m telling you what the evidence shows, what you have claimed you saw and where you saw it, and asking for clarification on what you witnessed and how it would lead to the conclusion that this was a false-flag operation.
I disagree with you on this. Otherwise censorship could not exist since anything the government removes would be illegal and, therefore, not be censored. I cannot agree with that argument.
Furthermore, many people would argue that censorship isn’t inherently, necessarily bad. Censorship of child porn would be good censorship, so arguing that a site removing child porn under penalty of law is censorship isn’t an argument that supports child porn.
Also, you seem to be confusing what appears to be a purely semantic argument without policy or legal implications to an argument about what is good policy or law.
I’ll just address a couple of points here, especially since TFG already discussed the election-related points.
Gain entry on property they, themselves let in.
No, they forced their way in. They were not “let” in. As evidenced by the broken windows, broken doors, people going around metal detectors, and people carrying items no security guard worth their salt would ever willingly allow inside a government building.
And they don't tend to shoot unarmed people in the head facing them point-blank in the head, you dumbass.
You’re clearly new to this site, aren’t you? Also, the shot wasn’t taken from point-blank range, and the shooter was off to the side from the woman’s perspective.
Obviously, you're framing the hundreds of thousands of people that were there at the Save America march, every one of them with the intention to "subvert democracy", doesn't make it true.
No one was doing that. We were only talking about the ones who were inside the building or attempted to enter via break-in. We’re not painting the more peaceful protestors outside the building or any protestors who didn’t continue with the march at any point with the same brush as the ones who entered or tried to enter.
when they were let inside the capitol building, some saw that as a way to get the point across more democratically.
Again, they weren’t “let inside”. Also, the fact that they broke in through windows and doors and brought guns, zipties, and bombs suggests that they weren’t going for democratic demonstrations. Not to mention the vandalism and theft.
They were legally allowed to gather and assemble and make their voices heard.
Yes. No one disputes that.
They were let inside so they weren't unlawfully inside.
No, they were not “let inside”, but even if some rogue officer(s) let them through, that doesn’t make their presence lawful.
However, when escalations rose after that woman was shot in the head, I suspect the anger with those protesters was like anyone else would respond if they saw someone who was unarmed and innocent would do get very angry/upset a moral human response.
Clearly you didn’t watch the footage of what actually happened. Look, the door she was trying to get through had its glass broken by the mob, it was clearly barricaded heavily to prevent entry, and there was a man on the other side with a gun shouting for her not to go through. She may have been unarmed, but she was far from innocent; she was clearly going somewhere she had absolutely no reasonable belief she was allowed to go.
Also, the violence came afterwards? Again, you clearly didn’t watch the videos. And did you miss the zipties, guns, and bombs they brought with them? Does that sound like stuff you’d bring to a “peaceful protest” (well, except for guns being brought to a pro-2A protest)?
Seriously, a lot of people there did come with the intent to use violence. That you don’t see it is willful ignorance on your part.
On the post: A Few More Thoughts On The Total Deplatforming Of Parler & Infrastructure Content Moderation
Re: Re: Depends on how you're defining 'conservative'
So the discrimination is okay because it’s not based on gender but on sex? That’s still bigotry even if it’s traditional. You know what else was unremarkable throughout the “vast sweep of human history”? Racism, religious discrimination, slavery, incest among nobles, serfdom, and discrimination against women. Your assertion doesn’t actually prove your point (that liberals are going too far and the current pro-trans movement is unprecedented).
And as for “age-old”, the separation of bathrooms based on gender isn’t that old to begin with, same goes for the separation of prisons, and sports didn’t allow women at all until recently (the separation of gender was more of a compromise). So yeah, that’s not something that’s
Also, let’s say you’re right for the sake of argument. How do you propose we enforce such a separation? Lots of transwomen and cismales look no different from cisfemales, lots of transmen and cisfemales look no different from cismales, and there are some cases where you simply cannot tell whether a given person is male or female at all. The only distinguishing feature is something you shouldn’t see to begin with, so why should you care?
On the post: A Few More Thoughts On The Total Deplatforming Of Parler & Infrastructure Content Moderation
Re: Re: Depends on how you're defining 'conservative'
Define “conservative”, then provide examples, then provide data. Otherwise, I cannot even say whether or not this statement is true, let alone what it’s ramifications are.
Well, with Facebook, we’ve actually seen data and evidence suggesting the opposite. As for Twitter, again, we need data and examples to say whether or not this is true and, if so, what, if anything, should be done about it.
Again, some examples would be nice.
Look, stop using generalities. Which “conservative ideas” are being discriminated against? Where is your evidence?
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re:
First off, I don’t think “Big Tech” defines “free speech” the way you think they do. Second, Big Tech can’t control speech outside their platforms.
On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter
Re: Aside from the figurines on top...
I guess the wedding toppers would be different… Maybe the writing (if any).
On the post: As Predicted: Parler Is Banning Users It Doesn't Like
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Irrelevant. The point is that there are more than two options.
What it means is that there is no good reason to discriminate against transgender women. Additionally, there are a number of men who naturally look like women without makeup and vice versa. So, again, whether or not they identify as the gender corresponding to their sex-assigned at birth is none of your business. That’s the point.
I never said anything about the number of sexes. I was talking about whether biological sex is strictly two possibilities without intersection or exceptions. While the majority fit neatly into one of two categories, not everyone does.
As John Oliver said, “Somewhere.” Also, I don’t see why it matters what we teach about what is normal about hands. I’m not discussing normality at all. That seems to be the problem here. You’re thinking I’m trying to change “normality”. I simply don’t care about some random person’s definition of “normal” and don’t believe that we should exclude anything outside of “normal”.
No, we’re recognizing that some things aren’t black-and-white as shown by the existence of 2% (which is significant, BTW, given the size of the population). Why should we exclude the 2%? How does it hurt you?
What you call “logical” appears anything but to me. It’s not “logical”; it’s simple and traditional. Unfortunately, life and reality aren’t always simple, and I’ve never been a fan of traditions for tradition’s sake, especially if they exclude people.
What “completely different language”? I’m not talking about going overboard; I’m talking about basic decency. You don’t want to use the made-up pronouns like “xe”? Fine. If they prefer “he” over “she” or vice versa, use what they prefer. Otherwise, or if you can’t abide by that, use singular “they”. Nothing I’m suggesting involves saying anything complex or outside the English language. I’m not even asking you to use complicated rules for your speech. These are very simple rules that are very easy to abide by.
No one is asking you to “force” anything on your kids. A lot of transgender people knew they were transgender without even knowing that it was a thing, anyways. As for teaching, if it doesn’t come up, then I don’t have a problem. However, when I was a kid, we were taught about genetic disorders like sickle cell anemia and extra or missing fingers. What’s wrong with teaching about transgender and homosexuality stuff or sex-related genetic disorders later in life? Why is it so offensive to you to know or teach that not everyone fits in the category of “normal”, and that’s okay?
Freedom of speech does mean you can call me or anyone else what you want without fear of violence or government intervention (for the most part, at least), but it does not give you the right to say it without me, Twitter, or Facebook telling you whether it’s correct or not. In fact, freedom of speech means that everyone has the right to tell you whether you’re right or not. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism of your speech or freedom from social consequences for your speech.
You don’t have to like it, but the very essence of free speech involves one person saying something and another person disputing it. That back-and-forth is what the Founding Fathers envisioned.
How the hell is saying, “You’re wrong,” censorship by any meaning of the term?
And while we’re on the subject, let’s get back to the original point under discussion: Facebook and Twitter’s treatment of what they feel to be transphobic speech on their platforms. That’s not censorship, either, though it’s a hell of a lot closer than the criticism of your speech. Censorship means you can’t say it at all without government interference. A platform holder telling you to take speech they dislike somewhere else is not censorship; it’s moderation of their privately owned platform, something they have every right to do. If you don’t like their rules, take your ball somewhere else. You don’t have the right to force Facebook and Twitter to host your speech if they don’t want to.
On the post: Some Thoughts On Twitter Pulling The Plug On Trump's Account
Re: Is Reputation A Constitutional Right?
You’re confusing §230 protections with defamation law and the 1A.
On the post: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Insanely Stupid Lawsuit Against Facebook
Re: Re: Re: Stupid
Social media =/= the Internet
On the post: Snowflake Josh Hawley Seems To Think The 1st Amendment Means Simon & Schuster Has To Give Him A Book Contract
Re: Re: Re: This cancellation is not about 1st Ammendment
I have seen no evidence of…whatever it is you’re saying.
On the post: Some Thoughts On Twitter Pulling The Plug On Trump's Account
Re: Re: Re: Brandenburg was decided wrongly
I leave that to the courts.
On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter
Re: Re:
But can I have the right to sell fire? I’m asking for a friend.
On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter
Re: Re:
And if you yell “Theater!” in a crowded fire, expect people to stare at you in confusion for a moment or try to knock some sense into you.
Also, if you sell fire in a crowded theater, you should also
expect to be thrown out and banned from the place.
I don’t think I need to explain why.
On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter
Re:
I’m sorry, I know one of these was a typo, and I agree with the sentiment behind this statement, but I just got two funny images in my head:
A crowded theater with a salesman selling burning sticks to people, and
On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter
Re:
You forgot 3. The evidence did not suggest wrongdoing or anything suspicious or illegal was occurring.
On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter
Re:
I dunno. I don’t see what’s wrong with just assuming that violent comments by congresspeople and conservatives are being deleted.
On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter
Re: Re:
This is where hyphenation would be helpful. In future, I’d advise using “gay-wedding cake”. It’s like the difference between a criminal-defense attorney and a criminal defense attorney.
On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Of course it's censorship, but it is legal c
The people sharing “Hang Mike Pence” were Trump supporters, you know?
On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter
Re:
It was a dealbreaker for a lot of Christians I know.
On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter
Re: Re:
Are you saying you were inside the building? Because that’s a crime and contradicts your earlier statements.
More importantly, we’re talking about people shown on video to be engaging in illegal actions who have been clearly identified as Trump supporters and who are even now calling themselves Trump supporters and did so well before this event. Many of them were also carrying or wearing Confederate flags and/or outfitted in the same clothes that other Trump supporters were. If you were not inside the building, then you did not personally see what happened inside the building, which is what we’re discussing, and thus your eyewitness account is of little relevance.
Now, you say you saw Antifa members on site doing illegal things. I should point out that you can’t really prove someone is an Antifa person rather than a Trump supporter by their outfits unless they include Antifa slogans. Do you have specific evidence of these people actually being Antifa or just speculation because they happened to be dressed differently?
Notice I’m not saying anything about what you witnessed beyond your own claims. I’m telling you what the evidence shows, what you have claimed you saw and where you saw it, and asking for clarification on what you witnessed and how it would lead to the conclusion that this was a false-flag operation.
On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter
Re:
I disagree with you on this. Otherwise censorship could not exist since anything the government removes would be illegal and, therefore, not be censored. I cannot agree with that argument.
Furthermore, many people would argue that censorship isn’t inherently, necessarily bad. Censorship of child porn would be good censorship, so arguing that a site removing child porn under penalty of law is censorship isn’t an argument that supports child porn.
Also, you seem to be confusing what appears to be a purely semantic argument without policy or legal implications to an argument about what is good policy or law.
On the post: Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’ll just address a couple of points here, especially since TFG already discussed the election-related points.
No, they forced their way in. They were not “let” in. As evidenced by the broken windows, broken doors, people going around metal detectors, and people carrying items no security guard worth their salt would ever willingly allow inside a government building.
You’re clearly new to this site, aren’t you? Also, the shot wasn’t taken from point-blank range, and the shooter was off to the side from the woman’s perspective.
No one was doing that. We were only talking about the ones who were inside the building or attempted to enter via break-in. We’re not painting the more peaceful protestors outside the building or any protestors who didn’t continue with the march at any point with the same brush as the ones who entered or tried to enter.
Again, they weren’t “let inside”. Also, the fact that they broke in through windows and doors and brought guns, zipties, and bombs suggests that they weren’t going for democratic demonstrations. Not to mention the vandalism and theft.
Yes. No one disputes that.
No, they were not “let inside”, but even if some rogue officer(s) let them through, that doesn’t make their presence lawful.
Clearly you didn’t watch the footage of what actually happened. Look, the door she was trying to get through had its glass broken by the mob, it was clearly barricaded heavily to prevent entry, and there was a man on the other side with a gun shouting for her not to go through. She may have been unarmed, but she was far from innocent; she was clearly going somewhere she had absolutely no reasonable belief she was allowed to go.
Also, the violence came afterwards? Again, you clearly didn’t watch the videos. And did you miss the zipties, guns, and bombs they brought with them? Does that sound like stuff you’d bring to a “peaceful protest” (well, except for guns being brought to a pro-2A protest)?
Seriously, a lot of people there did come with the intent to use violence. That you don’t see it is willful ignorance on your part.
Next >>