For all of human civilization there have been men and women. Even when you had effeminate men and emasculate women, no one pretended they were actually women or actually men. Now we have doctors asking bearded, burly, men if they have ever been pregnant. And when someone points out the obvious, twitter bans them. When someone points out what we know to be 100% true, what people have known to be true, what all of nature makes obvious... twitter thinks it has the authority to ban them for hate speech. And there are a whole lot of people that will deny what is right before their eyes... It's surreal sometimes to watch the decadence of Western culture, but I guess the richest and most prosperous society that has ever existed must go out even worse than those that preceded it.
Elon Musk buys 9.2% of Twitter, complains about its free-speech stance
- Thread starter midian182
- Start date
Ohnooze
Posts: 613 +1,185
It is so odd to watch. People have become so backward in their thinking. They seem to want to live in a strange fantasy and expect everyone to jump into their pretend world. Like larpers who got confused and are convinced it's all real and you best play along.
julesigles
Posts: 22 +28
Odd. I've never met one of these so called "Nazis". I think what you mean is people who disagree with the Democrat Party.
Dimitriid
Posts: 2,444 +4,906
By the way, this thread is already an excellent micro example of what Twitter will look like under Musk rules: "No Nazis ever exist anywhere! No I don't care how many of the proponents of gab dot com were actually at the unite the right rally screaming 'Blood and soil!'and 'J*** will not divide us!' at all. Now let me bring up transphobia completely unprovoked on a tech news site for no good reason because that's what freezed peach is all about: My right to promote hatred for no good reason"
It's getting really old. Nazi this, Nazi that. Screaming Nazi, screaming racist, screaming bigot, screaming transphobia. You see a boogie man around every corner, but I guess when you are always wrong you have to blame someone else.
He'll give free airtime to anyone who wants to libel heroes because they actually did heroic things (rather than post narcissistic bluster via social media).
Why not? It's the kind of thing he has already done.
The Tech King of Sour Grapes.
They're actually very common which is why Hitler and his pals were so successful in Germany.
Most of them have no idea what they are, like Hillary Clinton.
A Nazi is a person who is eager to sacrifice others' quality of life because doing so appears to give the Nazi and his/her friends more privileges. That's how she could go in front of a group of lesbians during her first Senate run and tell them they're not fully human — that they shouldn't be able to marry each other. Then, she went onto Ellen to make the same claim. Then Chris Matthews.
That's how she could cackle maniacally when asked about war with Iran (or any nation). It's how she could make a sick joke out of the assassination of a politician by her people (no human right to a fair trial). It's how she, in the role of state secretary, could pressure the president of Haiti to exempt 'American' firms like Hanes and Levi-Strauss from a tiny increase to Haiti's tiny minimum wage — and be part of the political club that put the journalist letting the public know about that in eternal prison.
She is not special. She's very typical. In AD&D terms, most people are lawful evil. They'll exploit others as much as the law allows and dream of the prospect of making the laws.
Last edited:
Squid Surprise
Posts: 5,564 +5,204
For all of civilization, there have been men, women and those who don’t fit into the binary system. For the majority of that time, they have attempted to fit into the system or faced persecution, ostracism, or even death (check your bible for the punishment for homosexuality).
Perhaps you might want to check your opinions against the lives of others... others who have suffered - and still suffer - from people with opinions like your own.
Axle Grease
Posts: 306 +262
It's OK to be gay, Muslim, or Jewish. What the chart shows is symptomatic of the disconnect from what Left wing Americans think they know and what is factual. It's the same crowd of thickos that have no misgivings about supressing the views of others. Being thick and authoritarian is a dangerous combination.
Axle Grease
Posts: 306 +262
You miss the point. For all anyone knows, you have about as much of a talent for decerning truth from lies as a sack of hammers. That is not what matters. What matters is whether you have any qualms about others being de-platformed for expressing views that you regard as lies. Given that you made your political leaning clear, I'd say the answer is a big 'NONE WHATSOEVER!'
Find me a point from antiquity through today when there weren't people complaining about 'decadence'?
The Shakers made themselves extinct by taking that a bit too far.
Decadence comes in many forms, like the fact that 99% of the people in the world breathe polluted air. That's new news from the WHO that people can, like all bad facts, ignore in favor of grandstanding about sexual minorities.
The existence of rich people is decadence. Yet, most of those complaining with that word strongly oppose communism.
Shipping products over oceans is decadence. All of that pollution can be avoided by making products locally.
Most video gaming is also decadence. Instead of being out in the real world working hard to build things, people are playing with fictional characters in fictional worlds.
Having large lawns and mowing them to keep the grass super short is decadence.
Driving around in big trucks as an extension of one's genitalia is decadence.
Letting house cats roam the countryside to kill millions of birds each year is decadence.
Building huge ecological disasters called metropolises is decadence.
Flying places for vacations is decadence, as are cruises.
Putting energy and other resources into religion is decadence.
Nuclear weapons and all tools of war are decadence.
Having people work at steel mills to make products that aren't absolute necessities is decadence, as steel mill workers don't just have their DNA degraded — their future offspring also are affected.
And so on.
Last edited:
I'm not going to be afraid to speak the truth because the woke cultist tell us what we should believe. My point was and still is that no one pretended and that's what it is, make believe, that those people were actually the opposite gender. I'm sorry but DNA has made a binary choice, you are XX or XY, that's it. You make health decisions based on that. Making doctors pretend otherwise and ask men if they have ever been pregnant is a denial of reality. Allowing kids to take puberty blockers is a completely sick denial of reality, it's evil, whether or not you think it's good. I'm sorry you are too afraid to speak and even admit the truth to yourself, but some of us have to put on the big boy adult pants and speak the truth anyway.
I'm not going to deny reality and lie to myself because < 1% of the population might get offended if we don't live in their make believe.
Last edited:
dotnon
Posts: 41 +53
The fundamental problem here is disagreement, and what happens in "public" spaces (inverted commas because those spaces are sometimes private).
Musk is a self-described free-speech 'absolutist', which I take to mean that he believes no speech should ever be censored, I.E. no one should stop someone from communicating with you.
The problem with this position is that some communications will inevitably be "toxic", and can cause conversations to break down, making the public space inhospitable for some people, and having the effect of excluding them from the conversation. But what defines "toxic"? It's subjective, but basically to you it would be something you vehemently disagree with, because it challenges your fundamental principles or part of your identity.
To someone on the "right", it might be hearing someone say that they should not have the right to bear arms.
To someone on the "left", it might be hearing someone say that being LGBT is a choice.
Both these are deep-rooted issues that speak strongly to who we are as individuals, so challenging them is not going to end well - akin to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre - all productive conversation ceases because hearing any salient points is impossible through the screaming and shouting.
What the increased connectivity brought about by the internet has done is enabled more people to find more people like them, and build relationships across great distances. But our capacity for social relationships hasn't changed - we are still only capable of "knowing" about 100-300 people (citation needed I know, but it's in the ballpark). So you still only "know" about 100 people, but now they're more like you, with the same sets of beliefs. This has the effect of reinforcing and strengthening those beliefs.
Effectively we've all replaced some relationships of proximity with relationships of political alignment, which is totally understandable, as it makes us feel more comfortable, and that our natural biases are more correct. But the family living next door probably don't agree as much.
So where am I going with all this.
I've always interpreted the American Constitution's position on free-speech to be that the government can't prevent you from saying something, not civilian entities denying you platform on their own property. This makes sense, because governments have a monopoly on the use of force, and I should absolutely have the right to kick you out of my home if you offend me by invalidating my sexuality or taking my gun. But when so much public discourse happens on private property, the line is arguably blurred - I think those that argue platforms such as Twitter and Facebook should be treated as public spaces do have a point (arguably such an important function shouldn't be left to a private entity, but that's whole other rabbit hole with many interesting questions).
But even if you think that free-speech doctrine should apply to private entities, the traditional notion of free-speech doesn't work in the internet age, simply because of the increased tribalism brought about by free association based on political leanings, rather than the diversity that you would naturally be exposed to by more proximal social relationships.
In short, I think Musk's absolutism will make online discourse more toxic. In the internet age, the ease of communicating to so many people so instantaneously means that some limits are necessary, and so long as the government can't throw you in jail because of your views, we'll probably be OK.
edit: Expanded on a few bits. Also, even though I lean left, I think this applies equally to anyone who flippantly throws around words like "woke" and "nazi". You know who you are. Get outside more.
Musk is a self-described free-speech 'absolutist', which I take to mean that he believes no speech should ever be censored, I.E. no one should stop someone from communicating with you.
The problem with this position is that some communications will inevitably be "toxic", and can cause conversations to break down, making the public space inhospitable for some people, and having the effect of excluding them from the conversation. But what defines "toxic"? It's subjective, but basically to you it would be something you vehemently disagree with, because it challenges your fundamental principles or part of your identity.
To someone on the "right", it might be hearing someone say that they should not have the right to bear arms.
To someone on the "left", it might be hearing someone say that being LGBT is a choice.
Both these are deep-rooted issues that speak strongly to who we are as individuals, so challenging them is not going to end well - akin to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre - all productive conversation ceases because hearing any salient points is impossible through the screaming and shouting.
What the increased connectivity brought about by the internet has done is enabled more people to find more people like them, and build relationships across great distances. But our capacity for social relationships hasn't changed - we are still only capable of "knowing" about 100-300 people (citation needed I know, but it's in the ballpark). So you still only "know" about 100 people, but now they're more like you, with the same sets of beliefs. This has the effect of reinforcing and strengthening those beliefs.
Effectively we've all replaced some relationships of proximity with relationships of political alignment, which is totally understandable, as it makes us feel more comfortable, and that our natural biases are more correct. But the family living next door probably don't agree as much.
So where am I going with all this.
I've always interpreted the American Constitution's position on free-speech to be that the government can't prevent you from saying something, not civilian entities denying you platform on their own property. This makes sense, because governments have a monopoly on the use of force, and I should absolutely have the right to kick you out of my home if you offend me by invalidating my sexuality or taking my gun. But when so much public discourse happens on private property, the line is arguably blurred - I think those that argue platforms such as Twitter and Facebook should be treated as public spaces do have a point (arguably such an important function shouldn't be left to a private entity, but that's whole other rabbit hole with many interesting questions).
But even if you think that free-speech doctrine should apply to private entities, the traditional notion of free-speech doesn't work in the internet age, simply because of the increased tribalism brought about by free association based on political leanings, rather than the diversity that you would naturally be exposed to by more proximal social relationships.
In short, I think Musk's absolutism will make online discourse more toxic. In the internet age, the ease of communicating to so many people so instantaneously means that some limits are necessary, and so long as the government can't throw you in jail because of your views, we'll probably be OK.
edit: Expanded on a few bits. Also, even though I lean left, I think this applies equally to anyone who flippantly throws around words like "woke" and "nazi". You know who you are. Get outside more.
Last edited:
Squid Surprise
Posts: 5,564 +5,204
I find it ironic that my post you are replying to was deleted by the mods... guess we have some right-wing mods...
But please give me some evidence for your "truth"? You DO know that there are people who have 2 sets of genitalia? Hermaphrodites.... I suppose they don't have any rights in your binary system?
It comes down to basic freedoms... If someone chooses to identify as a woman, man, trans, etc... how does this affect you? Why do you care so much what someone else chooses to believe?
If someone wants to marry a man... or woman...or a cow or a chicken for that matter... why should someone else care? As long as they don't harm you... what's the problem?
It's the holier than thou approach - not to mention the fierce discrimination, harassment, and even fatal beatings of people who don't conform to "normalcy" that are the real problem.
Didn't someone once say "live and let live"?
Your article surveyed everyone... not just left wing Americans.... the disconnect is on BOTH sides of the political spectrum...
dotnon
Posts: 41 +53
It's a bit more complicated than that.... an intimate relationship legally needs consent, and it's a bit hard to get consent from a chicken.
The moderate right-wing position is usually that legal civil partnerships are fine, but that marriage is an institution of religion and should be subjected to those religious beliefs - I.E. at the discretion of the church rather than the state legislating that they must accept same-sex couples.
I don't agree with any religion that would object to a same-sex marriage, but I have some sympathy for the argument that it's one for the church to address internally, so long as same-sex couples can obtain the same rights through a state-sanctioned civil union.
I'll caveat this by saying that I am in no way religious though, so I can understand why a religious LGBT person might feel differently.
Squid Surprise
Posts: 5,564 +5,204
While my cow/chicken comment might have been a bit extreme - why should I need the consent of a chicken to marry it, while I can slaughter and eat it without it
Yes, if you want to be "married" by your religious affiliation, it makes sense that your religion has to actually allow it... many are coming around to that... more important are the state sanctioned "partnerships" - and many nations (not to mention US states) are still lagging behind on that one.
dotnon
Posts: 41 +53
Lol - you make a good point, but as a chicken being forced to marry a human I would probably rather be slaughtered.While my cow/chicken comment might have been a bit extreme - why should I need the consent of a chicken to marry it, while I can slaughter and eat it without it
I do not care what people identity as. You have read past everything I have said. What I said is that I'm not going to live in that make believe. What I said is that doctors shouldn't be made to ask men if they have ever been pregnant. What I'm saying is that women shouldn't have to compete against men in women's sports. You say its not being imposed on us and live and let live, but again you are just denying reality. Our society is imposing, ironically, through a minority of elites their values on to us and requiring us to live in their lie. Even encouraging harmful decisions that will effect minors the rest of their lives because of a common and well know issue with gender dysphoria that resolves itself at a rate of over 90% when the child reaches puberty. Wake up man, stop lying to yourself. Nothing about this is right.
And please stop with the genetic mutations. We're talking about a exceeding small percentage of people that have those mutations and I am 100% okay with them. None of them are trying to force us into their make believe, they just are and they are just as valuable as anyone else.
Last edited:
Squid Surprise
Posts: 5,564 +5,204
Doctors being forced to ask if a man is pregnant is really not a terrible hardship... and you often can't tell a man or woman from their looks... so what's the problem?
As for women competing against men in women's sports - that has been going on for DECADES... there will always be people trying to beat the system.
What is being IMPOSED is simply the requirement that you TOLERATE other people's rights and freedoms... I know it's a big ask... but it really shouldn't be.
crocography
Posts: 38 +32
Waste of time and effort for the use of make believe. People have to grow up, stop wasting everyone's precious time on fantasy land.
(of course unless you are a child)
Not to this extent. See SouthPark episode. Curious as when to the women will be taking away medals from the men. In this case I really feel for the women who have strived so hard to be the best they can only to watch a man take away their accomplishments.
Most tolerate anything that is intelligent. But this is not about being tolerant it is about the dumbing down of society. If you wish to live in fantasy land, the virtual worlds are coming from facebook... have at it!
And good luck with reality!
Squid Surprise
Posts: 5,564 +5,204
How is it wasting my time any more than the other 100 questions I have to answer whenever I get checked up on by my doctor?
And yes, people SHOULD grow up - stop persecuting those who are different or believe differently than you! And stop thinking that everything YOU believe in is the truth and everyone else's opinions are fantasies...
So your evidence is a South Park episode? You DO know that that is actually the definition of Fantasy, right?
In women's (and men's) sports, the real problem is performance enhancing drugs... the amount of people of the wrong sex taking medals away pales in comparison to that. Honestly, I think the Olympics need to be disbanded, as they are completely corrupt - perhaps the only organization more corrupt than the IOC is FIFA. Actually - the REAL problem is simply the amount of money we've invested in these sports... if there were less rewards, there would probably be less cheating.
No... unfortunately, many people DON'T tolerate stuff just because it is "intelligent". Try being the only black person in a small town, or the only Jew, or the only Muslim... Try being openly gay in almost any "Republican State"... people are largely racist and INTOLERANT of others...
And it's people stating stuff like "stop living in a fantasy land" that encourages others to keep on with their discrimination.
An interesting thing about the decline of culture is that it is quite often when the youth of a civilization forget what their parents have done to give them the prosperity that they have. They turn on the older generations, feel entitled, and indulge their passions. Another interesting thing is they'll always deny what most people see, our culture is in steep decline and the US that existed and gave us the prosperity we have today is already gone. When you realize it though, it will be too late.
But remember he alone can't do much. We need another big stakeholder to work with Elon to take full control of Twitter.
dotnon
Posts: 41 +53
One nuance missing from this discussion (how did we get so far away from the actual subject already) is the difference between gender and sex.
For all intents and purposes, sex is biological and binary - you have sperm or eggs, and there's nothing in between, although obviously there can be differences that mean some female physical attributes appear on males and vice versa, although these are very rare.
Gender is a social construct, and people sometimes identify as non-binary, or with a gender that does not match their sex - gender dysphoria as it is known. It's not a disorder, it's part of who the person is, and by far the least harmful outcome is to embrace it. Often it disappears with puberty, but sometimes not, and if it doesn't, hormone therapy or even surgery can improve the person's sense of self-worth and life outcomes.
NHS page on gender dysphoria is a good summary: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/
The key takeaway here is that man and woman are gender terms, whereas male and female are sex terms. So if you're saying trans women are not women, it's fair cop to be called a bigot, but if you're saying trans women are not female, that's a factual and fair statement.
I think at the extremes we can have people arguing against science in the noble but misguided interest of not offending trans people, but really it's just a matter of using the right language. So long as we use their preferred pronouns, embrace who they are, and respect them as people, I don't think any reasonable trans person would take issue with the fact that they were born a different sex to their gender, so long as you weren't trying to use it against them in some way.
But this is actually quite common - society is constructed around binary cis-gendered norms, which creates a lot of awkward situations for trans people.
The hyperbolic situation of doctors being forced to ask men if they are pregnant is easily avoided by asking if they were born the sex of their gender identity beforehand, and only asking if they were born female. To me this is a storm in a teacup.
Issues of women's bathrooms can be thorny. I lean strongly on the side of gender identity here - nothing physically stops a cis man from walking into a women's bathroom, so it's not like allowing trans women makes cis women less safe. Some may feel uncomfortable, but that's not the fault of trans women.
Another thorny issue is on medical wards. It probably depends on what they're in hospital for, and whether their treatment depends on their sex, but I'd support any decision made with patient welfare as the overriding principle, even if the patient objected.
Trans women in sports is a real tough one - no easy answer. I'm sympathetic to the argument that they can have an unfair physical advantage, but also to the argument that they should be able to compete as who they are - women. The third option of creating their own category isn't really fair either - they wouldn't have access to the funding or publicity that cis-gendered athletes do. But the degree of physical advantage varies depending on the sport, so it's probably one best left to the individual sporting bodies.
It's is intellectually stupid. No one should be forced into someone else's fantasy. I don't care that they want to live in it themselves, but no one should have to affirm it. There are some of us that even believe its dangerous and wrong to affirm it. And statistically, it bares out, one of the highest rates of suicide are from people that have underwent surgeries to be the opposite sex. You of course will blame that on that individual not being accepted, but there is little evidence to back that up. What twitter wants is to shut down the conversation under the guise of hate speech. Never mind that many people including many doctors see irreparable damage from pushing an ideology over reality.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Pioneer's latest Blu-ray drive caters to disc diehards- captaincranky replied
-
Nintendo emulator Delta lands on the Apple App Store, now the top free app- Plutoisaplanet replied
-
Logitech thinks the computer mouse needs an AI upgrade- Squid Surprise replied
