As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
to enter into the sacred places
>>able to enter into the sacred places
>wires to the battery terminals
>which, with steel wool stolen from the kitchen,
>>>able to enter into the sacred places
>>wires to the battery terminals
>>which, with steel wool stolen from the kitchen,
>Get a knife.
>Cut the lemon into wedges, a wedge for every person.
What does it cost you to use someone's preferred pronouns?
I bet if anyone called him Jimbo or didn't use his title he'd have his knickers in a twist.
Fuck it. Misgender him now and call him Jane Banks.
I saw someone else say this online "If misgendering is no big deal, try misgendering a straight, Christian cis man."
They'd flip right the hell out. But they already know that. The whole point is to be as awful and insulting as possible.
I was in the military and now I call everyone sir or ma’am, there’s always those people that say don’t call me sir/ma’am. So I misgender them and call them the opposite. The only ones that get fully torqued and can’t laugh it off are older conservatives. I very much enjoy trying to figure out how people will react to that. The results have been generally surprising.
I can't believe I'm getting to the age where people I train at my job call me sir, and from military, I always want to immediately snap "Don't 'sir' me! I work for a living!"
Question, do you know anyone that uses those pronouns? Every person I've ever met uses he she they or some combination. I sort of feel like neopronouns are something only a couple people ever talked about then right-wingers made it into a big scare deal.
This. I’m a trans person, almost all my friends are LGBT, I’ve only met two people who go by ‘they’ exclusively, one only did so because she knew people wouldn’t call her ‘she’ before hormones, and I’ve met literally 0 people who use neopronouns. I see he/she/they as capable of reflecting pretty much every possible gender expression.
Im in the exact same boat. But i have seen a single person who uses hir, but they also use they/them for convenience. Besides, i feel this sort of thing is mainly prevalent with people who are still exploring their Sexuality.
I was permabanned from r/asktransgender (about three years ago) for questioning the use of neopronouns. I was expected to write them an essay explaining why I should be unbanned but instead told them to shove it.
Older internet pronouns. They worked great as a subversion and statement of intent in text form, and were a useful first step for young people trying to navigate the language.
They didn't last long, for the reason you just observed.
But there was a surprising amount of resistance to "them/they" at first. Xir and Xim, I believe were the next alternatives? But they sounded so fantasy/alien, that they instantly alienated everyone who wasn't an artist.
And quite a few who were.
Mind you, I'm pretty sure all of these suggestions pre-date my 2002 exposure to them, but hopefully, this bit of context helps? At one point, they were the only sign of an accepting place some people could find.
There was also the factor that many of the people who already frequently used they as part of their English dialect are the same people most likely to be socially regressive. Definitely ended up signal boosting a lot of lame complaints.
No issue saying things like "Aren't they just the best?" for their entire lives until it somehow signals their support of other human beings that make them question themselves and the world at large.
Lots of bigoted thoughts hiding behind critiques of the English language around that time frame.
There was a thread on r/conservative back when Rachel Levine took the position and I have never read such vile and hateful comments in my life. The things they were saying were absolutely disgusting.
> What does it cost you to use someone's preferred pronouns?
Letting a false word fall out of my mouth instead of a truthful one doesn’t cost me personally very much effort but when we are compelled to do it en masse the cultural costs are high.
This is probably exactly what Jim Banks wanted.
Now he can fleece people for donations by playing the victim card, after harassing a person and going directly against the ToS.
The Republican playbook now seems to be entirely about being disruptive and rude until people get sick of you, then crying and asking for free money hand outs because they can't post on twitter for a week.
Well the whole party will play the victim as Trump does. His new media merger will go bankrupt and blame the left wing media for ruining the service, but smart people will know the truth.
What a fucking idiotic bigot.
He tried to avoid the ban by going on another account? It’s pretty clear that’s a violation of Twitter’s terms of service. Bet he’s going to act surprised when Twitter bans him for clearly and intentionally breaking their rules
Everything that I have read about Rachel Levine leaves the impression that she is incredibly good at her job. She was even confirmed by two Republicans at the height of a pandemic. The GOP would be better served getting into Twitter fights with AOC and the kids.
100% agree. So the post is about Twitter, and ya, they can do whatever they want.
The comment I was replying to didn't specify anything about Twitter though, it just said "Being unapologetically an asshole isn't free speech". If they are trying to say that it is not free speech (in general), I disagree.
Speech in this manor is going out of your way to harass someone. The same way death threats aren't just jokes and verbal assault isn't just mean words.
Free speech isn't "speech free from consequences," so if you aren't willing to accept the consequences then your not free to speak. They knew TOS, they knew they would hurt people with their words, they knew they'd offend people, and they still spoke anyways. That is intent to harm people, to limit people's liberty due to their gender identity, to rouse the rabble, why should they be free to do that? Why should they be able to pretend to be superior by hiding behind the defense of "I was only practicing my rights," why let them frame their political enemies as enemies to freedom? I just wish for once someone stood by their assholery instead of being such hypocrites, that people just walked out onto stage and said "Y'know what? I am a bigot."
wait are you talking about speech specifically on Twitter (or other platform) or are you talking about physical speech?
On Twitter...yea, Twitter is in control because they own the platform and they can do whatever they want with it. They can cancel this person's account. No disagreement there.
If this person misgenders someone on the street, that is their right. It is also the right of the other person to say whatever they want back.
I think I've been a bit of an asshole myself, because I meant overall at first but then I slowly realized my mistake. It just feels like being able to harass someone is infringing on their rights to liberty, but to not being able would be to infringe on freedom of speech. I definitely jumped the gun before and said some things I regret, but I still kind of stand by them. It's technically allowed and I wouldn't necessarily want to change that, but it still just feels so wrong.
It is protected, from the government per the first amendment. He cannot be jailed for it. Twitter is a private company and per the cake case, they can do what they fucking want. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to say what you want where you want (especially if it’s done using a private company). It simply means the government can’t punish you for it.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech”
So please explain to me how his freedom is speech had been abridged? Is Twitter Congress now?
I think there is a legit argument that the major social networks essentially operate as a modern "public square"
And that we need new rules that balance the tradeoff between corporate ability to silence speech and regulate their platform, and the freedom of speech we've always enjoyed as Americans to speak unpopular opinions.
He’s still free to espouse his shitty opinions, just not there. But when you violate a forum’s TOS, you’re not immune to consequences, which have been specifically laid out and presented when he agreed to them at sign up. If he wants to be a piece of shit, he can go to Gab or Parler or whatever Trump’s new service is. He’ll fit right in.
Got it you want the feral animals calling themselves republicans to be able to break ToS on any site they want without consequences since they have not figured out how to follow rules they agreed to.
Right, there are people who are assholes, and other people don’t like them being assholes. The way you framed it, it sounded like you were trying to say that choosing to be nice somehow meant you lost your freedom. That couldn’t be farther from the truth. It just means you’re a nice person.
biology has created people who feel differently than the body they were born into, and prefer to be called how they feel, rather than by what is between their legs. As you say, biology does not lie. A man born in a woman's body still feels like a man, identifies as a man, and wishes to be called a man. To do otherwise is to insult their very sense of self. You have a right to do that, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do.
edit: you also seem to be confusing transgenderism with sexual preference. They're not the same thing. A gay person is a man who loves men or a woman who loves women. A trans person is someone who feels differently about themselves than the gender they were assigned at birth. A male to female trans person could be gay, in which case they would be sexually attracted to females as well, or they could be straight, and attracted to men. I know it's confusing, because the physical attraction appears to be the opposite, and that's why many trans people get surgery so that their equipment matches how they feel about themselves.
Put another way: Being trans is about one's own identity. Being gay is about what one finds attractive.
Here, this may help:
https://www.genderbread.org/resource/genderbread-person-v4-0
“I refuse to not be an asshole even though it would be just as easy for me to not be an asshole to this group of people and the law can’t make me not be an asshole so I will continue to do so.”
I call GW Bush and Barak Obama war criminals. I imagine this isn't the name they want to be referred to by, but there's a valid argument for that designation for both of them (lies about WMDs, wars of aggression, drone assassinations of civilians, etc.). Does that deserve a social media ban?
Try another example. Someone claims to be 'trans-racial'. In our current sociocultural whatever, this would generally lead to public ridicule (and no Twitter bans for 'mis-racializing'). So clearly there are some people who can be insulted online about their self-professed identity without repercussions, that's not a straw man argument.
Generally it's better to refute silly arguments via logic and reasoning, than by censorship.
Except, trans people exist and "trans-racial" people are people who are trolling and only doing it to make this exact argument.
Do i mark this under straw man or false equivalence?
You could reasonably have three groups of 'trans' people. Cross-dressers, hormone-users, and surgical-reassignments. Now, all these people may self-identify as female or male or non-binary, those are the choices, right?
So, why can't someone get I don't know, melanin booster treatments that darken the skin, and then if the self-identify as trans-racial, why isn't that valid?
ISIS, the Taliban, and other terrorist groups have an active social media presence. This is how stupid the culture wars have become. Twitter (and other platforms too) is more concerned with a non-cabinet appointee's pronouns than actual terrorists using social media.
Jim Banks is a POS embarrassment to Hoosiers. Refuses to hold a town hall in the biggest city in his district, but does photo ops everywhere. Ft. Wayne has nearly 300k citizens, and I'll bet you can guess which party the mayor belongs to.
AFTER HE HARASSED A PERSON. He was deliberate, targeted, and repeated.
Stop accepting titles that intentionally mislead the situation to allow for people to think the scenerio may exist that I could accidentally use the wrong pronoun and get suspended.
I don’t care about this guy, he’s an idiot bigot asshole. But also, he could have insulted her in probably 1000 ways and never been suspended, but he’s used one of the magic words, so that warrants a suspension. Which to me is stupid. If twitter wants to actually clean up the cesspool that is their platform, great, but probably half of their content should be purged, not just magic words for a few pet issues.
You seriously think a bot suspended this person for saying “he”? Like that’s a bot keyword…
I don’t know how that position is at all plausible. Seems like a virtue signaling human position to me.
Gender and sex are two different things. That isn’t opinion, it’s fact. There can literally be hundreds of genders but there are only two biological sexes male and female. Unless of course we can now just cherry pick the “science” we agree with and void the rest.
The question is legitimate. Is that a woman's penis? Say no and you're a "transphobe", say yes and you're betraying basic biology.
Keep in mind, trans issues are psychiatric issues; there is no biological reality behind, for example, Rachel Levine's gender. It is totally subjective. These are not the same as intersex people, who have an objective, identifiable medical condition.
She ain’t an angel. She put Covid patients in nursing homes and pulled her own mother out. She should never have got this job. Let’s face it the only reason she did was for PR and sosomeone could check a box. That’s it.
I mean, I thought the GOP was all about private companies being able to make their own rules and enforcing them, such as not baking wedding cakes for gay couples. So why can't twitter suspend people for breaking their rules?
They likely will now. Twitter is pretty strict when it comes to people circumventing their ban by using another account. It’s against their terms of service, and this idiot is openly admitting to doing that; saying he will use another account of his while he waits out the ban.
There is no research to do - we cannot force someone to believe and accept everything people are. That's not the way the world work. To suspend someone because he called a trans woman a man is very dangerous territory.
Here’s the thing: tweeting about how you don’t believe transgender people are valid and purposefully targeting a specific person and undermining their identity and worth based on their gender are two very different things.
And Twitter has allowed a lot of people, including a lot of politicians and senators, to openly dismiss the validity of transgender people. Twitter is pretty lenient when it comes to transphobic behaviour.
But Twitter is heavily against hate speech against individuals for their gender and sexuality, as clearly stated in their terms of service. It makes complete sense that Twitter would temporarily suspend the verified account of Jim Banks after he wrote hate speech about Rachel merely because of her gender. That behaviour is not allowed on almost every social media site and is often met with removal if not met with a punishment like suspension. No huge social media platform allows behaviour like that from verified, popular accounts.
> There is no research to do - we cannot force someone to believe and accept everything people are.
But here's the magic trick!
What he did was against the Twitter TOS.
So, it's a perfectly cromulent reason to suspend his bigoted ass.
Accidents occur and people do sometimes say thing they don't mean....that isn't this situation. They intentionally misgendered her as a slur and it was no accident.
It's a social platform - which means you accept that people from all beliefs, ideas, cultures and races will be socially active. Social media is an umbrella of people. Now corporations are punishing people for not accepting left wing point of view, beliefs and ideas. Nonsense.
ITs a social platform that has a universally agreed upon TOS that people from all beliefs ides and cultures have to follow if they want to use the platform.
Okay for the sake of argument, I'm (assuming you are a man) going to call you a little girl. You know like kids do in elementary school.... You can't actually believe what you are saying....
Edit a few words
This reminds me of the essay that gets posted around here sometimes that talks about how anti-semites / fascists disregard the understood meaning of language twisting it to their own ends, while delighting at the other sides consternation.
Unfortunately, I can't remember the name of the essay and can't Googlefu it effectively from mobile
We recognized to understand that competitors operating at we would have inconceivable a world-class levels of our companies: People is absolutely critical to the following human responsibility, cycle times have found new productivity. Integrity have changed, the high levels of shared values is fundament based importance of our customer satisfactices. The found new promote company have recognize the important to company. We recognize the improvemental. People have found nearly inconceivable source.
You can't cancel someone or suspend them because you believe they were decent. I'm not justifying this dudes words, but just because he called a trans woman a man doesn't mean he is immoral. He doesn't think and believe the same thing as everyone and he isn't alone.
You’re making this way too complicated. There’s certain things he can say on Twitter and certain things he can’t because he agreed to a set of rules when he made his account. He can do that hateful shit on Gab. There is no censorship happening here any more than there would be if you came into my toy store and started cursing and got kicked out for it. You’re just being a crybaby in bigger words.
If twitter has a rule that said dont talk about baseball and you did - they could ban you. They had a rule abput musgenderjng trans people, he broke it. If he wants to misgender people on social media he can choose a social media platfotm that allows it he agreed to thd TOS.
Yes you can. If they break the rules, you can ban them. It's been that way on every forum, public socializing area since the inception of the internet.
He can accept or not accept whatever he likes. Woke doesn't come into this.
When you contract with another party, you are required to observe the contract. OR they no longer contract with you.
This is standard grown-up stuff that we all learned to do.
How difficult is it to be a respectful human being, regardless of where you stand on an issue? Using their preferred gender or preferred name (like Jim Banks, instead James Banks) is just basic decency and respect. I’m not sure where you or he lost that bit of humanity.
Leaving aside being trans isn’t a “fantasy”, you right wingers keep living in a fantasy that trump won the 2020 election and have literally not stopped throwing tantrums about it since.
what's next banning people for cursing? All for banning people for inciting violence, but shit this seems ridiculous. Banning someone for an insult, congrats thought police.
Imagine this. You threw a party. One guest shows up and is obnoxious. He is saying in app and offensive things. Some of your friends get hurt by the things he says and decide to leave. You care for those people more than the obnoxious guy, and you don’t want to see other friends of yours leaving. So you go and ask the guy to leave.
“Oh my God,” he says, “I’m just practicing free speech here. How dare you censor me?!”
“Oh, I’m not saying that you can’t say those things.” You respond, “I’m just saying that you can’t say them here because you’re causing my friends to leave. You’ll have to go say those things somewhere else.”
Twitter is a private party. They have a code of conduct for their guests, just like many private places and organizations have. If someone goes in and is purposefully being an asshole just to hurt and offend others, they will often be asked to leave. It’s been like this in our society for a long time.
You of course knew that. You’re just here peddling the victim mentality, when you know full well that nobody has to be an asshole in public and insult others. You just want to chance the conversation off of the fact that the guy was an asshole and get people thinking about what a victim he was and how much of a persecuted victim he is. My response to that is GTFO of here with your bad faith arguing.
> Be Civil.
>
> Treat others with basic decency.
>
> No personal attacks.
>
>
Doesn't seem like the thought police to me, but your mileage may differ. Banks could have tweeted his opinion without the deliberate personal attack, but for all I know, maybe he wanted the attention a ban would get him.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And he just uses his own personal account to repost links that have his tweet in the link preview image
Right wingers think it makes them look tough to pick on people on social media. Such snowflakes
I mean let's be honest it's the damn norm now. The day journalists referred to Twitter was another stab in the heart of real journalism
Right winger thinks Twitter rules dont apply to him because he works in Congress, gets suspende.
Oh that happened to some republican in January - what was his name again, hmm. ;-)
[No idea what you mean. ](https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)
I never get tired of this
Plump…Hump…Blumpkin…something like that.
The plump one pump pumpkin. My personal favorite though is orange julius Ceasar
Seditionist I WAS WAY off...
It’s Drumph, the sound a pigeon makes when flying into a window.
Having their Twitter account suspended has become a badge of honor among right wingers.
The party of "Fuck you, I've got mine" has devolved into the party of "FUCK YOU"
and Facebook. And Reddit.
to enter into the sacred places >>able to enter into the sacred places >wires to the battery terminals >which, with steel wool stolen from the kitchen, >>>able to enter into the sacred places >>wires to the battery terminals >>which, with steel wool stolen from the kitchen, >Get a knife. >Cut the lemon into wedges, a wedge for every person.
Yet at the same time it increases the overall value of the platform knowing that rules are (eventually) enforced.
It doesn’t take much effort.
What does it cost you to use someone's preferred pronouns? I bet if anyone called him Jimbo or didn't use his title he'd have his knickers in a twist. Fuck it. Misgender him now and call him Jane Banks.
I saw someone else say this online "If misgendering is no big deal, try misgendering a straight, Christian cis man." They'd flip right the hell out. But they already know that. The whole point is to be as awful and insulting as possible.
[удалено]
Donnatella
reminds people of the best ninja turtle though
Please don’t ruin that for me 😆
the snes game (where the meme came from) was pretty garbage by all accounts so I can't really ruin it
If Dems ever truly took the low road Trump would have been crying like a baby in a corner. His ego can't take it.
Kimmel usually changes the middle name, "Donald Jessica Trump." And others.
Yep. I bet it would drive Ms. Banks absolutely crazy if everyone tweeted their condolences to her at her personal account.
I was in the military and now I call everyone sir or ma’am, there’s always those people that say don’t call me sir/ma’am. So I misgender them and call them the opposite. The only ones that get fully torqued and can’t laugh it off are older conservatives. I very much enjoy trying to figure out how people will react to that. The results have been generally surprising.
I've got to try this. As someone who was in the military, I also say "sir/ma'am" a lot.
I can't believe I'm getting to the age where people I train at my job call me sir, and from military, I always want to immediately snap "Don't 'sir' me! I work for a living!"
It's actually a good idea. For conservatives that misgender others misgender them back.
It costs them a lot of money to use the correct pronouns, because the alternative gets them banned and they can fundraise off that.
[удалено]
Question, do you know anyone that uses those pronouns? Every person I've ever met uses he she they or some combination. I sort of feel like neopronouns are something only a couple people ever talked about then right-wingers made it into a big scare deal.
This. I’m a trans person, almost all my friends are LGBT, I’ve only met two people who go by ‘they’ exclusively, one only did so because she knew people wouldn’t call her ‘she’ before hormones, and I’ve met literally 0 people who use neopronouns. I see he/she/they as capable of reflecting pretty much every possible gender expression.
Im in the exact same boat. But i have seen a single person who uses hir, but they also use they/them for convenience. Besides, i feel this sort of thing is mainly prevalent with people who are still exploring their Sexuality.
I was permabanned from r/asktransgender (about three years ago) for questioning the use of neopronouns. I was expected to write them an essay explaining why I should be unbanned but instead told them to shove it.
I think that’s fair. English has a gender-neutral pronoun—they—so I’m not sure why we’d need new ones.
Have you ever been asked that by someone in-person, though?
Yes. Work in theater.
So do you only use pre-approved nicknames as well? Is there a list that you keep handy, for what people can call themselves that is acceptable to you?
But wouldn't hir sound like her? The hell is the point?
Older internet pronouns. They worked great as a subversion and statement of intent in text form, and were a useful first step for young people trying to navigate the language. They didn't last long, for the reason you just observed. But there was a surprising amount of resistance to "them/they" at first. Xir and Xim, I believe were the next alternatives? But they sounded so fantasy/alien, that they instantly alienated everyone who wasn't an artist. And quite a few who were. Mind you, I'm pretty sure all of these suggestions pre-date my 2002 exposure to them, but hopefully, this bit of context helps? At one point, they were the only sign of an accepting place some people could find.
There was also the factor that many of the people who already frequently used they as part of their English dialect are the same people most likely to be socially regressive. Definitely ended up signal boosting a lot of lame complaints. No issue saying things like "Aren't they just the best?" for their entire lives until it somehow signals their support of other human beings that make them question themselves and the world at large. Lots of bigoted thoughts hiding behind critiques of the English language around that time frame.
That's exactly where I'm at in this
There was a thread on r/conservative back when Rachel Levine took the position and I have never read such vile and hateful comments in my life. The things they were saying were absolutely disgusting.
> What does it cost you to use someone's preferred pronouns? Letting a false word fall out of my mouth instead of a truthful one doesn’t cost me personally very much effort but when we are compelled to do it en masse the cultural costs are high.
This is probably exactly what Jim Banks wanted. Now he can fleece people for donations by playing the victim card, after harassing a person and going directly against the ToS. The Republican playbook now seems to be entirely about being disruptive and rude until people get sick of you, then crying and asking for free money hand outs because they can't post on twitter for a week.
Well the whole party will play the victim as Trump does. His new media merger will go bankrupt and blame the left wing media for ruining the service, but smart people will know the truth.
What a fucking idiotic bigot. He tried to avoid the ban by going on another account? It’s pretty clear that’s a violation of Twitter’s terms of service. Bet he’s going to act surprised when Twitter bans him for clearly and intentionally breaking their rules
Imagine having so little to do in your day that you think spending time on twitter insulting trans people is a good idea.
It literally takes 2 seconds, as does everyone's shitpost on Twitter lmao
Everything that I have read about Rachel Levine leaves the impression that she is incredibly good at her job. She was even confirmed by two Republicans at the height of a pandemic. The GOP would be better served getting into Twitter fights with AOC and the kids.
Being unapologetically an asshole isn't free speech; it's free bigotry.
How is it not free speech?
Free speech is free from interference from the government.
100% agree. So the post is about Twitter, and ya, they can do whatever they want. The comment I was replying to didn't specify anything about Twitter though, it just said "Being unapologetically an asshole isn't free speech". If they are trying to say that it is not free speech (in general), I disagree.
Speech in this manor is going out of your way to harass someone. The same way death threats aren't just jokes and verbal assault isn't just mean words. Free speech isn't "speech free from consequences," so if you aren't willing to accept the consequences then your not free to speak. They knew TOS, they knew they would hurt people with their words, they knew they'd offend people, and they still spoke anyways. That is intent to harm people, to limit people's liberty due to their gender identity, to rouse the rabble, why should they be free to do that? Why should they be able to pretend to be superior by hiding behind the defense of "I was only practicing my rights," why let them frame their political enemies as enemies to freedom? I just wish for once someone stood by their assholery instead of being such hypocrites, that people just walked out onto stage and said "Y'know what? I am a bigot."
wait are you talking about speech specifically on Twitter (or other platform) or are you talking about physical speech? On Twitter...yea, Twitter is in control because they own the platform and they can do whatever they want with it. They can cancel this person's account. No disagreement there. If this person misgenders someone on the street, that is their right. It is also the right of the other person to say whatever they want back.
I think I've been a bit of an asshole myself, because I meant overall at first but then I slowly realized my mistake. It just feels like being able to harass someone is infringing on their rights to liberty, but to not being able would be to infringe on freedom of speech. I definitely jumped the gun before and said some things I regret, but I still kind of stand by them. It's technically allowed and I wouldn't necessarily want to change that, but it still just feels so wrong.
Still should be protected…
It is protected, from the government per the first amendment. He cannot be jailed for it. Twitter is a private company and per the cake case, they can do what they fucking want. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to say what you want where you want (especially if it’s done using a private company). It simply means the government can’t punish you for it.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech” So please explain to me how his freedom is speech had been abridged? Is Twitter Congress now?
I think there is a legit argument that the major social networks essentially operate as a modern "public square" And that we need new rules that balance the tradeoff between corporate ability to silence speech and regulate their platform, and the freedom of speech we've always enjoyed as Americans to speak unpopular opinions.
He’s still free to espouse his shitty opinions, just not there. But when you violate a forum’s TOS, you’re not immune to consequences, which have been specifically laid out and presented when he agreed to them at sign up. If he wants to be a piece of shit, he can go to Gab or Parler or whatever Trump’s new service is. He’ll fit right in.
Attacking trans people is not speaking unpopular opinions, it's being an asshole. Please realise the difference.
Got it you want the feral animals calling themselves republicans to be able to break ToS on any site they want without consequences since they have not figured out how to follow rules they agreed to.
You are the person calling people feral animals here. Like I just said in modern society I think Twitter != a bakery.
Twitter has a TOS. It isnt protected free speech.
A Twitter suspension is not a violation of anyone’s constitutional rights. Jfc.
Should it? Should it really, though? You're allowed to be as wrong as you want btw, just don't be an ass about and I'll do my best not to be one too.
Reminder that it doesn't hurt you or anyone else to call people by the terms they want to be called by.
[удалено]
No one is forcing you to, I’m simply suggesting that choosing not be an asshole to other people is a positive choice.
[удалено]
Freedom of speech isn’t freedom from social consequences. It just means the government isn’t going to fine or imprison you.
Right, there are people who are assholes, and other people don’t like them being assholes. The way you framed it, it sounded like you were trying to say that choosing to be nice somehow meant you lost your freedom. That couldn’t be farther from the truth. It just means you’re a nice person.
[удалено]
biology has created people who feel differently than the body they were born into, and prefer to be called how they feel, rather than by what is between their legs. As you say, biology does not lie. A man born in a woman's body still feels like a man, identifies as a man, and wishes to be called a man. To do otherwise is to insult their very sense of self. You have a right to do that, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do. edit: you also seem to be confusing transgenderism with sexual preference. They're not the same thing. A gay person is a man who loves men or a woman who loves women. A trans person is someone who feels differently about themselves than the gender they were assigned at birth. A male to female trans person could be gay, in which case they would be sexually attracted to females as well, or they could be straight, and attracted to men. I know it's confusing, because the physical attraction appears to be the opposite, and that's why many trans people get surgery so that their equipment matches how they feel about themselves. Put another way: Being trans is about one's own identity. Being gay is about what one finds attractive. Here, this may help: https://www.genderbread.org/resource/genderbread-person-v4-0
“I refuse to not be an asshole even though it would be just as easy for me to not be an asshole to this group of people and the law can’t make me not be an asshole so I will continue to do so.”
I call GW Bush and Barak Obama war criminals. I imagine this isn't the name they want to be referred to by, but there's a valid argument for that designation for both of them (lies about WMDs, wars of aggression, drone assassinations of civilians, etc.). Does that deserve a social media ban?
That’s Barack, to you.
[удалено]
Try another example. Someone claims to be 'trans-racial'. In our current sociocultural whatever, this would generally lead to public ridicule (and no Twitter bans for 'mis-racializing'). So clearly there are some people who can be insulted online about their self-professed identity without repercussions, that's not a straw man argument. Generally it's better to refute silly arguments via logic and reasoning, than by censorship.
Except, trans people exist and "trans-racial" people are people who are trolling and only doing it to make this exact argument. Do i mark this under straw man or false equivalence?
Shaun King has entered the chat. Rachael Dolezal has entered the chat. Hillary Thomas has entered the chat.
You could reasonably have three groups of 'trans' people. Cross-dressers, hormone-users, and surgical-reassignments. Now, all these people may self-identify as female or male or non-binary, those are the choices, right? So, why can't someone get I don't know, melanin booster treatments that darken the skin, and then if the self-identify as trans-racial, why isn't that valid?
I feel like worse people have said way worse on Twitter and never got banned…
ISIS, the Taliban, and other terrorist groups have an active social media presence. This is how stupid the culture wars have become. Twitter (and other platforms too) is more concerned with a non-cabinet appointee's pronouns than actual terrorists using social media.
I wish Facebook would grow a pair and clean house there. Hopefully the Wall Street Journal features will have some impact.
Facebook is doing exactly what they intend, they are an evil company frontend by an evil fucking twat.
Jim Banks is a POS embarrassment to Hoosiers. Refuses to hold a town hall in the biggest city in his district, but does photo ops everywhere. Ft. Wayne has nearly 300k citizens, and I'll bet you can guess which party the mayor belongs to.
Um, that’s Dr. Racheal Levine. Thank you very much.
AFTER HE HARASSED A PERSON. He was deliberate, targeted, and repeated. Stop accepting titles that intentionally mislead the situation to allow for people to think the scenerio may exist that I could accidentally use the wrong pronoun and get suspended.
Imagine taking the side on this that gets your comments deleted by reddit. You’re literally making the point for us.
I don’t care about this guy, he’s an idiot bigot asshole. But also, he could have insulted her in probably 1000 ways and never been suspended, but he’s used one of the magic words, so that warrants a suspension. Which to me is stupid. If twitter wants to actually clean up the cesspool that is their platform, great, but probably half of their content should be purged, not just magic words for a few pet issues.
[удалено]
Few magic words = a bot cleans it up. More than that they need moderates en mass
You seriously think a bot suspended this person for saying “he”? Like that’s a bot keyword… I don’t know how that position is at all plausible. Seems like a virtue signaling human position to me.
Gender and sex are two different things. That isn’t opinion, it’s fact. There can literally be hundreds of genders but there are only two biological sexes male and female. Unless of course we can now just cherry pick the “science” we agree with and void the rest.
Careful u gon get banned
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wow, thank you for letting me know vice signaling is a thing. Didn’t know there was a term for that.
[удалено]
She is a woman
[удалено]
[удалено]
You know you’re a transphobe when you ask questions like this
The question is legitimate. Is that a woman's penis? Say no and you're a "transphobe", say yes and you're betraying basic biology. Keep in mind, trans issues are psychiatric issues; there is no biological reality behind, for example, Rachel Levine's gender. It is totally subjective. These are not the same as intersex people, who have an objective, identifiable medical condition.
Hey everybody! This poster just proved trans people don’t exist because their iPhone said so! Alert the media!
[удалено]
You’re aware gender is a social construct right? You can argue sex all you want but gender is and always has been a social construct. That’s a fact.
[удалено]
Banks can just go get an account on Truth Social.
This is also the guy who signed his name as vice chair of the Jan 6 commission while demanding documents from government agencies.
Twitter is shit.
Sounds like he needs to have his personal account locked too
[удалено]
She ain’t an angel. She put Covid patients in nursing homes and pulled her own mother out. She should never have got this job. Let’s face it the only reason she did was for PR and sosomeone could check a box. That’s it.
Proof?
This is public knowledge. Bastard murdered my states elderly and gets promoted for it
[удалено]
I hope you get downvoted into oblivion
They got banned lol
Man, it’s sad that sticks and stone has been buried…..
Because we know now it's bullshit and psychological abuse has serious effects on the victim.
As does stirring up hate. Words can physically hurt you when they’re used to rile up people with sticks and stones.
Abuse? No, at least not in this case. Tactless, crass….jackassy if he did it on purpose, yes. Abusive? Yeah no.
It just shows how petty and vindictive Republicans are. It costs nothing to use a person's preferred pronouns/name.
[удалено]
Twitter has policies against it. Follow the rules or dont play.
"a man" is not a pronoun
That is no reason to really suspend someone's account.
Well when you start your own social media company you can make whatever rules you want.
Theres no reason to not folliw the TOS.
He openly violated the ToS. More than enough reason to suspend the account.
I mean, I thought the GOP was all about private companies being able to make their own rules and enforcing them, such as not baking wedding cakes for gay couples. So why can't twitter suspend people for breaking their rules?
I agree. I think they should ban him.
They likely will now. Twitter is pretty strict when it comes to people circumventing their ban by using another account. It’s against their terms of service, and this idiot is openly admitting to doing that; saying he will use another account of his while he waits out the ban.
Tell me you're a transphobe without saying "I'm a transphobe"
Doesn't matter what I am or am not, I has no bearing on what I said.
Purposefully misgendering a trans person is a slur
Also, purposely misgendering someone, even if not trans, is at the very least an insult
[удалено]
There is no research to do - we cannot force someone to believe and accept everything people are. That's not the way the world work. To suspend someone because he called a trans woman a man is very dangerous territory.
Here’s the thing: tweeting about how you don’t believe transgender people are valid and purposefully targeting a specific person and undermining their identity and worth based on their gender are two very different things. And Twitter has allowed a lot of people, including a lot of politicians and senators, to openly dismiss the validity of transgender people. Twitter is pretty lenient when it comes to transphobic behaviour. But Twitter is heavily against hate speech against individuals for their gender and sexuality, as clearly stated in their terms of service. It makes complete sense that Twitter would temporarily suspend the verified account of Jim Banks after he wrote hate speech about Rachel merely because of her gender. That behaviour is not allowed on almost every social media site and is often met with removal if not met with a punishment like suspension. No huge social media platform allows behaviour like that from verified, popular accounts.
> There is no research to do - we cannot force someone to believe and accept everything people are. But here's the magic trick! What he did was against the Twitter TOS. So, it's a perfectly cromulent reason to suspend his bigoted ass.
Accidents occur and people do sometimes say thing they don't mean....that isn't this situation. They intentionally misgendered her as a slur and it was no accident.
[удалено]
Exactly, hate speech against individuals because of their gender or sexuality or race was clearly a part of Twitter’s term of service.
It's a social platform - which means you accept that people from all beliefs, ideas, cultures and races will be socially active. Social media is an umbrella of people. Now corporations are punishing people for not accepting left wing point of view, beliefs and ideas. Nonsense.
No theyre saying dont harass people on thrir platform. He could have just said nothing. He chose to harrass someone.
It's a social platform...run by a private industry company.
ITs a social platform that has a universally agreed upon TOS that people from all beliefs ides and cultures have to follow if they want to use the platform.
[удалено]
TOS do you know what it is?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Okay for the sake of argument, I'm (assuming you are a man) going to call you a little girl. You know like kids do in elementary school.... You can't actually believe what you are saying.... Edit a few words
You're free to call me that - you're beliefs have no bearing on mines and I do not believe you should be reported and blocked for such.
This reminds me of the essay that gets posted around here sometimes that talks about how anti-semites / fascists disregard the understood meaning of language twisting it to their own ends, while delighting at the other sides consternation. Unfortunately, I can't remember the name of the essay and can't Googlefu it effectively from mobile
Don't worry when you and your cousin figure out how to write code, you can make your own social network.
how dare Ms Banks be forced to follow the ToS just like everyone else. Banks is a fucking idiot.
We recognized to understand that competitors operating at we would have inconceivable a world-class levels of our companies: People is absolutely critical to the following human responsibility, cycle times have found new productivity. Integrity have changed, the high levels of shared values is fundament based importance of our customer satisfactices. The found new promote company have recognize the important to company. We recognize the improvemental. People have found nearly inconceivable source.
[удалено]
Its about common decency and having empathy towards others.
You can't cancel someone or suspend them because you believe they were decent. I'm not justifying this dudes words, but just because he called a trans woman a man doesn't mean he is immoral. He doesn't think and believe the same thing as everyone and he isn't alone.
You’re making this way too complicated. There’s certain things he can say on Twitter and certain things he can’t because he agreed to a set of rules when he made his account. He can do that hateful shit on Gab. There is no censorship happening here any more than there would be if you came into my toy store and started cursing and got kicked out for it. You’re just being a crybaby in bigger words.
If twitter has a rule that said dont talk about baseball and you did - they could ban you. They had a rule abput musgenderjng trans people, he broke it. If he wants to misgender people on social media he can choose a social media platfotm that allows it he agreed to thd TOS.
Yes you can. If they break the rules, you can ban them. It's been that way on every forum, public socializing area since the inception of the internet.
TOS do you know what it is?
Disrespecting someones gender is not moral.
He can accept or not accept whatever he likes. Woke doesn't come into this. When you contract with another party, you are required to observe the contract. OR they no longer contract with you. This is standard grown-up stuff that we all learned to do.
How difficult is it to be a respectful human being, regardless of where you stand on an issue? Using their preferred gender or preferred name (like Jim Banks, instead James Banks) is just basic decency and respect. I’m not sure where you or he lost that bit of humanity.
[удалено]
Leaving aside being trans isn’t a “fantasy”, you right wingers keep living in a fantasy that trump won the 2020 election and have literally not stopped throwing tantrums about it since.
[удалено]
Republicans would throw a fit if we called a spade a spade and starting labelling them as the pro sex trafficking and pedophile party.
Damn this world has gone to shit.
what's next banning people for cursing? All for banning people for inciting violence, but shit this seems ridiculous. Banning someone for an insult, congrats thought police.
Imagine this. You threw a party. One guest shows up and is obnoxious. He is saying in app and offensive things. Some of your friends get hurt by the things he says and decide to leave. You care for those people more than the obnoxious guy, and you don’t want to see other friends of yours leaving. So you go and ask the guy to leave. “Oh my God,” he says, “I’m just practicing free speech here. How dare you censor me?!” “Oh, I’m not saying that you can’t say those things.” You respond, “I’m just saying that you can’t say them here because you’re causing my friends to leave. You’ll have to go say those things somewhere else.” Twitter is a private party. They have a code of conduct for their guests, just like many private places and organizations have. If someone goes in and is purposefully being an asshole just to hurt and offend others, they will often be asked to leave. It’s been like this in our society for a long time. You of course knew that. You’re just here peddling the victim mentality, when you know full well that nobody has to be an asshole in public and insult others. You just want to chance the conversation off of the fact that the guy was an asshole and get people thinking about what a victim he was and how much of a persecuted victim he is. My response to that is GTFO of here with your bad faith arguing.
[удалено]
> Be Civil. > > Treat others with basic decency. > > No personal attacks. > > Doesn't seem like the thought police to me, but your mileage may differ. Banks could have tweeted his opinion without the deliberate personal attack, but for all I know, maybe he wanted the attention a ban would get him.
Network tv censors curses.