Skip Navigation

Reddit @lemmy.ml

morrowind @lemmy.ml

2年前

Squabbles, another recent reddit alternative, seems to be taking the doomed "free speech" path

Reddit Migration @kbin.social

Madbrad200 @lemmy.world

2年前

Squabbles, another recent reddit alternative, seems to be taking the doomed "free speech" path

0 16

您正在查看单个对话串。

280 评论

***with the exception of racist content, the use of slurs (racial or otherwise), targetted harassment, and incitement of violence, ***
Did everyone just skip right past reading this part? That's a lot of exceptions that cover a large gamut of activity that will continue to be not allowed. That's not exactly "free speech" by definition, but it also is not allowing content that most platforms also do not allow.
I am not exactly sure what I am missing?
- There's a lot of context. Basically, there's been a few weeks of controversy over whether anti-lgbt viewpoints would be allowed. This post (along with the removal of two admins) was a statement that anti-lgbt viewpoints are explicitly allowed on the site as long as they avoid slurs and direct incitement of violence. With a site population that leans pretty far left, this didn't go over well at all.
  
  In other words, "you can pick on minorities as long as they aren't racial minorities." Yeah, great distinction.
  
  I am curious why the allowance of anti-LGBT viewpoints is so controversial. As stated above, all of the basic rules of civility are still being enforced.
  Let's say he decided to clarify that anti-Christian, or anti-capitalist viewpoints are not allowed. There are millions of people around the world who would claim such censorship is bigoted and narrow-minded. And they would be correct.
  As long as people are polite to one another, what exactly is the problem with allowing people to express their perspectives?
  
  This isn't a dispute over tax code or which Star Trek is better, this is a bunch of bigots declaring a group of people don't deserve to live and pretending they aren't awful bigots because they're doing it "politely". That's not a "viewpoint", that's a declaration of war.
  
  also their actions have crossed the line into outright genocide
  
  also their actions have crossed the line into outright genocide
  Oh boy, here we go.
  Tell me, how many trans people have been rounded up and murdered for being trans?
  I'm going to guess you don't actually know what a genocide is, otherwise you wouldn't be shitting on the poor souls that actually died in a genocide by suggesting that poor trans women not being allowed to compete with biological women is a genocide.
  
  Who are you referring to?
  
  declaring a group of people don't deserve to live
  I'm sure if anyone said that, they would rightly get banned. My question is why any disagreement or criticism is interpreted as a declaration of war?
  LGBTQ people disagree vehemently amongst themselves about nearly every aspect of the LGBTQ experience. It's not a topic that is well understood by anyone, not even people who are a part of it.
  Religion and Work are every bit as important as sexual identity, if not more so for many people. Christianity isn't Star Trek (at least not in the minds of Christians), yet we would consider a Christian who responded to honest criticism of their religion with hostility to be a narrow-minded fool at best, a dangerous zealot at worst.
  
  Obviously there are debates going on in queer circles about politics and identity. None of those debates ask anything even remotely like “do queer people actually exist and if so do they deserve the same rights as other people?” That is the question conservatives seek to ask and the reason they want “free speech” on these platforms.
  
  “do queer people actually exist and if so do they deserve the same rights as other people?”
  I see people claiming that's occurring far more often than I see it occurring. Maybe because the free speech sites I go on aren't just using as a shield for far right wing beliefs.
  I also see plenty of people claiming that someone is denying them the right to exist for simply asking questions that aren't supportive. Yes, there are the assholes "just asking questions" in bad faith, but just as in the human body an overactive immune system causes more damage than it protects from.
  The frequent immediate assumption of bad faith that seems to be commonly demonstrated by LGBT+ and allies when interacting with questioning viewpoints doesn't help the cause.
  As others have pointed out, that sort of attitude from religious people would have them labelled zealots. Why is this suddenly acceptable when it comes to the often far more confusing and less accessible topic of sexuality and dysphoria?
  
  I think maybe you should ask why people have no patience for just asking the Jewish question, or wondering why we don’t talk about how great it was for Black people to be slaves. Even if you are asking questions in good faith, the questions themselves can have flawed premises.
  Generally public forums are not a great place to just ask questions, especially about sensitive subjects. Asking the people in question in their own forums in a respectful way will get you much further if you truly have questions that you are seeking the answers to.
  
  None of those debates ask anything even remotely like “do queer people actually exist and if so do they deserve the same rights as other people?”
  No "conservatives" have ever asked "do queer people actually exist and if so do they deserve the same rights as other people?" though.
  I'll ask you and I hope you can give me an answer since no one else has ever been able to - what human rights do trans people NOT have?
  
  Nobody is born Christian or capitalist. People are taught it. It's not an innate property of a person. You can choose to not be either of those at any point in time.
  If you're allowing this kind of discourse towards LGBT persons, communities, etc. but still enforcing anti-racial policies then you're obviously well uninformed and taking a specifically and completely anti LGBT stance, be it knowingly or unknowingly.
  
  I would argue the same is true of LGBTQ individuals. I don't see how one could rationally argue that an infant emerges from the womb with a fully formed sense of sexuality. Sexual identity is a nebulous trait that develops throughout our lives, not an objective, immutable physical fact such as the color of one's skin or the chromosomes composing one's genetic code.
  Many LGBTQ people transition through a number of different sexual identities throughout their lives. An innate property is something that cannot be changed.
  I suppose that it's possible that we all get assigned a hidden number at birth that defines our sexuality absolutely, and people just struggle to figure out what their "number" is due to societal pressure, but that doesn't really jive with our understanding of human biology, like at all. Nearly every trait we have studied exhibits both genetic factors and environmental factors.
  
  This seems pretty disingenuous. Sexual and gender identity is not changeable by people, even if it can develop or change over time; so discriminating against it is categorically wrong, as these “free speech platforms” seek to do. In that regard it is the same as skin color.
  
  I don't believe in free will, so I suppose we have reached a stalemate. In my mind, one's religion or favorite color is no more of a choice than sexual orientation. But I understand that most people would disagree with that perspective, and trying to convince you that free will doesn't exist is beyond the scope of this discussion.
  
  Sexual and gender identity is not changeable by people
  Huh? Isn't this literally the opposite of what the LGBTQ+ current ideology is? That gender identity can change at any given second of any given day, as often as you want?
  so discriminating against it is categorically wrong
  No one is asking for "discrimination" against LGBTQ+ people though, they're just asking for people that don't agree with their ideology to not be harrassed, censored, and banned. Pretty hilarious when you think about it - the minority group are actively calling for "discrimination" against people that they disagree with.
  
  Because these 2 things are not the same, and by conflating them as such, you pretty clearly show what side of the fence you fall on. Debating on whether or not minorities deserve the right to exist is not the same thing as arguing about which brand of magic sky-daddy you subscribe to.
  "Anti-LGBT viewpoints" fall along a pretty clear line. The same one that "anti-Jewish" and "anti-Black" views fall on. That these minorities don't deserve the same rights granted to white people, or even that they shouldn't be allowed to exist period. There has never been any other view presented by "anti-LGBT" people. They seek to exclude minorities from everyday life and eventually kill them off entirely. The arguments they use today against trans people are the same they used against gay people, which are just rehashed arguments they used to oppose equal rights for black people. There's no politeness to be found there. Might as well say that we should hear the Nazis out on this "final solution to the Jewish question," so long as they're polite in their arguing their case.
  
  Debating on whether or not minorities deserve the right to exist
  This isn't at all what anyone is saying though, and your side keep on trying to make it about that. No one thinks that LGBT people don't deserve the right to exist. Saying "hey guys, maybe don't have transgender people doing strip teases with sexual fetishes and inuendo in front of children" isn't "denying your right to exist". Saying "hey guys can you please not give books teaching kids about sucking dick and having anal sex to our 8 year olds?" isn't "denying your right to exist".
  That these minorities don’t deserve the same rights granted to white people, or even that they shouldn’t be allowed to exist period
  What rights don't trans people currently have that other people have? This is another of those disingenuous catchphrases that the "progressives" have. "trans rights are human rights!".....sure, so? What human rights don't you have? No one is denying you any rights.
  
  I left my home because the leadership was getting so extreme, they decided that people no longer deserved healthcare because they were trans. I watched the governor crucify his own son, his child, over it. When people protested, even those in government, those government officials were formally gagged and kicked out of participating in government.
  Those officials represented far more than just a few trans people. They represented entire districts in major cities. They represented families, straight and gay. Veterans, old and young, everyone. All because the leadership believed that a very small subset of the population, less than 1% of my country, should not have rights that other people have. The fact that they were willing to go to such lengths to deprive others of their rights just to get back at a small, peaceful group was astonishing.
  We aren't talking about legions of vampires who need to eat people in order to live. We are talking 1 in 300 people who are just trying to get their prescriptions filled after work and now cannot without flying somewhere else.
  I'm not even trans. But watching that Lord of The Flies style horror fest sent a chill up my spine. Society is only as strong as its weakest links, and when it breaks down, you don't want to be anywhere nearby when it happens.
  
  When you say no longer deserve healthcare, what do you mean - full cut off of all healthcare, or just of “gender affirming care”? Like can they not go to a doctor because they have a sore foot? Or they just can’t go there to get bottom surgery and artificial hormones?
  If it’s the latter, that’s not “depriving them of their human rights”. If it’s the former, which I’m 99% sure it isn’t, then yeah that’s crap. Places like Russia that are “banning” homosexuality etc are horrible, but that’s Russia and that’s the least of the problems. The western world doesn’t work like that.
  
  It's the latter, for now. But those medicines aren't just used for trans people, they are used for all kinds of different illnesses. The fact that they didn't just strip it out of public healthcare, but private too, is a very bad sign.
  
  Ok so it’s just fear mongering. No human rights are being denied, and no one is having their existence denied.
  
  It actually does affect people when you can't get medications and when you are banned from school sports. Suicides skyrocket. People get harassed and stabbed because it emboldens people who would otherwise suppress their urges.
  It would be in the same vein as if black people were refused drugs for sickle cell anemia. It puts people in a lower class when they are treated differently than the rest of the population. I know the same fear and hate the people in my state felt towards queer people, because I felt it myself decades before coming out.
  
  No one is banned from school sports for being trans gender - they just have to play sports with people of their sex.
  What about that stabbing has anything to do with the topic at hand?
  
  Very few people declare themselves as anti-something. It's usually the mob that does that to individuals who say things that with sufficient amount of mental gymnastics can be made to sound like bigotry. This kind of thought terminating labels are the easiest way to get out of critical thinking.
  
  And yet "anti-LGBT" was the term used by the comment above to describe the kinds of viewpoints that they're questioning why they aren't allowed. It's also the label used proudly by some of these groups themselves. Like the term TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist) which was coined by the group itself, but was later claimed to be a slur by that very same group when they realized how the majority of people viewed them negatively because of it.
  
  Debating on whether or not minorities deserve the right to exist is not the same thing as arguing about which brand of magic sky-daddy you subscribe to.
  Why do you people keep talking about "the right to exist"? That's nonsensical. You either exist, or you don't. No one can take your existence away from you, it's not a right that can be granted by others.
  What you are really talking about is the right to make assertions about the nature of human sexuality without being challenged to provide evidence for those assertions.
  It's quite clear that you have a persecution complex. I can understand why, I'm sure you've had some unpleasant experiences with certain people that have caused you to adopt this defensive posture.
  However, your comment is absolutely reeking of in-group and out-group bias. Everyone who is part of your group is being unfairly persecuted, and everyone who is not part of your group is a genocidal Nazi.
  Personally, I am fully in favor of any and all expressions of sexuality, as long as the resultant behaviors and belief systems can be debated and analyzed like any other human behavior or position.
  To the neutral observer, it's apparent that certain online communities cough are echo chambers that refuse to engage in honest discussion regarding LGBTQ topics and vigorously attempt to expel and shame those who do not adhere to the party line. This may be beneficial to your self esteem in the short run, but it ultimately does a disservice to your goals, assuming that you intend to enhance the acceptance of LGBTQ culture in our society moving forward.
  
  Why do you people keep talking about "the right to exist"? That's nonsensical. You either exist, or you don't. No one can take your existence away from you, it's not a right that can be granted by others.
  Because that's exactly the kind of "anti-LGBT viewpoint" you're asking about. You don't have to go far to find people claiming that being Trans is just a fad, or a cult of pedophiles trying to groom your children, or just mentally ill men, or a nefarious group trying to destroy young girls' wombs through dangerous surgery. The list goes on and on, and that's just the recent anti-Trans crusade. These are the kinds of views that they want to bring to social media sites and claim their free speech is being censored when they're punished for it.
  And these views are having real-life consequences. It's now considered a sex crime for a man to wear a dress in Florida. For several years, transgender people were more likely to be the victim of a hate crime than black or Jewish people in the US, and there's been an increase of hate crimes against both of those groups as well in the past decade. 8 out of 10 trans women in the US will be victims of sexual assault. LGBT people are one of the most likely groups to be refused medical care, often under the excuse that "it goes against my beliefs." Some of these groups have even outright said that their goal is to "eliminate transgender people from public life, and eventually, existing entirely." Some have straight up called for a trans genocide.
  These same kinds of arguments have been trotted out for gay and black men - "they're a bunch of pedophiles coming for your kids!" Or for lesbians - "they're just damaged women." Or my favorite, said by a 20-something year old coworker to a 16 year old lesbian coworker, "you're not a lesbian, you just haven't had a dick in you yet."
  To the neutral observer, it's quite clear that certain online communities cough are echo chambers that refuse to engage in honest discussion regarding LGBTQ topics and vigorously attempt to expel and shame those who do not adhere to the party line.
  I could not have said it better myself. Time and time again, science has shown that not only do LGBT people exist, but also how damaging the anti-LGBT rhetoric is. And yet, the "anti-LGBT" jam their fingers in their ears and scream about "woke indoctrination" before returning to their echo chambers. And eventually, that's what these kinds of "free speech" platforms become. Echo chambers for hatred, as these people harass and drive off anybody with opposing views. As a wise bartender once said after kicking out a skinhead just for being a skinhead, "You allow one Nazi, and you no longer have a bar. You have a Nazi bar. Because if you allow one, then they'll bring their friends, and eventually, they'll force everyone else out."
  Also, you seem to have fallen for the "both sides" rhetoric they use to make themselves look innocuous while villifying their opponents. Stuff like the people encouraging those who who called in bomb threats to Target and threatened their employees for daring to have a line of Pride themed merchandise by saying it was protesting - that it was the same thing as people marching with signs against police brutality. You talk about the in-group and out-group bias of LGBT people while conveniently ignoring the exact same thing from the other side. Ignoring that these "anti-LGBT" people think they're being unfairly persecuted and anyone who disagrees with them is a "woke" communist or whatever.
  
  Well, I can't say I agree with you, but I do appreciate your viewpoint and that you took the time to explain where you are coming from.
  I wish you would try to be more welcoming to people who aren’t already in your camp, but at the end of the day I can't blame you for trying to protect yourself and other people in the LGBTQ community.
  
  You don’t have to go far to find people claiming that being Trans is just a fad, or a cult of pedophiles trying to groom your children, or just mentally ill men, or a nefarious group trying to destroy young girls’ wombs through dangerous surgery.
  But where in any of that is anyone questioning their "right to exist"? Nowhere. No one has ever questioned a trans persons "right to exist".
  
  💯
  
  I am curious why the allowance of anti-LGBT viewpoints is so controversial. As stated above, all of the basic rules of civility are still being enforced.
  Because the people that are calling everyone else "transphobic" and "fascists" and "nazis" can't see that they're the ones being fascists by trying to censor all differing views. They can't handle having people with different opinions and viewpoints, often because they can't actually defend their odd views themselves, so they prefer to kick up a stink and have all different opinions banned.
- I'll put it this way, there have been dozens of reddit alternatives over the years. Of those, pretty much every single one that advertised free speech has gone under from right-wingers, psuedo-nazi's etc.
  The fact is, the biggest subset of people deplatformed off of reddit or any platform are truly just awful¹ , regardless of what they claim about unfair moderation. And if you don't make it expressedly clear that you will not tolerate them, they will flock to your platform. Any claims of "free speech" even backed by "oh but nothing too awful please" is basically a dog whistle to them and they will flock to your platform.
  If someone says something like this, they're either naïve about how this works or they're just saying it to maintain appearances. Either way, the platform is doomed.
  [1] well maybe not recently due to api issues, but they're still a huge subset and will be the majority again eventually
- This is typically done to allow transphobia. Misgendering people is not racist, a “slur,” targeted harassment, or an incitement to violence. So that’s usually what this kind of “free speech” exists to champion.
  
  It's bit of a stretch to jump from misgendering to transphobia what ever that means. I have a relatively popular twitter page that's filled with pictures of me dressed as a woman so maybe that counts as evidence of me not being a transphobe but I still block everyone with pronouns in their bio because I think it's stupid. Especially coming from a culture with gender neutral pronouns.
  Many people would be surprised how "intolerant" big part of the gay community is too. Nobody gets offended if your grindr says stuff like "no femmes"
  
  Dressing as a woman does not inoculate one against transphobia, which means “dislike or strong prejudice against trans people.” Not sure why you block people with pronouns in their bio or why that’s stupid; and intolerance in the gay community is no reason to allow it to continue, there or anywhere.
  
  I still don't get how misgendering makes makes one a transphobe. If you look like a woman I'll call you a woman but I do it not because I have to but because I generally try and be polite. However when we start policing language and demanding to be called this and that is when I sign out. It has nothing to do with not liking trans people. Atleast not in my case.
  
  Misgendering someone is transphobic in exactly the same way that calling them the n-word is racist. It means you are prejudiced against that person for what makes them different — in this case it just sounds like you believe trans people don’t exist or are mentally ill members of their birth gender.
  So yes, it means you are transphobic and you should self-reflect on improving that.
  
  What? Pronouns are not slurs in and of themselves, like the n-word is. They are perfectly fine to use and inoffensive in something like 97% of human interactions. The n-word is not.
  How do they suddenly change to something as horrible as the n-word when you use the wrong one with someone you've never met before who outwardly presents as the pronoun you use, but internally has decided they are a different one?
  There's a big problem where people use the term "misgendering" as equivalent to "intentional misgendering". One can be an honest mistake, the other is bigotry.
  
  The n-word is not a slur “in and of itself” either; people can use it in non-pejorative situations… just as pronouns. The problem is the words being used to rob people of their dignity by invoking their minority status against them.
  So yes, in that context, pronouns can be slurs against trans people.
  No one is railing against “unintentional misgendering,” which happens to everyone. Though if you aren’t sure, non-gendered pronouns are a perfectly suitable alternative.
  
  The n-word is not a slur “in and of itself” either; people can use it in non-pejorative situations… just as pronouns.
  No, it's definitely a slur "in and of itself". You're fighting a losing battle here, you're 100% wrong.
  
  Misgendering someone is transphobic in exactly the same way that calling them the n-word is racist. It means you are prejudiced against that person for what makes them different — in this case it just sounds like you believe trans people don’t exist or are mentally ill members of their birth gender.
  You're taking the piss here, right?
  Misgendering someone is in no way the same as calling a black person the n-word lol. It would be more like calling them a "tranny" is the closest equivalent, though no equivalent to the n-word exists.
  Misgendering is, at worst, rude. That's assuming that they have told you their "pronouns" in the first place, and you chose not to use them. Rude, but in no way equivalent to calling a black person the n-word. It doesn't mean you're "prejudiced" against that person, it just means you either don't play along with coerced speech or their ideology, or you just don't care.
  
  in this case it just sounds like you believe trans people don’t exist or are mentally ill members of their birth gender.
  Are you okay? I'm pretty sure trans people exist. That's the weirdest accusation I've heard for a while. What are they holograms then?
  
  Ask the groups of conservatives arguing that trans people are either just a trend, a cult of pedophiles trying to groom your kids, a cult trying to destroy young girls wombs or perform life changing surgery on children, or any of a number of other accusations that say that trans people don't exist, including the two they mentioned. These are the kinds of "anti-LGBT arguments" that they claim are being censored.
  
  or any of a number of other accusations that say that trans people don’t exist
  Can you actually show us some evidence to support what you're saying here? No one says "trans people don't exist".
  
  No, as I said, your argument is that they aren’t really the gender that they say they are, but whatever gender you say they are. That’s claiming they aren’t actually trans, which is denying the existence of trans people… which is transphobic.
  
  I don't agree with that.
  It's not their gender I have issues with. You can claim to be anything you want and I'm fine by that. It's only when people start demanding special treatment when I stop being nice.
  In my native language there is no even he/she pronoun. The word is "hän" and it's gender neutral. You can be male, female, FTM, MTF, non-binary or what ever and you're still called "hän". That is what inclusivity looks like. Progress is caring less about ones race and gender - not more.
  
  It doesn’t matter if you agree with it or not; the definition of transphobia does not depend on your agreement. Simply that you act transphobic, which you do. (And respecting other people as long as they’re nice to you is a really crappy way to act. People deserve respect for who they are even if they won’t gratify your ego.)
  Luckily for queer people, progress can actually be made by caring about your sexuality and gender. Imagine if what you said was actually true, what an awful dystopia we’d be living in!
  
  the definition of transphobia does not depend on your agreement
  If you're going to go by definitions then you have to have the element of "fear" in there. You're scared of trans people - that's what the "phobia" part means. Are you saying that people that disagree with biological men participating in womens sport are scared of trans people?
- There's a lot of types of bigotry and other general nastiness that are not covered by that.
  Normally I would not be so nitpicky with language but if multiple admins were removed / quit over it, that's pretty suspect.
  
  I would imagine a place shouldn't even need rules for that in the first place, but I understand people arent always the most kind they can be online.
  I think also, a lot of what is called "bigotry" is often being subjectively identified (that is, one person thinks a thing is bigoted while another doesn't, certainly one cannot and should not always default to agreeing that every interaction is bigoted otherwise no interaction would be allowed anywhere), but I would imagine a vast majority of "bigotry" would still fall under the very vast "slurs racial or otherwise" or "targetted harassment" exceptions.
  I dont know all the details, but its possible these admins may have been overly strict in removing content they considered bigoted to the point of being disruptive. I used to operate a forum back in the early 2000s (for reverse engineering video game software) and there was one moderator I had to remove because they were too strict in their deletion of content for a similar reason. Entire threads would be left graveyards and there was no way to discern the context.
  I am only presenting my own speculation of course. What you're saying is also possible. The only way to know is to wait and see what happens. I think a big problem for those platforms is how quickly people bandwagon leaving when a small group decry a potential problem. It's like when people try a new game with a low player population, then call the game dead. Those people leave, and they tell everyone else the game is dead. So nobody really joins, except the bottomfeeders nobody else wants.
  
  There's a screenshot elsewhere in the comments of him saying he was specifically removing transphobia and homophobia as punishable offenses from the rules because those rules "were being used to silence conservative voices." That's a pretty clear stance to me.
- I am not exactly sure what I am missing?
  Before, you could write "I don't like gay people" and get banned for it. Now you won't get banned for that post, unless you use a slur.
  At least, that's my interpretation of it. Maybe it's a bit overblown, maybe it's a misstep by Jayclees, I dunno. I don't think a whole lot of people are really using Squabblr for conversational content in the first place, though. 99% of the platform is just memes. They should just stick to that, honestly. Nothing wrong with being a 9gag replacement.
  If he wants to let people have dissenting opinions, then he should at least add a downvote mechanic to the platform. Otherwise it will be riddled with bad-faith arguments and brigading.
  
  If he wants to let people have dissenting opinions, then he should at least add a downvote mechanic to the platform.
  No, upvoting and downvoting needs to go away because it's just used to brigade and reinforce the circle jerk popular narrative.
  All places like this should have are the options to report a post and to block/ignore/mute a poster. Those 2 options give everyone the ability to self moderate.
  
  Good context, I didn't realize they don't have downvotes. That changes things a bit, the downvote is a fairly necessary mechanic for facilitating any type of serious discussion online.
  But I'm still curious if anyone can rationally explain why saying "I don't like gay people" is worthy of a ban? Personally I would never say that, because it's an idiotic statement. But why is that unacceptable for someone to say?
  There's a very simple response... "Why not?". And depending how they respond to that, they could definitely end up in banworthy territory. Or perhaps they might respond with an obvious misconception that could present an opportunity to educate someone on their ignorance.
  
  But I’m still curious if anyone can rationally explain why saying “I don’t like gay people” is worthy of a ban?
  Because that is an absurd reduction, and not based in reality. In reality, nobody got banned for saying: "I don't like gay people". What people were saying was so much worse. Hell, even describing the issue as homophobia is absurdly reductive. While I'm in no way saying homophobia isn't a thing anymore, it's much less of a hot-button issue among deplorables than it was 10 years ago. These days, they mostly focus on whether or not trans people exist, and how bad they're allowed to make trans people's lives before it constitutes "hate speech".
  Make no mistake, this change in site terms will absolutely mean a rise in bigoted shit being posted there. That's the MO of bigots: they say and do awful things, then try to gaslight you into thinking that really, what they said and / or did was not that bad, and besides, it's free speech, innit? Managing an internet community is a never-ending fight against hordes of awful people who constantly try to turn that space into the next version of 8chan. You give Nazis an inch, next thing you know, they're taking Poland.
  
  These days saying “biological sex exists” gets you banned on Reddit and even on some instances here going by the mod logs.
  
  These days saying “biological sex exists” gets you banned on Reddit
  No it doesn't. That is another absurd reduction. Are you intentionally lying, or do you actually believe your own hyperbole?
  Nobody, and I do mean nobody, would dispute that "biological sex exists". That is a ridiculous straw man. What all of the people who are educated on the topic will say is that biological sex and gender are two different things. What bigots and morons hear is "Hurr durr biological sex doesn't exist".
  
  Yes it absolutely does. No amount of calling it a straw man will change this. People absolutely are now saying that biological sex isn’t a thing - you only need to look at “assigned male/female at birth”. No one is “assigned” a sex at birth, it’s observed.
  Try throwing gaslighting out there next too, that usually goes hand in hand with straw man.
  
  Yes it absolutely does. No amount of calling it a straw man will change this.
  Ok, so delusional enough to believe your own hyperbole, then. Got it. Straight up crazy with a persecution complex.
  No one is “assigned” a sex at birth, it’s observed.
  Yes. Biological sex is observed, and then written on the birth certificate. Or in other words, "assigned". Also, there are occasions when someone is born intersex, and the doctor chooses. Well documented cases of this happening.
  Try throwing gaslighting out there next too, that usually goes hand in hand with straw man.
  Well, sorry if my using the terms accurately offends you, snowflake. But if you're gonna say crazy, irrelevant shit, and then pretend that it's neither crazy nor irrelevant, you kind of have to live with the consequences of people calling you a gaslighter. Comes with the territory.
  
  Yes. Biological sex is observed, and then written on the birth certificate. Or in other words, “assigned”.
  It can't be observed and assigned at the same time. No one is assigned a sex. Even if a doctor doesn't write it on a birth certificate you're still the sex that matches your chromosomes. The terms "AMAB" and "AFAB" were literally made to deny that biological sex exists lol. They literally mean "the doctor chose that I am a male or a female despite what I actually am" rather than "the doctor observed that I am a male/female".
  Well, sorry if my using the terms accurately offends you, snowflake.
  Aww now you're getting upset and reverting to name calling lol. Definitely shows that you're winning the argument.
  Also lol like clockwork with the intersex argument. Intersex people are a literal genetic deformity. They make up an insanely low fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percentage of the population.
  
  It can’t be observed and assigned at the same time. No one is assigned a sex.
  So, your big argument against the existence of trans people is semantics? Really? I'm telling you what assigned means when people say "assigned male/female at birth". I didn't make up the term. It's one that is in common parlance. You're so smugly wrapped up in nits to pick that you're missing the forest for the trees.
  The terms “AMAB” and “AFAB” were literally made to deny that biological sex exists lol
  No. Incorrect. And stupid, and crazy. Nobody is denying that biological sex exists. I have no idea why you insist on pretending that they are.
  Seriously, are you so insecure that you have to make up things to feel persecuted about? How pathetic are you?
  They literally mean “the doctor chose that I am a male or a female despite what I actually am”
  Again, biological sex and gender are two completely different things. Most of the time, they're related, but not always. Which is why someone with XY chromosomes and a penis who is assigned male at birth can have the gender identity of female. It happens. Denying that is denying reality. Of course, you seem to want to choose to invent some fantasy world and then get offended when reality doesn't match it, so I'm not sure why I'm even taking the time of day to explain this shit to you. It's not even going to make it through your thick skull.
  Aww now you’re getting upset and reverting to name calling lol. Definitely shows that you’re winning the argument.
  If describing you accurately is "name calling", then yes. I'm name calling. You're a snowflake. A stupid, crazy, immature snowflake. You can choose to not be one any time you'd like, but you seem to enjoy being one, so I'm not sure why you'd act all surprised when people call you out for it. Probably ties back to that whole persecution complex you've got. Poor little innocent victim. Aww.
  Also lol like clockwork with the intersex argument. Intersex people are a literal genetic deformity. They make up an insanely low fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percentage of the population.
  Did I ever claim that they weren't? Why is it that you're ok with the idea that some intersex people exist while denying that some trans people exist? Is it because you can't see the differences with your eyes? Are you really so stupid that you believe that if you can't see it, it doesn't exist? Do you also believe that dyslexia doesn't exist?
  The point is, we are insanely complicated organisms. Within the human spectrum exist vast amounts of variation. Some people are born intersex. Some people are born trans. Some people are born straight. Your stubborn refusal to see that says way more about you than it does about humanity.
  
  So, your big argument against the existence of trans people is semantics?
  Oh. My. God. You literally aren't reading a word I'm saying. Again with you guys it all comes back to "you're denying our existence!!" when literally no one is denying your existence. Saying "you're a male" when you identify as a woman isn't "denying your existence". Saying "Assigned Male At Birth" is, however, denying scientific and biological reality.
  I’m telling you what assigned means when people say “assigned male/female at birth”.
  I'm sure you don't even see how dumb this argument you just made is. "I'm telling you what it means, therefor that's what it means even if what I'm telling you is wrong" lol.
  Nobody is denying that biological sex exists.
  Apart from all those who are.
  Again, biological sex and gender are two completely different things.
  Debatable still. The current use of gender is as a feeling, whereas previously it was intrinsically 1:1 linked to sex. This is what people are talking about when they say "gender ideology" and how they disagree with it. You think gender is simply a feeling. I don't.
  Of course, you seem to want to choose to invent some fantasy world and then get offended when reality doesn’t match it
  Oh lord, the irony is too good here.
  If describing you accurately is “name calling”, then yes. I’m name calling. You’re a snowflake. A stupid, crazy, immature snowflake.
  Yeah we're done here. You're clearly not of the right mental capacity or frame of mind to have a logical discussion. Shocking.
- Because the left hates freedom of speech, and assumes that it just means racism.
  
  How would you define freedom of speech?
  
  Probably non-racist bigotry
  
  Im not good with legalese, Im not pedantuc enough, and I know thats a trap because Ive been on the internet more than two days.
  
  If you think a simple attempt at discussion is pedantic and/or a trap, maybe a discussion forum such as this one is not a place where you will find many friends. I was sincerely trying to understand your point of view but it seems you won't even try to justify it.
  
  ANY internet platform that proclaims itself as a guardian of free speech is either overun by racists, xenophobes and the like or, at the very least, holds a significant number of them. There's a reason most 2000s internet platforms (e.g, Reddit) eventually dropped 'Free Speech' as a policy over time.
  
  Found the conservative troll.
  In case you are not though, this not about "the left". This is about ultraconservatives using "free speech" as an excuse to voice their hateful dribble while shielding themselves from any consequences. It is a dog whistle, and an obvious one at that.
  
  I don't exactly agree. I don't think it needs to be political whether a person considers "free speech" equivalent to "racism" or not. But I do think it has to do a little bit with the currently magnified political divide.
  I think youll have a hard time finding a person who considers themselves politically left that says "free speech = racism" I think that expectation is not fully understanding the context, and is rather reductive.
  I think the issue comes down to what I mentioned before. Bigotry is a term that many people use as a shield to stop things they don't want others to say, even if it is truthful or factual information. Both sides of the political divide employ this tactic, but it is approached in different ways.
  If a person makes a joke about XYZ religion for example, but a person of XYZ religion says that joke is bigoted, who is right? Who gets to decide what is considered bigoted?
  The person making the joke may be doing so because they hate all religion, or XYZ religion specifically, or they may be a member themselves and think its funny. The member of XYZ religion may be overly sensitive to jokes or remarks, or they may be particularly prejudiced against the person making the joke. There are many reasons a person can claim a particular statement is bigoted, but there is no way to say one way or another is definitively correct. Because of this, any person that is chosen to decide this is going to be effected by their own prejudice and bias. And sadly, such bias has become magnified so much greater in recent years compared to the past.
  Believe it or not, there used to be a time where you could have two people with opposite viewpoints talking to each other about said viewpoints, and they would walk away laughing and smiling, considering the other no worse than they did prior to the conversation. These days, people wont even listen to each other. It just becomes a screaming/silencing/downvoting/reporting war.
  
  "Oh hey buddy, I don't think you should have the same rights as everyone else and you probably shouldn't even exist. Let's just laugh and smile and grab a drink, hahah"
  Yeah... No.
  
  Nice hyperbole. Is the post your responding to talking about that level of things at all?
  Yeah... No.
  It shouldn't even need to be said that isn't ok.
  There's an issue though with people claiming that's happening when someone has disagreements in beliefs. A disagreement is not a denial of someone's right to exist. A challenge of a core belief is not a statement that someone doesn't deserve rights.
  For example: Someone saying "I'm not okay with the use of puberty blocking medicine in treatments of dysphoria" is not the same as someone saying "We need to gather up all those mentally deranged ladyboy pedophiles and gas them", but they are often treated as equivalent through mental gymnastics. Like saying that puberty can greatly increase feelings of dysphoria, and feelings of dysphoria can lead to mental duress and suicide, so by the transitive property: disagreeing with the use of puberty blockers is equivalent to wishing trans folks to kill themselves, denying them the right to exist.
  It's a multi step process to get from A to B amd it's a ridiculous assertion, but I've seen that back and forth literally happen. More than once.

280 评论