All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[thwhtGuardian]

I'm trying to figure out what rules you want social media platforms to follow.

That policy question is much more important than libsofitktok. What policies do you want social media platforms to follow? What laws, if any, should be passed for that purpose?

Banning users from using unspeakable slurs feels like an acceptable reason to punish someone...and it's not a new reason and it's been enforced for a while online (and in rel life), and even here( at least I hope it still is).

For instance if I were to go on a tirade and label African Americans as the n-word, I'd be banned.

Or if I called the gay community a bunch of ::synonym for bundles of sticks::, I'd be banned.

If I referred to women using grossly sexual comments, I'd be banned.

If I called all people of the Jewish faith the k-word, or labeled all people of the Muslim faith as terrorists, I'd be banned.

And calling gender affirming care mutilation is in that same category.

It's absolutely vile behavior that has no place in society...and it's not a hard concept to understand.

[Tendrin]

Banning users from using unspeakable slurs feels like an acceptable reason to punish someone...and it's not a new reason and it's been enforced for a while online, even here.

For instance if I were to go on a tirade and label African Americans as the n-word, I'd be banned.

Or if I called the gay community a bunch of ::synonym for bundles of sticks::, I'd be banned.

If I referred to women using grossly sexual comments, I'd be banned.

If I called all people of the Jewish faith the k-word, or labeled all people of the Muslim faith as terrorists, I'd be banned.

And calling gender affirming care mutilation is in that same category.

It's absolutely vile behavior that has no place in society...and it's not a hard concept to understand.

And that's even before we get into the violent threats she knows she's getting directed at people. When you're posting drag events in the same state as a mass shooting at a drag event hours after shooting, you know what you're doing. That's not an accident.

[CaptainEurope]

Anyone think if the Democratic primary calendar had been changed the way Biden now suggested in 2015, Hillary would have beaten Trump?

It seems likely to me that Sanders would not have gotten artificially inflated by early caucus wins, and it would not have been worth it for Putin to support his campaign.

[Mister Mets]

She's been suspended from Twitter eight time, Mets. Her constant returns are preferential treatment. I'm not going to play this game with you.

There is no nuance here and this is not your first bite at the transphobic apple.

The nuance would be in the difference between what I've said and your summary of it.

As for how many times she's been suspension, that could be part of an argument that she's being targetted. The relevant question is what she's been banned for.

...there is zero reason to believe it's mutilation. To refer to gender affirming medical care like that is seriously messed up.

Fact-checkers don't seem to want to make the argument that anyone who refers to mastectomies of minors as mutilations is messed up.

I see you joined the "we're gonna get somebody killed" movement.

Nope.

I want to know what policy solutions you guys are advocating for in a situation that is very high-stakes.

Banning users from using unspeakable slurs feels like an acceptable reason to punish someone...and it's not a new reason and it's been enforced for a while online (and in rel life), and even here( at least I hope it still is).

For instance if I were to go on a tirade and label African Americans as the n-word, I'd be banned.

Or if I called the gay community a bunch of ::synonym for bundles of sticks::, I'd be banned.

If I referred to women using grossly sexual comments, I'd be banned.

If I called all people of the Jewish faith the k-word, or labeled all people of the Muslim faith as terrorists, I'd be banned.

And calling gender affirming care mutilation is in that same category.

It's absolutely vile behavior that has no place in society...and it's not a hard concept to understand.

I can understand the argument that the objection is to the language she uses. I've said it before.

It's better to note that she says some nasty things in the process about people who aren't that outrageous. That's more relevant to why social media platforms ban her.

In my first comments on it, I mentioned that aspect of problem.

Sometimes she'll add mocking and derogatory commentary.

I can understand a regulation that going forward anyone who refers to mastectomies of minors as mutilation will be banned from social media platform. That policy should be stated clearly. It would also suggest that a different version of the account, who relays the same information with much more careful commentary, wouldn't be banned.

And that's even before we get into the violent threats she knows she's getting directed at people. When you're posting drag events in the same state as a mass shooting at a drag event hours after shooting, you know what you're doing. That's not an accident.

So what's the policy solution?

[thwhtGuardian]

And that's even before we get into the violent threats she knows she's getting directed at people. When you're posting drag events in the same state as a mass shooting at a drag event hours after shooting, you know what you're doing. That's not an accident.

That seems similar enough to, "No shouting 'fire!' in a crowded auditorium" to me.

And yeah, I know that was actually struck down later by the Supreme Court so one cannot be charged for such an incitement by the State...but it doesn't preclude private establishments from limiting such speech.

[thwhtGuardian]

The nuance would be in the difference between what I've said and your summary of it.

As for how many times she's been suspension, that could be part of an argument that she's being targetted. The relevant question is what she's been banned for.

Fact-checkers don't seem to want to make the argument that anyone who refers to mastectomies of minors as mutilations is messed up.

Nope.

I want to know what policy solutions you guys are advocating for in a situation that is very high-stakes.

I can understand the argument that the objection is to the language she uses. I've said it before.


In my first comments on it, I mentioned that aspect of problem.



I can understand a regulation that going forward anyone who refers to mastectomies of minors as mutilation will be banned from social media platform. That policy should be stated clearly. It would also suggest that a different version of the account, who relays the same information with much more careful commentary, wouldn't be banned.

So what's the policy solution?

Be civil tho others usually covers it, that way you don't have to list each and every slur that isn't allowed.

And fact checkers don't mention that because it doesn't need to be fact checked. In much the same way that they don't feel the need to say, "Saying the N-Word, is indeed racist and derogatory." they don't need to say, "Gender affirming care isn't mutilation, that's needlessly derogatory speech." and the same reason they don't need to spell out the comment "water is wet"...because it's understood.
Come on Mets, it isn't hard.

And doubling down of using that terminology is pretty horrid. Wouldn't it just be easier to just say, "Oh, I didn't know that kind of usage was derogatory and inflammatory, I'm sorry" rather than repeating hateful words?

[Mister Mets]

That seems similar enough to, "No shouting 'fire!' in a crowded auditorium" to me.

And yeah, I know that was actually struck down later by the Supreme Court so one cannot be charged for such an incitement by the State...but it doesn't preclude private establishments from limiting such speech.

What's the principle here?

If someone exposing controversial behavior leads to an angry response, what should the policy of private establishments like Twitter be? And it should apply to the woman behind libsoftiktok, as well as activists documenting police brutality.

Be civil tho others usually covers it, that way you don't have to list each and every slur that isn't allowed.

And fact checkers don't mention that because it doesn't need to be fact checked. In much the same way that they don't feel the need to say, "Saying the N-Word, is indeed racist and derogatory." they don't need to say, "Gender affirming care isn't mutilation, that's needlessly derogatory speech." and the same reason they don't need to spell out the comment "water is wet"...because it's understood.
Come on Mets, it isn't hard.

And doubling down of using that terminology is pretty horrid. Wouldn't it just be easier to just say, "Oh, I didn't know that kind of usage was derogatory and inflammatory, I'm sorry" rather than repeating hateful words?

Being civil is really vague as a rule.

I can understand the idea that it's problematic to list every slur, but perceptions of these things change. There can be a clearly articulated principle about what type of words are unacceptable or in what context, although you can be sure that rules lawyers would point when left-wingers fail to be civil when complaining about Christians, Republicans, the police or poor white people.

There is also a distinction between use and mention with objectionable words, and this word has not been established as so taboo that it can't be mentioned in this context.

[thwhtGuardian]

What's the principle here?

If someone exposing controversial behavior leads to an angry response, what should the policy of private establishments like Twitter be? And it should apply to the woman behind libsoftiktok, as well as activists documenting police brutality.

Being civil is really vague as a rule.

I can understand the idea that it's problematic to list every slur, but perceptions of these things change. There can be a clearly articulated principle about what type of words are unacceptable or in what context, although you can be sure that rules lawyers would point when left-wingers fail to be civil when complaining about Christians, Republicans, the police or poor white people.

There is also a distinction between use and mention with objectionable words, and this word has not been established as so taboo that it can't be mentioned in this context.

I really feel like you're being willfully obtuse here.

There was a shooting at a gay club in Colorado, and directly after what does libsoftiktok do? Post about how gun violence is terrible? No, they posted about other queer spaces in Colorado. The message was less than subtle.

In much the same way that a movie theater could kick a patron out of a theater for possibly causing a violent situation by yelling "Fire!" It would not be a bad idea to ban posts that are obviously trying to incite further violence.

And being civil isn't too vague, again you seem to be being obtuse, such blanket rules work just fine here and hundreds of other places online and in real life. If the ban hammer falls on you (or you're escorted out of a private business in real life) for using slurs like the n-word, k-word, f@$% or nasty sexual comments and yes referring to the trans community as people who are mutilating themselves then you shouldn't be surprised even if it isn't specifically spelled out because it's easily understood.

And I assure you, no one else would be surprised or outraged on your behalf for being banned for using any of those terms...and if they were then it's probably only a matter of time before they say something just as heinous and get banned too.

And mutilation is every bit as terrible as the other slurs I listed.

That's totally unequivocal.

And rather than argue about if it's too taboo the correct response is to accept the education on the term and apologize for your repeated use of it. That's what decent human beings do, and it can happen innocently too so it's no foul if you recognize it. Growing up around Boston I used the r-word like other people say, "um..." it was common place here even as other places had already condemned its use and when that was brought to my attention I erased it from my vocabulary which was no small feat but I didn't want to be a bad person so I did it. And I more recently learned the same thing about the word "spaz" again, a word I'd used for a very long time...but it's a hurtful term so my personal history of innocent use doesn't mean anything in the face of that so again I'm trying the phase it out.

I suggest you do the same with referring to gender affirming health care as mutilation.

It's wrong and hurtful, so be a decent human being and knock it off.

[Dalak]

Using Social Media/The Internet to enable and encourage violence against anyone should be an instant banable offense at least, it's as simple as that. Incitement to Violence is a crime after all. LoTT has done that and continues to, and I don't think there is a reasonable argument against that fact. That she hasn't been prosecuted for this is more of an indictment of our legal system rather than a reason she is not guilty of the actions. This is obvious when you consider all the conservatives who are able to make such obviously loaded statements in order to encourage violence against their chosen targets (Democrats, LGBT, Muslims, Antifa, etc), and how hard it is to convict Trump of his role in 1/6.

Excusing hateful rhetoric because fact checkers didn't mention it as hateful rhetoric is also quite unreasonable, and clearly shows the prejudiced personal views of anyone making such statements.

E:

I really feel like you're being willfully obtuse here.

-----

It's wrong, and hurtful so be a decent human being and knock it off.

Thank you!

[CaptainEurope]

A lot of this will seem so unrealistic in the True Crime docudrama:

After the 2020 election, Bobb conducted an interview for One America News with a man named Ed Solomon, who the network identified as a mathematician and who shared bombastic claims about the supposedly mathematical impossibility of key portions of Biden’s win. In reality, Solomon was employed as a swing set installer in New York at the time of the interview and held no college degree. Bobb was also involved with raising money to support an infamous audit of the 2020 election results in Maricopa County, Arizona, that was overseen by GOP state Senators, handled at least in substantial part by contractors with zero prior experience auditing elections — and despite a tidal wave of hype from Trump’s corner ultimately didn’t change anything.

Trump Lawyer Christina Bobb Subpoenaed For Defamation Via ‘Smartmatic’

[Kevinroc]

https://twitter.com/BillPascrell/sta...44473171578881

Donald Trump is lunching with actual nazis and calling for abolishing the Constitution and every top elected republican in America will enthusiastically support him for President if it comes to it.

This is who the Republicans are.

[Tami]

Savannah teenager shot while volunteering for Warnock campaign

A 15-year-old campaign volunteer was shot in Savannah, Georgia, on Thursday while knocking on doors for Sen. Raphael Warnock's re-election bid, local police said.

Police responded to a call shortly after 5:30 p.m. Thursday and found a 15-year-old boy with a gunshot wound to the leg. He was transported to a hospital a little over 4 miles away. His wounds were not considered life-threatening.

According to authorities, Savannah police detectives had arrested a 42-year-old local man who was suspected of shooting the teenager outside his home. Jimmy Paiz was booked on charges of aggravated assault and aggravated battery.

Paiz allegedly fired through the closed door of his home and hit the teenager standing at the front door, police said.

The initial probe into the shooting found that the teenager was volunteering for the Warnock campaign in the lead-up to the runoff election Tuesday between the Democratic senator and Herschel Walker, a former college football star running on the Republican ticket.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

https://twitter.com/BillPascrell/sta...44473171578881



This is who the Republicans are.

Party before country. Nothing more complicated than that.

[CaptainEurope]

Iran's attorney general has announced that the morality police has been disbanded.

Might just be a distraction, but it sure makes the government look like they blinked.

State TV now rolling that back. Morality Police still amorally exists.

[CaptainEurope]

https://twitter.com/BillPascrell/sta...44473171578881



This is who the Republicans are.

Susan Collins will be very concerned before supporting him, though. So, both sides?