Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90307 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:46 am Post subject: Re: Twitter is an "echo chamber" that doesn’t reflect how most Americans think
Surfitall wrote:
adkindo wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
I was also impressed with Pool. IMO, His best point which Rogan agreed with was that they shouldn’t be banning people for making jokes, and shouldn’t be banning people for being factually correct about calling them by their true gender.
Excuse me . . . "True" gender? Care to clarify what you think someone's "true" gender is?
I assume he is referring to a persons factual scientific / biological gender. You would need to listen to the show to understand the context of the discussion and the point Pool was attempting to highlight in regards to free speech, the choices made to limit free speech, who makes those choices, the effects of those choices, etc.
Yes, exactly.
Ok, so educate me here. What’s the context where people are calling other people a gender as indicated by their genitals, as opposed to the gender they identify with, and getting banned, and how is that “accuracy” “factual” rather than deliberately hurtful? As a parent of a trans son, I’m very very curious to learn. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
This is sort of the challenge that Twitter finds itself in. Tweets that are deliberately hurtful are allowed, generally, so long as they aren’t threats of violence.
“Misgendering” and “deadnaming” are actually violations of Twitter policy now, but not because they are hurtful, per se, but more for ideological reasons (thats what Rogan/Dorsey/Pool/Gadde were discussing).
So, for instance, if you chose to only refer to a person by their biological sex, you could be banned. Slippery slope because you can’t really engage in a both sides discussion, it is not permissible per their policy.
Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:37 am Post subject: Re: Twitter is an "echo chamber" that doesn’t reflect how most Americans think
Omar Little wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
adkindo wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
I was also impressed with Pool. IMO, His best point which Rogan agreed with was that they shouldn’t be banning people for making jokes, and shouldn’t be banning people for being factually correct about calling them by their true gender.
Excuse me . . . "True" gender? Care to clarify what you think someone's "true" gender is?
I assume he is referring to a persons factual scientific / biological gender. You would need to listen to the show to understand the context of the discussion and the point Pool was attempting to highlight in regards to free speech, the choices made to limit free speech, who makes those choices, the effects of those choices, etc.
Yes, exactly.
Ok, so educate me here. What’s the context where people are calling other people a gender as indicated by their genitals, as opposed to the gender they identify with, and getting banned, and how is that “accuracy” “factual” rather than deliberately hurtful? As a parent of a trans son, I’m very very curious to learn.
This video is awesome and shows how stupid the "true gender" reasoning is. The analogy to adoptive parents is super apt. (Contrapoints is awesome and I recommend her stuff no matter where you fall politically)
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90307 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:41 am Post subject:
ringfinger wrote:
This is sort of the challenge that Twitter finds itself in. Tweets that are deliberately hurtful are allowed, generally, so long as they aren’t threats of violence.
“Misgendering” and “deadnaming” are actually violations of Twitter policy now, but not because they are hurtful, per se, but more for ideological reasons (thats what Rogan/Dorsey/Pool/Gadde were discussing).
So, for instance, if you chose to only refer to a person by their biological sex, you could be banned. Slippery slope because you can’t really engage in a both sides discussion, it is not permissible per their policy.
Setting aside the both sides rabbit hole, what would be the motivation to only refer to someone by their “biological” (there’s some solid dispute of even this) gender in deliberate and public opposition to their identified gender? _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90307 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:45 am Post subject:
Oh, and what is the non hurtful purpose of deadnaming? _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29353 Location: La La Land
Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2019 11:05 am Post subject:
Not a religious person. But I wonder if America becoming less religious is playing a role in the open hate speech movement on multiple social media platforms.
In the 90s people still said hateful things about gay people for example. But they'd mask it behind religion or "science" (how HIV/AIDS was discussed). _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
This is sort of the challenge that Twitter finds itself in. Tweets that are deliberately hurtful are allowed, generally, so long as they aren’t threats of violence.
“Misgendering” and “deadnaming” are actually violations of Twitter policy now, but not because they are hurtful, per se, but more for ideological reasons (thats what Rogan/Dorsey/Pool/Gadde were discussing).
So, for instance, if you chose to only refer to a person by their biological sex, you could be banned. Slippery slope because you can’t really engage in a both sides discussion, it is not permissible per their policy.
Setting aside the both sides rabbit hole, what would be the motivation to only refer to someone by their “biological” (there’s some solid dispute of even this) gender in deliberate and public opposition to their identified gender?
The motivation is irrelevant, at least on Twitter, because they don’t ban someone for being hurtful. At least not yet.
But if you’re asking in general, I think there is a solid group of people who don’t subscribe to the idea that a person born a male can actually biologically become a female, for example. But such assertions are banned on Twitter
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90307 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2019 11:06 am Post subject:
kikanga wrote:
Not a religious person. But I wonder if America becoming less religious is playing a role in the open hate speech movement on multiple social media platforms.
In the 90s people still said hateful things about gay people for example. But they'd mask it behind religion or "science" (how HIV/AIDS was discussed).
I think it is in some ways driving it like America becoming less white. More open rear guard action by those who will not be replaced. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29353 Location: La La Land
Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2019 11:54 am Post subject: Re: Twitter is an "echo chamber" that doesn’t reflect how most Americans think
Surfitall wrote:
I was also impressed with Pool. IMO, His best point which Rogan agreed with was that they shouldn’t be banning people for making jokes, and shouldn’t be banning people for being factually correct about calling them by their true gender.
Twitter is a public company right? This falls in the realm of doing whatever is best for their investors.
Should they let people post hate speech even if they lose revenue from advertisers because of it?
Trump voters can still spread hate speech. Despite it leading to alot of alt right terrorism since Trump's election.
They just can't do it on that platform.
Voat and 4chan for example are both popular places that welcome it. Whether it leads to violence or not. _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Last edited by kikanga on Sun Apr 28, 2019 12:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 12 Feb 2002 Posts: 3829 Location: South Orange County
Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2019 12:04 pm Post subject:
ringfinger wrote:
This is sort of the challenge that Twitter finds itself in. Tweets that are deliberately hurtful are allowed, generally, so long as they aren’t threats of violence.
“Misgendering” and “deadnaming” are actually violations of Twitter policy now, but not because they are hurtful, per se, but more for ideological reasons (thats what Rogan/Dorsey/Pool/Gadde were discussing).
So, for instance, if you chose to only refer to a person by their biological sex, you could be banned. Slippery slope because you can’t really engage in a both sides discussion, it is not permissible per their policy.
It’s been a while since I listened to it, but if my recollection was right they weren’t even talking about genitals, they were talking about genetics which is determined by the presence or absence of a Y chromosome.
Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2019 12:06 pm Post subject: Re: Twitter is an "echo chamber" that doesn’t reflect how most Americans think
kikanga wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
I was also impressed with Pool. IMO, His best point which Rogan agreed with was that they shouldn’t be banning people for making jokes, and shouldn’t be banning people for being factually correct about calling them by their true gender.
Twitter is a public company right? This falls in the realm of doing whatever is best for their investors.
Should they let people post hate speech even if they lose revenue from advertisers because of it?
Trump voters can still spread hate speech. Despite it leading to alot of alt right terrorism since Trump's election.
They just can't do it on that platform.
Voat and 4chan for example are both popular places that welcome it. Whether it leads to violence or not.
Here’s a problem.
They are now banning/suspending users for bringing examples of hate speech to light.
By pointing out an example of hate speech, via a retweet of hate speech, you are yourself committing hate speech. Sad times.
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29353 Location: La La Land
Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2019 12:12 pm Post subject: Re: Twitter is an "echo chamber" that doesn’t reflect how most Americans think
ringfinger wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
I was also impressed with Pool. IMO, His best point which Rogan agreed with was that they shouldn’t be banning people for making jokes, and shouldn’t be banning people for being factually correct about calling them by their true gender.
Twitter is a public company right? This falls in the realm of doing whatever is best for their investors.
Should they let people post hate speech even if they lose revenue from advertisers because of it?
Trump voters can still spread hate speech. Despite it leading to alot of alt right terrorism since Trump's election.
They just can't do it on that platform.
Voat and 4chan for example are both popular places that welcome it. Whether it leads to violence or not.
Here’s a problem.
They are now banning/suspending users for bringing examples of hate speech to light.
By pointing out an example of hate speech, via a retweet of hate speech, you are yourself committing hate speech. Sad times.
I think you can just comment on a tweet without retweeting it. No biggie. Even if you get banned. Appeal it. And in the meantime create a new account. Takes 2 minutes.
It is an inconvenience. But it's their platform. And it's a small penance when compared to the death and violence fueled by hate speech. _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52657 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2019 12:18 pm Post subject: Re: Twitter is an "echo chamber" that doesn’t reflect how most Americans think
Omar Little wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
adkindo wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
I was also impressed with Pool. IMO, His best point which Rogan agreed with was that they shouldn’t be banning people for making jokes, and shouldn’t be banning people for being factually correct about calling them by their true gender.
Excuse me . . . "True" gender? Care to clarify what you think someone's "true" gender is?
I assume he is referring to a persons factual scientific / biological gender. You would need to listen to the show to understand the context of the discussion and the point Pool was attempting to highlight in regards to free speech, the choices made to limit free speech, who makes those choices, the effects of those choices, etc.
Yes, exactly.
Ok, so educate me here. What’s the context where people are calling other people a gender as indicated by their genitals, as opposed to the gender they identify with, and getting banned, and how is that “accuracy” “factual” rather than deliberately hurtful? As a parent of a trans son, I’m very very curious to learn.
There is only one context - the one that is deliberately hurtful. There's no need to "'fact' shame" someone on the issue of their gender and such behavior should unquestionably be banned. I'm shocked and disturbed anyone is arguing otherwise. _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2019 12:28 pm Post subject: Re: Twitter is an "echo chamber" that doesn’t reflect how most Americans think
kikanga wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
I was also impressed with Pool. IMO, His best point which Rogan agreed with was that they shouldn’t be banning people for making jokes, and shouldn’t be banning people for being factually correct about calling them by their true gender.
Twitter is a public company right? This falls in the realm of doing whatever is best for their investors.
Should they let people post hate speech even if they lose revenue from advertisers because of it?
Trump voters can still spread hate speech. Despite it leading to alot of alt right terrorism since Trump's election.
They just can't do it on that platform.
Voat and 4chan for example are both popular places that welcome it. Whether it leads to violence or not.
Here’s a problem.
They are now banning/suspending users for bringing examples of hate speech to light.
By pointing out an example of hate speech, via a retweet of hate speech, you are yourself committing hate speech. Sad times.
I think you can just comment on a tweet without retweeting it. No biggie. Even if you get banned. Appeal it. And in the meantime create a new account. Takes 2 minutes.
It is an inconvenience. But it's their platform. And it's a small penance when compared to the death and violence fueled by hate speech.
You are looking at it with a very narrow lens. It’s their platform, yes, but how they approach this has major implications. It’s not just from the perspective of the user.
If thy are curating content, and doing so without neutrality of viewpoint, then they are subject to liability for content that appears on their platform.
If they remain ideologically “neutral”, then they are not liable.
Bringing it back to hate speech, the definitions vary depending on your ideology, with some having a very strict definition and others virtually anything can be construed as hate speech should someone identify it as such.
Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2019 12:44 pm Post subject: Re: Twitter is an "echo chamber" that doesn’t reflect how most Americans think
DaMuleRules wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
adkindo wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
I was also impressed with Pool. IMO, His best point which Rogan agreed with was that they shouldn’t be banning people for making jokes, and shouldn’t be banning people for being factually correct about calling them by their true gender.
Excuse me . . . "True" gender? Care to clarify what you think someone's "true" gender is?
I assume he is referring to a persons factual scientific / biological gender. You would need to listen to the show to understand the context of the discussion and the point Pool was attempting to highlight in regards to free speech, the choices made to limit free speech, who makes those choices, the effects of those choices, etc.
Yes, exactly.
Ok, so educate me here. What’s the context where people are calling other people a gender as indicated by their genitals, as opposed to the gender they identify with, and getting banned, and how is that “accuracy” “factual” rather than deliberately hurtful? As a parent of a trans son, I’m very very curious to learn.
There is only one context - the one that is deliberately hurtful. There's no need to "'fact' shame" someone on the issue of their gender and such behavior should unquestionably be banned. I'm shocked and disturbed anyone is arguing otherwise.
I disagree. There is a lot of legitimate discussion that may involve misgendering.
For instance, should trans athletes have to compete as a man or a woman?
If you say they have to compete in the gender they were born in, that is misgendering and ban worthy.
But however one feels about that, it seems like a legitimate discussion.
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29353 Location: La La Land
Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2019 1:24 pm Post subject: Re: Twitter is an "echo chamber" that doesn’t reflect how most Americans think
ringfinger wrote:
You are looking at it with a very narrow lens. It’s their platform, yes, but how they approach this has major implications. It’s not just from the perspective of the user.
If thy are curating content, and doing so without neutrality of viewpoint, then they are subject to liability for content that appears on their platform.
If they remain ideologically “neutral”, then they are not liable.
Bringing it back to hate speech, the definitions vary depending on your ideology, with some having a very strict definition and others virtually anything can be construed as hate speech should someone identify it as such.
I consider hate speech the definition you get on google.
Quote:
hate speech
noun
noun: hate speech
abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation.
So if an alt right terrorist is radicalized by things he reads on twitter. And they don't remove it so they can maintain neutrality. Twitter isn't liable?
I think there's a case they are liable whether they remove hate speech or not. I think their liability is a constant in this equation. They're just choosing what speech they (and their advertisers) are willing to be liable for. _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2019 1:38 pm Post subject:
ribeye wrote:
I guess I'll give my .02. I don't use twitter and only occasionally look at tweets that been noted by others. As with many, if not most, editorials, rarely is data involved, so how one would use it to inform them of anything else but some individual's opinion, is way beyond me.
I think it is undeniable that those opinions drive narrative, narrative leads to perception, and perception becomes reality. Just consider something less heated like like sports. The sports crowd on Twitter can definitely drive narrative about a player or team....and at the same time, these segments of Twitter like "NBA Twitter" or "NBA Draft Twitter" tend to be very like minded individuals that create an echo chamber of group think.
I guess I'll give my .02. I don't use twitter and only occasionally look at tweets that been noted by others. As with many, if not most, editorials, rarely is data involved, so how one would use it to inform them of anything else but some individual's opinion, is way beyond me.
I think it is undeniable that those opinions drive narrative, narrative leads to perception, and perception becomes reality. Just consider something less heated like like sports. The sports crowd on Twitter can definitely drive narrative about a player or team....and at the same time, these segments of Twitter like "NBA Twitter" or "NBA Draft Twitter" tend to be very like minded individuals that create an echo chamber of group think.
Sounds like about as good as reason as any to avoid the medium, at least for the most part.
I don't get it and never will. Most all of this is just gossipy pap, and, at best, only part of a very short news cycle.
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2019 2:18 pm Post subject:
Omar Little wrote:
Oh, and what is the non hurtful purpose of deadnaming?
First, it is clearly a personal issue for you and you are passionate in your opinion, so it should be pointed out that both Pool and Rogan are very "liberal" on the topic, but were making the point that somewhere between 45% and 55% of Americans do not agree with Twitters belief that referring to a biological male as "he, him, etc." is incorrect. It is simply identifying a black and white fact based on sex.
Twitter is assuming this is an identification of gender, but sex and gender do use the same pronouns in the English language; hence Twitter is making a choice to identify not only intent, but actual use of the word. Even though it is not a strictly partisan ideological divide on the subject, it is an ideological divide that Twitter is choosing one side of thought over other. Twitter is in effect creating a "protected class" of users, because as we all know, offending people and hurting their feelings is not banned on Twitter. Twitter attempted to support their position with research that is debated in regards to the high number of suicide rate among this group. The correlation is not debated, but there is no consensus in the causation....or in the detail of the causation. There are other "groups" that have a similar correlation that Twitter takes no special action in regards.
You mention that you have a transgender son. I would never go out of my way to offend your son. I do not see your son as having any more and less value than if not being transgender. If asked with a gun to my head (figuratively) to identify your child who has one X and one Y chromosome, I would identify them as a male.
In regards to deadnaming, again Twitter has decided in policy to create a protected class, and chose to assume intent. If you and I went to high school together, and you were this great PG for our basketball team. Then after high school, you identified as Transgender and adopted the name Mary. If I am having a conversation on Twitter 20 years later, and speak of Omar as the best PG I have ever played with in basketball, Mary could request Twitter take negative action against my account claiming that I was aware that you now preferred to be referenced as Mary. You can agree or disagree with Twitters position, but either way you are making a choice that is supported and opposed by an ideology without anything that resembles a consensus.
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29353 Location: La La Land
Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2019 2:56 pm Post subject:
Adkindo. I have 3 questions.
If we assume the higher number of suicide rates for transgender people is only correlated and not caused. What would be the cause for the increase in suicide rate?
What percentage of the people referring to Caitlin Jenner as Bruce Jenner on twitter are referring to Olympics feats? And what percentage do you think is hate speech? _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Adkindo. I have 3 questions.
If we assume the higher number of suicide rates for transgender people is only correlated and not caused. What would be the cause for the increase in suicide rate?
What percentage of the people referring to Caitlin Jenner as Bruce Jenner on twitter are referring to Olympics feats? And what percentage do you think is hate speech?
What percentage of what you would call "hate speech" is driven by hatred of transgender people, and what percentage is instead driven by hatred of our PC culture, Bruce Jenner and the Kardashians, the perception that Jenner is a publicity addict, and weariness with being told what we can and cannot say because it might offend someone else's values? From my experience (which may not be representative), the latter group of factors is a lot more important than hatred of transgender people. Hating transgender people is related to, but distinct from, hating Jenner, the Kardashians, the PC culture, and the omnipresent watchdogs of proper thought.
Sounds like the ‘old/traditional’ def of gender, kind of like ‘marriage’ that some people wants to remain the same. Would it be more accepted if we just call it something else, a name for non genetic ‘gender’ and hell, a new name for non male-female ‘marriage’?
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29353 Location: La La Land
Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:44 pm Post subject:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Adkindo. I have 3 questions.
If we assume the higher number of suicide rates for transgender people is only correlated and not caused. What would be the cause for the increase in suicide rate?
What percentage of the people referring to Caitlin Jenner as Bruce Jenner on twitter are referring to Olympics feats? And what percentage do you think is hate speech?
What percentage of what you would call "hate speech" is driven by hatred of transgender people, and what percentage is instead driven by hatred of our PC culture, Bruce Jenner and the Kardashians, the perception that Jenner is a publicity addict, and weariness with being told what we can and cannot say because it might offend someone else's values? From my experience (which may not be representative), the latter group of factors is a lot more important than hatred of transgender people. Hating transgender people is related to, but distinct from, hating Jenner, the Kardashians, the PC culture, and the omnipresent watchdogs of proper thought.
Gonna listen to the Rogan podcast mentioned by OP.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the argument. To me I see a public company trying to protect their bottom line ($ from advertisers) by also protecting potential transgender suicide victimes (who don't give a crap about PC culture either way).
It appears to be a minor inconvenience for people who like to drive transgender people to suicide. But I haven't listened to the pod yet. Maybe I'm missing something. _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
