wasn't aware I was making a point, but I'll make a few observations. "Hate speech" is a notoriously fluid and ambiguous notion, and many times largely in the eye of the beholder. I've mentioned Joel Feinberg's book Offense to Others here plenty of times, now seems like another good time to bring it up. He distinguishes between mere nuisance and profound offense. Burning a cross on a black person's front lawn can be a profound offense. Cracking a joke at someone's expense may only be a nuisance. There are of course lots of possibilities in between. again, I think there are nuisance insults and there are insults that cross a threshold into the "profound offense" realm. I'm not sure a joke from a well-established satire site (and one that itself is rooted in religion, so if twitter respects religion so much?) crosses that threshold, but your mileage may vary I'm not even sure what that means. This is the issue with the Oscars comedy by hosts: those hosting opportunities are intended to be roasts of those people in attendance. In some cases an attendee may take a joke the wrong way and personally feel demeaned. Others with tougher skin might laugh it off. And again, everything in between. I do not believe "clear distinctions" are possible sometimes in situations like this. I've previously mentioned the philosophical problem of the "heap" (sorites paradox). There is no clear distinction between one grain of sand and a heap of sand--no clear line where you cross over a threshold from not having a heap of sand and then one grain later voila! you've arrived at a heap of sand. Offense to others is like that. Offense itself is ambiguous.
Doesn't matter what musk believes... its a private company (as is facebook and parler) and "freedom of speech" doesn't apply. But playing devil's advocate... what other impositions do you favor putting onto private enterprises?
To bring this back to the original topic. The FL law involves government restrictions on what speech can be exercised in a classroom. That is very different than whether Twitter, a private for profit platform, can decide is on their platform.
The article is not misgendering this person as a "joke" or as "satire". It is doing it because it thinks there is nothing wrong with misgendering that person, regardless of how it might make that person or other trans people feel, and because punching down at such people is received with glee by its readers. Let's not portray it as anything more high-minded than that. It is entirely possible to write a piece that presents the Christian POV on this topic without violating Twitter's rule. Their writer just wasn't creative enough to do so.
Right, and I understand that you may not think it crosses the threshold you describe. But even if they are setting the bar too low, one can still make a distinction between a "nuisance insult" that is directed at a particular person (as in this case of this piece) and expressing a heterodox viewpoint in a non-insulting manner. I think you probably have major doubts about Twitter's commitments to safeguarding expression of the latter, and that's fair. But, IMO, the Bee's violation for which they were banned doesn't fall under that category.
Because you can't guise hate speech under satire, and Twitter deems calling a transgender woman a man as hate speech - it's in their TOS. People can complain about Twitter not enforcing their TOS consistently, but for those they have banned, it's clear that indeed, those banned had violated their TOS.
I've had many productive conversations with ATW over the years. They haven't always started out (or ended) smoothly, but once we get around talking past one another more often than not we find at least some grounds of agreement.
Virtual signaling takes many forms. Standing for a camera with a Bible to pretend you actually read it and live by it is one example.
I think the transgender issue is particularly difficult, both for trans individuals but also for the people and families who support them. For what it's worth, we have a trans child. My experience (admittedly limited) is that there are gradations of trans identity--some are almost 100% biologically rooted and go back as far as when someone is born; and some are a kind of "adult onset" trans/gender identity crisis that almost seems (in part anyway) political. And of course lots of possibilities along the spectrum between those two poles. And I think this idea of "misgendering" is fraught with complications. Anyway. Not an easy subject. But I think it separate from the censorship question, mostly separate anyway.
Actually the Bee was misgendering this person as satire. What people forget that satire is not just for getting a laugh, but delivering a message, and in this case, the author of that piece was delivering the message was that transgender women are actually men.
Yes people can complain about Twitter but if they are serious they should quit Twitter. Being on Twitter isn't a right yet people act as though it is. As such Twitter has no obligation to cater to anyone's speech. No one though is obligated to be on Twitter either.
Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick wants Texas version of Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said Monday he will prioritize passing Texas legislation that mimics the recently signed Florida bill. While Texas’ next legislative session doesn’t start until January, the issue will be addressed in Education Committee hearings before then, Patrick said in a campaign email. “I will make this law a top priority in the next session,” he said.
Furthermore, Twitter bans plenty of people on the Left without much complaint, and it's algo's are biased to serving up right wing news
