Did you read my posts?

I made it clear that there is a difference between political opinions and hate speech. If you are telling people that I am a pedophile because I am trans, that is inciting violence against me. And if someone decides to brick you in the face over that, I'll shed no tears. If you're talking about how Black people/immigrants/whomever is going to 'replace the white race' and encouraging people to pick up arms and do something about it, you're inciting violence and I don't care if the black bloc doxxes you and gets you fired.

If, instead, you're arguing that we should accept less immigrants to our country, or that we should spend more money on police - I am going to disagree with you, but I won't support violence against you.

Note that this isn't a legal argument - I know under the constitution, those two things are treated similarly. I'm talking morally.

this is less of a 'trans issues' thing and more of a 'what consequences, if any, should people be exposed to for words that lead to violence'

Up thread 57 on red said that there is no such thing as intersex people. Should I read into your silence on this? Alternatively, Ranma vulnerably shared a powerful story about her transition, and no comment on that either. Should I read into your silence on this?

No that is you assuming you know what I was banned for or even if it would be bannable if it played out exactly the same again or if it was an over reaction to board hysterics and the lies being posted believed as real?


I won't speak more for tame but you should not either.



This is another LIE. It was not my story.

And CNN reports on wrong stories all the time. Both traditional media and SM post speculation all the time.


Insert Carlin Meme here.

again uke not understanding that he can have his view and others can have their view.

CNN REGULARLY posts ongoing speculation about any breaking news story. It is their business model. They update as they go. We got all sorts of speculation about the Jessy Smollett thing until real facts came in.

You , uke , don't like it and do not think it should be done. You uke are not the boss of CNN or me, so sucks to be you as you are not the dictator you wish you were.



You intentionally post is suggesting I am the one speculating.

And i will AGAIN if it is a big trending story posted in any big Traditional or SM format.

Sucks to be you uke, but we do not agree over this. I think it is 100% appropriate to post what it trending in this forum and if CNN reports tomorrow that Jessy Smollett's cousin got beat up by two Muslim extremists, I will report that is what is CNN is reporting.

You don't like and I don't care what you don't like.



It is NOT inappropriate.

Stop speaking as if fact on a matter of opinion. I believe it is 100% appropriate.

It is not analogous to retweeting unless the person retweeting is doing so to say 'this is what others are saying'. So if a lefty retweets that a 'racist commentator just tweeted this' that is an appropriate retweet as they are just HIGHLIGHTING FACTUALLY what the racist commentator said. Example if Ben Shapiro says something racist, it is appropriate to retweet to HIGHLIGHT what he said. That is ALL i did. I highlighted what was SAID on Twitter.

That is different than just retweeting a racist comment with no comment which is perceived to be an agreement of furtherance of that position.

I specifically posted that here saying it was what was trending or being said on Twitter.

So this is another attempt of a lie by you to try and change the framing of what I actually said and did as you know the truth does not serve you.

I understand exactly what you are saying.

I just don't agree with you, and I doubt anyone here would if the roles were reversed.


You seem to be conflating whether a person who was doing those things would or should get sympathy for getting a brick to the face after saying abhorrent things that could lead to violence downstream, and whether or not we should condone such actions.

As a POC, there are many people I could 'brick in the face' over comments that could lead to down stream violence against me, including many members of congress. And many of them might not receive much if any sympathy. But jumping from that to condoning or agreeing the action or even saying as the Congress person sits with shattered teeth 'talk ****, get hit' is a bridge too far.

You won't likely accept that because it is coming from me and not people you consider more on 'your side', and sadly you will almost certainly not get any comment on the extreme nature of your position from those who should comment, who you might perceive more 'on your side'. But this is 2+2 so the predictable is.... predictable.

I mean, I accept that that is your PoV. I just don't agree with it. I'll save my tears and my energy for the oppressed, instead of oppressors. I don't expect people in this thread to agree with me on this, and that is fine.

Did you try my little experiment? Any feelings come up?
Did you ever read any of the books I recommended to you, over a year back?

Conglaturation! You have completed a great game. And prooved the justice of our culture. Now go and rest our heroes!

We know what you were banned for:

Tame has spoken for himself. Tame is 100% correct here on the reason your post was inappropriate. You were posting baseless rumours. I make no claim as to whether it was worthy of a ban (I'm more laisez-faire than tame is on moderation). But I fully agree it was inappropriate. It was inappropriate for the twitter users to be spreading it (something you refuse to acknowledge) and it was inappropriate for you to further propagate that rumour, regardless of whether you added colour commentary or not.


I have no love of CNN, but I've never seen an establishment media like that do anything remotely as shitty as what you did which was to post just utterly baseless speculation with zero critique. CNN would never have run that as a story that the assailant was trans like you spread. Did a SINGLE news outlet post that he was trans?

That's exactly what you did. You "retweeted" the baseless speculation with no comment. You just did it on a different platform. Either way that baseless speculation was further propagated by your actions. If you HAD added commentary, something like "these people on twitter are behaving wildly inappropriately" then sure you could make this distinction. But you didn't.


Lmao, not this bullshit again. OBVIOUSLY it is my opinion. Who the **** else's would it be? You just asserted it is not inappropriate. I assert it is. Both of us are sharing our opinion. Neither of us is claiming some immutable property of the universe. That you are still getting tripped up that people on the internet - including you - state their opinion all the time without excessive qualifiers that it is their opinion is hilarious.

Please take your "immutable property of the universe" talk to SMP please. Thanking you in advance.

I've been listening to what you've been saying here and trying to imagine it through the perspective of walking in your shoes, in a society that too often denies your very existence and threatens you with very real harm. And I think I can empathize to a degree the indifference to caring about violence against those so viscously critiquing your existence. However, to me a bedrock value is to fight oppression with non-violence, and I do find your posts coming too closely to a call to violence for my comfort level.

My beliefs are based on readings about MLK, James Baldwin, and Malcolm X, and my skimming of Rising Up and Rising Down: Some Thoughts on Violence, Freedom, and Urgent Means (I woulda read the whole thing, but it's over 3000 pages).

In my world view, violence is an acceptable response to violence. Oppression is violence.
In my personal life, I am a Quaker. I don't believe in acting violently. But I will not judge those who use violence in response to oppression.

If you haven't had to consider whether your existence may be made illegal in the country you live in at some point in the future, because of who you are, I'm not that worried about your comfort level. If you haven't been shouted at on the street late at night, and wondered whether this was the moment it escalated beyond words, into violence, I'm not worried about your comfort level. If you've never had to attend the funeral of a friend, who killed themself because death was easier than living in a world that hated them, I'm not worried about your comfort level.


There is a saying in the queer community - "sorry if we seem like *******s, all the nice queers got bullied to death or murdered"

Thanks for sharing your story. I'm sorry to hear about the terrible years you had to go through, but am very happy to hear you're in a much better place now.



I'd agree that we shouldn't be surprised by it. Doesn't make it right, but I can understand it. I've never in my life been subjected to hate speech, and likely never will, so I try not to judge the reactions of those who have too harshly. I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over some hate-spewing Nazi who gets punched, even though I don't agree with or condone the action. And this applies the same whether the hate comes from the right or the left, but what I'd consider true hate speech comes overwhelmingly from one side of that spectrum IMO.

Yeah, this is the point. All animals (except human social constructionists) understand the difference between males and females as the biological binary is so evolutionary ancient.

This is in contrast to to their understanding of more complex phenomena, such as the world being round and a heliocentric solar system.

The problem here is who gets to draw the line on what oppression is. Are attempts to oppress individuals who seek the truth violence? Are attempts to oppress people's right to free speech violence?

Is it it's acceptable to bully and harass someone for their beliefs?

A forum like this is not pre-moderated, that is why it in some ways superficially resemble an actual public square from history; people can state exactly what they want. There is no censorship until afterwards.

But the ownership and control of the forum is nothing like a public square, but more like an historic newspaper editorial section. Meaning that the owners (through the moderators) reserve the right to choose what content is allowed and how to apply censorship.

That many choose private property for their messaging is not something that was invented with the internet. It has been the norm for a long, long time through the use of private venues, media, publishers, printing presses etc. These days the important middle-men aren't editors, printers, publishers or writers however, but influencers and social media consultants. In earlier times most people didn't know of these de facto filters on public expression, because most people had little experience with doing public debate.

You draw the line. This isn't a legal system, it's a moral system.

There is a difference between things you do/say, and things you are. Oppressing someone because they are trans is not equivalent to oppressing someone because they say that trans people are grooming your children.

Is it ok to harass someone for their beliefs? Depends on the beliefs. If they believe a bunch of QAnon nonsense, or are talking about 'the great replacement', then yes?

Having an innate quality, like being left handed, is vastly different from having a moral or political stance on something. You choose what to believe and what to say, you don't choose who you are.

This is a good post, and you raise some interesting points. Regarding your first point, I'm not sure there are universal moralities and to some degree morality drives legal boundaries. Some cultures think homosexuality is immoral and hence it's illegal. In the UK, it was moral reasoning that drove things like decriminalising and allowing homosexual marriage, and the equalities act.

Furthermore, what happens when morality comes into conflict with reality? I'm quite happy to call a transwoman a woman and use the appropriate pronouns, as I think it's the right thing to do. However, I would not believe they are female (I would probably acknowledge them as such if it was important to them). Some people may consider these beliefs wrong and therefore, in your example, would it be okay to submit me to harassment?

It's also interesting you have picked only right-wing beliefs - would the same standard apply to problematic left-wing beliefs? Is it okay to harass people because you disagree with their political beliefs? That seems a very slippery slope.

As to your final point, I agree that being gay or trans is a innate quality for most people. However, I don't think we have as much choice in what we do and say as we would like to think. Lots of evidence that political beliefs are heritable. As a concrete example, my belief in science is not a belief that I can suspend just because someone finds the truth problematic.

such as...?

Let me clarify one detail, since you've been so bad with the basic terminology ITT. When you say you are happy to call a trans woman a woman, do you mean you yourself believe a trans woman is a woman, or do you mean you are only willing to say it out loud to be respectful, but don't actually believe it?

Given that dogs will hump just about anything animate or inanimate, no I wouldn't say they can understand the complex phenomena that intersex people exist with varying degrees of sexual characteristics and it isn't a strict and exclusionary binary. Just lol at trying to use "but but but whatabout dogs" to justify your silly word games ITT.

How do animals understand the difference between males and females when they wont have an ideality of male and female?

Same sex intercourse between animals is common, in what way do they understand this is different to non same sex intercourse?

Why not believe them? Why do you suspect literally every trans person is lying about their gender identity?

You are viewing your belief as an objective reality, when it is an opinion. Yes, I would be fine with people 'harassing' you about your beliefs on other people's existence.
Fine: You are a trans woman, and you said you didn't believe you were female,
Not fine: You are a trans woman, and you said you don't believe trans women are female
One is about you, the other is about other people. Expressing an opinion is not a neutral act.

The same standards would apply to leftist beliefs, and to liberal politicians. I picked right wing beliefs, because the right wing in the United States has been increasingly focused on using government power to oppress people, while the left wing at least pretends to care, as long as it doesn't require them to actually do anything. Again, if the Republican party was talking more about small government than about why the government should restrict what medical care I have access to, I wouldn't have had those examples.

Your political beliefs are influenced by your environment, that is not the same thing as being heritable. People's beliefs can change - for example, when I was a teenager, I was a huge libertarian and I loved Ayn Rand. Then I went to college and took some ethics classes and realized I was being a privileged jerk.
There are plenty of ex white supremacists. Have you ever read the Autobiography of Malcolm X? He goes through several shifts in political beliefs through the book.

If posting on company-controlled platforms is nothing like a public square, then we mostly don't have a public square any more. I was taking the view that we should call places like this or twitter or youtube or whatever the "public square" in 2022, but if you don't want to use that nomenclature its fine, but then the sort of literal public squares are vastly diminished in prominence as a place for dialogue and conversation. I think my nomenclature is more representative of the evolving notion of public squares above and beyond a physical place in the centre of the town where people might have previously gone to debate the ideas of the day. Regardless of what one chooses to call this though, the point I think stands that public places where one can just espouse nazi ideology free from consequences are pretty limited.

There is a new sickening baseless rumour that the Uvalde shooter was trans, with even an elected representative spreading this disgusting lie:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dgn...ht-trans-woman
As disgusting as spreading these rumours is, the good news is that every news article about it that I've seen as made sure to be completely clear that this is indeed baseless speculation. They didn't just retweet Gosar. They didn't just report that he said this without any critique or context. Hopefully this can be a lesson to Cuepee on the dangers of uncritically spreading baseless speculation about assailants being trans and how the far right is weaponizing this tactic.