Hacker News Reader

Comment by IgorPartola | Hacker News Reader

> It's so disgusting to see Big Tech playing politics and saying what is true or not. That shit should not be allowed.

It’s so disgusting to see a billionaire screw regular people out of money while spreading FUD, racism, homophobia, transphobia, and sexism while telling outright lies. That shit should not be allowed.

View on HN

No that's the thing. According to our laws it _should_ be allowed. It should not be _tolerated_. That's the difference. That's what a healthy, mature society does.

If you make it not allowed, then you're giving enormous power and control of your society to whoever the arbiters of truth are. Right now that's social media/tech companies who are completely unelected and serve their own interests.

I am so glad you brought up tolerance [1]:

> The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Except that has nothing to do with what I actually said. I said be intollerant. That's the opposite of your retort.

Intollerance isn't the same response as forbiddance.

It's nice how you completely ignored my argument in favor of your talking point -- and a complete non-sequittur it was. Let's keep that shit to Twitter please.

My point is that if the laws allow intolerance then our ability to be a tolerant society will go away sooner or later. This is why I have no problem with laws that forbid hate speech, such as hate speech exhibited by Trump.

We're taking about being intollerant of bigotry here. What is it you're arguing to be tolerant of here? It's like you're picking two sides of the same argument depending on whom it favors.

I suggest that you reread your quote as well. The very premise of Popper's argument is based upon society being tolerant without limit. That's the starting point. If I'm saying explicitly to be intolerant then this paradox does not even enter the conversation.

Sorry for the confusion. I mostly agree with you, except the par here you say that it should be allowed because of the current laws. I think the idea of not tolerating intolerance should be worked more strongly into our laws. The advent of the internet has allowed sizable hate groups to organize and coordinate their efforts as well as accelerated the spread of misinformation. The problem with simply disproving of Trump is that he has enough supporters to approve of him that he essentially gets to keep operating on their backs without any actual impediment, and given what he does it is a detriment to the society as a whole.

One of the unfortunate realities of the way that we constructed our Constitution and its amenmdment process is that if a significant enough group of Americans decide that this country should be an unpleasant place to live, then it will. And it should. That flaw is also from where it derives all of its power.

While you would likely make the argument that hateful bigotry will tear this country apart, I might make the counter argument that going after the First Amendment would do the same. In reality, I hope that neither of us have to be proven right.

What did Trump ever say that was homophobic?

> What did Trump ever say that was homophobic?

Said? He

- Refused to support the Equality Act

- Appointed an unprecedented number of homophobic judges

- Gutted Section 1557, removing protections for queer people under the Afordable Care Act

- Blocked transgender people from openly serving in the military

- Banned the flying of LGBTQ+ flags from embassies.

- Weakend rights to asylum for people fleeing gender-based persecution.

And more: https://www.them.us/story/donald-trump-worst-lgbtq-attacks

It's not just about what he said, my friend.

Right. I agree it’s better to take actions than words. So let’s take one.

> Refused to support the Equality Act

Let me find an article which opposes the Equality Act and some reasons why:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-equality-act-is-a-...

In it it says:

> Under the guise of anti-discrimination protections, the bill redefines sex to include gender identity, undermines religious freedom, gives males who identify as females the right to women’s spaces, and sets a dangerous political precedent for the medicalization of gender-confused youth

Is it plausible that someone might not support the Equality Act for these reasons, or do you sincerely believe anyone who opposes this particular legislation is phobic to homosexuals? Afraid of gay people? Thinks gays are lesser humans?

We can talk about the other items on the list too if you want. I just wanted to do one as I suspect they’re all similar.

Wow. The “I’m not homophobic I just don’t like trans people or gay people” argument.

In case you don’t know, what that article says is complete nonsense. Please find better sources.

Oh, ok.

I don't think I said anything about "not liking gay people" but you've obviously read between the lines. Good for you.

I have no idea what your stance is but the quote your provided is ignorant to the point that I wouldn’t know where to begin discussing it. Moreover, it’s ignorance comes with homophobic undertones. So in the sense that if you buy it at face value then yes you might think that the bill in question is bad. But if you learn even the basics on the subject, then you will realize that this quote and the whole article are homophobic and transphobic FUD.

If your argument here is that Trump read (haha!) articles like these and then believed them at face value and it’s all the media’s fault for putting incorrect information in front of him… that’s 100% his fault and responsibility. He had access to top experts and advisors in every field, he could have figured it out.

If your argument is based on the idea that there is some conspiracy to overmedicate “gender confused youths” then I don’t know what to tell you because your understanding of the subject is at the level of Borat’s (comically poor).

Oh, ok. This was a productive discussion wasn't it? :)

I do find it supremely frustrating to have these discussions because it seems like most times people on the other side of the argument simply question reality. It's like having an engineering discussion where you allow for 1+1 to equal 3 or more in some cases, and every time you have to add 1 and 1 you have to provide proof from a conservative website that shows that it does in fact equal 2 or else the other person just cries "fake news" and "what about..." or "mainstream media". It's almost like a targeted misinformation and propaganda campaign convinced half the US that facts aren't facts and that you can question anything for which there is a lot of evidence because, well, isn't it suspicious that there is so much evidence for it? "The truth is out there, you just have to find it" is my favorite: yes the FBI/NSA/CIA are clueless but anyone with a Facebook account can figure out some kind of grand conspiracy that's afoot...

From my perspective, you didn't address what I said at all and just got extremely emotional very quickly. I venture a guess that you sometimes find these conversations frustrating because it is you who isn't listening.

The article you posted and quoted amounted to 1+1=3. How do you expect to have a conversation about it?

Oh, ok. I thought I raised some points that were at least plausible (e.g. transgender women in women's spaces) and then you start ranting about conspiracy theories, mathematics, the president not being able to read, not liking gay people and so on. Where did you see this conversation going? It was just so obviously doomed to fail with your attitude. I hope it felt good to take out some frustrations and now you feel better? But I doubt it.

Just some friendly advice man. You goal should be to treat me with respect and try to convince me of your point of view, or at least mutually learn. When you respond like you did, using shame and outrage as an argument tactic, it doesn't work. I just think you're emotional, a bit of a dick and not willing to really engage in a genuine discussion so I just tune out. If anything, it'll just solidify what I think even more because it shows to me you don't have a proper retort.

Look, when you talk about trans women not being allowed in women’s spaces as if it’s even a question, it’s not my job or goal or responsibility to try to convince you that you are wrong. It is exactly the same as if you brought up the voting rights act and wanted to debate whether black people should be allowed in white people’s spaces. What reaction do you expect when you make statements like that?

No it’s not. Where trans women should be allowed to go is far from decided in our society. Combat sports? Sports generally? Bathrooms? It’s nothing to do with an irrational fear or hatred of people who suffer with gender dysmorphia. Comparing it to black vs white segregation is ludicrous.

It seems like a complex question and you just being outraged and wanting to instantly shut down the debate as if I’m a terrible transphobic person is very toxic behaviour. Shaming as an argument tactic might work on weak people when you have backup in the room in places like Berkeley, but it’s bullying. Fact is, it’s far from a consensus in our society, unlike racial segregation. Call me the same as a racist? Fuck off :)

If you feel personally attacked by this, there is probably a reason for it. The question you brought up wasn’t about combat sports. It was about “males who identify as females in women’s spaces”. And the thing is, this is a settled question by and large: it’s none of your business what’s in someone else’s underpants.

Oh and give me your lunch money while I’m at it bullying you :). I’m so sorry to hurt your strong person feelings (wait, I thought only Berkeley snowflakes got their feelings hurt/could be bullied).

One last bit: body dysmorphia is not a necessary condition to being trans. The way you cast a group of people around that diagnosis does seem to indicate that you see them as damaged and/or sick, which they are not. Trying to sound like you know what you are talking about while clearly having a cable news education on the subject makes you look worse, not better.

Good luck and learn to be a better human.

> If you feel personally attacked by this, there is probably a reason for it.

I feel personally attacked by it because you literally made a personal attack and said its the same as racial segregation, lol.

> The question you brought up wasn’t about combat sports. It was about “males who identify as females in women’s spaces”.

Women-only sports is an example of a women-only space. Maybe that's one reason why someone might oppose the Equality Act (besides just hating trans people and homosexuals)? :)

> And the thing is, this is a settled question by and large

You keep saying this, but It's really not outside of places like California my man. Stop the arguments by made up consensus. 1) It's a bad argument and 2) you don't even have a consensus.

> Oh and give me your lunch money while I’m at it bullying you :). I’m so sorry to hurt your strong person feelings (wait, I thought only Berkeley snowflakes got their feelings hurt/could be bullied).

I am saying you're not able to bully me with this stupid tactic of shaming and shutting down debate instead of debating. That's why I'm not agreeing with you and told you to fuck off when you called me the same as a racist. But doing what you're doing is what bullies and weak people with weak arguments try to do.

> One last bit: body dysmorphia is not a necessary condition to being trans

Wisdom! Thanks. Who knew?

> The way you cast a group of people around that diagnosis does seem to indicate that you see them as damaged and/or sick, which they are not.

It is literally a mental illness to be afflicted with though? It's obviously mental turmoil if you felt like your brain and body did not align in the same gender. The crux of the issue is that you seem to conflate me saying something like this with me also (not) saying "trans people are bad and subhuman". People who are depressed have a mental illness. It's normal, and they're not bad for it. It just happens. I fully expect you to be OUTRAGED by my comment, even though I really don't think it's that outrageous and I have no ill will towards trans people whatsoever. Cue comments such as "do you actually know any trans/black/gay people!?" Yes, actually. Next. You don't win an argument by seeming like you're more compassionate because I really don't think you are.

> Trying to sound like you know what you are talking about while clearly having a cable news education on the subject makes you look worse, not better.

Okay, good one.

> Good luck and learn to be a better human.

Yeah, I disagree with you, so I'm not only stupid, but also a bad person. Classic woke arguments lol. I stand by my "fuck off".

> Fact is, it’s far from a consensus in our society, unlike racial segregation. Call me the same as a racist? Fuck off :)

So the difference you see is on the current societal consensus? In my mind, the consideration of for example, certain authors of being racist as in their current societal consensus is more like an understatement of them being shaped by their society, not and endorsement of their racism. So yeah, and I said this as just a statement without intention to insult, I don't see much difference between some racist 70 years ago, and yourself right now.

The only rationale behind segregating blacks from whites was racism. This joker is trying to say it's the same for segregating trans women and biological women, but it's obviously not. For example, maybe (and this might blow the woke people's minds) trans women aren't exactly the same as biological women in sports? So segregation makes sense to protect the majority of women. There's plenty of other scenarios where allowing people to arbitrarily move between genders might have negative externalities on members of a gender. Those are concerns (not even getting into the debate of whether they're legitimate concerns or not), that have nothing to do with an irrational fear or hatred of trans people. But the woke would just love to frame the debate that way: you only possible way you can disagree is if you're the same as a racist. And to that, I say fuck off.

I agree with both POV here. It _is_ disgusting to see Big Tech playing politics. However, I don’t think Trump’s ban has much to do with that. He simply broke the rules.

Probably the thing that makes me saddest about the whole debacle is that there seems to be less and less room for valid conservative viewpoints. I lean conservative but it seems that the priorities of the Republican Party have changed from advancing conservative politics to defending Trump at all costs. Sadly I cannot support that and therefore, I cannot support the party.

I think I’m in a small boat here but if anyone else feels this way I hope you can take a little comfort from this comment and knowing you are not alone.

The madness affects both sides. I lean liberal and the insanity and obsession with Trump and turning him into a boogeyman has me no longer supporting the left.

Thanks for bringing that up. I wholeheartedly agree with you. I am currently a reliable democratic voter but I wasn’t always on that side of the aisle. The idea of fiscal conservatism really appeals to me in the sense of a balanced budget and judiciously defined social programs that maximize ROI for the country. But social conservatism has been a pretty big moral failure, rooted in a number of moral panics. What exactly is wrong with being gay? Or trans? Or a woman? Or black? That part really became hard to swallow. But even if I ignored that, the GOP basically sold their soul for Trump’s Twitter following and at this point has no actual platform. Between 2017 and 2021 they racked up more national debt than any other government so even the pretense of fiscal responsibility is gone now. I know that supporting Democrats isn’t palatable to a lot of traditionally conservative voters but I am glad some are seeing more clearly what’s going on.

However, I don’t think Trump’s ban has much to do with that. He simply broke the rules.

Facebook's oversight board disagrees. They ruled that Trump's ban was "indeterminate and standardless", and that the correct response should be "consistent with the rules that are applied to other users of its platform".

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56985583

It's quite obvious he broke no actual rules, but it's interesting that Facebook's oversight board is actually willing to say so. Of course, they nonetheless 'allowed' Facebook to continue the ban.

> It's quite obvious he broke no actual rules, but it's interesting that Facebook's oversight board is actually willing to say so.

Where are you reading that? I see no reference to it in the linked article.

I just quoted from the article. Are you seeing a different web page to me? The 5th paragraph says:

The Oversight Board said the initial decision to permanently suspend Mr Trump was "indeterminate and standardless", and that the correct response should be "consistent with the rules that are applied to other users of its platform".

And the first paragraph says:

Donald Trump's ban from Facebook and Instagram has been upheld by Facebook's Oversight Board.

That does not say what you're claiming it does. The article is very clearly talking about the response to Trump:

> correct response should be "consistent with the rules that are applied to other users of its platform".

That's the entire focus of the article is a consistent response from Facebook. It makes absolutely no mention of the action that precipitated the response.

But their response was to ban him, which means the response consistent with the rules applied to other people would have yielded no ban.

Uhuh... which says absolutely nothing about what rules he broke. I'm not sure what part of that you're getting hung up on.

I also don't understand quite why there's disagreement here, so perhaps it's best to just end it here. From my perspective what the oversight board says is simple: Trump was banned, but not because he broke any actual rule, as evidenced by the fact that everyone else on the platform can do the same things and not be banned.

Perhaps you're interpreting it differently as: he broke a rule, which happens to only be enforced against people named Donald Trump. Well, most people wouldn't recognize such things as genuine rules, which is probably why the oversight board had such difficulty with it.

There's absolutely nothing that needs to be interpreted here. The article - and even the specific sentence you quoted - make it clear that its discussing the response to a user's actions and not the actions themselves. I'm not saying Trump did or did not break a rule, but neither did this article. You're completely inventing the notion that Trump's actions were discussed.

Please go tell Trump supporter Dr. Alveda King, niece of MLK Jr, that Trump is a racist. I'm sure your opinions on racism are more expert, valid and nuanced than hers.

Oh yeah, the same Alveda King that is a religious conservative, anti-abortion, anti same-sex marriage. Her opinions don't seem to align with the spirit of MLK during the civil rights movement.

She's aligned with Trump due to her fundamentalist religious views, not sure I can trust her just because she's the niece of MLK, being family says nothing about sharing mindset and worldviews, I'm sorry.

You can align with her over anti-racism.

Government should not be in the business of religious marriage, LGBT or otherwise.

Leave religious marriage to religious tribes, however they wish to define a religious marriage.

Similarly, Government marriages / civil partnerships / unions whatever should not be interfered with by religious groups.

I used to be a fundamentalist atheist / progressive, as you appear to be.

I then realised I was turning in to the control freak that I used to despise the religious Right for being in the 2000s.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com