[flagged]
I think there are absolutely social circles where people will look down on you for being what they consider transphobic. And enough people in places of power in companies are of this group that the companies worry, but by the same argument you could place say racial minorities as a sacred caste and I think we all mostly can recognize that that isn’t generally true.
The people who believe trans people are in the simultaneous all-powerful/incredibly weak position are primed to believe that about pretty much any minority group.
The problem is exactly the polarization you've referenced. The red tribe (or at least some extremist segment of it) has decided that attacking trans people is a good thing, rationalized as defending their own values, but really to create an outgroup for their lizard-brain purposes. The blue tribe has correctly characterized this as unjust and unkind... while an extremist segment of the blue tribe has decided to attack anyone who talks about the topic in the wrong context, rationalized as fighting the aforementioned injustice, but really to create an outgroup for their own lizard-brain purposes.
The answer is to openly reject both camps of extremists, regardless of whether one is more aligned with your latent tribe.
The original comment stated a criticism, but did not leverage that into an attack. Assigning the commenter to your outgroup based on the criticism is exactly the dynamic of polarization, which ultimately just perpetuates the extremism.
Ideally, people with affinity for the blue tribe should be the loudest calling out these new speech-policing authoritarians, just as people with affinity for the red tribe should be the loudest calling out those that attack trans people.
"This example shows that trans people are so powerful that even if you're saying something relatively harmless (the specific joke) on a niche platform (the specific Twitch channel) they will punish you for that."
"That's not true. There are major media companies amplifying far more hateful voices with no consequences. Politicians whom are famously dependent on populism, have actually experienced positive outcomes from attacking that group of people."
The "they" doing the punishing is actually corporate bureaucrats hyper-sensitive to what they perceive might be controversial, in the service of advertising revenue. They and those with ad money are the ones with the power.
I'll agree OP did start to step over the line when they said "the" caste - there are many different protected classes, across different contexts.
It does take work to go against that dynamic. You should do that work, despite it being harder than knee jerk dismissal. It's the only way to tame this partisan fueled polarization.
Do you have a larger point? I don't really see what your replies are getting at.
That's all this boiled down to - Twitch can be strict about their rules sometimes and so the stream needed more work to avoid violating them when it switches to backup systems.
The social mores of advertisers being overbearing for comedy content ain't really a new thing.
The mod team seems very slightly better in recent years, but it has a long history of double standards and incomprehensible decisions.
Discussing that sort of thing is discouraged in the US, because it stinks of nepotism and conflicts with our culture's ostensible ideals of meritocracy and egalitarianism.
It's an easy mistake to make, because in order to obscure our society's important class distinctions, we make a lot of noise about other differences that people are born with, which feels very caste-y.
Assuming it's not the middle one, you can email hn@ycombinator.com and ask to be marked legit, or you can wait out the noob threshold -- aged accounts are allowed to post from tor without being autokilled, since tor + new account was likely one of the most common ways to abuse the site at one point. So the problem will go away in about 14 days.
Where?
Nothing to do but patiently wait for the social/technical changes that will make these not-even-wrong would-be priests (of both blue and red flavors) irrelevant again.
Which is patently ridiculous... Schindler's List depicts some of the worst acts of antisemitism ever, but the movie itself is obviosly not antisemitic. So what's the difference between Schindler's List and an actually antisemitic movie, like Hebrews To Negroes?
I think it comes down to the creator's intent. In Schindler's List, you're not supposed to agree with the antisemitic stuff that happens. It's bad and wrong. In Hebrews To Negroes, the antisemitisn is depicted as good and correct.
When you have a large language model creating your art, how do you make that determination of "intent"?