I'm not seeing the new Twitter/X doing anything like this, but would be happy if someone had an example. Last time I asked, it was just the airplane tracker thing.
I think that violates the golden rule of tolerance (described in the prior post). If Banks won't tolerate the officer's freedom (in this case, about their own gender) then Banks shouldn't be tolerated.
'Lots of people' isn't a standard. The point of human rights is to protect the minority; the majority is almost always free to do as they want. Conservatives say they are a minority on campus but should be tolerated and made safe, for example, and I agree as long as they follow the golden rule.
> I'm not seeing the new Twitter/X doing anything like this, but would be happy if someone had an example. Last time I asked, it was just the airplane tracker thing.
Others were banned, etc., including journalists, but I don't have much time now ... here's one story:
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/twitter-suspends-j...
He, and the management of Twitter at the time, should have extended tolerance to those who don't share his belief that men can become women by self-decree.
There is nothing unreasonable about it. It's not hard and people change things all the time; they change names, phone numbers, job titles, etc., and other peope remember. It's just discriminatory.
> He, and the management of Twitter at the time, should have extended tolerance to those who don't share his belief
Here is where the rules I proposed upthread apply: The only thing not to tolerate is intolerance. They only deserve tolerance if they tolerate others - it's a two-way street. (Rather than repeat the whole thing, see the comment upthread or click here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49442308 )
There is a discrepancy too in that most people who think this idea should apply to sex don't extend it to other immutable characteristics like race. Rachel Levine was celebrated for calling himself a woman, Rachel Dolazel was pilloried for calling herself black.