Harper's letter
Comments
-
Yes, it can be a bit much. I think at all times it is worth remembering that what you see on Twitter is the result of its algorithm which prioritises things that generate a strong reaction. So it is over-representative of people either shouting deliberately offensive nonsense or denouncing someone who has.shortfall said:Twitter is just awful isn't it though? I gave it a good shot but after less than a year I made a conscious decision to stop looking at my Twitter feed because all I got was polarised opinions from fanatics with little context and just downright nastiness. As a middle aged (c)onservative I also found my opinions massively out of step with the predominantly younger, left leaning demographic. I mean, I get all the schooling I need right here about what a reactionary dinosaur I am but at least I have a few allies 😀 The other horrible thing with Twitter is the relentless stream of videos that auto load on your feed.. There's a limit to how many racially motivated assaults, cop beatings or animal cruelty videos from China you can be sure subjected to before it does lasting damage to your mental health and perceptions of society.
As an example Wiley was able to post a stream of wildly antisemitic and racist nonsense for 24hrs or more without any sanction from the site itself.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Unpopular opinion: I don't think there should be any sanction for the moronic nonsense he came out with.rjsterry said:
Yes, it can be a bit much. I think at all times it is worth remembering that what you see on Twitter is the result of its algorithm which prioritises things that generate a strong reaction. So it is over-representative of people either shouting deliberately offensive nonsense or denouncing someone who has.shortfall said:Twitter is just awful isn't it though? I gave it a good shot but after less than a year I made a conscious decision to stop looking at my Twitter feed because all I got was polarised opinions from fanatics with little context and just downright nastiness. As a middle aged (c)onservative I also found my opinions massively out of step with the predominantly younger, left leaning demographic. I mean, I get all the schooling I need right here about what a reactionary dinosaur I am but at least I have a few allies 😀 The other horrible thing with Twitter is the relentless stream of videos that auto load on your feed.. There's a limit to how many racially motivated assaults, cop beatings or animal cruelty videos from China you can be sure subjected to before it does lasting damage to your mental health and perceptions of society.
As an example Wiley was able to post a stream of wildly antisemitic and racist nonsense for 24hrs or more without any sanction from the site itself.0 -
Do you think there should be no consequences for him at all?nickice said:
Unpopular opinion: I don't think there should be any sanction for the moronic nonsense he came out with.rjsterry said:
Yes, it can be a bit much. I think at all times it is worth remembering that what you see on Twitter is the result of its algorithm which prioritises things that generate a strong reaction. So it is over-representative of people either shouting deliberately offensive nonsense or denouncing someone who has.shortfall said:Twitter is just awful isn't it though? I gave it a good shot but after less than a year I made a conscious decision to stop looking at my Twitter feed because all I got was polarised opinions from fanatics with little context and just downright nastiness. As a middle aged (c)onservative I also found my opinions massively out of step with the predominantly younger, left leaning demographic. I mean, I get all the schooling I need right here about what a reactionary dinosaur I am but at least I have a few allies 😀 The other horrible thing with Twitter is the relentless stream of videos that auto load on your feed.. There's a limit to how many racially motivated assaults, cop beatings or animal cruelty videos from China you can be sure subjected to before it does lasting damage to your mental health and perceptions of society.
As an example Wiley was able to post a stream of wildly antisemitic and racist nonsense for 24hrs or more without any sanction from the site itself.
I don't have any problem with a private company setting whatever limits it sees fit on its own platform. Twitter isn't a public utility despite appearances. If people want to write racist nonsense online, they can always host their own site and publish there. A Twitter account and the publicity that brings is not a human right.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Not from Twitter, no.They can't even manage to remove death threats as it's basically impossible to police.rjsterry said:
Do you think there should be no consequences for him at all?nickice said:
Unpopular opinion: I don't think there should be any sanction for the moronic nonsense he came out with.rjsterry said:
Yes, it can be a bit much. I think at all times it is worth remembering that what you see on Twitter is the result of its algorithm which prioritises things that generate a strong reaction. So it is over-representative of people either shouting deliberately offensive nonsense or denouncing someone who has.shortfall said:Twitter is just awful isn't it though? I gave it a good shot but after less than a year I made a conscious decision to stop looking at my Twitter feed because all I got was polarised opinions from fanatics with little context and just downright nastiness. As a middle aged (c)onservative I also found my opinions massively out of step with the predominantly younger, left leaning demographic. I mean, I get all the schooling I need right here about what a reactionary dinosaur I am but at least I have a few allies 😀 The other horrible thing with Twitter is the relentless stream of videos that auto load on your feed.. There's a limit to how many racially motivated assaults, cop beatings or animal cruelty videos from China you can be sure subjected to before it does lasting damage to your mental health and perceptions of society.
As an example Wiley was able to post a stream of wildly antisemitic and racist nonsense for 24hrs or more without any sanction from the site itself.
Once you start trying to police speech it often backfires and the rules end up being used against the very people they were there to benefit. Case in point: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/17/canada-nazi-monument-vandalism-hate-crime0 -
Not sure Twitter is impossible to police, so much as it's bad for revenue.
I'm not sure a right to freedom of speech includes a right to have someone else broadcast that speech for free.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Some of these sites manage to police speech if the Chinese government asks them to.0
-
If this is the strongest case you can find I think generally things are working OK.nickice said:
Not from Twitter, no.They can't even manage to remove death threats as it's basically impossible to police.rjsterry said:
Do you think there should be no consequences for him at all?nickice said:
Unpopular opinion: I don't think there should be any sanction for the moronic nonsense he came out with.rjsterry said:
Yes, it can be a bit much. I think at all times it is worth remembering that what you see on Twitter is the result of its algorithm which prioritises things that generate a strong reaction. So it is over-representative of people either shouting deliberately offensive nonsense or denouncing someone who has.shortfall said:Twitter is just awful isn't it though? I gave it a good shot but after less than a year I made a conscious decision to stop looking at my Twitter feed because all I got was polarised opinions from fanatics with little context and just downright nastiness. As a middle aged (c)onservative I also found my opinions massively out of step with the predominantly younger, left leaning demographic. I mean, I get all the schooling I need right here about what a reactionary dinosaur I am but at least I have a few allies 😀 The other horrible thing with Twitter is the relentless stream of videos that auto load on your feed.. There's a limit to how many racially motivated assaults, cop beatings or animal cruelty videos from China you can be sure subjected to before it does lasting damage to your mental health and perceptions of society.
As an example Wiley was able to post a stream of wildly antisemitic and racist nonsense for 24hrs or more without any sanction from the site itself.
Once you start trying to police speech it often backfires and the rules end up being used against the very people they were there to benefit. Case in point: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/17/canada-nazi-monument-vandalism-hate-crime1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It was just a recent example that made me laugh more than anything. Ultimately, policing platforms like twitter is just too difficult as there is so much abuse on it and so many users. There is also another argument that social media is the new public square (I think this is not that bad an argument).rjsterry said:
If this is the strongest case you can find I think generally things are working OK.nickice said:
Not from Twitter, no.They can't even manage to remove death threats as it's basically impossible to police.rjsterry said:
Do you think there should be no consequences for him at all?nickice said:
Unpopular opinion: I don't think there should be any sanction for the moronic nonsense he came out with.rjsterry said:
Yes, it can be a bit much. I think at all times it is worth remembering that what you see on Twitter is the result of its algorithm which prioritises things that generate a strong reaction. So it is over-representative of people either shouting deliberately offensive nonsense or denouncing someone who has.shortfall said:Twitter is just awful isn't it though? I gave it a good shot but after less than a year I made a conscious decision to stop looking at my Twitter feed because all I got was polarised opinions from fanatics with little context and just downright nastiness. As a middle aged (c)onservative I also found my opinions massively out of step with the predominantly younger, left leaning demographic. I mean, I get all the schooling I need right here about what a reactionary dinosaur I am but at least I have a few allies 😀 The other horrible thing with Twitter is the relentless stream of videos that auto load on your feed.. There's a limit to how many racially motivated assaults, cop beatings or animal cruelty videos from China you can be sure subjected to before it does lasting damage to your mental health and perceptions of society.
As an example Wiley was able to post a stream of wildly antisemitic and racist nonsense for 24hrs or more without any sanction from the site itself.
Once you start trying to police speech it often backfires and the rules end up being used against the very people they were there to benefit. Case in point: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/17/canada-nazi-monument-vandalism-hate-crime
Ideologies are ideologies and people find that out to their cost when they realise that not only are they protected but hateful ideologies are too. It's much better not to severely limit free speech at all. That's why the US has a first amendment.0 -
Twitter isn't the public square. It's a broadcasting service provided in exchange for access to your data or a fee if you want to bump your tweet to the top. It's the equivalent of the small print shop that enabled shouty people to hand out hundreds of pamphlets rather than having to stand on a box and physically shout. Twitter deciding what can be said on their platform does not limit free speech in any way. And as pointed out, in countries where there really are restrictions on free speech, state controlled social media has no problem removing certain content.nickice said:
It was just a recent example that made me laugh more than anything. Ultimately, policing platforms like twitter is just too difficult as there is so much abuse on it and so many users. There is also another argument that social media is the new public square (I think this is not that bad an argument).rjsterry said:
If this is the strongest case you can find I think generally things are working OK.nickice said:
Not from Twitter, no.They can't even manage to remove death threats as it's basically impossible to police.rjsterry said:
Do you think there should be no consequences for him at all?nickice said:
Unpopular opinion: I don't think there should be any sanction for the moronic nonsense he came out with.rjsterry said:
Yes, it can be a bit much. I think at all times it is worth remembering that what you see on Twitter is the result of its algorithm which prioritises things that generate a strong reaction. So it is over-representative of people either shouting deliberately offensive nonsense or denouncing someone who has.shortfall said:Twitter is just awful isn't it though? I gave it a good shot but after less than a year I made a conscious decision to stop looking at my Twitter feed because all I got was polarised opinions from fanatics with little context and just downright nastiness. As a middle aged (c)onservative I also found my opinions massively out of step with the predominantly younger, left leaning demographic. I mean, I get all the schooling I need right here about what a reactionary dinosaur I am but at least I have a few allies 😀 The other horrible thing with Twitter is the relentless stream of videos that auto load on your feed.. There's a limit to how many racially motivated assaults, cop beatings or animal cruelty videos from China you can be sure subjected to before it does lasting damage to your mental health and perceptions of society.
As an example Wiley was able to post a stream of wildly antisemitic and racist nonsense for 24hrs or more without any sanction from the site itself.
Once you start trying to police speech it often backfires and the rules end up being used against the very people they were there to benefit. Case in point: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/17/canada-nazi-monument-vandalism-hate-crime
Ideologies are ideologies and people find that out to their cost when they realise that not only are they protected but hateful ideologies are too. It's much better not to severely limit free speech at all. That's why the US has a first amendment.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry said:
Twitter isn't the public square. It's a broadcasting service provided in exchange for access to your data or a fee if you want to bump your tweet to the top. It's the equivalent of the small print shop that enabled shouty people to hand out hundreds of pamphlets rather than having to stand on a box and physically shout. Twitter deciding what can be said on their platform does not limit free speech in any way. And as pointed out, in countries where there really are restrictions on free speech, state controlled social media has no problem removing certain content.nickice said:
It was just a recent example that made me laugh more than anything. Ultimately, policing platforms like twitter is just too difficult as there is so much abuse on it and so many users. There is also another argument that social media is the new public square (I think this is not that bad an argument).rjsterry said:
If this is the strongest case you can find I think generally things are working OK.nickice said:
Not from Twitter, no.They can't even manage to remove death threats as it's basically impossible to police.rjsterry said:
Do you think there should be no consequences for him at all?nickice said:
Unpopular opinion: I don't think there should be any sanction for the moronic nonsense he came out with.rjsterry said:
Yes, it can be a bit much. I think at all times it is worth remembering that what you see on Twitter is the result of its algorithm which prioritises things that generate a strong reaction. So it is over-representative of people either shouting deliberately offensive nonsense or denouncing someone who has.shortfall said:Twitter is just awful isn't it though? I gave it a good shot but after less than a year I made a conscious decision to stop looking at my Twitter feed because all I got was polarised opinions from fanatics with little context and just downright nastiness. As a middle aged (c)onservative I also found my opinions massively out of step with the predominantly younger, left leaning demographic. I mean, I get all the schooling I need right here about what a reactionary dinosaur I am but at least I have a few allies 😀 The other horrible thing with Twitter is the relentless stream of videos that auto load on your feed.. There's a limit to how many racially motivated assaults, cop beatings or animal cruelty videos from China you can be sure subjected to before it does lasting damage to your mental health and perceptions of society.
As an example Wiley was able to post a stream of wildly antisemitic and racist nonsense for 24hrs or more without any sanction from the site itself.
Once you start trying to police speech it often backfires and the rules end up being used against the very people they were there to benefit. Case in point: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/17/canada-nazi-monument-vandalism-hate-crime
Ideologies are ideologies and people find that out to their cost when they realise that not only are they protected but hateful ideologies are too. It's much better not to severely limit free speech at all. That's why the US has a first amendment.
Poor analogy: If you want to have a political presence and you're banned from Twitter and Facebook then your career will be very short.
And who's advocating state-run social media?0 -
It's too late tonight but I remember reading something about Trump being forced by the courts to unblock someone on Twitter.0
-
The chap who's just been elected chair of the ISC only has an email. He seems to have done alright. Prior to the late 20th century there was no such thing as a digital presence yet the same issues existed. Twitter and Facebook have made it much easier for people to reach their audiences and this has changed politics in a way that the printing press revolutionised the dissemination of ideas. But they are not the end state and their is no right to a Twitter account any more than you have a right to have your ideas printed and published by someone else. Sooner or later Twitter will be eclipsed by whatever the next thing is. Remember when everyone "had" to have a MySpace account?nickice said:rjsterry said:
Twitter isn't the public square. It's a broadcasting service provided in exchange for access to your data or a fee if you want to bump your tweet to the top. It's the equivalent of the small print shop that enabled shouty people to hand out hundreds of pamphlets rather than having to stand on a box and physically shout. Twitter deciding what can be said on their platform does not limit free speech in any way. And as pointed out, in countries where there really are restrictions on free speech, state controlled social media has no problem removing certain content.nickice said:
It was just a recent example that made me laugh more than anything. Ultimately, policing platforms like twitter is just too difficult as there is so much abuse on it and so many users. There is also another argument that social media is the new public square (I think this is not that bad an argument).rjsterry said:
If this is the strongest case you can find I think generally things are working OK.nickice said:
Not from Twitter, no.They can't even manage to remove death threats as it's basically impossible to police.rjsterry said:
Do you think there should be no consequences for him at all?nickice said:
Unpopular opinion: I don't think there should be any sanction for the moronic nonsense he came out with.rjsterry said:
Yes, it can be a bit much. I think at all times it is worth remembering that what you see on Twitter is the result of its algorithm which prioritises things that generate a strong reaction. So it is over-representative of people either shouting deliberately offensive nonsense or denouncing someone who has.shortfall said:Twitter is just awful isn't it though? I gave it a good shot but after less than a year I made a conscious decision to stop looking at my Twitter feed because all I got was polarised opinions from fanatics with little context and just downright nastiness. As a middle aged (c)onservative I also found my opinions massively out of step with the predominantly younger, left leaning demographic. I mean, I get all the schooling I need right here about what a reactionary dinosaur I am but at least I have a few allies 😀 The other horrible thing with Twitter is the relentless stream of videos that auto load on your feed.. There's a limit to how many racially motivated assaults, cop beatings or animal cruelty videos from China you can be sure subjected to before it does lasting damage to your mental health and perceptions of society.
As an example Wiley was able to post a stream of wildly antisemitic and racist nonsense for 24hrs or more without any sanction from the site itself.
Once you start trying to police speech it often backfires and the rules end up being used against the very people they were there to benefit. Case in point: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/17/canada-nazi-monument-vandalism-hate-crime
Ideologies are ideologies and people find that out to their cost when they realise that not only are they protected but hateful ideologies are too. It's much better not to severely limit free speech at all. That's why the US has a first amendment.
Poor analogy: If you want to have a political presence and you're banned from Twitter and Facebook then your career will be very short.
And who's advocating state-run social media?
On your last point, I was just pointing out that China has (effectively) state owned social media, and content is very much policed there. For Twitter, this is a choice that they have made rather than something they have no control over.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
That's constitutional law affecting trump, not twitter.nickice said:It's too late tonight but I remember reading something about Trump being forced by the courts to unblock someone on Twitter.
0 -
The reason the court ordered Trump to unblock people was because Twitter is like the public square.kingstongraham said:
That's constitutional law affecting trump, not twitter.nickice said:It's too late tonight but I remember reading something about Trump being forced by the courts to unblock someone on Twitter.
0 -
Come one that's disingenuous. He was elected by the members of the committee and not by the general public. And I bet he or his team has a social media presence in the last general election.rjsterry said:
The chap who's just been elected chair of the ISC only has an email. He seems to have done alright. Prior to the late 20th century there was no such thing as a digital presence yet the same issues existed. Twitter and Facebook have made it much easier for people to reach their audiences and this has changed politics in a way that the printing press revolutionised the dissemination of ideas. But they are not the end state and their is no right to a Twitter account any more than you have a right to have your ideas printed and published by someone else. Sooner or later Twitter will be eclipsed by whatever the next thing is. Remember when everyone "had" to have a MySpace account?nickice said:rjsterry said:
Twitter isn't the public square. It's a broadcasting service provided in exchange for access to your data or a fee if you want to bump your tweet to the top. It's the equivalent of the small print shop that enabled shouty people to hand out hundreds of pamphlets rather than having to stand on a box and physically shout. Twitter deciding what can be said on their platform does not limit free speech in any way. And as pointed out, in countries where there really are restrictions on free speech, state controlled social media has no problem removing certain content.nickice said:
It was just a recent example that made me laugh more than anything. Ultimately, policing platforms like twitter is just too difficult as there is so much abuse on it and so many users. There is also another argument that social media is the new public square (I think this is not that bad an argument).rjsterry said:
If this is the strongest case you can find I think generally things are working OK.nickice said:
Not from Twitter, no.They can't even manage to remove death threats as it's basically impossible to police.rjsterry said:
Do you think there should be no consequences for him at all?nickice said:
Unpopular opinion: I don't think there should be any sanction for the moronic nonsense he came out with.rjsterry said:
Yes, it can be a bit much. I think at all times it is worth remembering that what you see on Twitter is the result of its algorithm which prioritises things that generate a strong reaction. So it is over-representative of people either shouting deliberately offensive nonsense or denouncing someone who has.shortfall said:Twitter is just awful isn't it though? I gave it a good shot but after less than a year I made a conscious decision to stop looking at my Twitter feed because all I got was polarised opinions from fanatics with little context and just downright nastiness. As a middle aged (c)onservative I also found my opinions massively out of step with the predominantly younger, left leaning demographic. I mean, I get all the schooling I need right here about what a reactionary dinosaur I am but at least I have a few allies 😀 The other horrible thing with Twitter is the relentless stream of videos that auto load on your feed.. There's a limit to how many racially motivated assaults, cop beatings or animal cruelty videos from China you can be sure subjected to before it does lasting damage to your mental health and perceptions of society.
As an example Wiley was able to post a stream of wildly antisemitic and racist nonsense for 24hrs or more without any sanction from the site itself.
Once you start trying to police speech it often backfires and the rules end up being used against the very people they were there to benefit. Case in point: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/17/canada-nazi-monument-vandalism-hate-crime
Ideologies are ideologies and people find that out to their cost when they realise that not only are they protected but hateful ideologies are too. It's much better not to severely limit free speech at all. That's why the US has a first amendment.
Poor analogy: If you want to have a political presence and you're banned from Twitter and Facebook then your career will be very short.
And who's advocating state-run social media?
On your last point, I was just pointing out that China has (effectively) state owned social media, and content is very much policed there. For Twitter, this is a choice that they have made rather than something they have no control over.
Regarding the publishing analogy, yes you're right that no published has the obligation to publish material BUT, because of the nature of social media, a few companies tend to completely control the market.
I don't have the answer but I do know that leaving the judgement about what can and can't be said in the hands of twitter and facebook (although Facebook have a much better position on this than twitter) can't be good for society.0 -
No it’s not.nickice said:
The reason the court ordered Trump to unblock people was because Twitter is like the public square.kingstongraham said:
That's constitutional law affecting trump, not twitter.nickice said:It's too late tonight but I remember reading something about Trump being forced by the courts to unblock someone on Twitter.
0 -
FWIW - same applies on this forum. The firm that owns it can decide who and what is allowed and what isn’t.0
-
The argument was not that any online platform is like the public square. The specific argument was that as Donald Trump uses twitter as part of his 'policy' shall we say, those individuals who were blocked from commenting had their right to free speech violated.rick_chasey said:FWIW - same applies on this forum. The firm that owns it can decide who and what is allowed and what isn’t.
0 -
-
Well don't bother posting replies then...rick_chasey said:Right I’m not gonna argue the specifics of US law as I don’t give a sh!t.
0 -
Yes, because he uses it to conduct government business, he cannot exclude some Americans from reading and commenting on an otherwise open online dialogue.nickice said:
The argument was not that any online platform is like the public square. The specific argument was that as Donald Trump uses twitter as part of his 'policy' shall we say, those individuals who were blocked from commenting had their right to free speech violated.rick_chasey said:FWIW - same applies on this forum. The firm that owns it can decide who and what is allowed and what isn’t.
Twitter can, however, exclude people.0 -
Not because you don't have a clue what they are.rick_chasey said:Right I’m not gonna argue the specifics of US law as I don’t give a sh!t.
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]2 -
And why do you think he uses twitter for that purpose?kingstongraham said:
Yes, because he uses it to conduct government business, he cannot exclude some Americans from reading and commenting on an otherwise open online dialogue.nickice said:
The argument was not that any online platform is like the public square. The specific argument was that as Donald Trump uses twitter as part of his 'policy' shall we say, those individuals who were blocked from commenting had their right to free speech violated.rick_chasey said:FWIW - same applies on this forum. The firm that owns it can decide who and what is allowed and what isn’t.
Twitter can, however, exclude people.
You're setting up strawmen here. I haven't said Twitter can't currently exclude people but I have said that there are good arguments that twitter (and Facebook etc.) is the new public square therefore the question is whether they should be able to exclude someone from the platform.0 -
And so it continues.
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/suzanne-moore-leaves-guardian-months-after-staff-send-letter-of-revolt-over-transphobic-content/
Warning for the easily offended. There is a link in the piece to Moore's original article.
Shocking it is!
0 -
I didn't like her as a columnist (a very bitter woman as far as I'm concerned) but the transphobia thing has gone too far and a lot of the time trans activists confuse tolerance and kindness with agreement.ballysmate said:And so it continues.
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/suzanne-moore-leaves-guardian-months-after-staff-send-letter-of-revolt-over-transphobic-content/
Warning for the easily offended. There is a link in the piece to Moore's original article.
Shocking it is!
The thing I don't understand is if sex and gender are different then why do we use the same terminology for it? Apparently 'woman' means female but it also means anyone who wants to be woman.0 -
I don't think one needs to fully understand the (an) other point of view to accept that it exists. The idea that any questioning of how trans rights intersect with other rights puts one beyond the pale strikes me as just as intolerant as the prejudice some claim to fight.nickice said:
I didn't like her as a columnist (a very bitter woman as far as I'm concerned) but the transphobia thing has gone too far and a lot of the time trans activists confuse tolerance and kindness with agreement.ballysmate said:And so it continues.
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/suzanne-moore-leaves-guardian-months-after-staff-send-letter-of-revolt-over-transphobic-content/
Warning for the easily offended. There is a link in the piece to Moore's original article.
Shocking it is!
The thing I don't understand is if sex and gender are different then why do we use the same terminology for it? Apparently 'woman' means female but it also means anyone who wants to be woman.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
The trans debate (for want of a better word) is something I find rather odd.rjsterry said:Suzanne Moore's piece for Unherd.
https://unherd.com/2020/11/why-i-had-to-leave-the-guardian/?=frlh
It feels like the ultimate marginal issue, yet on twitter has taken on an importance that seems all out of proportion.0 -
Some people need to have an opinion on everything. And some of those people need to share that opinion.
Suzanne Moore seems like an example.Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/0 -
That is her job, yes. Columnists tend to share their opinions.Ben6899 said:Some people need to have an opinion on everything. And some of those people need to share that opinion.
Suzanne Moore seems like an example.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0
