Current Events > Twitter BANS famous feminist Naomi Wolf. Did she deserve it?

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/PeachResist/status/1401019233958600705


---

"Dr."

---

Yes

---

100% deserved.

---

Justified.

---

fuck her

---

She doesnt seem to have the best handle on life

---

How fucking unhinged do you have be to believe something like that?

---

hockeybub89 posted...

fuck her

Nah thanks.


---

Absolutely, people like her are literally dangerous to the public.

---

I only know her from that one video of Ali G trolling her

I don't think there is any evidence whatsoever that could make what she said make sense.

That said, I am pro-free speech, so idk why everybody can't just unfollow her.

People always act like 'we need to ban this speech because it is dangerous" but then the follow up question is "how is it dangerous>" and the answer is "twitter funnels dumb users to see it and then they believe it." And then not once do we talk about the twitter funneling people part of the whole thing.

How about anytime we want to "deplatform" we instead just make it so the algorithm doesn't funnel people there. I can begrudgingly live with that.

Or how about we just tweak the algorithm so it only funnel towards the most dry objective scientists. Nobody emotional at all.

---

Shotgunnova posted...

"Dr."

IIRC that means Deranged for her.

---

joe40001 posted...

I don't think there is any evidence whatsoever that could make what she said make sense.

That said, I am pro-free speech, so idk why everybody can't just unfollow her.

People always act like 'we need to ban this speech because it is dangerous" but then the follow up question is "how is it dangerous>" and the answer is "twitter funnels dumb users to see it and then they believe it." And then not once do we talk about the twitter funneling people part of the whole thing.

How about anytime we want to "deplatform" we instead just make it so the algorithm doesn't funnel people there. I can begrudgingly live with that.

Or how about we just tweak the algorithm so it only funnel towards the most dry objective scientists. Nobody emotional at all.

Nah, deplatform her into irrelevance

---

hockeybub89 posted...

Nah, deplatform her into irrelevance

Will you at least acknowledge that when people like this are deplatformed you feel a sense of schadenfreude?

---

She's a crackpot. She's not even good at what she's supposed to have expertise in.

Fair, next.

---

COVxy posted...

She's a crackpot. She's not even good at what she's supposed to have expertise in.

Fair, next.

what's your issue with her feminist work?

---

Yeah, fuck her.

We don't need anti-vaxxer bullshit.

---

joe40001 posted...

Will you at least acknowledge that when people like this are deplatformed you feel a sense of schadenfreude?

I do, yes

---

Count_Babula posted...

what's your issue with her feminist work?

Her recent book got destroyed in a few seconds on air during a podcast interview, where the fundamental premise of her book relied on a misinterpretation of historical records (which was apparently a very simple mistake).

---

https://twitter.com/thymetikon/status/1131702577878503425?s=19

Nightmare fuel for academics lol.

---

Ribosomes be like "why everyone suddenly hate mRNA"

---

joe40001 posted...

That said, I am pro-free speech, so idk why everybody can't just unfollow her.

People always act like 'we need to ban this speech because it is dangerous" but then the follow up question is "how is it dangerous>" and the answer is "twitter funnels dumb users to see it and then they believe it." And then not once do we talk about the twitter funneling people part of the whole thing.

calm your tits. speech like this is not being banned. she's not facing legal consequences, so it's not an issue of free speech. she got kicked off twitter for not following the rules of the platform

---

averagejoel posted...

calm your tits. speech like this is not being banned. she's not facing legal consequences, so it's not an issue of free speech. she got kicked off twitter for not following the rules of the platform

"Speech is not being banned, you are just being blocked from saying things on every major way in which people communicate in modern society, but you are still free to scream into your pillow"

That goes against the spirit of free speech and you know it. Like it or not, social media is the public square.

---

joe40001 posted...

"Speech is not being banned, you are just being blocked from saying things on every major way in which people communicate in modern society, but you are still free to scream into your pillow"

That goes against the spirit of free speech and you know it. Like it or not, social media is the public square.

in order for free speech to be applicable here at all, social media would have to be owned and operated by the state

to what extent do you think twitter and other social media platforms should be owned and operated by the state?

---

joe40001 posted...

"Speech is not being banned, you are just being blocked from saying things on every major way in which people communicate in modern society, but you are still free to scream into your pillow"

That goes against the spirit of free speech and you know it. Like it or not, social media is the public square.

Free speech goes two ways and includes not having to associate with people you don't want to.

Count_Babula posted...

https://twitter.com/PeachResist/status/1401019233958600705

What does "floridly" mean?

---

ROBANN_88 posted...

What does "floridly" mean?

Overly decorative/too much detail

---

Tenlaar posted...

Free speech goes two ways and includes not having to associate with people you don't want to.

Right. As in literally nobody has to follow her on twitter.

You can even block people on twitter. So there is no need to ban them too.

Blocking somebody = "I don't want to hear you"
Banning somebody = "I don't want anybody to hear you"

---

joe40001 posted...

Right. As in literally nobody has to follow her on twitter.

You can even block people on twitter. So there is no need to ban them too.

Blocking somebody = "I don't want to hear you"
Banning somebody = "I don't want anybody to hear you"

The part you're ignoring is that Twitter also gets to choose who they associate with.

joe40001 posted...

That said, I am pro-free speech, so idk why everybody can't just unfollow her.

Free speech protects us from the government not private companies.

---

I am not a fan of censorship

---

joe40001 posted...

Right. As in literally nobody has to follow her on twitter.

You can even block people on twitter. So there is no need to ban them too.

Blocking somebody = "I don't want to hear you"
Banning somebody = "I don't want anybody to hear you"

averagejoel posted...

to what extent do you think twitter and other social media platforms should be owned and operated by the state?

---

averagejoel posted...

in order for free speech to be applicable here at all, social media would have to be owned and operated by the state

to what extent do you think twitter and other social media platforms should be owned and operated by the state?

To the extent that they have replaced the public square. To the extent in which they are a public utility like the phone lines.

Which is, almost entirely.

And the state wouldn't have to "own" them to have policies that protect speech on them. The state didn't "own" the major broadcast networks but because the airwaves were considered a public commodity the government was able to apply rules to them.

Free speech is arguably the most important right people have, and to curtail it horribly is going to do nothing but harm to our society.

Liberals used to be on this side, and called out dumb shit like "free speech zones" or "protest zones" and other things where authoritarians pushed the unwanted voices far enough away to not be heard. But now that it's silicon valley people sympathetic to certain leftists tropes running the show, that authoritarianism looks a lot more appealing to some of them.

---

joe40001 posted...

To the extent that they have replaced the public square.

Where did the public square go? Is it not still there?

Tenlaar posted...

The part you're ignoring is that Twitter also gets to choose who they associate with.

Some liberals: "Huge greedy companies are bad, authoritarianism policing of speech is bad"

*Huge greedy companies starts banning republicans*

The same liberals suddenly turn into:


---

I do find this collision of the separate courses of contract law, First Amendment jurisprudence, and the innate dislike of government regulation to be very amusing. Particularly in the ideological slant that drove these courses together who now are up in arms at what they have wrought.

---

joe40001 posted...

Some liberals: "Huge greedy companies are bad, authoritarianism policing of speech is bad"

*Huge greedy companies starts banning republicans*

The same liberals suddenly turn into:

Instead of actually responding with any argument you have chosen to try to dismiss me with a false claim that I support two opposing positions.

joe40001 posted...

Right. As in literally nobody has to follow her on twitter.

You can even block people on twitter. So there is no need to ban them too.

Blocking somebody = "I don't want to hear you"
Banning somebody = "I don't want anybody to hear you"

until the twitter police go to her house and physically gag her you're argument is complete shit and without merit.

she can go to any random street-corner and scream about her conspiracy she wants, she can start her own website and blog to her hearts content, hell she's probably gonna get picked up by fox news for this...

but until the literal state blocks her from speaking she's not having her rights to free speech violated

---

lemondrop7 posted...

I am not a fan of censorship

yeah they should let her post

---

Remember when this happened

https://twitter.com/kenklippenstein/status/1373427740997787648

---

joe40001 posted...

Some liberals: "Huge greedy companies are bad, authoritarianism policing of speech is bad"

*Huge greedy companies starts banning republicans*

The same liberals suddenly turn into:

Liberals are hypocrites. Who knew?

---

joenumbers be all like "i don't want a governmental nanny state telling me what information can consume, I'm a big boy and can make informed choices"
*goes head first into the youtube skepticz community and gets drawn into right wing conspiracy theory and anti-vaxx rhetoric*

---

monkmith posted...

until the twitter police go to her house and physically gag her you're argument is complete shit and without merit.

she can go to any random street-corner and scream about her conspiracy she wants, she can start her own website and blog to her hearts content, hell she's probably gonna get picked up by fox news for this...

but until the literal state blocks her from speaking she's not having her rights to free speech violated

The entire spirit of free speech is being violated if a person is removed from all modern means of communicating.

If you don't think it would be fair to ban her from speaking on the internet entirely, and you acknowledge that the main social media sites have a near monopoly on platforms for speech on the internet, then you are basically acknowledging that she shouldn't be banned.

And considering sites like Parlor were taken down by AWS idk if it's necessarily true these people can just go to a competitor. If she started a blog where she said the same shit and then AWS shut it down, would you really defend her in that context or would you just be like "Amazon has a right to deny servers to anybody they like".

What if they cut her electricity and froze her bank accounts. Would you still go "the electric company and the banks have a right to deny service to anybody they like."

At some point you can see how we can give companies too much power, right?

---

joe40001 posted...

The entire spirit of free speech is being violated if a person is removed from all modern means of communicating.

The "spirit" of free speech is that the government can't shut your speech down, not that you should be able to say whatever you want and companies should be required to provide you a platform to do it. You are fundamentally misrepresenting what free speech is by claiming some vague "conceptual" form of it.

joe40001 posted...

The entire spirit of free speech is being violated if a person is removed from all modern means of communicating.

If you don't think it would be fair to ban her from speaking on the internet entirely, and you acknowledge that the main social media sites have a near monopoly on platforms for speech on the internet, then you are basically acknowledging that she shouldn't be banned.

you do know that there are other modern means of communicating aside from twitter, right?

---

COVxy posted...

joenumbers be all like "i don't want a governmental nanny state telling me what information can consume, I'm a big boy and can make informed choices"
*goes head first into the youtube skepticz community and gets drawn into right wing conspiracy theory and anti-vaxx rhetoric*

I have a tag on you that says 1 time you weren't awful/trolling, but I can't for the life of me remember it.

I posted a million bits of evidence for my argument about lab leak, a hypothesis that tons of leading scientists said there was good cause to be considered. They declared this in a formal letter within nature, the world's leading multidisciplinary science journal.

Also I fucking got vaccinated.

Does it bother you to be so aggressively wrong?

---