Twitter Spats
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
The first tweet is quoting a tweet from Arielle Scarcella. That tweet showed a screencap of the definitions of ‘gay man’ and ‘lesbian’ from the Johns Hopkins University website. If you don’t feel like enlarging the picture this is how it defines the term ‘lesbian:’
And this is how it defines the term ‘gay men:’
In other words, we have independently checked and it is true. We have saved the relevant page as a PDF in case someone tries to memory hole it. But yes, it is real. The picture by Scarcella is only altered by shifting the elements around a bit. But the words are being accurately quoted.
Also: There is no entry for ‘gay woman.’ Nor is there one for ‘gay non-man.’ Because only men are gay, or something. But wouldn't that make the term "gay man" redundant?
You know, the other day, we talked about how a very dry discussion with Jordan Peterson mostly about transgender issues was banned on YouTube, and now is being allowed on Twitter. Somewhere deep in that two-hour discussion they made the point that there is a lot of misogyny in the transgender movement, and it is hard to think of a better example of it. It is simply impossible to defend such unequal treatment.
What got me banned was a reply to a tweet from Insider Paper, who posted a clip of global warming activists vandalizing a Monet at the National Museum in Stockholm, Sweden. They glued themselves to the painting and rubbed red paint over the artwork. I’m not privy to the art world, obviously, but the average person knows who Claude Monet is and the legacy his work entails. These clowns ruined it because of climate change. If there is one thing these global warming whackos fail to grasp, it’s effective messaging.
I simply replied, “Why can’t we shoot these people.” Someone responded by saying that was too much—he was right—but tasing is the appropriate response. I agreed. That was on June 14, and the following morning, I learned that the tweet about shooting these folks violated Twitter’s rules, “specifically, for: Violating our rules against violent speech. You may not threaten, incite, glorify, or express a desire for harm or violence.” I appealed twice and lost. My account is forever locked in read-only mode.
For the last few months, I’ve eschewed tweeting or retweeting political stuff, devoting most of my time to sports to keep me level. I would comment on some political tweets, but most of my activity revolved around the Stanley Cup finals, football, the New York Giants, New York Rangers, and how the Mets will drive me once again into a hypertensive episode. The cumulative effect isn’t considered, which is outrageous. Nuance is dead in these reviews.
hotair.com
I simply replied, “Why can’t we shoot these people.” Someone responded by saying that was too much—he was right—but tasing is the appropriate response. I agreed. That was on June 14, and the following morning, I learned that the tweet about shooting these folks violated Twitter’s rules, “specifically, for: Violating our rules against violent speech. You may not threaten, incite, glorify, or express a desire for harm or violence.” I appealed twice and lost. My account is forever locked in read-only mode.
For the last few months, I’ve eschewed tweeting or retweeting political stuff, devoting most of my time to sports to keep me level. I would comment on some political tweets, but most of my activity revolved around the Stanley Cup finals, football, the New York Giants, New York Rangers, and how the Mets will drive me once again into a hypertensive episode. The cumulative effect isn’t considered, which is outrageous. Nuance is dead in these reviews.
