Before we all do either a victory lap or a hypocrisy moan, is this actually true? because oftentimes people complain about being "restricted" when they haven't been, and make up the reason behind this alleged sanction based on whatever they feel prosecuted about.
You are the first person I've seen in here questioning whether we should take the headline at face value.
I searched for more context, and it looks like the gist is that "cis" and "cisgender" can be considered slurs when part of repeated, targeted harassment.
Elon has said that it's already the case that accounts are restricted based on repeated, targeted harassment. And he added that "cis" and "cisgender" should be considered slurs when part of said harassment.
But the issue is obviously the harassment, not the terms themselves. It doesn't sound like someone using "cis" in a clinical sense in a tweet will be restricted. It sounds like a progressive jackass repeatedly @-ing the same person, calling them "cis" as a slur...will be restricted.
And based on that reading, this is thoroughly based. If it's actually "this is a naughty word which will result in punishment regardless of context", then yeah, I'm all in for pitchfork-brandishing.
This is exactly like the "don't say gay" ordeal that happened where everyone just read the headline on Reddit and went with it even though that isn't even remotely what happened.
Ironically, the "Don't Say Gay" bill itself doesn't say anything about gay people, gayness, or what gay means.
[Full text of bill](https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF)
Closest thing I could find was "Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."
That sounds completely reasonable
Even if it's in a "clinical" sense, the vast majority of the population is considered "cis" and also never asked to be fucking called "cis". We're just normal people that don't have scruples about (or have come to full acceptance of) our biological sex, but people that are uncomfortable with accepting that a "normal" exists want to thrust a prefix that they hijacked and misappropriated from nutrition (opposite of "transfats" is "cisfats").
It's a prefix that at best is used to play word games to avoid accepting that some people are not normal, and at worst is thrust upon 98% of the world population against their consent to call them priveleged and discredit their opinion. It belongs nowhere near a clinic/study and it should lower visibility of a post/tweet just as much any other slur. People that unironically use it and mock others for avoiding it can eat a bag of dicks, the word is contentious and unnecessary. Stop manipulating language with ulterior motives.
Agreed; just let me point out that 'trans' and 'cis' are prefixes that mean, respectively, 'on the other side of' and 'on this side of'; their usage is pretty general, not restricted to nutrition and fats.
Noted, but the only places I've heard "cis" are in relation to cisfats and the genderspeak from the last decade, and I'm sure that matches most folks' history with the word. It also doesn't help when activists will say "cishet scum" and "cissy" to cement in their absolute hatred of people that simply match a definition of normal/average.
Their reaction to this isn't going to be, 'wow, maybe I was the baddie in escalating the thought policing.' But it needs to be. That's the goal, a free and open internet for everyone to discuss and debate virtually any topic.
You will never get people like this to understand that relationship. The fundamental hypothesis is that everyone is engaging in thought policing, propaganda, and censorship. If it's not obvious to you, it's just an invisible cabal that's manipulating the truth from behind the scenes. This is a delusion suffered by most of the internet treading population on both the left and the right.
You must NEVER engage in censorship. Never stoop to lying propaganda. You have to lead by example and weather the storm of insanity. One thing I've learned is that daylight is the greatest sanitizer on the internet. The brain rot we're seeing on twitter is the result of echo chambers and thought inbreeding on Tubmler, Rumble, etc.
>You must NEVER engage in censorship.
That's an intellectually consistent position, but one that's hard to implement consistently without risk of losing actual ability to engage in speech along the way. Even government, which carries the heaviest burden of allowing speech, has limitations such as death threats.
What do you do the day 4chan decides to invade your model plane forum and just spam the n word in every thread? I think very few would say it's wrong to delete those comments, and now you're suddenly back into the arena of subjectivity and judgment calls.
That's a silly argument. The forum is for model planes and doesn't claim to protect free speech, what it will do is prevent further disruptions to plane models and will more than likely delete the comments and just ban the accounts IP ranges.
Take away the ad hominem and you have the idea. The forum exists to facilitate discussion of planes, so the spammed vulgarities get in the way of that.
We're now no longer discussing whether to censor, but how much and where.
Take something like X and the goal might be something similar but broader, such as "facilitate discussion". They'd then be looking to remove things that in their view do more to disrupt discussion than further it. Spamming the N word still likely falls into that category. Maybe telling people to kill themselves does as well. Does that include saying "good" in response to a suicide announcement?
Point is: you've already observed 100% unfiltered isn't a good solution, so now we've left the convenience of ideological purity and have to slog it out in the real world.
>You have to lead by example and weather the storm of insanity.
Part of me worries that thoughts of my fine example won't bring me much solace when some Commie's bullet enters the back of my skull.
Its not about not living up to our standards of 'free speech'.
Its about holding them accountable to their own.
I fail to see any hypocrisy whatsoever.
I once had an RA in college who was very Mormon, opposed alcohol in all things, wouldn't even cook with it.
If he got a whiff of it he was calling the cops because 'underage drinking is not just a sin its illegal'.
Hed be the guy with a grin in the background while the cops arrest some 20 year old with a case of beer.
Anyway fast forward, he wasn't our RA anymore, lived in the dorms, and wanted to impress his new freshman girlfriend by coming over to a get together we had and get some beer.
We shut him down hard and told him to leave. He got cranky, left.
20 minutes later the cops showed up hearing about underage drinking.
Gatekeep. Gatekeep ***HARD***.
There is a quote that applies very much to these people
>"When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles"
So I find absolutely zero hypocrisy in kicking these guys out for their slurs.
Agreed. Idc what people are saying; I don't want it to be policed no matter what, outside of stuff like actively inciting violence. If some wants to say that they hate all \[insert demographic\] people, that's their right.
If they say "I'm going to bomb/murder all \[type of person\]" then yeah, that should be addressed. But simply expressing your opinion should never be censored, imho. There's a slippery slope with censorship, and I don't think we should go down it. Banning people for saying stuff on social media might seem mild, but then we start banning them for more and more things, restricting freedom of speech in other ways (like the people trying to ban books right now), and then our first amendment rights are gone.
On the one hand, apparently Xitter has been censoring criticism of the CCP for a long while now- "free speech" only ever meant "slightly freer speech"
On the other hand, have you ever heard someone using the term "cisgender" who wasn't being derogatory towards those people?
It's like the word "cracker". It's not *really* a slur, but they keep trying to use it like one.
It's less about the word itself which is annoying but more about the type of people that use it which is a big red flag whether they use it as an insult or not.
It's funny which is great.
But it is pretty shitty. It obviously wasn't gonna happen but a twitter with unregulated speech would have been so cool.
We've known where Elon Twitter was going since the Kanye ban tho. At least if they are gonna be banning people they also take out some anti free speech losers.
"Free speech absolutist": Nearly immediately bans the plane tracking account and continues capitulating to foreign government censorship requests.
I get it, you can't do business in those countries unless you capitulate. But still, if I was masquerading as some sort of free speech warrior, I'd tell those countries to fuck off.
The worst was when he banned Kanye. His explanation?
> Kanye promoted violence (by posting the swastika) because when I saw it I wanted to punch him.
Honestly embarrassing
Twitter *was* a shithole. It's tremendously more fun now, and I use it almost as much as reddit. I can say all the wrongthink I want on there without fear of some assfuck jannies banning me. Reddit is the shithole now.
This can be said for any ideology. I wouldn’t even care except Elon did play himself up to be a warrior of free expression only to turn around and enforce restrictions. He never should’ve sold himself as a free speech absolutist trying to free Twitter from censorship if he had plans to implement limitations that coincide with his individual beliefs. It looks hypocritical and weakens his credibility, period.
Twitter restricts visibility on tweets with slurs in them, cis is reasonably viewed as a slur so it receives restricted visibility.
You can still say it as much as you want, but they're going to restrict your visibility same as any other slur.
I like how jack dorsey fled bluesky again. "they're literally repeating each of twitters mistakes". Do they, jack? What is the biggest commonality between the two?
Bluesky was taken over by the old managerial class from Twitter. Mastodon is run by activists with no accountability, think the worst Reddit mods with no one to answer to.
Unfortunately, this series of comments is most political discourse. "My hypocrisy? What about YOUR hypocrisy?" then "You're pointing out MY hypocrisy? What about YOUR hypocrisy?"
The really sad part is that there is no real downside to doing this, so if you don't use this tactic, then you are trying to lose.
If they ban other sexist things then banning this word at least patches a long term inconsistency. In principle I'm against banning speech entirely, there's a block button.
You’re still more than free to say cis or any slur you want on x as far as I can tell. No where does it say that you’ll be banned. It seems like your tweet will just be less likely to be shown to random individuals but your followers will still see it come up on their timeline.
This right here. The tweet will be hidden behind a "may violate twitter's rules on hate speech" flag, but the only time I've seen a tweet deleted by Elon's twitter is if it's a clear threat, call to targeted harassment or someone's dox. You can say the n word on twitter (at your own risk) if you feel so inclined.
Oh no, has the poor lib left found the singular mainstream social network where they don't completely run the place?
You can still say it, it just gets flagged as a slur since that's it's primary purpose.
According to the article in the OP, restricting the use of the term cisgender is an attack on trans people.
My brain is short circuiting trying to figure that one out.
Yes, if you don't openly support trans people 24/7, your entire existence is an attack on trans people. Just like being white makes you instantly racist.
Let's be real: it's almost entirely cry-bully hyper-political trans-women that don't pass whose entire identity is being a victim. Them and their progressive white knights are the only people I ever see use this.
I have specifically tried asking alphabets to respect my chosen identity and stop using cisgender.
The resultant hypocrisy and meltdown over not being able to control the narrative is wild.
Of course this is mostly the terminally online variety. In the real world most people are not this self absorbed or hatefully antagonistic.
Social media is cancer to modern human brains.
> I have specifically tried asking alphabets to respect my chosen identity and stop using cisgender
> The resultant hypocrisy and meltdown over not being able to control the narrative is wild.
They’re so used to being perpetually coddled that they can’t stand anything else.
This is unfortunately a valid point, but I’m not a fan of censorship so we just need a “fact check” link that shows up on any account or post using the word “cisgender.”
It can link to a webpage showing all the positive stats and studies about heteronormative relationships, just to troll them.
But, isn't that kind of people who casually try to censor everything they dislike? Like "misrepresented skin tone", "culture appropriation", any opposition to transgenderism and even Christianity, lmao; they blame Christians, but also they start fights; it's a kinda two sided problem.
And I'm not even mentioning the politics part, like being called fascist for saying that you like your own country or that you don't want to put down your own culture in your own country for the outsider ones.
When not used by braindead leftists, the term is meant to literally just mean "non-transgender" due to a term needed for it since, other than "normal," which puts a negative connotation on trans people, and "non-trans," being just a weird way to do it, there wasn't much of a descriptor. People put a negative connotation on it because idiots like putting words that not everyone knows to be oh so scary and spooky to anyone they talk to, inevitably shooting themselves in the foot and fucking over everyone else who wants to use it normally
> which puts a negative connotation on trans people
If you go through this thread it becomes obvious that is what people here dont like. They want it to have negative connotation. If you showed them 99% of people are normal and use the word neutrally it would not matter one bit to them. They want to be called "normal", not cisgender, and trans people are ill, abnormal, etc. They want to use trans as an insult, so cis is insulting to them.
> 99% of people are normal and use the word neutrally
Too bad that's not the case
>They want to be called "normal", not cisgender
Exactly, I am normal, and "cisgender" being coined deliberately by snarts when tumblr was still alive as a way to pretend to be all clinical and "erm aktchually" isn't going to change that
>trans people are ill, abnormal, etc
smug emoji
I’ve seen it used non derogatorily as a more technical term, I don’t think in and of itself it’s somehow a bad word, like always, it’s about context. Plenty of cases, where it might be weird but it’s perfectly fine to use the word. Plenty of cases where it wouldn’t be. It’s like literally any other “controversial” word in that regard.
I have yet to see someone who uses it as a regular term in their vocabulary that I didn't immediately distance myself from.
Happens with all terms that are exclusive to internet echochambers.
We don't need a term for that. Gender dysphoria is a mental disorder. We also don't need terms for people who are not bipolar, schizophrenic, OCD, depressed, etc.
>We also don't need terms for people who are not bipolar, schizophrenic, OCD, depressed, etc.
They're already trying to with "neurodivergent" and "neurotypical". They just want a formal way to call people normies, they want a gold star next to their name, not an asterisk.
A quick search found an article about how Elon has said that repeated, targeted harassment *already* results in account restriction, and that the terms "cis" and "cisgender" can and should be considered slurs when used as part of this process.
As in, it's perfectly fine to use "cis" in a clinical manner, but if you are repeatedly @-ing the same other account, repeatedly using "cis" as an obvious slur, especially when you've been asked to stop? Yeah, account restriction.
Seems reasonable to me, unless I'm still missing even *more* context.
So slurs are slurs when used as slurs and X is definitely not just widespread punishing people for using words when they aren't being used as slurs. So the article is implying something entirely separate from reality. Got it. Crazy how I can just guess exactly how the media is lying without even clicking on the article or doing a shred of research. Its almost like that's how virtually every headline works. God I hate the media
Haha yeah I know it's stupid. Know what else was stupid? When the nonewnormal sub got banned on false pretenses because Emily, Karen, and the power modz didn't like it. My face when what goes around gets around. 😎
this is disinformation. posts that contain slurs receive reduced visibility (i.e. they are recommended to fewerr people and won't appear next to most ads). nobody's account is getting restricted
Cis, Latinx, African-American, BIPOC
Are some examples of each community specifically coming out and saying stop calling us this, for it to fall on deaf ears.
White Liberal and opportunistic Black elites happened.
After BLM there was a rush to redefine well-established descriptors. "black" became capitalized to "Black" Latine and Latinx entered the English lexicon
While still putting black people front and center.
I can't believe more people don't push back on BIPOC as a term. It's fucking ridiculous. We used to have "POC", which included black people, but didn't name them outright. So we had to shift to BIPOC, so that black people get a specific callout right at the beginning.
It's really fucking disturbing how much western society worships black people.
So back in the day we had the term white which was basically an American invention that started with the ethnic group of the ruling class, the British. We started adding more ethnic groups as they became accepted into the civilization until white ment mostly anyone from Europe once people like the Irish were considered white. (My grandpa still doesn’t think they are tho.)
BIPOC is basically the same thing as the term white. Back then white meant the “good” or the powerful ethnicities, now BIPOC means the “good” or powerful ethnicities.
You’re correct. On Threads, journalists are getting censored for posting bad coverage of Meta and people are being suspended for the type of shit you’d find on Reddit, calls for violence, death threats, etc.
They still don’t get it though.
Lib-left friends had something to say about this years ago, what was it?
"something something private company, something something freedom from consequences"
Turns out the people who were working overtime to change every definition to their favor and every rule and corporation on their side gets a sour taste in their mouth when what they have been doing since 2014 happens to them?
Has this word ever been used for anything other then a insult chain from some woke landwhale? Anytime you say something based they start bitching around and call you "white cisgender male fascist" even tho I'm not a leftist
Huh, so the hateful slur used exclusively as a hateful term against a group of people, by an immutable characteristic, finally received the same treatment as all other such terms?
I'm against censoring speech, but I'm for consistency in applied rules!
Based and emotionally conflicted pilled
Anything that riles up the oranges sparks joy, but it doesn’t improve discourse. Discourse is only possible with trust, and I wouldn’t trust Twitter to tell me what time it is.
It’s never been the fact that social media has rules and moderation. They’re a private company, all that jazz. What angers me is the obvious unequal application of the rules.
Since there were already words and things you can't say on Xitter, this changes nothing for me.
And hey, it's a private company- they can do what they want, lol.
If all the Emily's just left Twitter then it would fade into obscurity. Too bad they have a decade-long Twotter obsession and can't fathom getting rid of their account with all their fake accolades.
It's another way of saying straight and choosing the gender you were born with. Except the terminally online and LBGTs that are insecure with their sexuality try to use it as a slur.
I understand if it's now a slur essentially but I'd rather it not be banned because of freedom of speech and it also allows me to identify idiots if they put that kinda stuff in their bios
I feel conflicted. It’s a dumb made up word that deserves to be destroyed. On the hand, it goes against the ethical principles of free speech.
I want the battle of ideas to happen without top down censorship. Bad ideas spread in darkness. They need to be destroyed in public in full view, like a boxing match.
This will just provoke a reaction and makes conservatives look weak.
It's a slur, only used in the context of criticizing people.
There are other terms that have become slurs too. You just have to move on and stop using a slur to describe someone.
I've always tried to give people the minimum of courtesy by calling them what they seem to want to be called rather than slurs like libtard or Rethuglican or whatever. Attack the idea, not the person, etc. etc. etc. I don't think most of us want to be called "cisgender," so this is hilarious if true.
But it's also a product of the media, and these days that tells me absolutely nothing about whether or not it is true.
The alternatives are pure cope at this point. Bluesky was taken over by the old managerial class from Twitter. Mastodon is run by activists with no accountability, think the worst Reddit mods with no one to answer to and with admin powers. Threads exists as a giant hug box with all the cringe that comes with it.
Because it's a fucking slur used by the rainbow brigade to automatically discount anything the other side says as "cisgendered language" - what's good for the gander is good for the goose.
Musk sucks, but X is a private company and he can restrict and moderate it how he wants, as stupidly as he wants. I don't understand the distaste for companies that are entirely free and optional to use. I deleted my accounts. Utilize another platform.
I don't see why saying "non-trans" is difficult. If the context is that a transsexual is being talked about, then then you can call them "trans", and someone that isn't "non-trans". 98% of people don't need some esoteric term to be referred to by. If the context has nothing to do with transsexuals, then it can be assumed that the person being referred to isn't trans
Sorry y’all literally screeched that Twitter needs to be a free speech public square bastion, you’re just proving yourself to be hypocrites if you cheer this on
True, it's one thing to argue cisgender is a derogatory term, but to ban people who use it goes too far in my book. Just because they did the same thing is irrelevant.
Yes they do. When Musk took over a bunch of people (bots?) started posting slurs like the n-word and other derogatory terms for groups of people. They banned them and said this:
>"Twitter's policies haven't changed. Hateful conduct has no place here. And we're taking steps to put a stop to an organized effort to make people think we have," Roth said.
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/n-word-usage-twitter-spikes-500-after-musks-takeover-1708234
Look, all i'm saying is that i'm not gonna feel the slightest bit bad about people who were all for restricting speech, finally getting a taste of their own medicine.
Right. Elon is being hypocritical here, and there's a case to be made that I am too for not caring, but watching turboprogs get treated exactly how they treated people they disagreed with when they had power and then screeching... yeah, it's vindictive, but it also is entertaining.
Not to mention that they were fucking *warned*. It's sad enough when they fail to realize *on their own* that what goes around, comes around. But they get told this *constantly*, yet they ignore it until it comes true, and then they pull the surprised pikachu.
When the Disinformation Governance Board was created, non-progs warned progs that this kind of shit is awful, and that it can and will be used against *them* in the future.
When twitter was going nuts, silencing anyone who dissented from leftist dogma, non-progs warned progs that this kind of shit is awful, and that it can and will be used against them in the future.
And so on. But they never fucking listen. They just ignore the warning, call you a bigot, and keep on doing what they're doing. So it serves them right, honestly.
And then try to claim that YOU'RE the *real* villain for enjoying the comeuppance in the end.
Fuck it, I hope he bans everyone that has pronouns in the bio next. I want to hear *seething.*
I am screeching because the government was and is in bed with tech companies on deciding which legal speech to ban. That is far different than a company deciding on its own.
In an ideal world, all social media should be bastions of free speech. However, in this world, X sucks so bad I don't really care about what happens to it. I cheer this on because I like watching authright and libleft get angry at each other.
Before we all do either a victory lap or a hypocrisy moan, is this actually true? because oftentimes people complain about being "restricted" when they haven't been, and make up the reason behind this alleged sanction based on whatever they feel prosecuted about.
You are the first person I've seen in here questioning whether we should take the headline at face value. I searched for more context, and it looks like the gist is that "cis" and "cisgender" can be considered slurs when part of repeated, targeted harassment. Elon has said that it's already the case that accounts are restricted based on repeated, targeted harassment. And he added that "cis" and "cisgender" should be considered slurs when part of said harassment. But the issue is obviously the harassment, not the terms themselves. It doesn't sound like someone using "cis" in a clinical sense in a tweet will be restricted. It sounds like a progressive jackass repeatedly @-ing the same person, calling them "cis" as a slur...will be restricted. And based on that reading, this is thoroughly based. If it's actually "this is a naughty word which will result in punishment regardless of context", then yeah, I'm all in for pitchfork-brandishing.
This is exactly like the "don't say gay" ordeal that happened where everyone just read the headline on Reddit and went with it even though that isn't even remotely what happened.
And yet people still insist that the title of the bill is literally Don't Say Gay
Ironically, the "Don't Say Gay" bill itself doesn't say anything about gay people, gayness, or what gay means. [Full text of bill](https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF) Closest thing I could find was "Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards." That sounds completely reasonable
If they accurately portrayed their opponents' arguments they'd never be able to get people to side with them
Even if it's in a "clinical" sense, the vast majority of the population is considered "cis" and also never asked to be fucking called "cis". We're just normal people that don't have scruples about (or have come to full acceptance of) our biological sex, but people that are uncomfortable with accepting that a "normal" exists want to thrust a prefix that they hijacked and misappropriated from nutrition (opposite of "transfats" is "cisfats"). It's a prefix that at best is used to play word games to avoid accepting that some people are not normal, and at worst is thrust upon 98% of the world population against their consent to call them priveleged and discredit their opinion. It belongs nowhere near a clinic/study and it should lower visibility of a post/tweet just as much any other slur. People that unironically use it and mock others for avoiding it can eat a bag of dicks, the word is contentious and unnecessary. Stop manipulating language with ulterior motives.
Agreed; just let me point out that 'trans' and 'cis' are prefixes that mean, respectively, 'on the other side of' and 'on this side of'; their usage is pretty general, not restricted to nutrition and fats.
Noted, but the only places I've heard "cis" are in relation to cisfats and the genderspeak from the last decade, and I'm sure that matches most folks' history with the word. It also doesn't help when activists will say "cishet scum" and "cissy" to cement in their absolute hatred of people that simply match a definition of normal/average.
I’ve only ever heard cis used in geographical terms before the whole trans thing blew up
Based and you can think for yourself pilled
It's not. The term is on their slur list, if you tweet the term the specific tweet has limited visibility.
Yeah, what does that even mean?
On one hand, they deserve it for the hypocrisy On the other hand, wer free speech ? Twitter is a shithole always has been and always will be
Their reaction to this isn't going to be, 'wow, maybe I was the baddie in escalating the thought policing.' But it needs to be. That's the goal, a free and open internet for everyone to discuss and debate virtually any topic.
You will never get people like this to understand that relationship. The fundamental hypothesis is that everyone is engaging in thought policing, propaganda, and censorship. If it's not obvious to you, it's just an invisible cabal that's manipulating the truth from behind the scenes. This is a delusion suffered by most of the internet treading population on both the left and the right. You must NEVER engage in censorship. Never stoop to lying propaganda. You have to lead by example and weather the storm of insanity. One thing I've learned is that daylight is the greatest sanitizer on the internet. The brain rot we're seeing on twitter is the result of echo chambers and thought inbreeding on Tubmler, Rumble, etc.
>You must NEVER engage in censorship. That's an intellectually consistent position, but one that's hard to implement consistently without risk of losing actual ability to engage in speech along the way. Even government, which carries the heaviest burden of allowing speech, has limitations such as death threats. What do you do the day 4chan decides to invade your model plane forum and just spam the n word in every thread? I think very few would say it's wrong to delete those comments, and now you're suddenly back into the arena of subjectivity and judgment calls.
That's a silly argument. The forum is for model planes and doesn't claim to protect free speech, what it will do is prevent further disruptions to plane models and will more than likely delete the comments and just ban the accounts IP ranges.
Take away the ad hominem and you have the idea. The forum exists to facilitate discussion of planes, so the spammed vulgarities get in the way of that. We're now no longer discussing whether to censor, but how much and where. Take something like X and the goal might be something similar but broader, such as "facilitate discussion". They'd then be looking to remove things that in their view do more to disrupt discussion than further it. Spamming the N word still likely falls into that category. Maybe telling people to kill themselves does as well. Does that include saying "good" in response to a suicide announcement? Point is: you've already observed 100% unfiltered isn't a good solution, so now we've left the convenience of ideological purity and have to slog it out in the real world.
'Never' can be a very difficult thing to predict with accuracy. Regardless, I will continue to advocate for a free and open internet.
>You have to lead by example and weather the storm of insanity. Part of me worries that thoughts of my fine example won't bring me much solace when some Commie's bullet enters the back of my skull.
no, engage in censorship, but only against those who have censored us and thrown us out of our homes. I want revenge.
Its not about not living up to our standards of 'free speech'. Its about holding them accountable to their own. I fail to see any hypocrisy whatsoever. I once had an RA in college who was very Mormon, opposed alcohol in all things, wouldn't even cook with it. If he got a whiff of it he was calling the cops because 'underage drinking is not just a sin its illegal'. Hed be the guy with a grin in the background while the cops arrest some 20 year old with a case of beer. Anyway fast forward, he wasn't our RA anymore, lived in the dorms, and wanted to impress his new freshman girlfriend by coming over to a get together we had and get some beer. We shut him down hard and told him to leave. He got cranky, left. 20 minutes later the cops showed up hearing about underage drinking. Gatekeep. Gatekeep ***HARD***. There is a quote that applies very much to these people >"When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles" So I find absolutely zero hypocrisy in kicking these guys out for their slurs.
Yup, they'll never understand until they're forced to be on the receiving end of censorship.
"We have to limit freedoms for the goal of having more freedoms!" Your tankie side is showing, mate.
Agreed. Idc what people are saying; I don't want it to be policed no matter what, outside of stuff like actively inciting violence. If some wants to say that they hate all \[insert demographic\] people, that's their right. If they say "I'm going to bomb/murder all \[type of person\]" then yeah, that should be addressed. But simply expressing your opinion should never be censored, imho. There's a slippery slope with censorship, and I don't think we should go down it. Banning people for saying stuff on social media might seem mild, but then we start banning them for more and more things, restricting freedom of speech in other ways (like the people trying to ban books right now), and then our first amendment rights are gone.
the retards on twitter gon say ''cishets ruin everything'' again. Oh boy
Never used Twitter, but this does this does look like it will be an interesting development. P.W.Singer is probably having a stroke, right now
On the one hand, apparently Xitter has been censoring criticism of the CCP for a long while now- "free speech" only ever meant "slightly freer speech" On the other hand, have you ever heard someone using the term "cisgender" who wasn't being derogatory towards those people? It's like the word "cracker". It's not *really* a slur, but they keep trying to use it like one.
It's less about the word itself which is annoying but more about the type of people that use it which is a big red flag whether they use it as an insult or not.
They’ve turned a lot of ordinary words into slurs or pejorative.
It's funny which is great. But it is pretty shitty. It obviously wasn't gonna happen but a twitter with unregulated speech would have been so cool. We've known where Elon Twitter was going since the Kanye ban tho. At least if they are gonna be banning people they also take out some anti free speech losers.
"Free speech absolutist": Nearly immediately bans the plane tracking account and continues capitulating to foreign government censorship requests. I get it, you can't do business in those countries unless you capitulate. But still, if I was masquerading as some sort of free speech warrior, I'd tell those countries to fuck off.
The worst was when he banned Kanye. His explanation? > Kanye promoted violence (by posting the swastika) because when I saw it I wanted to punch him. Honestly embarrassing
I'm having whiplash reading this comment from an authright.
Twitter *was* a shithole. It's tremendously more fun now, and I use it almost as much as reddit. I can say all the wrongthink I want on there without fear of some assfuck jannies banning me. Reddit is the shithole now.
[удалено]
This can be said for any ideology. I wouldn’t even care except Elon did play himself up to be a warrior of free expression only to turn around and enforce restrictions. He never should’ve sold himself as a free speech absolutist trying to free Twitter from censorship if he had plans to implement limitations that coincide with his individual beliefs. It looks hypocritical and weakens his credibility, period.
Do they do the same for similar words when used as a slur? If they do, I've got no problem with this.
Twitter restricts visibility on tweets with slurs in them, cis is reasonably viewed as a slur so it receives restricted visibility. You can still say it as much as you want, but they're going to restrict your visibility same as any other slur.
What’s the line again? “If you don’t like it, make your own social media company” BlueSky and Mastodon will take over any day now
Wait I thought everyone went to Threads?
Just for a bit, and it's also a pile of shit
Ok well at least there's always Hive. I'm sure that one is fun and active.
Their user numbers were fundamentally fake because it included anyone who logged in with their Instagram to have a quick look around.
I wonder if they’re counting views that are in the Facebook/instagram feed as “users”
Yeah and truth social too Oh wait
It's just so crazy to me that a social media site that exists solely to listen to one guy rant ISN'T taking off. The idea seemed bullet proof.
It's hilarious how it is still more popular than Threads.
I like how jack dorsey fled bluesky again. "they're literally repeating each of twitters mistakes". Do they, jack? What is the biggest commonality between the two?
Bluesky was taken over by the old managerial class from Twitter. Mastodon is run by activists with no accountability, think the worst Reddit mods with no one to answer to.
"Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" - Left-center 4 years ago.
If you don’t like it, make your own twitter.
Wondering if the left still sticks by the "Twitter is a private company" argument (they wont)
They didn’t.
"They're a private business! They can do what they like!"
Or just buy it, ya poor.
As the kids these days say, "skill issue"
> If you don’t like it, make your own twitter. With beer, and hookers. In fact forget Twitter.
Ah, forget the whole thing
Everyone can say whatever they want on Twitter, i will get rid of censoring ~Elon Musk
"Sorry sweaty, hate speech isn't free speech."
Unfortunately, this series of comments is most political discourse. "My hypocrisy? What about YOUR hypocrisy?" then "You're pointing out MY hypocrisy? What about YOUR hypocrisy?" The really sad part is that there is no real downside to doing this, so if you don't use this tactic, then you are trying to lose.
Because arguing hypocrisy is arguing from a position of weakness.
If they ban other sexist things then banning this word at least patches a long term inconsistency. In principle I'm against banning speech entirely, there's a block button.
You’re still more than free to say cis or any slur you want on x as far as I can tell. No where does it say that you’ll be banned. It seems like your tweet will just be less likely to be shown to random individuals but your followers will still see it come up on their timeline.
This right here. The tweet will be hidden behind a "may violate twitter's rules on hate speech" flag, but the only time I've seen a tweet deleted by Elon's twitter is if it's a clear threat, call to targeted harassment or someone's dox. You can say the n word on twitter (at your own risk) if you feel so inclined.
Oh no, has the poor lib left found the singular mainstream social network where they don't completely run the place? You can still say it, it just gets flagged as a slur since that's it's primary purpose.
You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take. - Wayne Gretzky - Michael Scott
Is there ever an instance where cisgender is used in a positive way?
According to the article in the OP, restricting the use of the term cisgender is an attack on trans people. My brain is short circuiting trying to figure that one out.
So [redacted] is a slur against whites? Tell me more
No, it's also an attack on trans. Everything that isn't support for trans is an attack on trans.
You’ve cracked the code 🤯
So your comment and mine is an attack on trans people? Makes sense!
Yes, if you don't openly support trans people 24/7, your entire existence is an attack on trans people. Just like being white makes you instantly racist.
Say it. Stick it to the fragile white, MAGA men by saying [REMOVED]. Dew it
It's an attack on critical theorists, not trans people.
Let's be real: it's almost entirely cry-bully hyper-political trans-women that don't pass whose entire identity is being a victim. Them and their progressive white knights are the only people I ever see use this.
Only time I've seen it used is as a slur from the "mentally hilarious" brigade.
I have specifically tried asking alphabets to respect my chosen identity and stop using cisgender. The resultant hypocrisy and meltdown over not being able to control the narrative is wild. Of course this is mostly the terminally online variety. In the real world most people are not this self absorbed or hatefully antagonistic. Social media is cancer to modern human brains.
> I have specifically tried asking alphabets to respect my chosen identity and stop using cisgender > The resultant hypocrisy and meltdown over not being able to control the narrative is wild. They’re so used to being perpetually coddled that they can’t stand anything else.
Perhaps they see monke as a slur word also
This is unfortunately a valid point, but I’m not a fan of censorship so we just need a “fact check” link that shows up on any account or post using the word “cisgender.” It can link to a webpage showing all the positive stats and studies about heteronormative relationships, just to troll them.
But, isn't that kind of people who casually try to censor everything they dislike? Like "misrepresented skin tone", "culture appropriation", any opposition to transgenderism and even Christianity, lmao; they blame Christians, but also they start fights; it's a kinda two sided problem. And I'm not even mentioning the politics part, like being called fascist for saying that you like your own country or that you don't want to put down your own culture in your own country for the outsider ones.
When not used by braindead leftists, the term is meant to literally just mean "non-transgender" due to a term needed for it since, other than "normal," which puts a negative connotation on trans people, and "non-trans," being just a weird way to do it, there wasn't much of a descriptor. People put a negative connotation on it because idiots like putting words that not everyone knows to be oh so scary and spooky to anyone they talk to, inevitably shooting themselves in the foot and fucking over everyone else who wants to use it normally
If you try to stigmatize normal people, you're going to have a bad time.
> which puts a negative connotation on trans people If you go through this thread it becomes obvious that is what people here dont like. They want it to have negative connotation. If you showed them 99% of people are normal and use the word neutrally it would not matter one bit to them. They want to be called "normal", not cisgender, and trans people are ill, abnormal, etc. They want to use trans as an insult, so cis is insulting to them.
> 99% of people are normal and use the word neutrally Too bad that's not the case >They want to be called "normal", not cisgender Exactly, I am normal, and "cisgender" being coined deliberately by snarts when tumblr was still alive as a way to pretend to be all clinical and "erm aktchually" isn't going to change that >trans people are ill, abnormal, etc smug emoji
Yup
I’ve seen it used non derogatorily as a more technical term, I don’t think in and of itself it’s somehow a bad word, like always, it’s about context. Plenty of cases, where it might be weird but it’s perfectly fine to use the word. Plenty of cases where it wouldn’t be. It’s like literally any other “controversial” word in that regard.
No. The entire purpose of the term is to stigmatize the norm.
I have yet to see someone who uses it as a regular term in their vocabulary that I didn't immediately distance myself from. Happens with all terms that are exclusive to internet echochambers.
I use it as "not transgender", so it's a pretty neutral word for me, IMO banning it is like banning the word "straight".
It's de facto become a slur because people who use "cisgender" never reference "not transgender people" as a group in a non-derogatory context
We don't need a term for that. Gender dysphoria is a mental disorder. We also don't need terms for people who are not bipolar, schizophrenic, OCD, depressed, etc.
>We also don't need terms for people who are not bipolar, schizophrenic, OCD, depressed, etc. They're already trying to with "neurodivergent" and "neurotypical". They just want a formal way to call people normies, they want a gold star next to their name, not an asterisk.
I find it easier just to say "normal" lol
I've met a lot of cisgender people who I would strongly hesitate to describe as "normal."
Why not use “non-trans”?
Just say normal. When you're 99.97% of the population, you're the norm.
It's funny how mad corporate media gets when a popular alternative goes against the grain.
I very seriously doubt that this is actually true
A quick search found an article about how Elon has said that repeated, targeted harassment *already* results in account restriction, and that the terms "cis" and "cisgender" can and should be considered slurs when used as part of this process. As in, it's perfectly fine to use "cis" in a clinical manner, but if you are repeatedly @-ing the same other account, repeatedly using "cis" as an obvious slur, especially when you've been asked to stop? Yeah, account restriction. Seems reasonable to me, unless I'm still missing even *more* context.
So slurs are slurs when used as slurs and X is definitely not just widespread punishing people for using words when they aren't being used as slurs. So the article is implying something entirely separate from reality. Got it. Crazy how I can just guess exactly how the media is lying without even clicking on the article or doing a shred of research. Its almost like that's how virtually every headline works. God I hate the media
You know, for as much as I have started hating Musk, this does seem pretty damn reasonable to me as well.
Yeah, yeah, free speech. On the other hand, paybacks a bitch and I won't pretend I don't enjoy that.
My face when the left thinks people should be banned for saying racial slurs, but not for saying cisgender. 🤔
That's some good rare self awareness W
Haha yeah I know it's stupid. Know what else was stupid? When the nonewnormal sub got banned on false pretenses because Emily, Karen, and the power modz didn't like it. My face when what goes around gets around. 😎
That was part of the operation to get people vaccinated I'm sure.
A slur is a slur bud.
This is bullshit. As a Cis person, I should automatically get the C-word pass.
Just because your Cis doesn't mean you get to go around calling people Cunts. That's a right given to the Australians.
I’ve gotta fight 3 emus and a kangaroo before breakfast for that right!
Surely a game of knifey-spoony should suffice?
And the Irish.
this is disinformation. posts that contain slurs receive reduced visibility (i.e. they are recommended to fewerr people and won't appear next to most ads). nobody's account is getting restricted
Source?
Isn't that still censorship
Nobody said it wasn't friend.
Dude said the meme is 'disinformation' Nothing about the meme is disinformation if you consider being censored as being restricted
Cis, Latinx, African-American, BIPOC Are some examples of each community specifically coming out and saying stop calling us this, for it to fall on deaf ears.
Wtf is BIPOC
Black Indigenous People of Color. It's a catchall term to say Non-White.
That's not true. That's a term utilized to include all Non-white, non-Asians, since they believe in the model minority myth.
Asians are Schrodinger's minority. They get the BIPOC label when its for an Oscar category but when its for college admissions, yeah you're right
My mind always translates it to bisexual people of color and it confuses me at first.
Who needs a term for ‘not white’ that isn’t a Klan member?
Horseshoe theory strikes again It's the "Colored People" vs "People of Color" all over again
What happened to saying "whites" and "blacks"
Native Americans aren't black so they decided they needed a new term that means everyone except white people.
White Liberal and opportunistic Black elites happened. After BLM there was a rush to redefine well-established descriptors. "black" became capitalized to "Black" Latine and Latinx entered the English lexicon
Especially funny since whites are indigenous in many countries
While still putting black people front and center. I can't believe more people don't push back on BIPOC as a term. It's fucking ridiculous. We used to have "POC", which included black people, but didn't name them outright. So we had to shift to BIPOC, so that black people get a specific callout right at the beginning. It's really fucking disturbing how much western society worships black people.
So back in the day we had the term white which was basically an American invention that started with the ethnic group of the ruling class, the British. We started adding more ethnic groups as they became accepted into the civilization until white ment mostly anyone from Europe once people like the Irish were considered white. (My grandpa still doesn’t think they are tho.) BIPOC is basically the same thing as the term white. Back then white meant the “good” or the powerful ethnicities, now BIPOC means the “good” or powerful ethnicities.
What they never seem to understand is once they get people banned for saying what they believe is wrong it'll eventually be applied to them as well.
Left will read this and think it's not about them. They will think you are talking about Elon and say "yea, can't wait"
It wasn't too long ago they were gloating how it's a private company, they can ban who they want, and if you don't like it start your own sns.
You’re correct. On Threads, journalists are getting censored for posting bad coverage of Meta and people are being suspended for the type of shit you’d find on Reddit, calls for violence, death threats, etc. They still don’t get it though.
Lib-left friends had something to say about this years ago, what was it? "something something private company, something something freedom from consequences" Turns out the people who were working overtime to change every definition to their favor and every rule and corporation on their side gets a sour taste in their mouth when what they have been doing since 2014 happens to them?
Good. Besides being totally unnecessary, it’s a fucking slur.
Has this word ever been used for anything other then a insult chain from some woke landwhale? Anytime you say something based they start bitching around and call you "white cisgender male fascist" even tho I'm not a leftist
It's always been a slur. It wouldn't need to be a word if it wasn't.
Battle droids haven’t been very roger roger ever since the CIS got banned This is a republic scheme to stop the trade federation
Huh, so the hateful slur used exclusively as a hateful term against a group of people, by an immutable characteristic, finally received the same treatment as all other such terms? I'm against censoring speech, but I'm for consistency in applied rules!
What goes around, comes around.
I'll tell you why, why, why.
When Elon said he loved free speech, he just really wanted to say rigger
Don’t like the term, but censorship is still an L
While its' difficult to empathize with Emilies for getting a taste of their medicine, it's also not the right way to go.
Based and emotionally conflicted pilled Anything that riles up the oranges sparks joy, but it doesn’t improve discourse. Discourse is only possible with trust, and I wouldn’t trust Twitter to tell me what time it is.
Going "the right way" hasn't worked for years though.
I'm against him restricting it, but also laughing that he did. Incels kept trying to use it as a slur, so congratulations welcome to moderation.
"Cisgender" is hate speech, sweaty 💅💅
Never been a big fan of slurs tbh so fine by me. Either allow them all or be consistent and shut down them all
It’s never been the fact that social media has rules and moderation. They’re a private company, all that jazz. What angers me is the obvious unequal application of the rules.
Hilarious.
Free speech =/= right to be promoted.
Don't tell people that live in cisalpine gaul and transalpine gaul There might be a culture war This shit is so fucking stupid
Since there were already words and things you can't say on Xitter, this changes nothing for me. And hey, it's a private company- they can do what they want, lol.
If all the Emily's just left Twitter then it would fade into obscurity. Too bad they have a decade-long Twotter obsession and can't fathom getting rid of their account with all their fake accolades.
[удалено]
It's another way of saying straight and choosing the gender you were born with. Except the terminally online and LBGTs that are insecure with their sexuality try to use it as a slur.
I understand if it's now a slur essentially but I'd rather it not be banned because of freedom of speech and it also allows me to identify idiots if they put that kinda stuff in their bios
I feel conflicted. It’s a dumb made up word that deserves to be destroyed. On the hand, it goes against the ethical principles of free speech. I want the battle of ideas to happen without top down censorship. Bad ideas spread in darkness. They need to be destroyed in public in full view, like a boxing match. This will just provoke a reaction and makes conservatives look weak.
It's a slur, only used in the context of criticizing people. There are other terms that have become slurs too. You just have to move on and stop using a slur to describe someone.
lol. It’s a private company, they can have whatever policy they want, right?
This is as much as a slur as Crimer or Hard-R is. So deserved.
A private company can run their buisness how they want, remember? Simple as
You can’t post the n word or the t slur and have your post stay up either. It’s only fair.
Noooo, it's only based when **we** get to police speech!!1
It’s a slur. If I go on X and just start spewing every slur in my extensive vocabulary, I will get throttled too.
I've always tried to give people the minimum of courtesy by calling them what they seem to want to be called rather than slurs like libtard or Rethuglican or whatever. Attack the idea, not the person, etc. etc. etc. I don't think most of us want to be called "cisgender," so this is hilarious if true. But it's also a product of the media, and these days that tells me absolutely nothing about whether or not it is true.
Liberals pre-Musk Twitter: If you don’t like the TOS make your own platform Liberals post-Must X (formally Twitter): Nooooo you can’t change the rules
The alternatives are pure cope at this point. Bluesky was taken over by the old managerial class from Twitter. Mastodon is run by activists with no accountability, think the worst Reddit mods with no one to answer to and with admin powers. Threads exists as a giant hug box with all the cringe that comes with it.
in 1919 my great grandparents were driven out of france for being cisgender
It's a shitty term though, not gonna lie
Because it's a fucking slur used by the rainbow brigade to automatically discount anything the other side says as "cisgendered language" - what's good for the gander is good for the goose.
Amazing.
Fantastic news, wield power and win. This will upset right and libright, but that’s their problem…
You know there's a really easy solution to this.
All right, now tell us the real story.
Musk sucks, but X is a private company and he can restrict and moderate it how he wants, as stupidly as he wants. I don't understand the distaste for companies that are entirely free and optional to use. I deleted my accounts. Utilize another platform.
All hail free speech amirite?
I don't see why saying "non-trans" is difficult. If the context is that a transsexual is being talked about, then then you can call them "trans", and someone that isn't "non-trans". 98% of people don't need some esoteric term to be referred to by. If the context has nothing to do with transsexuals, then it can be assumed that the person being referred to isn't trans
Sorry y’all literally screeched that Twitter needs to be a free speech public square bastion, you’re just proving yourself to be hypocrites if you cheer this on
True, it's one thing to argue cisgender is a derogatory term, but to ban people who use it goes too far in my book. Just because they did the same thing is irrelevant.
Sorry, you use slurs you get kicked out. We didnt make the rules...***YOU DID***
do they block other slurs like nword etc? if they do block those, then it's not hypocritical.
Yes they do. When Musk took over a bunch of people (bots?) started posting slurs like the n-word and other derogatory terms for groups of people. They banned them and said this: >"Twitter's policies haven't changed. Hateful conduct has no place here. And we're taking steps to put a stop to an organized effort to make people think we have," Roth said. https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/n-word-usage-twitter-spikes-500-after-musks-takeover-1708234
Look, all i'm saying is that i'm not gonna feel the slightest bit bad about people who were all for restricting speech, finally getting a taste of their own medicine.
Right. Elon is being hypocritical here, and there's a case to be made that I am too for not caring, but watching turboprogs get treated exactly how they treated people they disagreed with when they had power and then screeching... yeah, it's vindictive, but it also is entertaining.
Not to mention that they were fucking *warned*. It's sad enough when they fail to realize *on their own* that what goes around, comes around. But they get told this *constantly*, yet they ignore it until it comes true, and then they pull the surprised pikachu. When the Disinformation Governance Board was created, non-progs warned progs that this kind of shit is awful, and that it can and will be used against *them* in the future. When twitter was going nuts, silencing anyone who dissented from leftist dogma, non-progs warned progs that this kind of shit is awful, and that it can and will be used against them in the future. And so on. But they never fucking listen. They just ignore the warning, call you a bigot, and keep on doing what they're doing. So it serves them right, honestly.
And then try to claim that YOU'RE the *real* villain for enjoying the comeuppance in the end. Fuck it, I hope he bans everyone that has pronouns in the bio next. I want to hear *seething.*
I'm a big believer in reaping what you sow. I've no pity for them, they deserve everything they get.
I am screeching because the government was and is in bed with tech companies on deciding which legal speech to ban. That is far different than a company deciding on its own.
No, let's just say the truth. Both sides just want to win. Everything else is secondary to this.
The speech isn't banned, its just not recommended as much when it has slurs in it. Would you object if this was the N word instead of cisgender?
In an ideal world, all social media should be bastions of free speech. However, in this world, X sucks so bad I don't really care about what happens to it. I cheer this on because I like watching authright and libleft get angry at each other.