Cancel culture is relevant to the discussion about free speech and censorship.
A strawman argument is when someone fabricates a persona for someone, and debates that false idea instead of addressing the argument being made.
Most of my comment was about how maximizing free speech for all participants in a community will inevitably require limiting free speech for some.
But, instead of addressing that, you’re talking about the definition of nazis and an overreach on moderation. I’m only saying moderation is required, not that I agree with all censorship.
Nor did I say calling transexuality a neurological trait invalidates it, I was clarifying what it means to have a neurological condition because the way you talk about it leads me to believe you haven’t done very much research on the subject.
To bring you up to speed, transexuality was previously considered a mental health disorder until a better understanding led to its reclassification as gender dysphoria or gender incongruence. Gender dysphoria is an umbrella term, and results from a number of different known causes, any combination of psychological, hormonal, neurological and genetic. Research on the subject is ongoing with recent broader acceptance, including neurological studies. PubMed has a few at least. You can look those up for yourself if the subject interests you.
Edit: It’s not my paradox of free speech, it’s a well known philosophical concept. Here’s some links.
I assumed your closing paragraph was the summary of your take, as you built an argument on how aggressive censorship is turning the world into a “fisher price paternalistic dystopia.” You described personal anecdotes about over-moderation and purported that limiting free expression could stifle ideas. In response, I debated that moderation and censorship are required to safeguard free expression for voices that might not be heard.
This latest controversy with Bluesky is part of an ongoing issue with moderation, where users want Jesse Singal banned, a journalist who publicly supports free speech and open sharing of ideas while harassing anyone who criticizes him behind the scenes. Bluesky users say he circumvented their blocks with screenshots of their posts, where he makes rebuttals they can’t see, exposing their user names when he’s well aware many of his followers are bloodhounds. A number of journalists critical of him have said he has either tried to sue, smear their reputations, or get them fired. This relates to my point on parodox of tolerance— which is not true, because a concept can’t be true or false, it just describes the phenomenon at the basis for this controversy.
About the original statements: Bluesky’s response was condescending without adressing the issue. Yes, Jay Graber has championed users ability to curate their experience, but in practice their moderation has been lacking with regard to racism and transphobia while others have been banned or had critical posts deleted when they don’t violate the TOS. For instance, after Charlie Kirk, when people celebrated his death without calling for violence. Thus, why I brought up the disproportionate views on cancel culture.
With regard to your opinion on gender dysphoria, I did read the messages you were banned for. As for English not being your native tongue, while I understand the struggle, I can only respond to what you say.
No one is disagreeing that gender dysphoria can have a neurological cause. It’s just weird to point it out and suggest it hasn’t been researched thoroughly enough, when transexuality was considered a mental disorder for most of it’s history. Only recently have more factors been uncovered as research teams look for a broader understanding. So, while you may have have researched it, I don’t believe you’ve done a very good job of it.
An edit because you brought up ADHD: This is a great analogy in favor of early gender affirming care because, while ADHD is neurological, it can’t be cured and can only be managed.