Targeting / HarassmentFollow along with the LGB Alliance vs. Mermaids case via Tribunal Tweets

submitted by wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. from self.LGBDropTheT

NOTE: If you get lost trying to use the links below you can try the Tribunal Tweets list here: https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/mermaids-vs-lgb-alliance-and-the

This started on Friday. This account is there live-tweeting:

https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets

I haven't included "unrolls" from Thread Reader because those at least sometimes expire after X amount of time and might not be accessible later.

So far-scroll to the top for any of the tweets below (unless you've seen some of it already):

Friday:

https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1568224260677668864

Monday:

https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1569292495363645442

https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1569310682205519873

Tuesday:

https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1569580387650748419

https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1569628080242855938

https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1569705918383755267

all 9 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I still find Twitter's UI to be a complete dumpster fire.

But

I did notice someone make a comment here which was really interesting.

MJ @MJamez Sep 9 Replying to @tribunaltweets Gender ideology will never win in court because it contradicts itself so much. Facts and reality will always prevail!

The last sentence is nonsense but there is an extremely interesting point here. Laws are neither inherently logical nor factual nor based in reality.

The legal system is purely a construction of society but the court system is based on the internal consistency of itself. Law x follows precedent to law y to law x etc... And then lawyers find ways to manipulate the interpretation of the wording etc ...

Gender ideology has absolutely no internal consistency so as soon as you bring it into a courtroom it does not coexist well with a legal framework for arguing a case. Basically a courtroom wants to hear A leads into B leads into C etc... But most gender ideology arguments are either tautological or just explicitly contradict each other.

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yea that’s why all of the proposed laws put forth by gender identitarians are awful and would create legal mess. They use words inconsistently, and then leave key terms glaringly undefined, especially the word “gender.” Like come the fuck on. It reeks of them making it up as they go. They also add mess to clear terms by defining “sex” to include a list of stuff that doesn’t include biological sex or anything biological.

The reason they do this is because the only way discourse between the wider public and gender identitarians can happen is by not defining terms and by using well-understood words incorrectly. So people don’t mean the same thing when they use basic words like “gender,” “female,” and “trans,” and the general public is unaware that there was never a meeting of the minds. That’s why this movement is so allergic to daylight and open and direct conversation where people are able to ask questions and expect answers. The exact opposite of the gay rights movement.

[–]jjdub7TERF (Trans Exterminating Reactionary Fascist) 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I still find Twitter's UI to be a complete dumpster fire.

Tangential, but I was banned about a year ago (for my unapologetic trans-exterminating reactionary fascist beliefs) and have noticed that if you're ever not signed in, they have an "asshole design" that abruptly cuts off with a paywall-type login screen demanding you login.

I'm starting to think Elon Musk was right and they're using that to fudge with DAU/MAU (daily/monthly active users), even though a banned (ahem...'permanently suspended') account could hardly be considered active.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's been known forever that Twitter is filled with bots. At some point Twitter had to do a huge ban purge because advertisers somehow found a report about real numbers. A bunch of users then complained that they lost followers. There's also been times when political strategists openly brag about controlling huge bot networks. I can't remember exactly when but it could go back as far as 2008 there was someone on the Democrats' side advertising their ability to manipulate public opinion by using huge bot networks. Like they had some kind of software where each person could control 100s or 1000s of accounts at once to push messaging in certain directions. Basically you could type up a canned response and ask the software to randomly select 20 accounts to argue with people who had a damaging point.

Pretty sure I have observed this in action on the politics subreddit. Mostly with up and down votes to get things on the front page. Whenever a post emerged with a completely factual idea that went against the talking points of the week that post would suddenly get hit with exactly enough downvotes to bring the ratio to 0. Didn't matter if it had 20 and rising or 1000s of upvotes already. The post would suddenly in a matter of minutes dive down to single digits then stay there.

[–]jjdub7TERF (Trans Exterminating Reactionary Fascist) 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Mostly with up and down votes to get things on the front page.

Oh, most definitely. Particularly salient given that among social media and forum sites, Reddit has one of the lowest barriers to account creation (hence the throwaway account phenomenon). It became very, very obvious especially when the nagging TRA or two would "brigade" r/AskGayBros - you'd see odd behaviors like exactly -60 downvotes on several critical replies within a short timespan (10-15 min) to create the impression of a plurality (on a gay mens' forum, positing Boxer Ceiling bullshite and the like). Textbook astroturfing.

The real question is - how much of an absolute fucking loser do you have to be to go through and manually (IIRC there's a captcha) create 60+ burner accounts just to amplify your shitty arguments?

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi.[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Some helpful explanations: https://twitter.com/BarbaraRich_law/status/1569267231678160897

[–]ChunkeeguyTeam T*RF Fuck Yeah 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Oh it's glorious watching this fucker make an ignorant arsehole of himself.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi.[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I keep wanting to turn him around and find where the puppeteer's hand goes.

https://imgur.com/a/OjyyxEr

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi.[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

For after you read today's testimony:

https://twitter.com/hashtag/notanexpert?src=hashtag_click