Again, you are confused as to the point and purpose of the OP.
OK - Enlighten me
As nearly as I can tell, it was modded back in September.
The OP of this thread is asking whether it is okay to mask hate speech (or at least hateful speech) by linking to that speech.
The OP of the referenced thread is masking hate speech by linking to hate speech.
If you want to discuss transpeople competing in sports or how to use pronouns or what misgendering even is, then make a new thread or find an existing one. Given your history on the matter, though, I would tread carefully.
Not the repeat of it in this thread, it hasn’t.
I think that it was just quoted and referenced here.
It’s a repeat of the same idea and a reference, but it’s the same vile filth posted in this thread, not simply quoted.
In fact, we’ve discussed this exact subject ad nauseum in multiple forums here.
This, too.
@Crane, you seem to have a blind spot for this subject. If you’re willing to learn something, maybe open up a carefully worded thread asking for guidance in IMHO or MPSIMS. If you’re concerned about getting modded for the opening post, maybe run it by a mod first to make sure you’re not accidentally going outside the rules, given your apparent blind spot for this subject.
It is vile filth, but I’m not sure that it amounts to the same thing as reposting the sentiment since Crane wasn’t the one who brought it up.
And it was introduced into this thread in #50 above - not by me.
I have a legitimate question about this subject. I think I know the answer but I figured I’d ask for a clarification in case my assumption is incorrect.
We’re not allowed to misgender a person, whether that is a poster on the forums, or any other specific person in general (who is unlikely to ever read or be affected by being misgendered). That seems clear (and I’m glad about it).
What about a person who just flat-out says they don’t believe that transgender people are real, and that instead they are playing pretend and forcing everyone else to share in their make-believe? Yet that person, cognizant of the rule against misgendering a specific person, is careful not to ever specifically refer to a trans man as a woman, or trans woman as a man, or anything along those lines. Would that person be following our rules? (I assume so, but thought I’d check just to be sure I’m not assuming incorrectly.)
What if someone starts a thread talking about a specific trans person, and that transgender denier posts their generic screed about trans people playing pretend. I’d think that’s a clear implication that the subject of the thread is not the gender they identify as, and could be modded as it’s directed at a specific person. But again, I may be wrong.
I would hope that would fall under the rules against hate speech.
They could just have quoted or even better, linked. I referenced it, but I didn’t quote the actual hateful content here in post #50, and that was intentional.
Whereas for Crane, I think the repetition is the point. So they should be modded the same every time they repeat it.
Mentioned, not repeated. A big difference.
You might be right and that makes my question moot. Like wondering if a person who crossed the street to murder someone was jaywalking.
Agreed - just as ‘talking about’ is not restating
“Talking about” while repeating the exact same content is just transparent sophistry.
Your judgement is thinly veiled ad hominem
Agreed.
Add to that the whole I’m not sexist/transphobic–English is just a sexist/transphobic language idea. Most everybody else manages just fine.
There’s nothing “veiled” at all, of any density, about calling your post sophistry.
What’s the Latin for calling out a post, not a poster. Ad postem?