[soundnote]

You don't need to be very anti rainbow ideology (which should be distinguished from simply being gay, for example: "Listen to gay people" never means Douglas Murray or the Gays Against Groomers organization, for example, because they may be gay but they have the wrong politics) to be tossed from most spaces rainbow activist types moderate.

[shadowgovt]

There's a reason there's other letters besides 'G', and "a minority can be hostile to another minority" isn't a new idea.

Of course a person gets booted for attacking other members of the community regardless of who they are.

[soundnote]

The point is: "anti-LGBT" is much more about politics and ideology than it is about the actual minorities - the minorities are used as a shield against criticism by activist types, who claim critiquing their ideology is hating those minorities. The typical rhetoric is also highly exaggerating, where if I disagree with the sensibility of trans identification, for example, people will readily accuse me of "denying their existence", as if disagreeing with one idea they hold invalidates their entire person (well, I guess it could if they really have no other content in their heads), when it's just one idea.

Same with being pro-LGBT: The activists aren't pro gay people, or pro black, or pro transpeople. They don't want me listening to Douglas Murray, or Gays Against Groomers, or Thomas Sowell. They definitely aren't pro Scott Newgent of "What is a woman?" fame. They're pro rainbow ideologue people. The politics is the point, the minority status simply a convenient shield from criticism and hate claims a cudgel to beat people over the head with.

[shadowgovt]

> The activists aren't pro gay people, or pro black, or pro transpeople. They don't want me listening to Douglas Murray, or Gays Against Groomers, or Thomas Sowell.

I think you're committing the error of treating social categories as set-theoretic absolutes when humans are far more multidimensional.

It's like "Well they're not really patriots; they tell me Americans are great but they don't want me talking to Benedict Arnold or Aaron Burr." No, they don't, because those Americans were traitors who hurt their fellow countrymen. "Listen to more LGBTQ voices" and "Don't listen to Gays Against Groomers" aren't actually contradictory concepts; 'listen to' doesn't mean 'give equal, uncritical weight to every'.

The missing sociological tool you may want to dive in on is 'Intersectionality,' which is the concept of how one's privilege is contextual and multidimensional factor; a person can be both oppressed and oppressor.

[marcusverus]

Lefties always rationalize their embrace of illiberal tactics like censorship by citing extreme cases (“we just want to filter out people who want us dead”), only to turn around and apply the tactic very broadly (wrongthink = permanban). This Motte-and-Bailey fallacy is the rhetorical lever which has allowed the left to crybully millions of erstwhile liberals into becoming so many cheerleaders for censorship.

[afavour]

You’re putting words in peoples mouths here. I’m not LGBT but it’s my understanding that many LGBT folks are open about wanting to block beyond just extreme cases. They wish to participate in a community of shared values, which is hardly a new notion. What is new is that the blurred lines of public vs private spaces has confused everyone’s concept of “free speech”.

An LGBT community is in no way obliged to listen to anti-LGBT voices. In the same way that an unlocked front door is not an invitation for me to enter, the fact that many of these communities are on public platforms doesn’t guarantee your access. Nor is being blocked from that community a strike against free speech: you are able to speak freely in any other location of your choice.

[marcusverus]

> You’re putting words in peoples mouths here.

I call it like I see it.

> I’m not LGBT but it’s my understanding that many LGBT folks are open about wanting to block beyond just extreme cases. They wish to participate in a community of shared values, which is hardly a new notion.

Nobody cares about gatekeeping in niche communities. The problem is when niche groups enter larger communities and employ the tried-and-true Motte and Bailey harangue for censorship, which ultimately ends up becoming political and problematic, as with old twitter.

> What is new is that the blurred lines of public vs private spaces has confused everyone’s concept of “free speech”.

What’s new is erstwhile liberals abandoning their commitment to open discourse, advocating for corporations to police speech, and boycotting/organizing against corporations who commit the sin of platforming wrongthink.

> An LGBT community is in no way obliged to listen to anti-LGBT voices. In the same way that an unlocked front door is not an invitation for me to enter.

Agreed! But nor should LGBT voices be permitted (or, rather, used) to dictate rules to everyone else on the planet.

> Nor is being blocked from that community a strike against free speech: you are able to speak freely in any other location of your choice.

This is a cynical and deeply authoritarian take. Does first amendment apply to social media? Of course it doesn’t. The first amendment prevents the federal government from squashing speech, because they can’t be trusted with such power over the people. Are you of the opinion that a power that’s considered too corrupting to be wielded by our elected officials can be responsibly wielded by unelected technocrats?