Conor Friedersdorf

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@mffwww @bgbrainonbrad Thread one: what are people who insist on dead-naming and referring to trans people as "crossdressers" saying? I agree they are behaving objectionably, to be clear. And we can delve into why that is... — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@mffwww @bgbrainonbrad "Anybody who insists on using a dead name, or refers to trans people as 'cross dressers' or whatever — all of them are denying the possibility of the existence of trans people..." Okay, so there's two threads for us here: — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@barrydeutsch Maybe this is the logic they're using when engaging in what seems like a contradiction to me. If so, I don't think it makes very much sense. Nevertheless, if your account is accurate, I certainly sympathize with their intentions more than Hawley's intentions. — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@barrydeutsch (Not should they, because *there is no evidence of that* and no one thinks that is how suicides work in any other contexts.) — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@barrydeutsch Yes, there is a difference. My claim is that the digital media progressives who deliberately amplified the exchange, hoping it would go viral, revealed via their behavior that they don't actually believe suicides will increase as a result of Hawley's words — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@barrydeutsch Of course Bridges couldn't have controlled how many viewers the hearing garnered as a participant. I was thinking of the digital media editors on the left who intentionally amplified the clip into a viral moment while pretending to believe its content would cause suicides — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@mffwww I'm trying to clarify because every time I see someone say "they're bad, they're denying that trans people exist," I then look at the comments in question and don't think that's what they are doing. I'm trying to figure out the disconnect here — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@mffwww Set aside Hawley's motives, which I question in my piece. Who is it that you think doubts that trans men exist? — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@mffwww Who do you see debating that or wanting to debate that? — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

A fleshed out lament about one way our public conversation about trans issues is broken. Tldr: too much willfully talking past one another and not enough defining our terms. https://t.co/WJwsP5B1Ba — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@SunnyDfan4eva I don't think that's quite what he said, but even if it were, that viewpoint is protected by the First Amendment and he teaches at a public university. You can't violate his civil rights because his opinion is wrongheaded or offensive — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

RT @DKThomp: I really don't like the idea that negative media coverage is exclusively responsible for people being sad about the economy, a… — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@SunnyDfan4eva The administrators acted needlessly, in an authoritarian manner––there's no excuse for the viewpoint discrimination they engaged in — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

More out of control university administrators flagrantly trampling on Constitutional rights — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@natched The fact that I think it's important doesn't mean Adam's claim distinguished such cases. — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@natched I agree with the importance of the distinction. Alas neither kind of impingement is abnormal in U S. history — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

"See’s Candy means getting kissed. If we can get that in the minds of people, we can raise prices."—Warren Buffett "I don't want a twelve pound Nestlé Crunch® for $25." —Jimmy Buffett — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@adamdavidson So if a corporation made a movie criticizing Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis tried to outlaw showing it in the run-up to the primaries would that be normal or not normal? — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@adamdavidson What a rosy view of US history! — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

RT @SykesCharlie: ----> Dear Democrats, Stop Boosting Trumpist Candidates!, by @DamonLinker https://t.co/UpGp5fcGLC — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@adamdavidson What does it mean to "normalize" a sitting governor of a large state? In what way does the media decide whether he is, or whether he is considered, normal or not? — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@ijbailey @billybinion IMHO prosecutors should not charge when there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant, as I believe there to be here, save for the illegal weapons charge — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@ijbailey @clayranck I was thinking of all the lefty outlets amplifying the exchange, not the person in the hearing. — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@barrydeutsch I wasn't thinking of Bridges herself so much as (e.g) Huffpo amplifying the clip — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@clayranck @ijbailey No my position is that the left should stop erroneously claiming there is a demonstrated relationship between suicide and these conversations because there is no evidence of that — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@ijbailey @clayranck Less effective than what? My assessment of the effectiveness of these callouts in changing the rhetoric of GOP politicians is that they make the Republicans *more* likely to talk like this. — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@clayranck @ijbailey No, your logic is just faulty. — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@ijbailey @clayranck They could reach out privately to the person who said the words and try to persuade them of their theory of suicide. Why would amplifying and condemning be better if hearing the words really cause suicides? — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@ijbailey @clayranck By way of analogy, I *do* believe that amplifying child porn or revenge porn does additional harm to the victims. So if someone tweeted child porn or revenge porn, I would not screenshot it and tweet, "this is bad," but neither would I ignore it. I would oppose it differently. — PolitiTweet.org

Conor Friedersdorf @conor64

@clayranck I do not believe the rhetoric in question causes suicides. — PolitiTweet.org