If only you had a gender identity
Another one of these. Spotify updated its “new policy around hate content and conduct” in June 2018.
The second part of our policy addressed hate content. Spotify does not permit content whose principal purpose is to incite hatred or violence against people because of their race, religion, disability, gender identity, or sexual orientation. As we’ve done before, we will remove content that violates that standard. We’re not talking about offensive, explicit, or vulgar content – we’re talking about hate speech.
Again – race, religion, disability, gender identity, and sexual orientation are protected from content whose principal purpose is to incite hatred or violence on those grounds, but sex is not. People who have a “gender identity” are protected, but women are not.
Here’s a question, to which I didn’t know the answer:
Isn’t telling people (e.g. lesbians) they’re horrible and should be the targets of violence for expressing their sexual orientation towards only one sex (e.g. women) inciting hatred based on sexual orientation?
Of course, I do know the answer: “Shut up, women don’t count.”
They do realize they signed Joe Rogan, right? He’s not adverse to bringing that kind of thing on his show…
Blood Knight,
Well, that’s the nice thing about the phrase “hate speech” — it’s vague enough that you can exempt speakers who suit your ideological preferences and/or who earn you a lot of money (Rogan), but apply it to speakers who are disfavored or expendable.
“Spotify does not permit content whose principal purpose is to incite hatred or violence….”
Here is the problem with hate speech/hurt feelings doctrine – when I say that a man cannot be a woman, I am not trying to incite hatred or violence. I am stating a fact. When somebody else CLAIMS that the purpose of my statement is to incite hatred or violence, they are wrong. How do we have a set of “rules” that does not allow the speaker to be believed on the purpose of their words but does allow everybody else’s belief on what the speaker’s purpose is to be taken as the gospel truth?
southwest88, what they say is that you personally may not have made your claim – a man cannot become a woman – with the specific purpose of inciting hatred and violence, but your claim is the same as the that made by those who do wish to see hatred and violence poured down on the oppressed trans people and therefore you are as guilty as they are of spreading hatred and inciting violence.
Obviously, they have a more compact version of that argument: intent is not magic.
What they won’t say is how or why your claim is wrong, it will just be wrong, the issue is settled in their own minds and no disagreement will be accepted. They will also refuse or ignore any requests for them to point you towards examples of those other people who made the same claim as yours with the clear intent of inciting hatred or violence. Just take their word for it, apologise and educate yourself. Or, to put it another way, you will be guilty by associatiation with people who do not exist, but their non-existence is irrelevant: the important word is guilty.
I bet those who “do wish to see hatred and violence poured down on the oppressed trans people” also claim the sky is blue and water is wet.