@Joseph4GI Suspended for "Harassment"

 

"Truth suppress'd, whether by courts or crooks, will find an avenue to be told."
~Sheila Steele

I've been locked out of #Twitter / #X before.

And it's always the same, isn't it; if the people who want to silence you can somehow construe what you have said as "harassment," then they can have you silenced.

The funny thing is, I think I know who did it, and if it's the person I think it is, then it's ironic.

It's a person who has the Twitter/X user handle @JulesMagaGirl.

Yes, she's a "MAGA" girl?

You know?

The kind of people that go on and on about "cancel culture?"

Well, it sounds like one of the anti- #cancelculture crowd is engaging in the very thing she says she hates.

A few days ago, I got notification that my X/Twitter account was suspended because one of my Tweets was labeled "harassment," and I was given the option to either delete the Tweet or appeal. I appealed, and I got the notification back that my appeal was refused, and I appealed again, because I know that the Tweet is not "harassment" as it is claimed.

It may be the last of my Twitter account, because I know for a fact that what I tweeted is not "harassment," and I sure as heck am not deleting the Tweet.

I'd like to use this blog post to make the case that Twitter/X does not allow me to make. I'm not sure if I'm caught by an automated system, or if there is a live person on Twitter trying to FORCE me to remove the tweet that is keeping my account suspended.

It went like this:

This user, @JulesMagaGirl had been arguing back and forth on a Twitter thread about circumcision being mutilation, and I happened to be part of it.

The user typically proceeds to post all the usual alibis and excuses for forcibly slicing off part of a healthy, non-consenting child's penis.

It's "healthy," "cleaner," it "prevents STDs," all the usual stuff.

But in one tweet, she tries to argue that male infant circumcision "does not have to do with genitals."

I can't remember exactly what was said because I CAN'T ACCESS MY ACCOUNT, but she actually tries to say "Male infant circumcision is not in any way cutting away any part of the genitals."

To which I post the following tweet:

 

 

Highlighted in my Tweet: "Those look like genitals to me..."

This is the Tweet that got me suspended from my account.

This is what passes for "harassment" in the eyes of some Twitter/X hall monitor.

If you look closely, all it is is just a rebuttal to the girl's claim that circumcision "doesn't remove anything from the genitals."

The tweet includes a clear picture of a circumcision.

 

It should be obvious to anyone with eyeballs and two brain cells to rub together that circumcision clearly removes tissue from the genitals.

Where else could circumcision be removing anything from?

The nose?

The chin?

The knee?

@JulesMagaGirl is clearly delusional, as the fact that circumcision is clearly an act of male genital mutilation is clear as day from the picture I posted.

The thread goes on and on with other attempts at arguments that @JulesMagaGirl tries to make.

Parental choice. (Which would also apply to FGM.)

Retention of the ability to orgasm. (Also true of FGM.)

Retention of the ability to procreate. (Also true of FGM.)

All the usual canned stuff.

But the above Tweet is the one that got me cancelled.

I'm still waiting for that appeal, because as it is easy for anyone to see, I have not engaged in any "harassment," unless the "harassment" is adequate rebuttal to poor arguments.

At this point I need to ask, @elonmusk, what is the meaning of this?

Is this conversation not allowed on X/Twitter?

Kind of disappointing as I thought that free speech had returned to X/Twitter.

Apparently not.

Anyway, since X/Twitter will not allow me to make my case to them directly, I thought I'd post it here.

Very disappointed, Mr. Musk, very disappointed.

Related Posts:

Circumcision Censorship at Twitter?

Twitter Censoring Joseph4GI 

State of Affairs for Joseph4GI 

Twitter Bans Award-Winning Circumcision Documentary Filmmaker

Looks like @Joseph4GI is back

It Looks Like @Joseph4GI Is Back

 

It looks like my account at Twitter has been restored.

I wonder what could have happened?

Could it be Elon Musk is keeping his word?

Those of you who have been following me on here know that Twitter had suspended my account and it looked like I wasn't getting it back.

Well, following the purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk, I decided I would try logging back into my account, and lo and behold, it looks like I'm finally able to start tweeting again.

However, I'm not sure how active I'll be now that my account is back.

It was nice not having to worry about who was tweeting, responding to me, mentioning me etc.

Do I really want to go back to that?

Perhaps for now, I'll just stick to publishing any new posts I create on this blog.

My Thoughts on Elon Musk's Acquisition of Twitter

I'm of two minds regarding the recent series of events surrounding this social media platform.

On the one hand, I'm not sure how I feel about one man having the power to censor or allow information to be published.

That was the problem before, though.

It still IS the problem on platforms such as Facebook, who are owned by a single billionaire, namely Mark Zuckerberg.

Actually, as long as I've been an intactivst, there have always been people trying to label us "anti-Semites," and what we post "hate speech" or "disinformation."

How verifiable fact can be called any of these things is beyond me, and yet, for a while, it seems advocates of male infant circumcision were successful in having me silenced on Twitter.

It is not uncommon to hear from other intactivists that Twitter, Facebook or other social media platforms had suspended their accounts and put them on periodical bans.

 

 

It's rather sad, frustrating, scary, all of these things and more at the same time, that the factual information that intactivists have to share can be labeled "hate speech," "disinformation" etc. and banned, blocked, deleted, what have you.

So on the other hand, I'm glad that Twitter is now in the hands of someone that, at least for now, seems to be a champion of free speech.

It is a problem when truth and verifiable fact can be labeled "hate speech" and/or "disinformation" for the sake of censoring it.

It is my hope that Mr. Elon Musk is a man of his word and he protects the free speech of intactivists, although this would be construed as "hate speech" and/or "disinformation" by those who are inconvenienced by it and who would have us silenced.

WHO would be interested in silencing intactivists?

-Those who profit from this procedure performed on millions annually in the United States alone.

-Those who have religious or cultural conviction to protect what they see as an age-old custom.

-Those who have malpractice lawsuits for disseminating medical misinformation and reaping profit from non-medical procedures on healthy, non-consenting individuals to evade.

There are pocketbooks, reputations, religious beliefs and cultural customs to protect.

Arguments stand or fall on their own.

Given a proper hearing, it would be self-evident that arguments against male infant circumcision are robust, and arguments in favor collapse under their own weight.

The only way advocates of male infant circumcision *can* win is to find ways to make sure the conversation doesn't happen, whether it be by crying "hate speech," "disinformation" or by demanding platforms have us banned.

So I am glad that it sounds like we have a champion in Elon Musk.

 

 

A lot of people don't like this, but allowing the freedom of speech is a GOOD thing.

It allows us to have important, meaningful conversation, discuss difficult topics such as male infant circumcision, and to present the facts so people can see and verify them for themselves.

It's thanks to freedom of speech that we're allowed to question guidelines put out by male infant circumcision advocates at the CDC and AAP, which we know are deliberately misleading.

It is a logical fallacy to dismiss information when it's not being purported by "the experts" at medical organizations, and/or to prop it up when it is.

It's called "ad verecundiam," also known as "appeal to authority.

 

 

Information is either true or false based on its own merit, regardless of who is presenting it, and it is completely possible for even experts at prestigious organizations to be wrong.

It is those interested in suppressing information while maintaining a false narrative who are interested in having the power to decide what is "mis/disinformation" or not.

Intactivists have factual, verifiable information on our side, but what good does it do us if circumcision advocates on Twitter deem it "hate speech" or "disinformation?"

I'm SO glad Mr. Elon Musk decided to buy Twitter.

Only those who fear the truth need fear freedom of speech and eager to wield the power to silence others.

Those who fear actual lies and disinformation need not fret, for the truth shall set us free.

Related Posts:

The State of Affairs for Joseph4gi 

 

Twitter Censoring Joseph4GI

 

Circumcision Censorship at Twitter? 

 

Twitter Bans Award-Winning Circumcision Documentary Filmmaker

 

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

 

OUT OF LINE: AAP Circumcision Policy Statement Formally Rejected