Home
Creators
Search Recent Missing Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Full Video Episode: Who Suffers for Free Speech? (Patreon)

Published:
2022-07-18 15:43:51
Imported:
2026-06
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Content

This was a tough conversation. I look forward to upacking it with you all on Callin tonight at 7:30 PM EST!


https://callin.com/link/KIMVZtiXzL


-B

Files

Previews only

Who Suffers for Free Speech?

After the online debate a couple of weeks ago between friend of the show Olayemi Olurin & Brie's rising co-hosts Kim Iversen & Robby Suave, Briahna wondered if it were possible to have a different kind of conversation if 1) it were longer form, and 2) it included a Trans leftist. This episode is the result of that experiment. Kim Iversen joins union organizer Esperanza to discuss the viral Rising segment and whether there is such a thing as a legitimate speech concern when the already vulnerable trans community stands to bear the brunt of the consequences. They also discussed the viral colloquy between Berkeley Professor Khiara Bridges & Senator Josh Hawley last week. Should the left be concerned about the "comms" effects of these viral moments and workshop responses designed to make the fight for LGBTQ equality more accessible? Or is it not worth trying to win arguments with bad faith actors like Hawley?

Comments

Anonymous

Is there not an incoherence to Esperanza's argument? On the one hand, she says if people on the Right are serious about free speech, they should be looking to overthrow the capitalist class. On the other hand, she bemoans that capitalist run Twitter doesn't ban more of what she considers to be "hate" speech.

Anonymous

The conversations that go round and round regarding identity are so cringeworthy. Esperanza is tying the use of language to the plight of trans people as if it is dead naming that's responsible for the plight of those most vulnerable trans people, those who are poverty-stricken sex workers. All the while there's no mention that perhaps it's their plight as poverty stricken sex workers thats primarily responsible for their plight. Twitter could enforce every deadnaming rule to Esperanza's satisfaction and it still wouldn't change the material circumstances of trans sex workers.

Anonymous

Brie, I love you and could hear you talk for ever and ever, but some of your guests are so cringe 😬

Anonymous

When someone exhibits a lack of integration in their thinking (cannot hold in mind that someone can be a fundamentally decent person AND hurt or disappoint us) it leaves little space for meaningful conversation.

Anonymous

Good conversation, but look at these 3 people in makeup-face. I respect the pioneers but some are still gripped by the current gender dogma. Talk about a 2-party system. We should be stressing ethical sexual behavior, and loosening up about cultural gender norms.

Anonymous

Esperanza complains about Kim not doing research when Esperanza herself admits she didn’t watch the rising segment that they are talking about. smh

Ky Camp

Thank god I’m not the only one who recognized that Hawley played her like a fiddle. He got exactly what he wanted out of that conversation. It’s a ready made commercial.

Eric
>>88001250

In my interpretation that’s exactly what Esperanza was saying. She kept trying to turn to the material condition for trans workers.

Anonymous
>>88037281

It was so embarrassing to watch. Think about the optics of that exchange and what it will communicate to the average American voter about left/liberal discourse. Ugh...

Anonymous
>>88024148

Thank you! I noticed the same thing. Esperanza was just trying to dunk on Kim in a rather sophomoric way.

Anonymous

I’m coming in late to this but wanted to ask a question of the group regarding the exchange between Hawley and the professor. In a situation like that where you’re meant to be put on the spot about the term woman, could we not make an argument about how different levels of precision in language are appropriate in different contexts. 

 For instance. What if Josh Hawley were addressing a veterans group and used the phrase “the men and woman who have served this country.” I’m nearly 100% certain that some cop or firefighter wouldn’t raise their hand and claim that his statement was erasing their experience. I think most in that audience understand that in that context he’s referring to the military. And in another context he might be talking about military, first responders, civil servants. It's a lame example but the best I can currently muster. I don’t know, I’m not an expert, but I just feel like the left is playing a game of Calvin ball with the right on some of this stuff. 

 Maybe I’m being overly optimistic but I could see that professor saying, “look, I used the language that I used to be as precise as possible. The fact is that there are trans men who can get pregnant. If for the purposes of this conversation you want to shorthand all of the groups of people that can get pregnant as ‘women,’ then let’s do that to actually move the conversation along and discuss the core issue of abortion access, but I’m uninterested in playing this cute language game you seem to want to play” 

Is that nuts? Interested in what you guys think. Cheers.

Anonymous

Well it looked like she was checking email and texting the whole time when she wasn’t taking. …speaking of not engaging.

Anonymous

I might have started listening very mildly on Iversen's side just as a speech issue, but her "you need us" comment was so arrogant and telling. Esperanza was right, the dominant group wants it to be about them and their rights, their power, and what is important to them is their freedom to do whatever they want. I don't agree with portions of what Esperanza said, but I really respect her ability to stay calm in the face of Iversen's open ignorance. What's a TERF? Really? I dislike that term, but I think Esperanza is right, if you don't know anything about a topic be intelligent enough to just listen and make the choice not to speak.

Anonymous

Frustrated how no one brought up the issue of power. Iverson may be right in some ways, and Esperanza's talking points were recycled & not conducive to convincing anyone who doesn't already agree with them, but I still ultimately sympathized more with the latter because of the blatant power imbalance between their positions. While the STATE is openly & actively putting the legal infrastructure to persecute trans ppl, Iverson & the media class/interests she represents want to spend all this energy on....Twitter bans? Treating their right to verbally abuse trans ppl as some proxy for ALL free speech issues, when the REAL free speech issue is the state's continued persecution of trans ppl (which they would obviously spend more time focusing on if they actually cared about free speech and not just their own narrowly defined interest & maintaining their status.) Some ppl getting banned on twitter does not hold a candle to that dynamic & long history. So Esperanza absolutely has a point that the CHOICE to center this issue is just feeding into violent anti-trans social hierarchies, but the language/talking points they use unfortunately are tired, ineffective, and very very easily twisted by the right to justify maintaining the status quo and undermining left activism.

Anonymous

People like Iversen are not allies. They don't want to confront or give up their power. Esperanza let Iversen speak herself into a corner. Many of her comments were transphobic.