Total Posts:82|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

#FreeMilo

MattTheDreamer
Posts: 1,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 3:56:18 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
http://www.gspellchecker.com...

Yesterday, popular conservative columnist and anti-SJW speaker Milo Yiannopoulos was banned from twitter yesterday for "inciting violence" against Leslie Jones, one of the co-stars in the new ghostbusters movie who was attacked with racist remarks.

According to what I can tell, Milo apparently disagreed and insulted Leslie about "playing the victim" in response to the hate mail she received. Later, Milo's fans started attacking her and after contacting the twitter mods he was banned.

There is also talks of fake tweets that Milo retweeted, but these do not seem to the be the reason for the ban. I did see some faked tweets about Leslie, but they were so obviously faked an idiot would figure it out.

Those who disagreed with him see it as a great occasion, with the "misogynistic, racist, etc" bigot finally banned from twitter for his abusive behavior. On the other side, calls for free speech has begun with the #FreeMilo. According to them, Milo is not responsible for his fans and his tweets were not inciting violence and as a supposed place of "free speech" Twitter is acting very Orwellian. However, he is a controversial figure and has pushed the line for a while when it came to twitter.

What do you think?

In my opinion, this seems unjustified. I'll be the first to admit I was a fan of Milo's and his tweets were nowhere near racist and misogynistic. He is a troll, and I disagree with him on many things, but insults shouldn't equal what he got. For a site that promotes this freedom of expression, this seems rather a lot like banning wrongthink.

And even if he did deserve it, why are so many others breaches of the TOS overlooked when his was not? I can already see the obvious connections to DDO.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 4:10:35 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 3:56:18 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
http://www.gspellchecker.com...

Yesterday, popular conservative columnist and anti-SJW speaker Milo Yiannopoulos was banned from twitter yesterday for "inciting violence" against Leslie Jones, one of the co-stars in the new ghostbusters movie who was attacked with racist remarks.

According to what I can tell, Milo apparently disagreed and insulted Leslie about "playing the victim" in response to the hate mail she received. Later, Milo's fans started attacking her and after contacting the twitter mods he was banned.

There is also talks of fake tweets that Milo retweeted, but these do not seem to the be the reason for the ban. I did see some faked tweets about Leslie, but they were so obviously faked an idiot would figure it out.

Those who disagreed with him see it as a great occasion, with the "misogynistic, racist, etc" bigot finally banned from twitter for his abusive behavior. On the other side, calls for free speech has begun with the #FreeMilo. According to them, Milo is not responsible for his fans and his tweets were not inciting violence and as a supposed place of "free speech" Twitter is acting very Orwellian. However, he is a controversial figure and has pushed the line for a while when it came to twitter.

What do you think?

In my opinion, this seems unjustified. I'll be the first to admit I was a fan of Milo's and his tweets were nowhere near racist and misogynistic. He is a troll, and I disagree with him on many things, but insults shouldn't equal what he got. For a site that promotes this freedom of expression, this seems rather a lot like banning wrongthink.

And even if he did deserve it, why are so many others breaches of the TOS overlooked when his was not? I can already see the obvious connections to DDO.

The straw that broke the camel's back. Trolls often experience an unequitable reaction to a single event just from the their built up sh1t pile.

Following Milo's latest shenanigans is just wearisome much like reading his review of ghost busters. How that could insite anything but boredom is beyond me. It is only slightly less pathetic than his feigned buddy up to the religious right as their gay friend who likes lots of sex.
Semiya
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 4:33:06 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
If he actually encouraged violence, then he should be banned. If not, then he probably shouldn't. I haven't seen his exact tweets, so I don't know enough to say more.
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 4:40:18 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Well, he is indeed a complete troll, similarly to a lot of Internet bloggers and pseudo-journalists. Whether they're to the left or right, they're often pretty inflammatory, narcissistic, and without any intellectual integrity.

But I can't see how the one statement he made (at least, it's the only one I've seen in the media regarding his ban) actually warrants a permanent account closure...as again, he certainly isn't in a minority's when it comes to trolling and saying incendiary things.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
DavidMancke
Posts: 74
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 5:39:34 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 3:56:18 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
http://www.gspellchecker.com...

Yesterday, popular conservative columnist and anti-SJW speaker Milo Yiannopoulos was banned from twitter yesterday for "inciting violence" against Leslie Jones, one of the co-stars in the new ghostbusters movie who was attacked with racist remarks.

According to what I can tell, Milo apparently disagreed and insulted Leslie about "playing the victim" in response to the hate mail she received. Later, Milo's fans started attacking her and after contacting the twitter mods he was banned.

There is also talks of fake tweets that Milo retweeted, but these do not seem to the be the reason for the ban. I did see some faked tweets about Leslie, but they were so obviously faked an idiot would figure it out.

Those who disagreed with him see it as a great occasion, with the "misogynistic, racist, etc" bigot finally banned from twitter for his abusive behavior. On the other side, calls for free speech has begun with the #FreeMilo. According to them, Milo is not responsible for his fans and his tweets were not inciting violence and as a supposed place of "free speech" Twitter is acting very Orwellian. However, he is a controversial figure and has pushed the line for a while when it came to twitter.

What do you think?

In my opinion, this seems unjustified. I'll be the first to admit I was a fan of Milo's and his tweets were nowhere near racist and misogynistic. He is a troll, and I disagree with him on many things, but insults shouldn't equal what he got. For a site that promotes this freedom of expression, this seems rather a lot like banning wrongthink.

And even if he did deserve it, why are so many others breaches of the TOS overlooked when his was not? I can already see the obvious connections to DDO.

Far be it for me to say, but if someone fans the flames of their follows, they share responsibility in the harms that follow said inspiration.

It has less to do with "wrongthink," and more to do with a given user inspiring behavior that harms users and twitter's enterprise as a whole.

It's so ironic the very folks who would rally to defend Milo's freedom of speech tacitly deny Twitter's right to act in the interest of the enterprise and the bulk of subscribers in the same breath. The objection is not very well thought out, when all is said.

Twitter made the right call.
MattTheDreamer
Posts: 1,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 5:55:33 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 5:39:34 PM, DavidMancke wrote:
At 7/20/2016 3:56:18 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
http://www.gspellchecker.com...

Far be it for me to say, but if someone fans the flames of their follows, they share responsibility in the harms that follow said inspiration.

But why should they? From what I saw Milo was not directly inciting his followers to attack her, he just sh!tposted as it was going on. He's a provocateur and he never asks his followers to follow him or help attack someone. He just toes the line.

It has less to do with "wrongthink," and more to do with a given user inspiring behavior that harms users and twitter's enterprise as a whole.

Again, simply because it "inspires" behavior doesn't mean it is directly Milo's fault.

It's so ironic the very folks who would rally to defend Milo's freedom of speech tacitly deny Twitter's right to act in the interest of the enterprise and the bulk of subscribers in the same breath. The objection is not very well thought out, when all is said.

I'd agree mostly with that, however acting in the interests of the majority does not definitely mean the minority is incorrect. Protection when it comes to hate speech and threats of death is important but Milo was simply insulting her.

Would you ban someone for insults even if they were simply insults and not hateful, if the majority wanted you to do this?

Twitter made the right call.

Maybe, but why only Milo and not all the others who've spoken hatefully and are not banned? Is it only because he had media attention.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 6:23:31 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 5:55:33 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
Maybe, but why only Milo and not all the others who've spoken hatefully and are not banned? Is it only because he had media attention.

Like who? Milo is a popular and influential figure (in terms of publicity). If a regular user breaks the rules, not many people will notice or care. With fame and power comes a set of different social (and sometimes legal) standards. I vehemently support free speech, but I also vehemently support private property and business rights. It would be insanely hypocritical of Milo to sh!t on Twitter for exercising their right to enforce their TOS or ban anyone they see fit for any reason. Milo is a troll who knows he will get popular and famous for being a douche. It's called growth hacker marketing: finding out creative ways to build your brand and popularity with little to no money. One of the ways is to get recognized and retweeted and reblogged and talked about (notoriety) whether it's good or bad. I get it, but if he wants to use these tools for his advantage (fame) then he needs to be ready for the inevitable backlash. It's also ironic for him to whine about it (or his fans) given his aversion to people whining about the reality that life's not fair.
President of DDO
DavidMancke
Posts: 74
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 6:37:17 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 5:55:33 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
At 7/20/2016 5:39:34 PM, DavidMancke wrote:
At 7/20/2016 3:56:18 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
http://www.gspellchecker.com...

Far be it for me to say, but if someone fans the flames of their follows, they share responsibility in the harms that follow said inspiration.

But why should they? From what I saw Milo was not directly inciting his followers to attack her, he just sh!tposted as it was going on. He's a provocateur and he never asks his followers to follow him or help attack someone. He just toes the line.

It has less to do with "wrongthink," and more to do with a given user inspiring behavior that harms users and twitter's enterprise as a whole.

Again, simply because it "inspires" behavior doesn't mean it is directly Milo's fault.

It's so ironic the very folks who would rally to defend Milo's freedom of speech tacitly deny Twitter's right to act in the interest of the enterprise and the bulk of subscribers in the same breath. The objection is not very well thought out, when all is said.

I'd agree mostly with that, however acting in the interests of the majority does not definitely mean the minority is incorrect. Protection when it comes to hate speech and threats of death is important but Milo was simply insulting her.

Would you ban someone for insults even if they were simply insults and not hateful, if the majority wanted you to do this?

Twitter made the right call.

Maybe, but why only Milo and not all the others who've spoken hatefully and are not banned? Is it only because he had media attention.

The difference is patently obvious, Milo has follows that took inspiration to behave badly enough that Twitter acted int eh interests of the majority of users and the enterprise as a whole.

If someone on a diatribe get people fired up enough to start a bar fight, you can bet the guy that started the storm will be kicked out with his tacit follows.

Simply put, tacit inspiration brings with it tacit responsibility. Did Milo step down his own rhetoric..? Did Milo broadcast that this kind of behavior does not have his approval or endorsement..?
MattTheDreamer
Posts: 1,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 6:46:51 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 6:37:17 PM, DavidMancke wrote:
At 7/20/2016 5:55:33 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
At 7/20/2016 5:39:34 PM, DavidMancke wrote:
At 7/20/2016 3:56:18 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
http://www.gspellchecker.com...

Far be it for me to say, but if someone fans the flames of their follows, they share responsibility in the harms that follow said inspiration.

But why should they? From what I saw Milo was not directly inciting his followers to attack her, he just sh!tposted as it was going on. He's a provocateur and he never asks his followers to follow him or help attack someone. He just toes the line.

It has less to do with "wrongthink," and more to do with a given user inspiring behavior that harms users and twitter's enterprise as a whole.

Again, simply because it "inspires" behavior doesn't mean it is directly Milo's fault.

It's so ironic the very folks who would rally to defend Milo's freedom of speech tacitly deny Twitter's right to act in the interest of the enterprise and the bulk of subscribers in the same breath. The objection is not very well thought out, when all is said.

I'd agree mostly with that, however acting in the interests of the majority does not definitely mean the minority is incorrect. Protection when it comes to hate speech and threats of death is important but Milo was simply insulting her.

Would you ban someone for insults even if they were simply insults and not hateful, if the majority wanted you to do this?

Twitter made the right call.

Maybe, but why only Milo and not all the others who've spoken hatefully and are not banned? Is it only because he had media attention.

The difference is patently obvious, Milo has follows that took inspiration to behave badly enough that Twitter acted int eh interests of the majority of users and the enterprise as a whole.

If someone on a diatribe get people fired up enough to start a bar fight, you can bet the guy that started the storm will be kicked out with his tacit follows.

Simply put, tacit inspiration brings with it tacit responsibility. Did Milo step down his own rhetoric..? Did Milo broadcast that this kind of behavior does not have his approval or endorsement..?

I think I disagree on principle here. I'd argue the guy on the diatribe did nothing wrong. The guys who started the bar fight were idiots, who took his words to mean actions and therefore should be punished. Of course, the discretion is up to the owner, but people at a bar say all sort of crap, but won't get kicked out until they punch the bartender.

Also, Milo has stated multiple times that he doesn't support or approve of any attacks on others. He doesn't say it doesn't have his endorsement every time, because it should be obvious that such speech wouldn't have his endorsement.
MattTheDreamer
Posts: 1,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 6:57:51 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 6:23:31 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 7/20/2016 5:55:33 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
Maybe, but why only Milo and not all the others who've spoken hatefully and are not banned? Is it only because he had media attention.

Like who?

Example from the twitter of Leslie Jones
" @whitebecky1776 b1tch I want to tell you about your self but i'm gonna let everbody else do it i'm gonna retweet your hate!! Get her! "

The only thing I changed was the swear.
DavidMancke
Posts: 74
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 7:34:46 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 6:46:51 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
At 7/20/2016 6:37:17 PM, DavidMancke wrote:
At 7/20/2016 5:55:33 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
At 7/20/2016 5:39:34 PM, DavidMancke wrote:
At 7/20/2016 3:56:18 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
http://www.gspellchecker.com...

Far be it for me to say, but if someone fans the flames of their follows, they share responsibility in the harms that follow said inspiration.

But why should they? From what I saw Milo was not directly inciting his followers to attack her, he just sh!tposted as it was going on. He's a provocateur and he never asks his followers to follow him or help attack someone. He just toes the line.

It has less to do with "wrongthink," and more to do with a given user inspiring behavior that harms users and twitter's enterprise as a whole.

Again, simply because it "inspires" behavior doesn't mean it is directly Milo's fault.

It's so ironic the very folks who would rally to defend Milo's freedom of speech tacitly deny Twitter's right to act in the interest of the enterprise and the bulk of subscribers in the same breath. The objection is not very well thought out, when all is said.

I'd agree mostly with that, however acting in the interests of the majority does not definitely mean the minority is incorrect. Protection when it comes to hate speech and threats of death is important but Milo was simply insulting her.

Would you ban someone for insults even if they were simply insults and not hateful, if the majority wanted you to do this?

Twitter made the right call.

Maybe, but why only Milo and not all the others who've spoken hatefully and are not banned? Is it only because he had media attention.

The difference is patently obvious, Milo has follows that took inspiration to behave badly enough that Twitter acted int eh interests of the majority of users and the enterprise as a whole.

If someone on a diatribe get people fired up enough to start a bar fight, you can bet the guy that started the storm will be kicked out with his tacit follows.

Simply put, tacit inspiration brings with it tacit responsibility. Did Milo step down his own rhetoric..? Did Milo broadcast that this kind of behavior does not have his approval or endorsement..?

I think I disagree on principle here. I'd argue the guy on the diatribe did nothing wrong. The guys who started the bar fight were idiots, who took his words to mean actions and therefore should be punished. Of course, the discretion is up to the owner, but people at a bar say all sort of crap, but won't get kicked out until they punch the bartender.

Also, Milo has stated multiple times that he doesn't support or approve of any attacks on others. He doesn't say it doesn't have his endorsement every time, because it should be obvious that such speech wouldn't have his endorsement.

It's patently obvious Milo should be much more clear in this area. His followers/worshipers don't seem to be getting the message. When you have these consistent responses to speech that is already incendiary it makes obvious sense to include clear condemnation of hate speech and threats of violence, every damn time.

Milo has a history of inspiring some really bad behavior from his audiences as well as curious history of underestimating his target audiences.

It gets really questionable when someone's celebrity status is directly derived from further agitating, "already angry, disaffected white guy."

Milo knows who his target audience is and what they are predisposed to. It's part and parcel with the following he cultivated himself. Anyone selling anything successfully knows their target, and what they are like.

Moreover, to extend the bar fight analogy, this is not someone that has incited trouble once and only once. This is a guy that consistently uses someone else's beer hall to stir up crap.

After X amount of incidents, I would nix the guy for life too. "Happy hour is when we make our money and more often than not, every time you show up, the same goddamn sh*t happens. Now leave!"
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 7:39:00 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 6:57:51 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
The only thing I changed was the swear.

Can you post everything Milo said, exactly? I can't check at work right now...
President of DDO
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 7:44:59 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 7:39:00 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 7/20/2016 6:57:51 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
The only thing I changed was the swear.

Can you post everything Milo said, exactly? I can't check at work right now...

+1
DavidMancke
Posts: 74
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 7:48:54 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 6:57:51 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
At 7/20/2016 6:23:31 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 7/20/2016 5:55:33 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
Maybe, but why only Milo and not all the others who've spoken hatefully and are not banned? Is it only because he had media attention.

Like who?

Example from the twitter of Leslie Jones
" @whitebecky1776 b1tch I want to tell you about your self but i'm gonna let everbody else do it i'm gonna retweet your hate!! Get her! "

The only thing I changed was the swear.

Whats your point in this example..? She is sticking up for herself, and merely turning these A-holes to the wolves. To the hateful posters attacking this woman, I'd call that the old, "live by the sword," reality, but I digress.

To be fair if people want to say this is a lame movie built on poorly recycled tropes I would agree; it wasn't that great. It's just that this poor lady right now seems to be getting more hate than Jar Jar. (we still need to make Lucas pay for ruining all those childhood dreams, only to sell the whole franchise to that charlatan Mickey. [That, Mr. Shatner, is how you destroy a franchise.])

Even so, she took a job and did as asked by appearing in this film. Does that justify all the vitriol she is getting..? Did she set out to destroy an overvalued franchise loves by some..? No. Did she paint some other group of people with a broad brush that I am unaware of..? (if so point that out, in general I could give two sh*ts for pop-culture in all forms.)

My over-arching concern is racist vitriol is making a big comeback these days, and that is F-ing disturbing!
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 8:02:36 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 7:45:25 PM, Hayd wrote:
I would obviously support free speech in this instance, but I haven't seen the guy's tweets so idk

https://www.theguardian.com...
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
DavidMancke
Posts: 74
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 8:04:54 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 7:45:25 PM, Hayd wrote:
I would obviously support free speech in this instance, but I haven't seen the guy's tweets so idk

Free speech, but not free market agency=contradiction in values. I'd reexamine at least how you've codified that position, if I were you.

To be clear, this is not a question of free speech at all, this is a question regarding licensed speech.

In any case, your first amendment rights are not carte blanche to say whatever, whenever. If a disgruntled ex-employee runs about Disneyland screaming, "Fire" that person will face legal consequences. Same goes for a public park. Try saying, "that guy's got a bomb," while you're in line at the airport. Let me know how far free speech gets you.

Also, while everyone is crying "free speech/my rights/'they tork his jorb' ", what about Twitters free speech? What about Twitter's right to say, "We won't do business with this turd."

Go Twitter. That guy was a careless, ill-informed over-grown skate park dropout and I will be only to glad too see him, effectively, silenced. Hopefully YouTube will follow suit.

But it's a free country. If he wants he can start his own social media outlet and screed all he wants, maybe even a few sympathetic klansmen will join his media cult. If David Duke has a few million to invest I bet he would be interested (oh wait, I hear Milo's gay, so maybe not)

go Twitter, right call!
MattTheDreamer
Posts: 1,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 8:18:28 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 7:48:54 PM, DavidMancke wrote:
At 7/20/2016 6:57:51 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
At 7/20/2016 6:23:31 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 7/20/2016 5:55:33 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
Maybe, but why only Milo and not all the others who've spoken hatefully and are not banned? Is it only because he had media attention.

Like who?

Example from the twitter of Leslie Jones
" @whitebecky1776 b1tch I want to tell you about your self but i'm gonna let everbody else do it i'm gonna retweet your hate!! Get her! "

The only thing I changed was the swear.

Whats your point in this example..? She is sticking up for herself, and merely turning these A-holes to the wolves. To the hateful posters attacking this woman, I'd call that the old, "live by the sword," reality, but I digress.

My point was that she is acting the exact way that twitter is claiming Milo is acting, yet she is actually inciting hatred. But of course, since she's apparently defending herself, it's just fine to send your followers to attack.

To be fair if people want to say this is a lame movie built on poorly recycled tropes I would agree; it wasn't that great. It's just that this poor lady right now seems to be getting more hate than Jar Jar. (we still need to make Lucas pay for ruining all those childhood dreams, only to sell the whole franchise to that charlatan Mickey. [That, Mr. Shatner, is how you destroy a franchise.])

I agree.
Even so, she took a job and did as asked by appearing in this film. Does that justify all the vitriol she is getting..? Did she set out to destroy an overvalued franchise loves by some..? No. Did she paint some other group of people with a broad brush that I am unaware of..? (if so point that out, in general I could give two sh*ts for pop-culture in all forms.)
Well she did play an amazing racist stereotype from what I saw of the film. Although I haven't seen it all so I can't really comment.

My over-arching concern is racist vitriol is making a big comeback these days, and that is F-ing disturbing!

Most of it is trolling to get a reaction. I doubt all of the racist hate was actually racist, just some 4chan idiots getting a laugh out of it.
DavidMancke
Posts: 74
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 8:29:06 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 8:18:28 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
At 7/20/2016 7:48:54 PM, DavidMancke wrote:
At 7/20/2016 6:57:51 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
At 7/20/2016 6:23:31 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 7/20/2016 5:55:33 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
Maybe, but why only Milo and not all the others who've spoken hatefully and are not banned? Is it only because he had media attention.

Like who?

Example from the twitter of Leslie Jones
" @whitebecky1776 b1tch I want to tell you about your self but i'm gonna let everbody else do it i'm gonna retweet your hate!! Get her! "

The only thing I changed was the swear.

Whats your point in this example..? She is sticking up for herself, and merely turning these A-holes to the wolves. To the hateful posters attacking this woman, I'd call that the old, "live by the sword," reality, but I digress.

My point was that she is acting the exact way that twitter is claiming Milo is acting, yet she is actually inciting hatred. But of course, since she's apparently defending herself, it's just fine to send your followers to attack.

To be fair if people want to say this is a lame movie built on poorly recycled tropes I would agree; it wasn't that great. It's just that this poor lady right now seems to be getting more hate than Jar Jar. (we still need to make Lucas pay for ruining all those childhood dreams, only to sell the whole franchise to that charlatan Mickey. [That, Mr. Shatner, is how you destroy a franchise.])

I agree.
Even so, she took a job and did as asked by appearing in this film. Does that justify all the vitriol she is getting..? Did she set out to destroy an overvalued franchise loves by some..? No. Did she paint some other group of people with a broad brush that I am unaware of..? (if so point that out, in general I could give two sh*ts for pop-culture in all forms.)
Well she did play an amazing racist stereotype from what I saw of the film. Although I haven't seen it all so I can't really comment.

My over-arching concern is racist vitriol is making a big comeback these days, and that is F-ing disturbing!

Most of it is trolling to get a reaction. I doubt all of the racist hate was actually racist, just some 4chan idiots getting a laugh out of it.

Well if she played an arch-typical racial stereotype then shame on the produces. Did Melissa McCarthy play the hot girl..? Is this question really about type casting..?

Moreover, 4chan or for President, racist vitriol is still on the rise and people of that persuasion have never been more comfortable broadcasting it that I have seen in my lifetime.

And really, Milo worked for Brietbart; to hell with the guy. My feces has more journalistic integrity than he has ever shown. This is a hack, would-be-journalist that cast his lot with the FoxNews crowd rather than engage in journalism. If people are truly duped by him cloaking that in, "freedom rants," then hell, go start a cult surrounding him, but don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

#F-Milo
MattTheDreamer
Posts: 1,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 8:35:08 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 8:25:56 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Martyrdom isn't so bad.

True. This can only make Milo more powerful ironically.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 8:45:55 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Milo is a racist, dangerous, vapid bigot with nothing useful to say discursively, apart from his existence as a gay conservative being in and of itself somewhat refreshing. Honestly, what began as genuine free speech advocacy has turned into vile hatred parading itself as genuine and then hiding behind the veil of "performance" when called out.

Also, as someone else pointed out, it seems that he's become the Gay Friend of many otherwise homophobic elements of the altright that they hide behind, actually calling people homophobic for not liking him.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DavidMancke
Posts: 74
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 10:35:48 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 8:45:55 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Milo is a racist, dangerous, vapid bigot with nothing useful to say discursively, apart from his existence as a gay conservative being in and of itself somewhat refreshing. Honestly, what began as genuine free speech advocacy has turned into vile hatred parading itself as genuine and then hiding behind the veil of "performance" when called out.

Also, as someone else pointed out, it seems that he's become the Gay Friend of many otherwise homophobic elements of the altright that they hide behind, actually calling people homophobic for not liking him.

Hosanna! Blessed be the Name of the Lord! Thank you poster! BTW, this is what calling it like it is actually looks like, for anyone out there extolling Trumpy Dumpy
DavidMancke
Posts: 74
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 10:41:07 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 8:18:28 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
At 7/20/2016 7:48:54 PM, DavidMancke wrote:
At 7/20/2016 6:57:51 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
At 7/20/2016 6:23:31 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 7/20/2016 5:55:33 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
Maybe, but why only Milo and not all the others who've spoken hatefully and are not banned? Is it only because he had media attention.

Like who?

Example from the twitter of Leslie Jones
" @whitebecky1776 b1tch I want to tell you about your self but i'm gonna let everbody else do it i'm gonna retweet your hate!! Get her! "

The only thing I changed was the swear.

Whats your point in this example..? She is sticking up for herself, and merely turning these A-holes to the wolves. To the hateful posters attacking this woman, I'd call that the old, "live by the sword," reality, but I digress.

My point was that she is acting the exact way that twitter is claiming Milo is acting, yet she is actually inciting hatred. But of course, since she's apparently defending herself, it's just fine to send your followers to attack.

To be fair if people want to say this is a lame movie built on poorly recycled tropes I would agree; it wasn't that great. It's just that this poor lady right now seems to be getting more hate than Jar Jar. (we still need to make Lucas pay for ruining all those childhood dreams, only to sell the whole franchise to that charlatan Mickey. [That, Mr. Shatner, is how you destroy a franchise.])

I agree.
Even so, she took a job and did as asked by appearing in this film. Does that justify all the vitriol she is getting..? Did she set out to destroy an overvalued franchise loves by some..? No. Did she paint some other group of people with a broad brush that I am unaware of..? (if so point that out, in general I could give two sh*ts for pop-culture in all forms.)
Well she did play an amazing racist stereotype from what I saw of the film. Although I haven't seen it all so I can't really comment.

My over-arching concern is racist vitriol is making a big comeback these days, and that is F-ing disturbing!

Most of it is trolling to get a reaction. I doubt all of the racist hate was actually racist, just some 4chan idiots getting a laugh out of it.

the bottom line is that these folks started attacking her, and I to would turn to my supporters to repudiate these attackers. BTW; did she come out the gate with violence, and does she have a history of inciting vitriol and hate via twitter, because Milo does have that history. Again, this is not the first time he has been linked to this trend and tried to hide from what he said.

Even Tony Blair had the gumption and dignity to admit some wrongs, but state plainly why he feels the world is better without Saddam.

Milo sells vitriol for column inches and re-posts, then has the audacity to obfuscate when his follows take his lead, even when the pattern is robustly established. That IS NOT journalistic integrity.

To quote the great Admiral Adama for Battlestar Galactica fame; ..you cannot wash you hands of what you have created."

Milo made his bed, and now; he must lie in it!
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 12:30:04 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
http://www.vox.com...

If he is tweeting fake tweets to implicate people saying something they didn't say then there is no reason to not support a ban.

People who make their livelihood on being an a hole will always find followers unfortunately.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 12:43:31 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
It's a load of crap. Whether this instance was justified or not (hint, it wasn't) on its own right played essentially no role in Twitter's decision.

If it did, they would've banned the Feminist Frequency acc months ago, or the journalists who essentially doxxed a kid for pretty inoffensive comments.

The idea that Twitter is doing this to stop harassment - as if they actually care - is almost as funny as the fact that people are credulous and ideological enough to buy into it.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 1:08:25 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 3:56:18 PM, MattTheDreamer wrote:
http://www.gspellchecker.com...

First of all, repeating the tired mantra that free speech doesn't apply to private property doesn't address the free speech argument, because free speech is more than just a legal principle. That legal principle rests on a general principle of society, which can apply to any mass media platform. Just because Twitter is not legally obligated to honor free speech doesn't mean that, as a marketplace of ideas, it ought not to.

Second of all, there is absolutely a double standard. 'Hate', on the left, has become code speech for 'disagreement which I deem immoral'. It's an empty, vapid phrase when discussing speech and censorship, and ought to be treated as such. To say that those who disagree with you are hateful, bigoted, or vitriolic even while they stress that they do not support violence is in itself profoundly bigoted in the original sense: that of tribalistic small-mindedness. It reveals something about the person who employs that rhetoric sincerely: that they see their chance of being wrong as so small that they are comfortable with branding disagreement as a sin worthy of moral indictment. It displays an arrogance which precludes any genuine erudition or capacity for civilized dialogue, and marks the person who resorts to it as someone who values fawning disagreement and sycophantry over open debate and challenges to their most deeply held beliefs. The fact that this sort of inelegant hauteur is so common nowadays depresses me.

I disagree with Milo on several points. I've commented on several Youtube videos defending Islam against sloppy attacks, and you know what I got as a result? A fair number of people who had never been exposed to a lot of the specifics on the subject, who came away from the conversation with a more nuanced understanding of what the nature of Islams problems are and how they can be resolved. This is how you win battles of the mind: one person at a time, through diligent reasoning and goodwill. This is how the religious right has been sidelined over decades of patient work. Unfortunately, the American Left has adopted many of the tactics and mannerisms of their erstwhile pious opposition, and their downfall will be similar.

Screaming bigot at someone isn't an argument, and won't convince sane people. Attempting to quash opposing speech privately, in a society in which free speech is guaranteed publicly, will just strip your ideas of legitimacy in the public eye. Engage with your opposition, or slowly fade into irrelevance.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -