Total Posts:82|Showing Posts:61-82|Last Page
Jump to topic:

#FreeMilo

Emmarie
Posts: 1,909
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 4:06:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/23/2016 3:48:35 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
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.

I hate to break it to you but if you go online and post racist sh1t it's because you're an actual racist.

There's no such thing as a person who's forward thinking and believes in equality that just jumps on twitter and goes, "let me just call this person a n1gger real quick"

Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals" tactics are being employed by both the right and the left, to cause the other side to seem completely unreasonable, and keep real individuals to keep for having any kind of meaningful dialog. Posters express extreme views to ignite angry reactions, and further divide individuals, so some "reasonable" leader will have an easier time re uniting factions under a one party rule.

If individuals would be able to see thru these tactics, they could unite themselves against an oppressive regime that desires to rule without opposition!
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,513
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 4:08:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/23/2016 2:58:26 PM, Fly wrote:
At 7/21/2016 1:08:25 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
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.

Your feelings concerning your analysis of human nature so often appear to flip flop between these two opposing sentiments, depending upon the issue being discussed:

"That is fundamental human nature-- we are tribal. Deal with it."
-or-
"These small-minded tribal tendencies that people exhibit depress/annoy the hell out of me..."

Small minded, tribal tendencies exhibited by people who rail against small-mindedness and tribalism annoy the hell out of me because hypocrisy, as far as I can see, is a universal irritant.

I personally strive to transcend human nature. But I think that it's unreasonable to expect everyone to do so, or to expect any one person to do so perfectly. If we were capable of that, then human nature wouldn't exist. We're all flawed, and transcendence of those flaws is never absolute. At one point that did depress me, but it doesn't anymore.
"Partout ou vous verrez un autel, la se trouve la civilisation."
- Joseph de Maistre -

"Woe that I live in bitter days,
As God is setting like a sun
And in his place, as lord and slave,
Man raises forth his heinous throne."
- Translation of 'Rhyfel', by Hedd Wyn -

Virtutem videant intabescantque relicta
Anonymous
7/23/2016 4:22:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/23/2016 4:08:51 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 7/23/2016 2:58:26 PM, Fly wrote:
At 7/21/2016 1:08:25 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
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.

Your feelings concerning your analysis of human nature so often appear to flip flop between these two opposing sentiments, depending upon the issue being discussed:

"That is fundamental human nature-- we are tribal. Deal with it."
-or-
"These small-minded tribal tendencies that people exhibit depress/annoy the hell out of me..."

Small minded, tribal tendencies exhibited by people who rail against small-mindedness and tribalism annoy the hell out of me because hypocrisy, as far as I can see, is a universal irritant.

I personally strive to transcend human nature. But I think that it's unreasonable to expect everyone to do so, or to expect any one person to do so perfectly. If we were capable of that, then human nature wouldn't exist. We're all flawed, and transcendence of those flaws is never absolute. At one point that did depress me, but it doesn't anymore.

Yes, but as value judgments, the two sentiments are opposed to each other. When expressed by the same individual, the contradiction is an apparent hypocrisy, especially when the contradicting sentiments are selectively expressed.

The jury seems to still be out on whether tribalism is good, bad, used to be good but now outmoded, part good, part bad, who/what decides which aspects are good or bad, etc.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,513
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 4:35:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/23/2016 4:22:18 PM, Fly wrote:
At 7/23/2016 4:08:51 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 7/23/2016 2:58:26 PM, Fly wrote:
Your feelings concerning your analysis of human nature so often appear to flip flop between these two opposing sentiments, depending upon the issue being discussed:

"That is fundamental human nature-- we are tribal. Deal with it."
-or-
"These small-minded tribal tendencies that people exhibit depress/annoy the hell out of me..."

Small minded, tribal tendencies exhibited by people who rail against small-mindedness and tribalism annoy the hell out of me because hypocrisy, as far as I can see, is a universal irritant.

I personally strive to transcend human nature. But I think that it's unreasonable to expect everyone to do so, or to expect any one person to do so perfectly. If we were capable of that, then human nature wouldn't exist. We're all flawed, and transcendence of those flaws is never absolute. At one point that did depress me, but it doesn't anymore.

Yes, but as value judgments, the two sentiments are opposed to each other. When expressed by the same individual, the contradiction is an apparent hypocrisy, especially when the contradicting sentiments are selectively expressed.

Hypocrisy is the putting forward of an insincere belief, not a contradiction. And my take on human nature invokes a sort of Romantic's paradox, sure. It's a complex subject, there are bound to be paradoxes.

I also don't really selectively express them. I loath hypocrisy on the right or left. It's why I go after revisionist Islamic history, laissez-faire fanaticism, and other sacred cows of current conservatism which just don't reconcile with purported values (anti-propaganda and impartiality in the first case, and religious and ethical considerations in the second.)

I like G. K. Chesterton's quip that progressives are determined to keep on making new mistakes, while conservatives are dead-set on defending the ones which we've already made.

The jury seems to still be out on whether tribalism is good, bad, used to be good but now outmoded, part good, part bad, who/what decides which aspects are good or bad, etc.

The jury is irrelevant. Tribalism exists. It isn't going away. So any vision of how society is to be structured needs to take that fact into consideration. Making a moral pronouncement on an incontrovertible fact of human brain function is absurd.
"Partout ou vous verrez un autel, la se trouve la civilisation."
- Joseph de Maistre -

"Woe that I live in bitter days,
As God is setting like a sun
And in his place, as lord and slave,
Man raises forth his heinous throne."
- Translation of 'Rhyfel', by Hedd Wyn -

Virtutem videant intabescantque relicta
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 12:53:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/23/2016 4:06:41 PM, Emmarie wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:48:35 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
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.

I hate to break it to you but if you go online and post racist sh1t it's because you're an actual racist.

There's no such thing as a person who's forward thinking and believes in equality that just jumps on twitter and goes, "let me just call this person a n1gger real quick"

Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals" tactics are being employed by both the right and the left, to cause the other side to seem completely unreasonable, and keep real individuals to keep for having any kind of meaningful dialog. Posters express extreme views to ignite angry reactions, and further divide individuals, so some "reasonable" leader will have an easier time re uniting factions under a one party rule.

If individuals would be able to see thru these tactics, they could unite themselves against an oppressive regime that desires to rule without opposition!

So you're saying it's most likely a liberal who calls me racial slurs in order to make conservatives look bad?
#BlackLivesMatter
Emmarie
Posts: 1,909
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 2:40:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2016 12:53:44 AM, Agent_Orange wrote:
At 7/23/2016 4:06:41 PM, Emmarie wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:48:35 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
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.

I hate to break it to you but if you go online and post racist sh1t it's because you're an actual racist.

There's no such thing as a person who's forward thinking and believes in equality that just jumps on twitter and goes, "let me just call this person a n1gger real quick"

Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals" tactics are being employed by both the right and the left, to cause the other side to seem completely unreasonable, and keep real individuals to keep for having any kind of meaningful dialog. Posters express extreme views to ignite angry reactions, and further divide individuals, so some "reasonable" leader will have an easier time re uniting factions under a one party rule.

If individuals would be able to see thru these tactics, they could unite themselves against an oppressive regime that desires to rule without opposition!

So you're saying it's most likely a liberal who calls me racial slurs in order to make conservatives look bad?
It is a possibility. Not to say that their aren't conservatives who spew hatred. What I'm saying is that it could be a liberal troll who poses as a conservative, and spews racial slurs, to make conservatives look worse than they are in MOST cases, or it could be a conservative troll, who spews racial slurs in order to embarrass many conservatives and cause them to disassociate themselves with admitting their political affiliation.

You'd have to understand Saul Alinsky's ideology in order to get a feel for how activists use his tactics to further divide people so someone can become "the answer" and unite reasonable people under one party. It's some really twisted shyt, and I refrain from mentioning it often because I don't wanna advertize their concepts. But I definitely think the tactics are being used to further divide people so we will be more open to a leader who seems to be able to make "peace."
bhakun
Posts: 231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 6:08:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Its the conservative dilemma:

1) A private business should be able to deny any customer service for any reason

or

2) #FreeMilo

You can only have one, folks.
"We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered." -MLK Jr
Beisht_Kione
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 9:13:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/23/2016 3:13:38 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/22/2016 11:05:02 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
I'm not certain what you are talking about. According to this he posted fake tweets that the actress never posted. That is not free speech unless one can prove it is parody. It this case his army thought the actress made those posts.

It appears then, that you have formed an opinion based on inaccurate information. I wonder if the reason for that has anything to do with your own bias against the man.

http://reason.com...

You would have to disprove the information in the article I provided is false rather than attached know me. I have never claimed it was vetted information thus why I use the terms such as "if" or "according to this".

So are you saying that if it was found that he knowing re-tweeted fake tweets to misrepresent this actress you would support the ban?

He never retweeted anything. He gave scathing review of Ghostbusters and his followers decided to let the people involved know how they felt. Some of those people said extremely inappropriate things, but hurt feelings aren't against the law. This sort of thing happens every time a classic is redone and flops. But Ghostbusters gets a pass because they are women? Because women can't handle criticism? Soft bigotry of low expectations.
someloser
Posts: 1,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 9:33:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2016 6:08:08 AM, bhakun wrote:
Its the conservative dilemma:
No, you're confused.

1) A private business should be able to deny any customer service for any reason

or

2) #FreeMilo

You can only have one, folks.
Nope. Being able to deny business for any reason is a legal matter.

A legal matter.

If one were to deny business to blacks, most people would condemn it on moral grounds.

Moral grounds.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 10:17:03 AM
Posted: 3 years 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.

Let me say I am a big fan of Amendment 1...even though watching some a$$ Hat improperly handle, display, dispose of, disrespect, or burn an American flag angers me...disrespect and burning gets me fuming to the point I want to smash their ungrateful faces off the cement.

This Milo character seems to be grasping onto this Amendment 1 -- Freedom of Speech argument. He does not seem to understand what is protected under this Amendment. Yes, hate speech is indeed protected...from legal recourse or other governmental interference. However, Amendment 1 does not protect speakers against private individuals or organizations.

As Twitter is a private organization, Freedom of Speech is not a legal or valid argument.
slo1
Posts: 5,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 12:40:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2016 9:13:25 AM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:13:38 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/22/2016 11:05:02 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
I'm not certain what you are talking about. According to this he posted fake tweets that the actress never posted. That is not free speech unless one can prove it is parody. It this case his army thought the actress made those posts.

It appears then, that you have formed an opinion based on inaccurate information. I wonder if the reason for that has anything to do with your own bias against the man.

http://reason.com...

You would have to disprove the information in the article I provided is false rather than attached know me. I have never claimed it was vetted information thus why I use the terms such as "if" or "according to this".

So are you saying that if it was found that he knowing re-tweeted fake tweets to misrepresent this actress you would support the ban?

He never retweeted anything. He gave scathing review of Ghostbusters and his followers decided to let the people involved know how they felt. Some of those people said extremely inappropriate things, but hurt feelings aren't against the law. This sort of thing happens every time a classic is redone and flops. But Ghostbusters gets a pass because they are women? Because women can't handle criticism? Soft bigotry of low expectations.

Otay buckwheat.
slo1
Posts: 5,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 4:12:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2016 9:13:25 AM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:13:38 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/22/2016 11:05:02 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
I'm not certain what you are talking about. According to this he posted fake tweets that the actress never posted. That is not free speech unless one can prove it is parody. It this case his army thought the actress made those posts.

It appears then, that you have formed an opinion based on inaccurate information. I wonder if the reason for that has anything to do with your own bias against the man.

http://reason.com...

You would have to disprove the information in the article I provided is false rather than attached know me. I have never claimed it was vetted information thus why I use the terms such as "if" or "according to this".

So are you saying that if it was found that he knowing re-tweeted fake tweets to misrepresent this actress you would support the ban?

He never retweeted anything. He gave scathing review of Ghostbusters and his followers decided to let the people involved know how they felt. Some of those people said extremely inappropriate things, but hurt feelings aren't against the law. This sort of thing happens every time a classic is redone and flops. But Ghostbusters gets a pass because they are women? Because women can't handle criticism? Soft bigotry of low expectations.

Stop being a sheeple and seek the truth. SMH

Here is another source.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

On Monday, Yiannopoulos started making fun of Jones, particularly her response to the racist abuse she was getting. "EVERYONE GETS HATE MAIL FFS," one tweet read. another called Jones "barely literate." Later, he shared faked screenshots that made it appear as if Jones were making profane and offensive postings.


Oh course keep following him without scrutinizing his integrity. That is how successful people get ahead in this world, being a sheeple.
Death23
Posts: 1,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 4:39:15 PM
Posted: 3 years 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.

I think it's not entirely clear what Twitter's reasoning was, and until such time as it is clear, along with all of the facts, it won't be possible to determine whether or not the ban was justified. What is clear is that Twitter is under no obligation to explain its decision.
DavidMancke
Posts: 75
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 2:30:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/23/2016 7:44:40 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 7/22/2016 9:11:28 PM, DavidMancke wrote:
At 7/22/2016 4:54:45 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 7/22/2016 3:31:51 PM, DavidMancke wrote:
Since Obama won in 2008 the right has been increasingly embracing racist sentiments. At a minimum they too have been living in a heuristic, insular world. Whats more though, is these folks make up there own facts (science denial, crime stats justify racism for examples) When you try to engage someone logically that is committed to magical thinking then it becomes near impossible to move the dialogue with reasoning.

The left did not force magical thinking and fictional facts down the throat of the right. But again, when someone thinks that matters of fact are matters of opinion, when they ignore evidence that disagrees as a rule; that's tough to reconcile.

The right are the recalcitrant students, and perhaps the left an ill-equipped teacher in a nightmare classroom; but these camps don't operate by the same rules, or even within the same reality.

I think your blame is sorely misplaced, and I think you would better serve your claimed cause by getting in the fight rather than detracting those on your side.

No, it's not. You just proved that. By assuming that the right are students and the left are teachers, you acting under the assumption that your worldview is 100% correct, at least compared to a certain set of people who disagree with you. That sort of evangelistic mentality is not reflective of genuine erudition or enlightenment, it is reflective of staggering arrogance and a pathological inability to learn. In any conversation, with any person, there are always things that both people can learn from one another, because all human knowledge is fallible. There are things that I know a lot about, but there is nothing which I know everything about, and even those things which I do 'know' I am aware that I could be mistaken on. The left used to embrace these values of epistemic humility and careful thinking, but it's becoming more and more rare to find anyone among the left who isn't almost comically supercilious.

I don't dismiss ideologues on the right or embrace them on the left. Not do I claim superiority or the poster of thought dictator to the right. However I do reject certain attitudes and notions unequivocally. Things like demonization of immigrants, ethno-nationalism and eugenics are great examples. My concern with the right is while we disagreed before, I'm seeing more of these intolerable ideas finding fresh air on the right.

Why are those ideas intolerable? More importantly, if young people who have never been exposed to these ideas see the supporters of them putting forward reasonable arguments while you simply refuse to engage, what conclusions will they draw? Yes, they're finding fresh air; you're giving it to them!

I thought I was pretty clear. The ideas I refer to are racist and/or xenophobic notions that imply unconscionable policies. I am not the mouth promoting these ideas, and I am not providing tacit approval.


Is your point that I'm wrong to view things that way, or that folks like me have done too little to persuade those recently drawn into the fringes of the right?

Both. I disagree with demonization and eugenics, though I support ethnonationalism in some situations. That's precisely why I engage eugenics supporters or people who demonize immigrants.

If you support ethno-nationalism, we very likely fundamentally disagree on a wide birth of issues.

See, my greater gripe with the right specifically has to do with recalcitrance to robustly established facts and the complexity of problems; and the rejection of complexity itself.

That's a human problem, not a problem with the right.

Its a strategy on the right, and the tendency a virtue in they eyes of some.

It becomes near impossible to have a dialogue or debate when my opponent rejects all convention of debate.

I can't negotiate with the French if someone in the room won't suffer so much as to hear the language. Now I'm open to compromise in a negotiation, and even on the language or idiom(s) of that negotiation. But yet again, if I am at a table with someone that refuses to compromise at all...

I've had plenty of reasonable conversations with people on the right.

Take the Iran deal for example, which the right condemns. But the terms acceptable to the right for a deal with Iran are no Iranian terms whatsoever. No deal can be reached and the world is less safe with that plan.

This is an example of the, "party of NO" pejorative that even Paul Ryan acknowledges. It's a form of categorical recalcitrance that is unique to the current right and epitomized by the fringes.

That's not true at all, and it's this sort of uncharitable interpretation of opposition that I'm talking about. Remember the rules of debate you mentioned earlier which the right supposedly does not abide by? The principle of charity is one of the biggest ones.

https://now.mmedia.me...

Yes, the same could be said for the, "Bernie Bros" and their ilk on the left. That Trump would try to market himself to those voters provides an example of illinformed ideologues on the left. And yes, the liberal news cycle pitches itself to that target shamelessly.

But FibRes is selling to racism. Trump is selling to ethno-nationalism. Clinton is selling to egalitarianism. And it's an important nuance, because it gets us closer to what makes this time round different, e tree attitudes and sentiments.

Having doled out some blame all around, lately the partisanship seems made worse by elements of the right that see recalcitrance as a virtue. In this situation the opportunity to be understood is hopeless.

Which elements? Is this the apocryphal horde of bigots, racists, and sexists who supposedly form the core of Trump's support? I haven't seen a single piece of convincing evidence from anyone on the left that this group exists aside from empty bluster from talking heads that then gets picked and repeated ad nauseum.

And what exactly are these people being recalcitrant against? Recalcitrance, in and of itself, is not a vice or a virtue, it's entirely situational.

And no, this is not the bulk of right leaning people, but it leaves a large base for right wing ideologues to appeal to, and remember what attitudes each candidate, journalist or blog is selling to, because those attitudes speak volumes to what we can expect if the agent in question has their own way.

And I will agree with you about the Chomsky analysis of our media, and that it drives demagogues from the left and right to direct our politics itself as well.

Given these realities, if I am to be accused of favoring leftists policy; fine. And if you take me to mean I find both the stated aims and methods of the popular right far worse than the deserved detractions toward the news, views and candidates of the left, you have understood me correctly.

That's due to a preponderance of the evidence and the frequent recurrent experience of those on the right' unwillingness to preponder said evidence, and often embracing ideas for sentiment along; exacerbated by the sudden rapid increase of attitudes that seem pretty

I see the same issues on the left, and in some topics on both. The left and right both have issues with looking at Islam, they both are ridiculous when it comes to free trade, and the left is at this point pretty notorious for sticking to their guns when it comes to infotainment-fueled 'facts' like a rape epidemic on college campuses. I think that you're just firmly on the left, and so are more blind to the biases which your side h
DavidMancke
Posts: 75
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 2:37:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/23/2016 7:44:40 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 7/22/2016 9:11:28 PM, DavidMancke wrote:
At 7/22/2016 4:54:45 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 7/22/2016 3:31:51 PM, DavidMancke wrote:
Since Obama won in 2008 the right has been increasingly embracing racist sentiments. At a minimum they too have been living in a heuristic, insular world. Whats more though, is these folks make up there own facts (science denial, crime stats justify racism for examples) When you try to engage someone logically that is committed to magical thinking then it becomes near impossible to move the dialogue with reasoning.

The left did not force magical thinking and fictional facts down the throat of the right. But again, when someone thinks that matters of fact are matters of opinion, when they ignore evidence that disagrees as a rule; that's tough to reconcile.

The right are the recalcitrant students, and perhaps the left an ill-equipped teacher in a nightmare classroom; but these camps don't operate by the same rules, or even within the same reality.

I think your blame is sorely misplaced, and I think you would better serve your claimed cause by getting in the fight rather than detracting those on your side.

No, it's not. You just proved that. By assuming that the right are students and the left are teachers, you acting under the assumption that your worldview is 100% correct, at least compared to a certain set of people who disagree with you. That sort of evangelistic mentality is not reflective of genuine erudition or enlightenment, it is reflective of staggering arrogance and a pathological inability to learn. In any conversation, with any person, there are always things that both people can learn from one another, because all human knowledge is fallible. There are things that I know a lot about, but there is nothing which I know everything about, and even those things which I do 'know' I am aware that I could be mistaken on. The left used to embrace these values of epistemic humility and careful thinking, but it's becoming more and more rare to find anyone among the left who isn't almost comically supercilious.

I don't dismiss ideologues on the right or embrace them on the left. Not do I claim superiority or the poster of thought dictator to the right. However I do reject certain attitudes and notions unequivocally. Things like demonization of immigrants, ethno-nationalism and eugenics are great examples. My concern with the right is while we disagreed before, I'm seeing more of these intolerable ideas finding fresh air on the right.

Why are those ideas intolerable? More importantly, if young people who have never been exposed to these ideas see the supporters of them putting forward reasonable arguments while you simply refuse to engage, what conclusions will they draw? Yes, they're finding fresh air; you're giving it to them!

Is your point that I'm wrong to view things that way, or that folks like me have done too little to persuade those recently drawn into the fringes of the right?

Both. I disagree with demonization and eugenics, though I support ethnonationalism in some situations. That's precisely why I engage eugenics supporters or people who demonize immigrants.

See, my greater gripe with the right specifically has to do with recalcitrance to robustly established facts and the complexity of problems; and the rejection of complexity itself.

That's a human problem, not a problem with the right.

It becomes near impossible to have a dialogue or debate when my opponent rejects all convention of debate.

I can't negotiate with the French if someone in the room won't suffer so much as to hear the language. Now I'm open to compromise in a negotiation, and even on the language or idiom(s) of that negotiation. But yet again, if I am at a table with someone that refuses to compromise at all...

I've had plenty of reasonable conversations with people on the right.

Take the Iran deal for example, which the right condemns. But the terms acceptable to the right for a deal with Iran are no Iranian terms whatsoever. No deal can be reached and the world is less safe with that plan.

This is an example of the, "party of NO" pejorative that even Paul Ryan acknowledges. It's a form of categorical recalcitrance that is unique to the current right and epitomized by the fringes.

That's not true at all, and it's this sort of uncharitable interpretation of opposition that I'm talking about. Remember the rules of debate you mentioned earlier which the right supposedly does not abide by? The principle of charity is one of the biggest ones.

https://now.mmedia.me...

This article sets a metric for a "better deal," that is not obtainable at present or in the foreseeable future. If you or the writer has a method for getting Iran to recognize Israel that doesn't involve a coup, I am listening. If recognizing Israel was a requirement for the deal we still would not have one. This ultimately buttresses the example.

Yes, the same could be said for the, "Bernie Bros" and their ilk on the left. That Trump would try to market himself to those voters provides an example of illinformed ideologues on the left. And yes, the liberal news cycle pitches itself to that target shamelessly.

But FibRes is selling to racism. Trump is selling to ethno-nationalism. Clinton is selling to egalitarianism. And it's an important nuance, because it gets us closer to what makes this time round different, e tree attitudes and sentiments.

Having doled out some blame all around, lately the partisanship seems made worse by elements of the right that see recalcitrance as a virtue. In this situation the opportunity to be understood is hopeless.

Which elements? Is this the apocryphal horde of bigots, racists, and sexists who supposedly form the core of Trump's support? I haven't seen a single piece of convincing evidence from anyone on the left that this group exists aside from empty bluster from talking heads that then gets picked and repeated ad nauseum.

And what exactly are these people being recalcitrant against? Recalcitrance, in and of itself, is not a vice or a virtue, it's entirely situational.

And no, this is not the bulk of right leaning people, but it leaves a large base for right wing ideologues to appeal to, and remember what attitudes each candidate, journalist or blog is selling to, because those attitudes speak volumes to what we can expect if the agent in question has their own way.

And I will agree with you about the Chomsky analysis of our media, and that it drives demagogues from the left and right to direct our politics itself as well.

Given these realities, if I am to be accused of favoring leftists policy; fine. And if you take me to mean I find both the stated aims and methods of the popular right far worse than the deserved detractions toward the news, views and candidates of the left, you have understood me correctly.

That's due to a preponderance of the evidence and the frequent recurrent experience of those on the right' unwillingness to preponder said evidence, and often embracing ideas for sentiment along; exacerbated by the sudden rapid increase of attitudes that seem pretty

I see the same issues on the left, and in some topics on both. The left and right both have issues with looking at Islam, they both are ridiculous when it comes to free trade, and the left is at this point pretty notorious for sticking to their guns when it comes to infotainment-fueled 'facts' like a rape epidemic on college campuses. I think that you're just firmly on the left, and so are more blind to the biases which your side holds, while you see the opposition in sta
DavidMancke
Posts: 75
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 2:44:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/23/2016 7:44:40 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 7/22/2016 9:11:28 PM, DavidMancke wrote:
At 7/22/2016 4:54:45 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 7/22/2016 3:31:51 PM, DavidMancke wrote:
Since Obama won in 2008 the right has been increasingly embracing racist sentiments. At a minimum they too have been living in a heuristic, insular world. Whats more though, is these folks make up there own facts (science denial, crime stats justify racism for examples) When you try to engage someone logically that is committed to magical thinking then it becomes near impossible to move the dialogue with reasoning.

The left did not force magical thinking and fictional facts down the throat of the right. But again, when someone thinks that matters of fact are matters of opinion, when they ignore evidence that disagrees as a rule; that's tough to reconcile.

The right are the recalcitrant students, and perhaps the left an ill-equipped teacher in a nightmare classroom; but these camps don't operate by the same rules, or even within the same reality.

I think your blame is sorely misplaced, and I think you would better serve your claimed cause by getting in the fight rather than detracting those on your side.

No, it's not. You just proved that. By assuming that the right are students and the left are teachers, you acting under the assumption that your worldview is 100% correct, at least compared to a certain set of people who disagree with you. That sort of evangelistic mentality is not reflective of genuine erudition or enlightenment, it is reflective of staggering arrogance and a pathological inability to learn. In any conversation, with any person, there are always things that both people can learn from one another, because all human knowledge is fallible. There are things that I know a lot about, but there is nothing which I know everything about, and even those things which I do 'know' I am aware that I could be mistaken on. The left used to embrace these values of epistemic humility and careful thinking, but it's becoming more and more rare to find anyone among the left who isn't almost comically supercilious.

I don't dismiss ideologues on the right or embrace them on the left. Not do I claim superiority or the poster of thought dictator to the right. However I do reject certain attitudes and notions unequivocally. Things like demonization of immigrants, ethno-nationalism and eugenics are great examples. My concern with the right is while we disagreed before, I'm seeing more of these intolerable ideas finding fresh air on the right.

Why are those ideas intolerable? More importantly, if young people who have never been exposed to these ideas see the supporters of them putting forward reasonable arguments while you simply refuse to engage, what conclusions will they draw? Yes, they're finding fresh air; you're giving it to them!

Is your point that I'm wrong to view things that way, or that folks like me have done too little to persuade those recently drawn into the fringes of the right?

Both. I disagree with demonization and eugenics, though I support ethnonationalism in some situations. That's precisely why I engage eugenics supporters or people who demonize immigrants.

See, my greater gripe with the right specifically has to do with recalcitrance to robustly established facts and the complexity of problems; and the rejection of complexity itself.

That's a human problem, not a problem with the right.

It becomes near impossible to have a dialogue or debate when my opponent rejects all convention of debate.

I can't negotiate with the French if someone in the room won't suffer so much as to hear the language. Now I'm open to compromise in a negotiation, and even on the language or idiom(s) of that negotiation. But yet again, if I am at a table with someone that refuses to compromise at all...

I've had plenty of reasonable conversations with people on the right.

So have I, just this weekend. But my friend doesn't enhance his career by spreading xenophobia and hate speech. He is also willing to compromise, not promoting the idea that compromise with the left is tantamount to defeat at the hands of communists.

There are plenty of reasonable folks on the right, that don't direct right wing politics. Those who do leave allot to be desired.

Take the Iran deal for example, which the right condemns. But the terms acceptable to the right for a deal with Iran are no Iranian terms whatsoever. No deal can be reached and the world is less safe with that plan.

This is an example of the, "party of NO" pejorative that even Paul Ryan acknowledges. It's a form of categorical recalcitrance that is unique to the current right and epitomized by the fringes.

That's not true at all, and it's this sort of uncharitable interpretation of opposition that I'm talking about. Remember the rules of debate you mentioned earlier which the right supposedly does not abide by? The principle of charity is one of the biggest ones.

https://now.mmedia.me...

Yes, the same could be said for the, "Bernie Bros" and their ilk on the left. That Trump would try to market himself to those voters provides an example of illinformed ideologues on the left. And yes, the liberal news cycle pitches itself to that target shamelessly.

But FibRes is selling to racism. Trump is selling to ethno-nationalism. Clinton is selling to egalitarianism. And it's an important nuance, because it gets us closer to what makes this time round different, e tree attitudes and sentiments.

Having doled out some blame all around, lately the partisanship seems made worse by elements of the right that see recalcitrance as a virtue. In this situation the opportunity to be understood is hopeless.

Which elements? Is this the apocryphal horde of bigots, racists, and sexists who supposedly form the core of Trump's support? I haven't seen a single piece of convincing evidence from anyone on the left that this group exists aside from empty bluster from talking heads that then gets picked and repeated ad nauseum.

And what exactly are these people being recalcitrant against? Recalcitrance, in and of itself, is not a vice or a virtue, it's entirely situational.

And no, this is not the bulk of right leaning people, but it leaves a large base for right wing ideologues to appeal to, and remember what attitudes each candidate, journalist or blog is selling to, because those attitudes speak volumes to what we can expect if the agent in question has their own way.

And I will agree with you about the Chomsky analysis of our media, and that it drives demagogues from the left and right to direct our politics itself as well.

Given these realities, if I am to be accused of favoring leftists policy; fine. And if you take me to mean I find both the stated aims and methods of the popular right far worse than the deserved detractions toward the news, views and candidates of the left, you have understood me correctly.

That's due to a preponderance of the evidence and the frequent recurrent experience of those on the right' unwillingness to preponder said evidence, and often embracing ideas for sentiment along; exacerbated by the sudden rapid increase of attitudes that seem pretty

I see the same issues on the left, and in some topics on both. The left and right both have issues with looking at Islam, they both are ridiculous when it comes to free trade, and the left is at this point pretty notorious for sticking to their guns when it comes to infotainment-fueled 'facts' like a rape epidemic on college campuses. I think that you're just firmly on the left, and so are more blind to the biases which your side holds,
Beisht_Kione
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 6:52:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2016 4:12:03 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/24/2016 9:13:25 AM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:13:38 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/22/2016 11:05:02 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
I'm not certain what you are talking about. According to this he posted fake tweets that the actress never posted. That is not free speech unless one can prove it is parody. It this case his army thought the actress made those posts.

It appears then, that you have formed an opinion based on inaccurate information. I wonder if the reason for that has anything to do with your own bias against the man.

http://reason.com...

You would have to disprove the information in the article I provided is false rather than attached know me. I have never claimed it was vetted information thus why I use the terms such as "if" or "according to this".

So are you saying that if it was found that he knowing re-tweeted fake tweets to misrepresent this actress you would support the ban?

He never retweeted anything. He gave scathing review of Ghostbusters and his followers decided to let the people involved know how they felt. Some of those people said extremely inappropriate things, but hurt feelings aren't against the law. This sort of thing happens every time a classic is redone and flops. But Ghostbusters gets a pass because they are women? Because women can't handle criticism? Soft bigotry of low expectations.

Stop being a sheeple and seek the truth. SMH

Here is another source.


https://www.washingtonpost.com...

On Monday, Yiannopoulos started making fun of Jones, particularly her response to the racist abuse she was getting. "EVERYONE GETS HATE MAIL FFS," one tweet read. another called Jones "barely literate." Later, he shared faked screenshots that made it appear as if Jones were making profane and offensive postings.


Oh course keep following him without scrutinizing his integrity. That is how successful people get ahead in this world, being a sheeple.

Sheeple? That's new. I've never been called a sheeple by a PC type. Not really sure how I'm suppose to feel, but my first reaction is probably to laugh.

So, your position is that if someone shares what turns out to be a doctored screenshot, they should be banned from a forum?
Why is that?
Also, what is wrong with saying that everyone receives hate?
That is a true statement. I'm not even in the public eye and I have received plenty of personal attacks, racist attacks, sexist attacks as well as rape and death threats. I'm not out there reporting users and no one is storming in to protect my honor. Why does she get this special treatment?
What this boils down to, is you are pro PC culture and he isn't, so you are trying to jump through your a$$ to come up with a valid reason for one of your enemies to banned from a platform, but you are failing to do so.
Milo isn't being treated fairly. He is getting treated differently than other users have.
Explain why calls to kill cops by BLM, tags like #killallmen, etc are allowed to exist and those you spread that hate, allowed to remain on the platform, but Milo isn't.
Get your mental gymnastics onesie on.
slo1
Posts: 5,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 7:14:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2016 6:52:42 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
At 7/24/2016 4:12:03 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/24/2016 9:13:25 AM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:13:38 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/22/2016 11:05:02 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
I'm not certain what you are talking about. According to this he posted fake tweets that the actress never posted. That is not free speech unless one can prove it is parody. It this case his army thought the actress made those posts.

It appears then, that you have formed an opinion based on inaccurate information. I wonder if the reason for that has anything to do with your own bias against the man.

http://reason.com...

You would have to disprove the information in the article I provided is false rather than attached know me. I have never claimed it was vetted information thus why I use the terms such as "if" or "according to this".

So are you saying that if it was found that he knowing re-tweeted fake tweets to misrepresent this actress you would support the ban?

He never retweeted anything. He gave scathing review of Ghostbusters and his followers decided to let the people involved know how they felt. Some of those people said extremely inappropriate things, but hurt feelings aren't against the law. This sort of thing happens every time a classic is redone and flops. But Ghostbusters gets a pass because they are women? Because women can't handle criticism? Soft bigotry of low expectations.

Stop being a sheeple and seek the truth. SMH

Here is another source.


https://www.washingtonpost.com...

On Monday, Yiannopoulos started making fun of Jones, particularly her response to the racist abuse she was getting. "EVERYONE GETS HATE MAIL FFS," one tweet read. another called Jones "barely literate." Later, he shared faked screenshots that made it appear as if Jones were making profane and offensive postings.


Oh course keep following him without scrutinizing his integrity. That is how successful people get ahead in this world, being a sheeple.

Sheeple? That's new. I've never been called a sheeple by a PC type. Not really sure how I'm suppose to feel, but my first reaction is probably to laugh.

Why? You drink the Kool aid of the anti PC crowd. When Ben Carson starts off this RNC speech to warn everyone that he is not PC, it tells me that he and others don't have a clue what they are fighting. I mean really? When the f has he not been PC?

So, your position is that if someone shares what turns out to be a doctored screenshot, they should be banned from a forum?
Why is that?

It isn't a "doctored" screen shot. It is a fabricated screen shot designed to impersonate a person. If you don't understand why identity theft or assuming another's identity is wrong then I can't help you understand.

Again let's be clear here. It was not a parody as the repost was intentionally to deceive other Twitterers or twits if you prefer, that it was actual written word of that actress.

Also, what is wrong with saying that everyone receives hate?

You can say what ever you want to. Idk.

That is a true statement. I'm not even in the public eye and I have received plenty of personal attacks, racist attacks, sexist attacks as well as rape and death threats. I'm not out there reporting users and no one is storming in to protect my honor. Why does she get this special treatment?

How do you know she is getting special treatment if you have never reported it. Have you had someone assume your identity and post something you would never say on your behalf?

What this boils down to, is you are pro PC culture and he isn't, so you are trying to jump through your a$$ to come up with a valid reason for one of your enemies to banned from a platform, but you are failing to do so.

Im not PC enough to not call you a retard sheeple.

Milo isn't being treated fairly. He is getting treated differently than other users have.

Life is not fair. Deal with it.
Explain why calls to kill cops by BLM, tags like #killallmen, etc are allowed to exist and those you spread that hate, allowed to remain on the platform, but Milo isn't.
Get your mental gymnastics onesie on.

Otay.
Beisht_Kione
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 7:46:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2016 7:14:24 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/25/2016 6:52:42 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
At 7/24/2016 4:12:03 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/24/2016 9:13:25 AM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:13:38 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/22/2016 11:05:02 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
I'm not certain what you are talking about. According to this he posted fake tweets that the actress never posted. That is not free speech unless one can prove it is parody. It this case his army thought the actress made those posts.

It appears then, that you have formed an opinion based on inaccurate information. I wonder if the reason for that has anything to do with your own bias against the man.

http://reason.com...

You would have to disprove the information in the article I provided is false rather than attached know me. I have never claimed it was vetted information thus why I use the terms such as "if" or "according to this".

So are you saying that if it was found that he knowing re-tweeted fake tweets to misrepresent this actress you would support the ban?

He never retweeted anything. He gave scathing review of Ghostbusters and his followers decided to let the people involved know how they felt. Some of those people said extremely inappropriate things, but hurt feelings aren't against the law. This sort of thing happens every time a classic is redone and flops. But Ghostbusters gets a pass because they are women? Because women can't handle criticism? Soft bigotry of low expectations.

Stop being a sheeple and seek the truth. SMH

Here is another source.


https://www.washingtonpost.com...

On Monday, Yiannopoulos started making fun of Jones, particularly her response to the racist abuse she was getting. "EVERYONE GETS HATE MAIL FFS," one tweet read. another called Jones "barely literate." Later, he shared faked screenshots that made it appear as if Jones were making profane and offensive postings.


Oh course keep following him without scrutinizing his integrity. That is how successful people get ahead in this world, being a sheeple.

Sheeple? That's new. I've never been called a sheeple by a PC type. Not really sure how I'm suppose to feel, but my first reaction is probably to laugh.

Why? You drink the Kool aid of the anti PC crowd. When Ben Carson starts off this RNC speech to warn everyone that he is not PC, it tells me that he and others don't have a clue what they are fighting. I mean really? When the f has he not been PC?

What does this have to do with anything?
Why are you pro PC culture exactly?
So, your position is that if someone shares what turns out to be a doctored screenshot, they should be banned from a forum?
Why is that?

It isn't a "doctored" screen shot. It is a fabricated screen shot designed to impersonate a person. If you don't understand why identity theft or assuming another's identity is wrong then I can't help you understand.

Again let's be clear here. It was not a parody as the repost was intentionally to deceive other Twitterers or twits if you prefer, that it was actual written word of that actress.

Should anyone who shares a false quote from any individual be banned?

Also, what is wrong with saying that everyone receives hate?

You can say what ever you want to. Idk.

That is a true statement. I'm not even in the public eye and I have received plenty of personal attacks, racist attacks, sexist attacks as well as rape and death threats. I'm not out there reporting users and no one is storming in to protect my honor. Why does she get this special treatment?

How do you know she is getting special treatment if you have never reported it. Have you had someone assume your identity and post something you would never say on your behalf?

What this boils down to, is you are pro PC culture and he isn't, so you are trying to jump through your a$$ to come up with a valid reason for one of your enemies to banned from a platform, but you are failing to do so.

I'm not trying to amass victim cred, so doing so isn't really my thing.

Im not PC enough to not call you a retard sheeple.

Oh, you showed me. Keep those immature ad homs coming.

Milo isn't being treated fairly. He is getting treated differently than other users have.

Life is not fair. Deal with it.
Explain why calls to kill cops by BLM, tags like #killallmen, etc are allowed to exist and those you spread that hate, allowed to remain on the platform, but Milo isn't.
Get your mental gymnastics onesie on.

Otay.
I don't understand the point of this reference. Sounds like yet another pathetic ad hom so that you don't have to defend your position.
You are on a website dedicated to debate. Treat is a such.
slo1
Posts: 5,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 10:33:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2016 7:46:46 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:14:24 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/25/2016 6:52:42 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
At 7/24/2016 4:12:03 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/24/2016 9:13:25 AM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:13:38 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/22/2016 11:05:02 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
I'm not certain what you are talking about. According to this he posted fake tweets that the actress never posted. That is not free speech unless one can prove it is parody. It this case his army thought the actress made those posts.

It appears then, that you have formed an opinion based on inaccurate information. I wonder if the reason for that has anything to do with your own bias against the man.

http://reason.com...

You would have to disprove the information in the article I provided is false rather than attached know me. I have never claimed it was vetted information thus why I use the terms such as "if" or "according to this".

So are you saying that if it was found that he knowing re-tweeted fake tweets to misrepresent this actress you would support the ban?

He never retweeted anything. He gave scathing review of Ghostbusters and his followers decided to let the people involved know how they felt. Some of those people said extremely inappropriate things, but hurt feelings aren't against the law. This sort of thing happens every time a classic is redone and flops. But Ghostbusters gets a pass because they are women? Because women can't handle criticism? Soft bigotry of low expectations.

Stop being a sheeple and seek the truth. SMH

Here is another source.


https://www.washingtonpost.com...

On Monday, Yiannopoulos started making fun of Jones, particularly her response to the racist abuse she was getting. "EVERYONE GETS HATE MAIL FFS," one tweet read. another called Jones "barely literate." Later, he shared faked screenshots that made it appear as if Jones were making profane and offensive postings.


Oh course keep following him without scrutinizing his integrity. That is how successful people get ahead in this world, being a sheeple.

Sheeple? That's new. I've never been called a sheeple by a PC type. Not really sure how I'm suppose to feel, but my first reaction is probably to laugh.

Why? You drink the Kool aid of the anti PC crowd. When Ben Carson starts off this RNC speech to warn everyone that he is not PC, it tells me that he and others don't have a clue what they are fighting. I mean really? When the f has he not been PC?

What does this have to do with anything?
Why are you pro PC culture exactly?
So, your position is that if someone shares what turns out to be a doctored screenshot, they should be banned from a forum?
Why is that?

It isn't a "doctored" screen shot. It is a fabricated screen shot designed to impersonate a person. If you don't understand why identity theft or assuming another's identity is wrong then I can't help you understand.

Again let's be clear here. It was not a parody as the repost was intentionally to deceive other Twitterers or twits if you prefer, that it was actual written word of that actress.

Should anyone who shares a false quote from any individual be banned?

Also, what is wrong with saying that everyone receives hate?

You can say what ever you want to. Idk.

That is a true statement. I'm not even in the public eye and I have received plenty of personal attacks, racist attacks, sexist attacks as well as rape and death threats. I'm not out there reporting users and no one is storming in to protect my honor. Why does she get this special treatment?

How do you know she is getting special treatment if you have never reported it. Have you had someone assume your identity and post something you would never say on your behalf?

What this boils down to, is you are pro PC culture and he isn't, so you are trying to jump through your a$$ to come up with a valid reason for one of your enemies to banned from a platform, but you are failing to do so.

I'm not trying to amass victim cred, so doing so isn't really my thing.

Im not PC enough to not call you a retard sheeple.

Oh, you showed me. Keep those immature ad homs coming.

What's wrong? You suddenly believe Political Correctness? Lol

Milo isn't being treated fairly. He is getting treated differently than other users have.

Life is not fair. Deal with it.
Explain why calls to kill cops by BLM, tags like #killallmen, etc are allowed to exist and those you spread that hate, allowed to remain on the platform, but Milo isn't.
Get your mental gymnastics onesie on.

Otay.
I don't understand the point of this reference. Sounds like yet another pathetic ad hom so that you don't have to defend your position.
You are on a website dedicated to debate. Treat is a such.
Beisht_Kione
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 1:59:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2016 10:33:50 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:46:46 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
At 7/25/2016 7:14:24 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/25/2016 6:52:42 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
At 7/24/2016 4:12:03 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/24/2016 9:13:25 AM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:13:38 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/22/2016 11:05:02 PM, Beisht_Kione wrote:
I'm not certain what you are talking about. According to this he posted fake tweets that the actress never posted. That is not free speech unless one can prove it is parody. It this case his army thought the actress made those posts.

It appears then, that you have formed an opinion based on inaccurate information. I wonder if the reason for that has anything to do with your own bias against the man.

http://reason.com...

You would have to disprove the information in the article I provided is false rather than attached know me. I have never claimed it was vetted information thus why I use the terms such as "if" or "according to this".

So are you saying that if it was found that he knowing re-tweeted fake tweets to misrepresent this actress you would support the ban?

He never retweeted anything. He gave scathing review of Ghostbusters and his followers decided to let the people involved know how they felt. Some of those people said extremely inappropriate things, but hurt feelings aren't against the law. This sort of thing happens every time a classic is redone and flops. But Ghostbusters gets a pass because they are women? Because women can't handle criticism? Soft bigotry of low expectations.

Stop being a sheeple and seek the truth. SMH

Here is another source.


https://www.washingtonpost.com...

On Monday, Yiannopoulos started making fun of Jones, particularly her response to the racist abuse she was getting. "EVERYONE GETS HATE MAIL FFS," one tweet read. another called Jones "barely literate." Later, he shared faked screenshots that made it appear as if Jones were making profane and offensive postings.


Oh course keep following him without scrutinizing his integrity. That is how successful people get ahead in this world, being a sheeple.

Sheeple? That's new. I've never been called a sheeple by a PC type. Not really sure how I'm suppose to feel, but my first reaction is probably to laugh.

Why? You drink the Kool aid of the anti PC crowd. When Ben Carson starts off this RNC speech to warn everyone that he is not PC, it tells me that he and others don't have a clue what they are fighting. I mean really? When the f has he not been PC?

What does this have to do with anything?
Why are you pro PC culture exactly?
So, your position is that if someone shares what turns out to be a doctored screenshot, they should be banned from a forum?
Why is that?

It isn't a "doctored" screen shot. It is a fabricated screen shot designed to impersonate a person. If you don't understand why identity theft or assuming another's identity is wrong then I can't help you understand.

Again let's be clear here. It was not a parody as the repost was intentionally to deceive other Twitterers or twits if you prefer, that it was actual written word of that actress.

Should anyone who shares a false quote from any individual be banned?

Also, what is wrong with saying that everyone receives hate?

You can say what ever you want to. Idk.

That is a true statement. I'm not even in the public eye and I have received plenty of personal attacks, racist attacks, sexist attacks as well as rape and death threats. I'm not out there reporting users and no one is storming in to protect my honor. Why does she get this special treatment?

How do you know she is getting special treatment if you have never reported it. Have you had someone assume your identity and post something you would never say on your behalf?

What this boils down to, is you are pro PC culture and he isn't, so you are trying to jump through your a$$ to come up with a valid reason for one of your enemies to banned from a platform, but you are failing to do so.

I'm not trying to amass victim cred, so doing so isn't really my thing.

Im not PC enough to not call you a retard sheeple.

Oh, you showed me. Keep those immature ad homs coming.

What's wrong? You suddenly believe Political Correctness? Lol


Milo isn't being treated fairly. He is getting treated differently than other users have.

Life is not fair. Deal with it.
Explain why calls to kill cops by BLM, tags like #killallmen, etc are allowed to exist and those you spread that hate, allowed to remain on the platform, but Milo isn't.
Get your mental gymnastics onesie on.

Otay.
I don't understand the point of this reference. Sounds like yet another pathetic ad hom so that you don't have to defend your position.
You are on a website dedicated to debate. Treat is a such.

Calling out ad hominums has nothing to do with PC culture and everything to do with the fact that you are simply name calling. You aren't arguing against my point at all.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
MattTheDreamer
Posts: 1,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 9:42:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's happened again. Another conservative twitter user has been banned for shady reasons. This time it was Ricky Vaughn.

http://www.morningnewsusa.com...

For those who don't know him, he was a proud Trump supporter and self described "Right-Wing Nativist". He was also a member of the Alt-Right. Twitter hasn't released any reasoning for this ban, and the tweets posted before his ban seems to not be inciting hatred or racially harassing someone, but simply posting about ballots. [1]

This to me is a much more clear cut example of censorship than Milo. I won't make a firm conclusion about this, however, until all the info comes in. But, knowing Twitters usual handling of these cases, I doubt the evidence will be released.

A new hashtag has started as result. #FreeRicky.
Twitter is going on a rollercoaster . It's stock has taken a nosedive again, and the future seems unclear. The question of everyone's mind is "Does Twitter hate conservatives?"

[1] - https://pbs.twimg.com...

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.