Twitter permanently suspends Milo Yiannopoulos over row with 'Ghostbusters' actress

That poor woman.

super_furry

Candie wrote: »

I've a mental list of words that tend to prompt me to categorize the user in an unflattering way.

Cuck
SJW
Outrage
Feminazi
PC Brigade
Leftard

.... and now Milo.

Don't forget Cultural Marxism or The Red Pill.

Its dead Jim

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I wonder how many of Milo's defenders have actually read Twitter's rules.

The only rules they need are the good old constitution of the US of A. Only know the first two amendments but that's more than enough. I can say what I want and threaten anyone who disagrees.

RDM_83 again

Cienciano wrote: »

Is the same type of people that post on the old reddit fatpeoplehate and now thedonald. Brigading is their thing, if anyone dares speak out about them, they gang up on them to make their life a misery. A few subreddits were closed down which were full of these people and they all went to voat. Milo and Trump central there now.

And you don't think there is exactly the same behavior from the other side? the ultra liberal SRS were famous for brigading long before the_donald appeared and fatpeoplehate was banned, this was good "brigading" though :rolleyes:

You don't think "concerned poster" groups exit on Boards, Candie, PopePalentine, RayM etc are you saying you have never received a PM to check out a certain thread, I'm 99% certain you will have, thats a mild form brigading right there.

Elliott S wrote: »

Some of his fanboys are very evidently posting here too.

Bit witchhunty there aren't you :cool:

20Cent wrote: »

Twitter decided his presence was no longer welcome. A lot of people mixing up freedom of speech and terms and conditions for a private company.
They can do what they like the marketplace at work.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I wonder how many of Milo's defenders have actually read Twitter's rules.

People keep saying that - its a company - free speech doesn't exist etc etc etc its not that simple, Twitter is a public facing company or service.

Ironically the conservative right and the liberal left have basically flipped their normal positions because of the person involved
.
Companies do not have a right to discriminate, thats something the left is very in favour off, but they seem to be ignoring it here, they have to at least say that Milo actually broke the (delibrately vague) TOC, does he have a case of discrimination if he has the rules applied to him in a way others don't.

If you defend Twitters banning of Milo* as the legitimate actions of a private company doesn't that make you utter hypocrites when you support court cases about 'gay cakes' and christian B n B's etc.
Private companies aren't allowed to discriminate according to you all right

* Because at the minute, what he has actually done rather than what people think he has done or his supporters have done is seems to be commonplace tolerated behavior on twitter

Harika

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Companies do not have a right to discriminate, thats something the left is very in favour off, but they seem to be ignoring it here, they have to at least say that Milo actually broke the (delibrately vague) TOC, does he have a case of discrimination if he has the rules applied to him in a way others don't.

If you defend Twitters banning of Milo* as the legitimate actions of a private company doesn't that make you utter hypocrites when you support court cases about 'gay cakes' and christian B n B's etc.
Private companies aren't allowed to discriminate according to you all right

* Because at the minute, what he has actually done rather than what people think he has done or his supporters have done is seems to be commonplace tolerated behavior on twitter

There is a big difference between your examples, someone doesn't decide to be gay, while you can deliberately choose to be an asshole.

RDM_83 again

Harika wrote: »

There is a big difference between your examples, someone doesn't decide to be gay, while you can deliberately choose to be an asshole.

Snarky and good for the thanks but meaningless, for it too be discrimination he doesn't have to show that he's not an asshole, it just has to be shown that this significant amount of people are assholes and aren't banned.

If I owned a pub and I had a sign that said neat dress essential, I let white people in wearing jeans and runners but I would kick out any black people unless they're wearing a three piece suite, thats discrimination (the idea of applying a higher standard of the rules to one group)

Venom

RDM_83 again wrote: »

And you don't think there is exactly the same behavior from the other side? the ultra liberal SRS were famous for brigading long before the_donald appeared and fatpeoplehate was banned, this was good "brigading" though :rolleyes:

You don't think "concerned poster" groups exit on Boards, Candie, PopePalentine, RayM etc are you saying you have never received a PM to check out a certain thread, I'm 99% certain you will have, thats a mild form brigading right there.



Bit witchhunty there aren't you :cool:





People keep saying that - its a company - free speech doesn't exist etc etc etc its not that simple, Twitter is a public facing company or service.

Ironically the conservative right and the liberal left have basically flipped their normal positions because of the person involved
.
Companies do not have a right to discriminate, thats something the left is very in favour off, but they seem to be ignoring it here, they have to at least say that Milo actually broke the (delibrately vague) TOC, does he have a case of discrimination if he has the rules applied to him in a way others don't.

If you defend Twitters banning of Milo* as the legitimate actions of a private company doesn't that make you utter hypocrites when you support court cases about 'gay cakes' and christian B n B's etc.
Private companies aren't allowed to discriminate according to you all right

* Because at the minute, what he has actually done rather than what people think he has done or his supporters have done is seems to be commonplace tolerated behavior on twitter

To me I see Milo jumping into a bad situation to gain some notoriety/exposure/attention just like lots of other do and its a dickish move on his part to say the least but the reasons Twitter gave for banning his account is utter BS.

If Twitter is going to ban him for being an asshole, they should ban others like the Kardashians and Kanye West and other celebs like them who spout of even worse crap on an almost daily basis.

Lesie Jones got some seriously nasty **** tweeted at her and the scumbags doing it should be banned at the very least but lets be honest here, she has posted racist **** herself in the past and very recently egged her followers to harass another users and going by Twitters guidelines should of had her account banned long before Milo's.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/20/double-standards-leslie-jones-racist-twitter-history/

Outlaw Pete

Turquoise Hexagon Sun wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV8PmshJBm4

Some excellent points made in that. Particularly when retorting the nonsense about Twitter being a private company and so they can do what they like. Why anyone would think that is a sufficient argument is beyond me. Pointing out what other hateful shite is seemingly allowed, including hateful crap directed at him, sums it all up. Sure Azealia Banks tweeted about how she felt Sarah Palin should have her head shaved an be raped by a train of n****** and she got to keep her account. She was removed months later for more racist postings but it shouldn't have taken anything more.

Particularly like how he pointed out that is in fact Leslie who is guilty of the very think Milo as been accused of: Orchestrating the targeting of other twitter users.

https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/755218642674020352

dav3

Are people still crying over this no-mark being banned on twitter?

Don't worry lads, I'm sure there are still plenty of right wing extremists out there for you to circle jerk each other over.

Maguined

dav3 wrote: »

Are people still crying over this no-mark being banned on twitter?

Don't worry lads, I'm sure there are still plenty of right wing extremists out there for you to circle jerk each other over.

No one is crying just debating the actual topic at hand, maybe you could try that instead of your petty insults?

ancapailldorcha

Candie wrote: »

I've a mental list of words that tend to prompt me to categorize the user in an unflattering way.

Cuck
SJW
Outrage
Feminazi
PC Brigade
Leftard

.... and now Milo.

You may wish to add Trump supporter to that list.

Sonics2k

Candie wrote: »

I've a mental list of words that tend to prompt me to categorize the user in an unflattering way.

Cuck
SJW
Outrage
Feminazi
PC Brigade
Leftard

.... and now Milo.

I have the same list, but I also have the opposite list too.

Pro-GG
menz
whiny man-baby
neckbeard

/On-Topic.
As I've said before, I'm always a bit conflicted with Milo. On some matters I find myself in a bit of agreement with him, for example the GamerGate fiasco and how quickly something that should have or could have been purely about a messed up industry and close connections between Journalists and Developers.
On the other hand I despise his views on Trans people, "real" feminists, and his support of the Vatican and Trump.

I think it's stupid to ban his account, when Jones herself was also actively brigading people to her side. But the amount of pure racist, sexist and disgusting levels of abuse were entirely uncalled for.

Sure Ghostbusters 2016 was a bit crap, but the aggression aimed at the actresses is uncalled for. By all means, call the movie crap (because it is) but the abuse is just wrong.

pragmatic1

Wibbs wrote: »

1) This. Is. Not. America(thank christ). We don't have the right to free speech. Hell even they don't. 2) "Free speech" is not, nor can be an absolute in any society. There will always be limits and usually said limits are set by the law. You quite simply can't say what you like in any society. Where those limits are set is up for debate of course.

The subject of this thread was banned from Twitter. He himself is an English man. I don't know why you're bringing Ireland into this. But we do have anti-blasphemy laws in this country for some reason.

Why do you think that speech has to be limited. Speech is one thing that separated us from the rest of the animals, we can air out our differences in speech rather than action. It's healthy to hear opposing views.

pragmatic1

Cienciano wrote: »

You're misunderstanding what free speech is. Twitter does not have to provide free speech.


I'm not clicking a poxy breitbart link, but did you know Milo sent a load of screenshots out of fake tweets to make her look racist? That's one of the reasons he was banned

No, I understand exactly what free speech is, it's why I mentioned that twitter is a privately owned company.

ohnonotgmail

pragmatic1 wrote: »

The subject of this thread was banned from Twitter. He himself is an English man. I don't know why you're bringing Ireland into this. But we do have anti-blasphemy laws in this country for some reason.

Why do you think that speech has to be limited. Speech is one thing that separated us from the rest of the animals, we can air out our differences in speech rather than action. It's healthy to hear opposing views.

this is nothing to do with hearing opposing views. this is concerned with out and out racist abuse.

ancapailldorcha

Does anyone fancy explaining Gamergate to me? I've no idea what it is and I suspect I might be better off that way.

pragmatic1

It was a controversy around sexism in the video game market.

RDM_83 again

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Does anyone fancy explaining Gamergate to me? I've no idea what it is and I suspect I might be better off that way.

Everybody on all sides involved it aren't people you would want to hang around with is what I took from my reading of it.

ancapailldorcha

Seems to be deeply polarising. I briefly had a look at the Wikipedia page but it looked quite depressing.

andekwarhola

Wibbs wrote: »

This. Is. Not. America.

Nooo

Penn

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Does anyone fancy explaining Gamergate to me? I've no idea what it is and I suspect I might be better off that way.

Long story short:

Female game developer's ex-boyfriend accused her of sleeping with a game journalist in exchange for positive reviews for her game. While some of course were concerned about ethics of game journalism, that pretty much devolved into her getting a bunch of death/rape threats (think her home was Swatted and people calling her parent's home etc). Then other women in the games industry started getting similar. Then pretty much anyone who spoke out against this sort of harassment got similar.

Much like my opinion on Milo and the discussions to be had around free speech, safe spaces etc, there are genuine issues which need to be addressed concerning the underlying topic, but it's now been completely smeared under the weight of needless abuse and harassment, so much so that the term 'ethics in game journalism' is now literally a joke/meme.

Renegade Mechanic

super_furry wrote: »

Don't forget Cultural Marxism or The Red Pill.

Strange matrix reference aside, Marxism isn't a culture. It's a cancer.

Thoie

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Does anyone fancy explaining Gamergate to me? I've no idea what it is and I suspect I might be better off that way.

Oh god, please don't. If you really want to know I can PM you, but every bit of it is horrendous.

ancapailldorcha

Thoie wrote: »

Oh god, please don't. If you really want to know I can PM you, but every bit of it is horrendous.

Penn seems to have nailed it. I really don't want to Google this as there seems to be battle lines drawn.

Penn

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Penn seems to have nailed it. I really don't want to Google this as there seems to be battle lines drawn.

As with most things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Neither the Pro-Gamergate nor Anti-Gamergate side has come out particularly well. The Anti-GG side led to the rise of people like Anita Sarkessian (basically Milo's opposite) who complains every time a game is released where a woman isn't the main character. I think she even complained about the new Legend of Zelda game where Link is male again even though he's been male in every other Zelda game.

Why can't people try to find a middle ground? Like, ever?

kunst nugget

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Does anyone fancy explaining Gamergate to me? I've no idea what it is and I suspect I might be better off that way.

It's a magical realm where nobody can actually agree on what they're arguing about but they're going to argue anyways because if they don't then the people that they are arguing with who think they are arguing about something else might win and if they win then life on earth will be irrevocably destroyed. or something

kunst nugget

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Strange matrix reference aside, Marxism isn't a culture. It's a cancer.

I have marxism of the bollix.

ancapailldorcha

Penn wrote: »

As with most things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Neither the Pro-Gamergate nor Anti-Gamergate side has come out particularly well. The Anti-GG side led to the rise of people like Anita Sarkessian (basically Milo's opposite) who complains every time a game is released where a woman isn't the main character. I think she even complained about the new Legend of Zelda game where Link is male again even though he's been male in every other Zelda game.

I can't stand Sarkessian. I think her original point has become lost in a sea of whining and moaning similar to Milo. They're both at stages where they need to get one over on previous statements.

Penn wrote: »

Why can't people try to find a middle ground? Like, ever?

I think of things like Twitter as people in a barn competing for attention. Whoever shouts the loudest, most controversial and sometimes bigoted things will be the most likely to be heard.

A shame. I like the centre ground. It's nice and people aren't idiots.

Elliott S

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Bit witchhunty there aren't you :cool:

If you like.

karma_

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Strange matrix reference aside, Marxism isn't a culture. It's a cancer.

It's not a matrix reference (well in a roundabout way it is) it's an... well it's another group of dickheads basically, check reddit.

How is Marxism a cancer? It's a method of socioeconomic analysis, and a good one at that.