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

InTheTrees

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

AThat is happens to be a private company is only relevant if you agree that suppressing speech is a good thing.

Well no. Its relevant because it is a private company and customers sign up to obey their rules.

He's still free to say whatever he likes. Twitter doesnt control free speech.

Hande hoche!

A Little Pony wrote: »

The young Turks is an echo chamber and that Cenk presenter is the worst debater I have ever seen. He debated a guy recently at a political event and all he could do was be personal and he lost the debate. Ben Shapiro would literally annihilate him in a debate.

Which is why he never has any such people on his show.

I found it amusing that one of them was screaming, calling the gatecrasher a fat fu*k given the state of Cenk.

Arcade_Tryer

InTheTrees wrote: »

Well no. Its relevant because it is a private company and customers sign up to obey their rules.

He's still free to say whatever he likes. Twitter doesnt control free speech.

So you're not going to acknowledge the bigger picture here? You're sticking to the "it's a business line". Any liberal worth their salt would disagree with this decision by Twitter. As said, it has done discourse a disservice here.

InTheTrees

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

So you're not going to acknowledge the bigger picture here? You're sticking to the "it's a business line".

I think I acknowledged the bigger picture by saying twitter doesnt control "free speech". There is no first amendment case here. Twitter does govern their own little world though. A bit like Boards.

hatrickpatrick

It's not about the legality, it's about the principle. Twitter might have the legal right to ban him, that doesn't mean they are morally right to do so.

Arcade_Tryer

InTheTrees wrote: »

I think I acknowledged the bigger picture by saying twitter doesnt control "free speech". There is no first amendment case here. Twitter does govern their own little world though. A bit like Boards.

True. Twitter doesn't control free speech. But it has no problem with suppressing it. That is the wider point.

Venom

Hande hoche! wrote: »

I found it amusing that one of them was screaming, calling the gatecrasher a fat fu*k given the state of Cenk.

She's previously ranted about how evil fat shaming is not to mention her boss is bigger than the guy she's insulting :pac: The sleazy knacker on their panel who took a mouthful of water and spat it at the guy was pure scum tho.

FA Hayek

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

A term primarily used by people whining about views they don't like,

Although that is a typical AH rebuttal that will get the odd thanks, the term itself was popularised by Maajid Nawaz.

Maajid Nawaz is by no means a whiner but has been subjected to plenty of abuse from the regressive left as he calls it because he had the audacity the call on a reform of Islam. He made the point that it was more controversial to call on reform then for an Iman to call for on support for ISIS. Root of the problem right there.

Mark Tapley

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

True. Twitter doesn't control free speech. But it has no problem with suppressing it. That is the wider point.

I think Twitter does not want to lose its celebrities and needs to be seen to be protecting them. This is about PR rather than free speech. If Milo big gob is bad for business he's got to go.

SeanW

If anyone is unclear as to what has happened, you need to understand what's going on with Twitter. Twitter outsourced its censorship rules to groups like Feminist Frequency. https://blog.twitter.com/2016/announcing-the-twitter-trust-safety-council

FF is led by Anita Sarkeesian, whose is a traditional leftist in that she shrieks hysterically about imaginary nonsense, like how Super Mario Brothers promotes rape culture and suchlike insanity. Like with most leftists, their first instinct is to scream "racist" "misogynist" "something-phobe" etc. at anyone who questions their PC-left ideology.

Milo has been immune to this up to a point because first of all as a gay man, he's on the Left's victimhood scale. Secondly, the first recourse of any leftist, i.e. to scream "racist" to silence an opponent does not work against Milo because he never stops talking about how much he likes black c*ck. But the left fundamentally seeks only to silence all opposition so as soon as Twitter gave control of its platform to vermin like Anita Sarkeesian, it was only a matter of time before she began using that control to silence critics of feminism.

Another problem for Milo is that homosexuals have been falling on the Left's pyramid of victimhood. Case in point is Black Lives Matters disruption of the Toronto Pride parade earlier this month, which occurred less than a month after the worst attack against LGBT people in American, and probably Western history. That this was allowed to happen proves:

1. That the Left no longer "has your back" if you're an LGBT person. Maybe the last letter, but the first three? You're on your own.
2. That the Left is disappearing up its own backside.
3. That BLM are basically jerks.

Ush1 wrote: »

He can't be taken seriously. I heard him on the Joe Rogan podcast and is happy to hate Islam for homophobic sentiments, but doesn't see the hipocrasy in being a Christian.

Remind me again, which religion was the attacker who murdered those 50 gay people in the Pulse nightclub in Orlando?

If you go to a fundamentalist mosque, which is a lot of them, you'll hear stuff like "homosexuals are an abomination, the most merciful thing you can do to them is kill them" like a Muslim preacher in Orlando said in that cities main mosque just before the Orlando attack.

Last time I was in church, I just heard a boring speech about how we need God, some relatively tame prayers and creeds, nothing like what is preached in mosques. I suspect others like myself who were raised Christian would have had similar experiences. Consequently Christians don't go around murdering homosexuals in Western countries, even in the worst parts of the Bible Belt the worst controversy is when some aggro-seeking leftists look (and they have to search hard) to find a bakery that doesn't want to bake a gay-wedding cake. And that's clearly more to do with hating Christianity than protecting gay people.

If you are seriously equating homophobia in Christianity with homophobia in Islam, then you are clearly suffering from some extreme form of cognitive dissonance. They are not in the same league. Not even close.

Elliott S

This thread reminds of a picture I saw on Twitter last week:

https://s32.postimg.org/nwtxazd6t/Cnv5_Po_WYAAal49_png_large.png

Outlaw Pete

Seen it more like the following myself.

https://s32.postimg.org/inary6ynp/fyp.jpg

Mark Tapley

SeanW wrote: »

If anyone is unclear as to what has happened, you need to understand what's going on with Twitter. Twitter outsourced its censorship rules to groups like Feminist Frequency. https://blog.twitter.com/2016/announcing-the-twitter-trust-safety-council

FF is led by Anita Sarkeesian, whose is a traditional leftist in that she shrieks hysterically about imaginary nonsense, like how Super Mario Brothers promotes rape culture and suchlike insanity. Like with most leftists, their first instinct is to scream "racist" "misogynist" "something-phobe" etc. at anyone who questions their PC-left ideology.

Milo has been immune to this up to a point because first of all as a gay man, he's on the Left's victimhood scale. Secondly, the first recourse of any leftist, i.e. to scream "racist" to silence an opponent does not work against Milo because he never stops talking about how much he likes black c*ck. But the left fundamentally seeks only to silence all opposition so as soon as Twitter gave control of its platform to vermin like Anita Sarkeesian, it was only a matter of time before she began using that control to silence critics of feminism.

Another problem for Milo is that homosexuals have been falling on the Left's pyramid of victimhood. Case in point is Black Lives Matters disruption of the Toronto Pride parade earlier this month, which occurred less than a month after the worst attack against LGBT people in American, and probably Western history. That this was allowed to happen proves:

1. That the Left no longer "has your back" if you're an LGBT person. Maybe the last letter, but the first three? You're on your own.
2. That the Left is disappearing up its own backside.
3. That BLM are basically jerks.

Remind me again, which religion was the attacker who murdered those 50 gay people in the Pulse nightclub in Orlando?

If you go to a fundamentalist mosque, which is a lot of them, you'll hear stuff like "homosexuals are an abomination, the most merciful thing you can do to them is kill them" like a Muslim preacher in Orlando said in that cities main mosque just before the Orlando attack.

Last time I was in church, I just heard a boring speech about how we need God, some relatively tame prayers and creeds, nothing like what is preached in mosques. I suspect others like myself who were raised Christian would have had similar experiences. Consequently Christians don't go around murdering homosexuals in Western countries, even in the worst parts of the Bible Belt the worst controversy is when some aggro-seeking leftists look (and they have to search hard) to find a bakery that doesn't want to bake a gay-wedding cake. And that's clearly more to do with hating Christianity than protecting gay people.

If you are seriously equating homophobia in Christianity with homophobia in Islam, then you are clearly suffering from some extreme form of cognitive dissonance. They are not in the same league. Not even close.

I wouldn't worry about it if I was you. They are pandering to the left now as that suits the narrative. The right is gaining momentum and soon anybody that doesn't think all Muslims are cûnts will be getting banned instead. Buy into media constructed stereotypes at your peril. Leftist blah blah , rightist blah blah meanwhile the populace have reasonable opinions.

pumpkin4life

Wibbs wrote: »

Aye, but it's not aimed at you. The penny dropped for me after watching it. It's a Chick Flic(™) version of a US frat party flic. American Pie for women. It's aimed squarely and cynically at that audience, just like every soppy rom com where the mousey but quirky lass unlucky in love gets the Earl of Billionaireshire.

It's got the pretty Himbo, it's got the Sassy Black Woman(™) "Ah Hell no!"©, it's got the quirky oddball with freaky hair for the lesbians, it's got the cut price Jenny Aniston type and the Fat Lass who Kicks Aaassss(™)© and of course none of the women break that certain level of beauty where the "that bitch!" sensor is triggered. It's akin to taking a 1950's buddy movie aimed at men and putting it through the Reverso Machine. The Ghostbusters bit is merely an overlay for all that. If anything it gets in the way. So yeah IMHO that's the mistake reviewers are making, it's got eff all to do with Ghostbusters really. It would be like watching a porno based on Toy Story, the Toy Story bit isn't what's being sold.

The marketing for it is bizarre on another note.

Too much sexual innuendo to be a kids movie.

Women not attractive enough/not enough raunchy humor for teenage/early 20s lads.

Too different from the first two (four women!) to cash in on the nostalgia crew of lads.

Older people, forget about it.

Seems to be the only market for this movie are blue haired, tabletop playing ones; lads who want to jump on the "how progressive am I" virtue signalling (lovingly crafted!) train, and the flipside of course; lads who hate it cause it be feminist ****e/ or how bad is this movie going to be (my one, sadly enough) or whatever.

So that leaves two things. Is the marketing for this movie that bad? Or is there more of these types of people out there than I thought before, that would get these lads the money back?

This ain't a normal chick flick movie. It's a Millennial Geek women one if any.

It's bombing at the box office, thats for sure.

Mark Tapley

"are blue haired, tabletop playing ones; lads who want to jump on the "how progressive am I" virtue signalling (lovingly crafted!) train, and the flipside of course; lads who hate it cause it be feminist ****e/ or how bad is this movie going to be (my one, sadly enough) or whatever".

I've tried google translate but it suggests " unknown language". Random words all jumbled with prejudice wahoo.(arse biscuits).

Venom

pumpkin4life wrote: »

The marketing for it is bizarre on another note.

Too much sexual innuendo to be a kids movie.

Women not attractive enough/not enough raunchy humor for teenage/early 20s lads.

Too different from the first two (four women!) to cash in on the nostalgia crew of lads.

Older people, forget about it.

Seems to be the only market for this movie are blue haired, tabletop playing ones; lads who want to jump on the "how progressive am I" virtue signalling (lovingly crafted!) train, and the flipside of course; lads who hate it cause it be feminist ****e/ or how bad is this movie going to be (my one, sadly enough) or whatever.

So that leaves two things. Is the marketing for this movie that bad? Or is there more of these types of people out there than I thought before, that would get these lads the money back?

This ain't a normal chick flick movie. It's a Millennial Geek women one if any.

It's bombing at the box office, thats for sure.

I think Sony knew they had a stinker on there hands very early on hence the long delay in a trailer of any sorts being released. Sony's marketing department would have to be totally brain dead to allow the director and stars go on such a rampage against the films target audience unless the wanted to have the sexism excuse for the movies fallings.

Elliott S

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Seen it more like the following myself.

https://s32.postimg.org/inary6ynp/fyp.jpg

I can't believe you bothered to do that. Pathetic. Especially the 'fyp'. Christ.

Renegade Mechanic

Elliott S wrote: »

I can't believe you bothered to do that. Pathetic. Especially the 'fyp'. Christ.

Really? I laughed anyway. But then I - an admitted supporter of the loud billionaire himself - laughed at the picture of Trump in the attachment, so who can account for taste?

Oh how the arrogant fall, and over silly little things like this.
It's not "pathetic", even if it is something you dislike, because an effort was expended towards it.

At the end of the day, he's put more effort into that than you have into your opinion of it, but I get that.
'It's not worth your time of response. You're better than that, and that's all that matters.'

Right?

orubiru

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.

This probably won't be a popular opinion but you should try Encyclopedia Dramatica for a good explanation of Gamergate and the multitude of characters involved.

Please be warned that the Encyclopedia Dramatica site can be VERY Not Safe For Work. So do not open it in work!

Let me explain, ED is basically the only site that will give you an unbiased overview and description of Gamergate and the people involved. Yes, it's vulgar and crass and very juvenile BUT it's the only place I've seen online that has screenshots, research and (most importantly) facts. At least, this is my view.

The main players on both sides are mocked, ridiculed and their lies are exposed. That's about as good as you are going to get.

Now Gamergate is kind of like a "boogeyman" people can invoke when there is some kind of trouble brewing in nerd and geek circles online.

pumpkin4life

Say what you will about Anita Sarkessian, but that's one hell of a clever gig she's got going there.

Or any of the lads that made money out of Gamergate.

orubiru

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

I haven't been following thisv that closely but if the Milo types are grouping around ALEX JONES then they really need to reevaluate their stance. I mean, the guy is a certifiable tin foil hat conspiracy nut job. Made piers Morgan look good ffs.

I agree with you that he is a nut job BUT do we really want to outright remove characters like Alex Jones from internet discourse or discussion?

I grew up in a Christian household and was raised as a Christian. I was punished when I questioned the beliefs as a child and I was ostracised for questioning the beliefs as a young adult.

So, my opinion is that echo chambers are bad.

If it were not for rebellious Atheists on the internet and elsewhere I would have never had the opportunity to see both sides of an argument and make up my own mind.

Without people like Alex Jones and Milo you are left in a situation where you are told what to think, you are told what's "right", and you will think it. You don't even have the facility to consider other points of view.

This is unhealthy.

At least you can look at Alex Jones or Milo, or even Trump, and say "OK, I am hearing what they have to say and actually I don't agree". If that were to be taken away? I'm not sure it's a good thing.

Even on the thread here. I'm not seeing conclusive proof that Milo was inciting violence or hatred. He seems to have just said Ghostbusters is crap and if you can't handle trolling then you should grow up. That may or may not be correct.

The timeline seems to be that people start trolling Leslie Jones, she tries to fight the trolls and say "come at me, bro". Trolling intensifies. THEN Milo comes into the middle of it and it all seems to go up a notch?

I dunno.

People seem unable to talk about it without being disingenuous or dishonest to some degree.

PopePalpatine

I figured this thread was the most appropriate place to post this, as Leslie Jones's website has been hacked.

SeanW

After Milo was banned from Twitter I briefly viewed Ms. Jones' twitter feed, it was all SJW bullcrap about "Whitesplaining" whatever that is, and probably a few other buzzwords as well. Lost any sympathy I had for her at that point. Still this hacking looks to be totally out-of-order.

B.A._Baracus

SeanW wrote: »

After Milo was banned from Twitter I briefly viewed Ms. Jones' twitter feed, it was all SJW bullcrap about "Whitesplaining" whatever that is, and probably a few other buzzwords as well. Lost any sympathy I had for her at that point. Still this hacking looks to be totally out-of-order.

Whitesplaining?
Im honestly getting sick of these new words lately

mansize

Christ this is really getting out of hand.

A Little Pony

She is a racist.

wes

A Little Pony wrote: »

She is a racist.

So you have a go at the victim of a nasty doxing as opposed to the people who did it :rolleyes:.

Outlaw Pete

Milo has written to their Dublin HQ requesting all the information Twitter has on him as result of them failing to respond to his previous requests.

Cost him a tenner too.

RayM

He reminds me of the whiny idiots who get banned from Boards and go to the Prison forum to demand reinstatement.

Maguined

RayM wrote: »

He reminds me of the whiny idiots who get banned from Boards and go to the Prison forum to demand reinstatement.

Apart from the fact he has not broken any rules that Jones herself had broken so his banning while she was not seems poitical.