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

Arcade_Tryer

holly44 wrote: »

Never mind who said it, it a good quote, that no one can dispute!

I dispute it.

And I'm sure I'm not the only one.

holly44

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

I dispute it.

And I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Irony.
you and the pope in the thanks below the post in denial, if it was real world you would be trying to shout me down, sums up the quote perfectly.

RDM_83 again

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Poor choice of idol.

There are quite a few people on boards who would somewhat support that statement I'd imagine.

And there is quiet a few on boards who would smear the people they are arguing with, with hateful generalisations because it's easier than rebutting what they are actually saying

dr.bollocko

How utterly sad it is that a bunch of people rush to thank a mod post banning somebody from a thread because of opinions they don't like.

In this thread. Where every poster who thanked the post has expressed outrage at their precious Milo getting banned from Twitter.

How utterly transparently hypocritical.

Outlaw Pete

Don't ever recall you complaining about your bans ever getting thanked.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

In this thread. Where every poster who thanked the post has expressed outrage at their precious Milo getting banned from Twitter.

How utterly transparently hypocritical.

Twitter banning Milo was inconsistent with what they generally ban users for, that's the point.

There was nothing inconsistent about El_Dangeroso's thread ban and therefore there is no hypocrisy with users condemning one and endorsing the other.

dr.bollocko

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Don't ever recall you complaining about your bans ever getting thanked.



Twitter banning Milo was inconsistent with what they generally ban users for, that's the point.

There was nothing inconsistent about El_Dangeroso's thread ban and therefore there is no hypocrisy with users condemning one and endorsing the other.

You thanked the post. Ergo you clearly don't see an issue with it.


It's clear that your agenda ref Milo is not out any sense of justice. Because you delighted in somebodys voice being censored. In this thread. About this topic. Consistency my arse.

I'm gonna jog on now and leave ye to your safe space. But just remember the reality of how happy you were to see somebody getting thread banned. Really realise how actually you don't care about it at all when they disagree with you. Roll around in the double think.

And then you posted the above crap about consistency. And I bet you believe it too. Astonishing.

Outlaw Pete

dr.bollocko wrote: »

You thanked the post. Ergo you clearly don't see an issue with it.

But just remember the reality of how happy you were to see somebody getting thread banned.

Eh, I did not thank the post banning her from the thread, so get your facts straight.

I thanked a post telling her to get back on topic.

dr.bollocko

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Eh, I did not thank the post banning her from the thread, so get your facts straight.

I thanked a post telling her to get back on topic.

Right. But you believe there's no hypocrisy inherent in agreeing with one but not the other?

That's an interesting moral compass isn't it?

Little CuChulainn

dr.bollocko wrote: »

How utterly sad it is that a bunch of people rush to thank a mod post banning somebody from a thread because of opinions they don't like.

In this thread. Where every poster who thanked the post has expressed outrage at their precious Milo getting banned from Twitter.

How utterly transparently hypocritical.

That poster wasn't giving opinions. At best they were sarcastic retorts.

Wibbs

dr.bollocko wrote: »

You thanked the post. Ergo you clearly don't see an issue with it.

Just in case your reality distortion field is stuck on full, I'm another who didn't thank the post. I'd have been happy to debate her points. Oh wait, she didn't have any. Not beyond schoolyard stuff anyway. And here you are tag teamed in.

It's clear that your agenda ref Milo is not out any sense of justice. Because you delighted in somebodys voice being censored. In this thread. About this topic. Consistency my arse.

I'm gonna jog on now and leave ye to your safe space. But just remember the reality of how happy you were to see somebody getting thread banned. Really realise how actually you don't care about it at all when they disagree with you. Roll around in the double think.

And then you posted the above crap about consistency. And I bet you believe it too. Astonishing.

Triply astonishing for me is how you also seem to share a self awareness and irony bypass considering your record about impositions of "safe spaces". Never mind the main underlying reason why you're throwing your toys out of the pram in a whinge over this particular user. And you're pointing the hypocritical finger at others? That's beyond bloody rich.

dr.bollocko

I don't actually care about the thread ban at all. I have no interest in debating the wrongs and rights of it. And if I did, here would not be the place.

So again. To avoid any further deflection.

My only interest and point is that thinking a thread ban is good for a poster who has expressed a counter to the milo should not have been banned narrative is hypocritical.

And that's a solid and good point. And it's on topic and all.

No toys thrown out. No foaming at the mouth. Simply pointing out that holding both positions is being inconsistent. Ye get terrible riled up in here.

Outlaw Pete

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Right. But you believe there's no hypocrisy inherent in agreeing with one but not the other?

Of course I don't, because there is none. Twitter usually requires a hell of a lot more than anything Milo has done to suspend an account. Azealia Banks suggested Sarah Palin should be gang raped and they deemed it not enough to warrant a ban. Text book inconsistency. There is none here.

That's an interesting moral compass isn't it?

Not in the way you suggest, no, but I'll tell you what is indicative of an 'interesting moral compass' shall I: condemning certain cmod & admin actions via PM but yet staying schtum about them in FB.

dr.bollocko

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

That poster wasn't giving opinions. At best they were sarcastic retorts.

And how would you describe many of Milo's interactions?

Would we all agree that they are frequently designed to provoke?

Wibbs

holly44 wrote: »

"Very few of the so-called liberals are open-minded.... They shout you down and won't let you speak if you disagree with them."
-John Wayne
Duke sums it up perfectly.

In fairness Wayne was a thundering gobshíte and windbag at the best of times, who like many actors confused his heroic roles with his own reality. Sadly without scriptwriters…

Arcade_Tryer wrote:

There are quite a few people on boards who would somewhat support that statement I'd imagine.

Racism card eh? Bring out the big guns I suppose.

RDM_83 again wrote:

And there is quiet a few on boards who would smear the people they are arguing with, with hateful generalisations because it's easier than rebutting what they are actually saying

To be fair that's hardly a monopoly of any of these imported "sides". They're usually like toddlers with hysterical rants of "ist/phobe" with the opposing returning with "cuck" and "SJW". It's getting beyond daft at this stage. Reasoned debate has usually gone out the window after a few exchanges. As we've seen in this very thread. Lines drawn, heels dug, feelz hurt, whinge, rinse and repeat. I wish there were a way to saw through the cable that connects the US and the rest of the interwebs. The world would be the happier for it IMH.

mzungu

dr.bollocko wrote: »

My only interest and point is that thinking a thread ban is good for a poster who has expressed a counter to the milo should not have been banned narrative is hypocritical.

The poster was banned for expressing an opposing point of view?

I don't believe that is what happened at all.

Little CuChulainn

dr.bollocko wrote: »

And how would you describe many of Milo's interactions?

Would we all agree that they are frequently designed to provoke?

Indeed. But he wasn't posting on Boards

dr.bollocko

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Not in the way you suggest, no, but I'll tell you what is indicative of an 'interesting moral compass' shall I: condemning certain cmod & admin actions via PM but yet staying schtum about them in FB.

Yeah. On topic. Relevant. Clap.

dr.bollocko

mzungu wrote: »

The poster was banned for expressing an opposing point of view?

I don't believe that is what happened at all.

That ain't what I said broseph. What I said was the poster who was banned was expressing a counter point to the milo should not be banned side.

I made no claims about the rightness or wrongness of the ban. My point is that agreeing with one ban but not another shows a hypocritical mindset. Because it does.

Outlaw Pete

dr.bollocko wrote: »

My only interest and point is that thinking a thread ban is good for a poster who has expressed a counter to the milo should not have been banned narrative is hypocritical.

And that's a solid and good point. And it's on topic and all.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Personal abuse, being off topic, derailment etc etc etc, are not against the rules on Twitter, they are here.

There is nothing remotely inconsistent or hypocritical about supporting the moderator action here, but yet simultaneously disagreeing with the decision which Jack Dorsey made with regards to Twitter and the permanent suspension of Milo Yiannopoulos.

Annasopra

B0jangles wrote: »

Yiannopoulos doesn't 'tackle' anything, he says whatever gets him the most attention, positive or negative.

That's pretty much it.

Trolling

dr.bollocko

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Personal abuse, being off topic, derailment etc etc etc, are not against the rules on Twitter, they are here.

There is nothing remotely inconsistent or hypocritical about supporting the moderator action here, but yet simultaneously disagreeing with the decision which Jack Dorsey made with regards to Twitter.

Hmm. Interesting that you can't see anything a tiny bit inconsistent about it. Not even a teeny tiny biteen? Not even make you think for a second? Considering the manner of Milo's usual Twitter banter is frequently at the playground level? And the only reason why it's not inconsistent is because it's on a different privately owned discussion site who can do whatever the feck they want with their users?

I find that a little odd.

Outlaw Pete

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Hmm. Interesting that you can't see anything a tiny bit inconsistent about it. Not even a teeny tiny biteen? Not even make you think for a second? Considering the manner of Milo's usual Twitter banter is frequently at the playground level? And the only reason why it's not inconsistent is because it's on a different privately owned discussion site who can do whatever the feck they want with their users?

I find that a little odd.

There was nothing odd nor hypocritical about it. Simply put:

Milo was doing 90 in a 150 zone.
El Dangeroso was doing 70 in 40 zone.

steddyeddy

holly44 wrote: »

Irony.
you and the pope in the thanks below the post in denial, if it was real world you would be trying to shout me down, sums up the quote perfectly.

I seem to remember a poster referring to those who disagreed with her style of debating as "manbabbies".

dr.bollocko

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

There was nothing odd nor hypocritical about it. Simply put:

Milo was doing 90 in a 150 zone.
El Dangeroso was doing 70 in 40 zone.

Nah. You said they were apples and oranges. They're both apples. Just different orchards.

Samaris

Mod: Okay, I have to admit having read the last few pages that I don't even know who started what or entirely who is involved. It appears to have turned into some sort of ouroborous tail-eating thing which isn't really related to the topic of the thread but is generating reports at boards-powering rates. If anyone has an issue with a mod action in here, report it or PM asking why X was done for an explanation. Don't derail a thread for several pages rowing over it please, it all gets a bit out of hand.

So, back on topic now?

Samaris

On a totally personal note - I really can't bring myself to give a flying about Milo Yiannopoulos. He sounds like a raving arse. Assuming Twitter is a personally owned website, no-one has a God-given (or even US Constitution-given) right to be allowed to post on a website. They can boot him out because they don't like the colour of his avatar if they really want.

Basically, if you're enough of an arse that the website runners are fed up dealing with your crap, you can moan all you like when you get booted, but it's pretty much entirely your own fault. Or the fault of the website in some cases, but one shrugs and moves on rather than standing outside the door of the establishment either a) crying loudly or b) trying to break in. Unless they've actually attacked you based on something that's generally considered illegal to refuse service for, like the colour of your skin or something stupid like that. You can absolutely get kicked off Twitter for the colour of your opinions, as Twitter has just proved. If they're arsehole-coloured, eventually people will get bored/sick of you.

dr.bollocko

Wibbs wrote: »

Triply astonishing for me is how you also seem to share a self awareness and irony bypass considering your record about impositions of "safe spaces". Never mind the main underlying reason why you're throwing your toys out of the pram in a whinge.

Your POV of my record has nothing to do with this discussion. My use of the term safe space was done deliberately because of the alt-rights love of mocking them.
Also you are quite wide of the mark with your theories on my motivation for posting. Furthermore providing a counterpoint is not whinging.

Pointing out a hypocritical mindset has nothing to do with throwing toys out of prams. It's relevant to the discussion. Somebody getting banned for posting in a provocative manner on a thread discussing somebody getting banned for posting in a provocative manner. Those defending Milo then agreeing with the ban. There's a cognitive dissonance there and I'd reckon you'd be able to see that.

FYI I put no words in your mouth about whether or not you agreed with the ban or not. I figured you probably didn't agree with it but again, it wasn't relevant. Others who expressed outrage at Milos ban did agree with it. And if they did, then that is a hypocritical mindset which indicates that the defence of Milo by those people is not out of a sense of fairness.

dr.bollocko

Samaris wrote: »

Mod: Okay, I have to admit having read the last few pages that I don't even know who started what or entirely who is involved. It appears to have turned into some sort of ouroborous tail-eating thing which isn't really related to the topic of the thread but is generating reports at boards-powering rates. If anyone has an issue with a mod action in here, report it or PM asking why X was done for an explanation. Don't derail a thread for several pages rowing over it please, it all gets a bit out of hand.

So, back on topic now?

Just in case I'm being misrepresented - I am making no statements about the rights of wrongs of moderatorial actions on AH. To do so on thread is contra-indicated and I am aware of that. My point was that there were similarities between what occurred here and on Twitter and if one wanted to defend Milo out of a sense of fairness or free speech then thanking a post where somebody was then silenced on this thread smacks of doublethink. And I do believe that is on topic and relevant to the discussion. For some reason this then devolved into some digs about my history and motivation for posting and created some sort of poopstorm which was also not my intention.

Arcade_Tryer

Wibbs wrote: »

Racism card eh? Bring out the big guns I suppose.

My intention wasn't to use it as a card. It was simply an observation based on reading boards recently. Also, playing a racism card doesn't necessarily imply that one is trying to shut down conversation. I fully support people's right to espouse racist views. Boards, Twitter and wider society often does not. That's the problem.

Wibbs

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

I fully support people's right to espouse racist views. Boards, Twitter and wider society often does not. That's the problem.

Agreed. I personally prefer to know what people really think, not their nice little facade for the neighbours.