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

Thoie

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Even taking into account that he has had past indiscretions on there, I still don't see how expressing the opinions which he did, which basically amounted to 'toughen up, it's the Internet' should lead to his permanent suspension.

It's extremely disingenuous to suggest that he was banned for that single tweet.

BattleCorp wrote: »

I've no idea who this guy is or what his past behaviour was like, but if twitter are going to ban people for a rather tame statement like that, then they will have to ban most of their users.

What he said was pretty harmless.

He wasn't banned for that single comment, but for a history of riling up abuse against people, and in this particular instance, severe racial abuse. He also distributed obviously faked screenshots of comments she was supposed to have made to rile the crowd up even more. While Twitter may be a small place that doesn't affect most people, he had nearly 400k followers, a good lot of whom are ready to jump on any bandwagon he started and heap abuse on people.

suicide_circus wrote: »

Whoever this Milo character is, I can assure you that whatever he says on Twitter, it is of absolutely no importance whatsoever.

To you, perhaps. To the people who have been subjected to the abuse he stirs up, it's of huge importance. He's presumably not stupid. He knows that if he turns on someone on Twitter, that person is in for a huge amount of grief (to put it mildly). People who disagree with him find themselves (and their families/colleagues) being doxxed and swatted.

Obviously he didn't do it, he didn't make that call, he didn't put the details up on the internet. But frequently he's the one who set his flying monkeys off on that trip in the first place.

While for the majority of people, Twitter can be safely and happily ignored, for artists, writers, game developers or anyone else who needs to "sell" their work, Twitter (like Facebook and other social media arenas) is now a vital part of their PR. Pretty much any major company that I can think of has a Twitter account. It's not as big as Facebook (310m monthly active users vs. 1.6b), but it's still pretty big.

Renegade Mechanic

Penn wrote: »

She got numerous tweets comparing her to Harambe the gorilla, numerous other racist tweets (including n****r) and someone printed off a picture of her face, jerked off onto it, and sent her a picture of it.

Yeah, I'm not concerned about her either. I mean, she can afford the new iPhone, so clearly her actual feelings are irrelevant. I mean, who does she think she is? Doesn't she realise that her money shields her from abuse and means that she no longer feels emotions?

What a snowflake, huh?

Want to hi-5 my cum-stained hand dudebro?

Lol get a grip :rolleyes:
Honestly I'd care a lot more if she had a genuine struggle going. Worrying about the future, getting employment that will pay for kids school.
Being called nasty things just isn't that bad. And I say that as but a pau, pau pleb :rolleyes:

The senders of that stuff should be banned, no argument, but there's a little toughening up in order, too. Take a picture of a check, tell them nothing they say or do will matter to what's on that cheque. Or, just play the victim..

It's the twitter equivalent of diving for a penalty.

valoren

He seems to epitomise the current trend of the cry bully.

Those who think they can act like complete prats with impunity.
When they eventually get their comeuppance and get called to account (in this case being banned for persistent harrassment where warnings probably went unheeded), they get all uppity and immediately morph into victims.

He is now the victim because he was banned i.e. a Cry Bully.

"OMG, i've been banned from twitter! She got me banned! blah blah blah"

Penn

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Lol get a grip :rolleyes:
Honestly I'd care a lot more if she had a genuine struggle going. Worrying about the future, getting employment that will pay for kids school.
Being called nasty things just isn't that bad.

So racist abuse against a black woman who doesn't have a job is bad, but racist abuse against a black woman who's pretty well off is fine?

Just trying to find out where the line is. What salary does someone have to earn before it's okay to racially abuse them? Do they have to be famous or just a rich businessperson?

When is it okay to be racist?

Snickers Man

Pete Moss wrote: »

It's yer man from Glenroe who was married to Dinny. Never knew he was Greek though.

Well Holy God!

I thought Miley was married to Biddy.

Oh I see! He's Miley's GREEK cousin that's married to Dinny. That makes sense. I mean, they invented it.

Chips Lovell

There seems to be an entire generation of people who think free speech means being able to say whatever the f**k they want on someone else's website.

Access to Twitter is not a human right. If you don't like the rules, go somewhere where the rules suit you.

You see the same thing on Boards actually. People whinging that it's lame/the mods are fascists/PC liberals etc and yet they keep re-regging after they're banned. If it's so s**t, why do you keep coming back?

Renegade Mechanic

Penn wrote: »

So racist abuse against a black woman who doesn't have a job is bad, but racist abuse against a black woman who's pretty well off is fine?

Just trying to find out where the line is.

No you're not you're just trying to draw your own, whil making sure it's behind me.

You think you're the first person to try that?
At least on the internet, it doesn't actually matter if you succeed.

RWCNT

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Lol get a grip :rolleyes:
Honestly I'd care a lot more if she had a genuine struggle going. Worrying about the future, getting employment that will pay for kids school.
Being called nasty things just isn't that bad. And I say that as but a pau, pau pleb :rolleyes:

Vile racist abuse isn't that bad!?

Tigger

Wibbs wrote: »

Or… he's also longterm trolling the rednecks. That thought occurs.

i think he's trolling everyone for money, he can be very funny

ohnonotgmail

well this thread has been very informative. very informative indeed.

Penn

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

No you're not you're just trying to draw your own, whil making sure it's behind me.

You think you're the first person to try that?
At least on the internet, it doesn't actually matter if you succeed.

I'm so sorry. I didn't know you didn't earn enough that you'd take this stuff so personally.

Renegade Mechanic

RWCNT wrote: »

Vile racist abuse isn't that bad!?

Getting yer head stepped into the ground and told you should die In real ****ing life, isn't that bad ffs. So what on earth am I supposed to think of this? She needs to get over it, much like I did, and for much the same reason.

Because this little trooper:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCYwQ_oWgAAgy0P.jpg

Would happily trade with either of us.


So once again, It's just not that bad.

RWCNT

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Getting yer head stepped into the ground and told you should die In real ****ing life, isn't that bad ffs. So what on earth am I supposed to think of this? She needs to get over it, much like I did, and for much the same reason.

Because this little trooper:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCYwQ_oWgAAgy0P.jpg

Would happily trade with either of us.


So once again, It's just not that bad.

I'd argue that's VERY bloody bad and that kid's situation really has no bearing on anything we're discussing here.

razorblunt

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

he wasnt banned for being a clown. if twitter banned all the clowns it would nearly empty.

Poorly constructed by me, I mean he's a clown but he didn't deserve the suspended account for his interaction with that actress.

ohnonotgmail

razorblunt wrote: »

Poorly constructed by me, I mean he's a clown but he didn't deserve the suspended account for his interaction with that actress.

did he deserve to be banned for this?

Hundreds of anonymous Twitter commenters hurled racist and sexist remarks at the star’s Twitter account, rallied and directed by Mr. Yiannopoulos this week

Renegade Mechanic

RWCNT wrote: »

I'd argue that's VERY bloody bad and that kid's situation really has no bearing on anything we're discussing here.

Only because it blows your arse clean out of the water.
At any rate, I'd argue otherwise.

super_furry

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Because this little trooper:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCYwQ_oWgAAgy0P.jpg

Would happily trade with either of us.


So once again, It's just not that bad.

Well this is just getting weird now.

I mean, I'm sure there's an oul lad who is having a heart attack right now who would happily trade with that kid so the kid should "get over it", right?

Maguined

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

did he deserve to be banned for this?

Did he actually do that though? Because he is unliked by many they love to blame him for anything negative going on. He says some nasty and crass things but did he actually organise others to harass her? I have only seen people accusing him or organising the harassment without any sort of proof at the moment.

Penn

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Well I'd argue otherwise.

# One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?

Did you guess which thing was not like the others?
Did you guess which thing just doesn't belong?
If you guessed this one is not like the others,
Then you're absolutely...right! #

ohnonotgmail

Maguined wrote: »

Did he actually do that though? Because he is unliked by many they love to blame him for anything negative going on. He says some nasty and crass things but did he actually organise others to harass her? I have only seen people accusing him or organising the harassment without any sort of proof at the moment.

Did he actually do it? how could i possibly know. how could anybody here possibly know. But i'm assuming that the new york times didnt pull it out of their ass.

Renegade Mechanic

super_furry wrote: »

Well this is just getting weird now.

I mean, I'm sure there's an oul lad who is having a heart attack right now who would happily trade with that kid so the kid should "get over it", right?

I bet you a pound to a pinch of **** he wouldn't. And neither would you. Plenty of things worse than death. We just happen to live in a nice, soft little world, insulated from a lot of of them.
And if that kid got 20 years on him, crippled, and started dying of a heart attack, he'd only be delighted to finally get free.

So your point is rubbish.

ohnonotgmail

Penn wrote: »

# One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?

Did you guess which thing was not like the others?
Did you guess which thing just doesn't belong?
If you guessed this one is not like the others,
Then you're absolutely...right! #

as soon as i manage to get that song out of my head you post it again.

SEPT 23 1989

I believe Slimer is now transgender

that's a step too far imo

Mardy Bum

He is one of those people who lives only to be controversial without any talent either and get paid for it. Katie Hopkins in male form.

tritium

Penn wrote: »

So racist abuse against a black woman who doesn't have a job is bad, but racist abuse against a black woman who's pretty well off is fine?

Just trying to find out where the line is. What salary does someone have to earn before it's okay to racially abuse them? Do they have to be famous or just a rich businessperson?

When is it okay to be racist?

Technically it *should* never be OK to be racist, sexist, homophobic etc.

In reality all sides are happy to use the terms to suit themselves, either
(I)to generate outrage where it's not warranted (alan Hansen got into trouble recently over the innocent use of the term coloured, apparently he should have said black, except that would also bean issue in some quarters....)

(Ii) to get off the hook themselves. That classic nonsense that "I as a female and person of colour cannot be racist or sexist...." Etc.

(And yes there's plenty of similar trolling nonsense on the other side of the fence too)

super_furry

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

I bet you a pound to a pinch of **** he wouldn't. And neither would you. Plenty of things worse than death. We just happen to live in a nice, soft little world, insulated from a lot of of them.
And if that kid got 20 years on him, crippled, and started dying of a heart attack, he'd only be delighted to finally get free.

Right so. Just to be clear then, from now on that photograph of that kid is the new yard stick. If your life is not as bad as his, you're not allowed to be unhappy, upset or complain about something that's happening to you?

How about that kid though? Does he have to stop complaining if someone has it worse than him?

orubiru

Maguined wrote: »

Did he actually do that though? Because he is unliked by many they love to blame him for anything negative going on. He says some nasty and crass things but did he actually organise others to harass her? I have only seen people accusing him or organising the harassment without any sort of proof at the moment.

The logic seems to be that, since he has loads of followers, if he makes comments about other people and his followers jump on the bandwagon and go after that person then it's his fault. He should take the fall for that.

So, for example, if you publicly accused someone of committing a crime like rape or sexual assault and then loads of people went after that person, spreading the accusation around etc and potentially ruining their life? Well you would definitely be banned by Twitter. Right?

Or, another example, if you were popular on Twitter and started banging on about how cops only shoot black people because they are racist and you suggested it's about time someone fought back and then some maniac decided to shoot a bunch of cops? Well you would also find yourself banned from Twitter. Right?

What if you had hundreds of thousands of followers and you inspired them to riot or be violent at a political rally for a presidential candidate? Maybe inspire a guy to grab for a policeman's gun as part of a plan to kill said presidential candidate? You'd be banned by Twitter. Right?

Oh. No. Wait.

osarusan

I haven't read too much about him/from him but what I have seen usually comes across as:

a)just complete nonsense

b)a somewhat reasonable point but presented so obnoxiously that you just can't agree with it.

It seems like he's giving up trying to make any reasoned argument anymore and concentrated instead on loading up on his terminology to become some kind of leader to that subsection of 'woe is man' persecution-complex loser.

RDM_83 again

Maguined wrote: »

Did he actually do that though? Because he is unliked by many they love to blame him for anything negative going on. He says some nasty and crass things but did he actually organise others to harass her? I have only seen people accusing him or organising the harassment without any sort of proof at the moment.

This is what I am curious to know, he's not a particularly nice person but is there any evidence that he is responsible in anything but the most tangential way for her abuse?

If the actions of a small number of fellow travellers/supporters justify a ban the wider picture is that even Milo himself has been the victim of pretty severe harrasment including threats of violence delivered in person which IMO is much more severe than online abuse no matter how toxic don't those groups deserve sanction by Twitter if charges of hypocrisy are to be avoided.
(For reference this refers to BLM activists who targetted him)

Renegade Mechanic

super_furry wrote: »

Right so. Just to be clear then, from now on that photograph of that kid is the new yard stick. If your life is not as bad as his, you're not allowed to be unhappy, upset or complain about something that's happening to you?

How about that kid though? Does he have to stop complaining if someone has it worse than him?

Life is a little more nuanced than the oversimplification you're resorting to, to win this.

I'm allowed to be unhappy at, let's say, being unable to secure the particular job I'd like. For a while. I'm not allowed to spend days or more pissing and moaning about it to anyone who'll listen because A: that's time I could be spending checking other places, B: Well, not immediately finding work isn't a death sentence in a welfare state, unlike what would happen if the "yard stick" you so humanely refer to, were unable to find some and C: anyone who'll listen, will quickly get tired of listening.

Today's lesson: When someone asks how you are in the morning, they want small talk. Nothing else. Give them anything else too often, and they'll quickly learn not to ask.

^^ But none of that matters because I know where you're going to try to take this