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

Renegade Mechanic

Your posts are painful, Billy. Genuinely now. This is the last time I'm going to be bothered. Expect sarcasm.

Billy86 wrote: »

Does your memory just wipe itself on an hourly basis of everything that doesn't fit into it's right wing agenda?

Muh evil right wing: Check..

Billy86 wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100417537&postcount=187
I googled February 8th, 2015 and couldn't come up with anything. Is there any context to this tweet or what it is related to be? Because it is clearly in response to something, but it would be interesting to see what before judging. I was hoping one of the dozens (hundreds?) of comments on it would help me out here, but no... the very first reply to it was July 18th, 2016. Almost a year and a half after the tweet, which is... interesting.

For the uumpteenth time now. Try and pay attention, please. Or don't, like I care. You're not going to be moved from your own agenda.

Ready now?

It's a real tweet.
On Twitter.
Posted by Leslie Jones.
I'm not saying she shouldn't say it, I'm saying she's perfectly entitled to because free speech.
I'm saying this "perfect, soft damsel" is horse ****.

Billy86 wrote: »

Funny how you ignored that, but predictable for you. And on the subject of predictable...

Billy86 wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100417678&postcount=190
So feel free to link to the other tweets you were happy to accuse her of, or just admit that you were duped like a gullible eejit. Or... do what everyone reading this post knows you will do, which is try to change the subject or shift the goalposts. If you respond of course.

I did.
They're all real posts.
On the actual Twitter
Posted by the actual Leslie Jones.
I even linked to all but one of them.
I'm not on Twitter and Google didn't turn it up.

Billy86 wrote: »

Again... context. Who is this Solomon she is referring to? Is it a serious issue she is discussing, or is she (a comedian) intending it as a joke?

Doesn't matter. Lots of "jokes" are taken the wrong way. You want context, take it with the other tweets.

Posted by Leslie Jones.
That I linked to.
On Twitter.
That's your context.

Billy86 wrote: »

Funny though, that wasn't one of the posts you attributed to her earlier in your attachment. Why can't you find them?

You mean this attachment?
https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/647826/392261.jpg
The one to which all but one tweet was linked to?
On Twitter?
Posted by Leslie Jones?
She's perfectly entitled to say those things. Never once accused her of racism - go ahead, find the post where I call her racist

I'm currently accusing the "perfect damsel" line of being horse ****.

Billy86 wrote: »

Oh yes, commenting on a TV show where someone did something stupid. So god damn racist, not a chance you're going out of your way to avoid the fact that this was a comedian making a joke - kind of different to what we saw the last few days on Twitter.

Aaaaaaand again now.
Never said she was racist.
Enjoyed everything she said.
Assert that she is entitled to say/tweet what she wants.
But that automatically makes this situation of "woe is me" a load of horse ****.

Billy86 wrote: »

Again, these are not the ones you attached earlier though, are they? Go and find them or just admit you got duped because you wanted to believe.

You mean the posts in the attachment above?
To which all but one were linked to her account?
Who exactly is the delusional eejit here???
Mate.... Seriously......

Billy86 wrote: »

Not a comment on fashion trends, oh dear!

But hey since you're clued in on this tweet and not just desperately clutching at straws... what two white women is she referring to?

Are those goal posts I hear shifting? :pac:

Billy86 wrote: »

And again... why can't you link to the tweets you attributed to her earlier in the attachment? Maybe you were taken for a ride like a gullible eejit? I mean you didn't know that there literally is a website where you can make fake tweets, so there's really not as much shame in admitting you were duped as you seem to think there is.

You mean th- ahhhh **** it, just see above..

Billy86 wrote: »

Again. Context please. Given you're so sold on it being racist, you surely know what she is talking about and whether it is a joke or serious.

See above. You'll see I never said racist, etc etc...

Billy86 wrote: »

And again, why no links to the actual racist tweets you attributed to her earlier in the attachment? Is it because you don't want to talk about them anymore because of how you didn't know you can doctor the date on those fake tweets too? I know, you did make a big song and dance about that one, so that might be a little embarrassing, but the fact is you didn't know.

See above.

Billy86 wrote: »

Are you trolling at this stage? She asked a question, and the answer to her question is typically yes, in the same way someone who wears Muslim clothing with the huge beard etc or a person who carries their rosary beads everywhere are likely more dedicated to their own religions too.

You really are desperate to change the subject away from your own ignorance on making fake tweets though, aren't you? Like the ones you attributed to her earlier that you still have not linked to.

I'm the ignorant one?

Billy86 wrote: »

Hilarious given the date, July 18th 2016, right in the middle of her receiving a torrent of racist abuse from god knows how many people. Sadly we can't see what she was referring to because "whitebecky" no longer has an account on Twitter. What convenient timing, you'd almost swear from that and the username that it was a fake account as part of a trolling war against one woman.

Doesn't matter. If people are being banned to the letter of the law, then she should have been banned long ago.
Personally I don't think she should have been. Because I believe she should be allowed to say those things. WHICH IS WHY I DON'T THINK MILO SHOULD HAVE BEEN CANNED EITHER....

Billy86 wrote: »

Now... where are the links to those fake tweets you attached to your post earlier? You keep pathetically trying to shift the goalposts away, but the fact is you were duped like a gullible eejit and never once questioned them to be anything but entirely true, simply because they backed up your own biases and prejudices. Either that, or you can go and find the links for them. Which you still have yet to do for any of the ones in your attachment.

Jesus ****ing Christ, man I literally linked all but one of them in my previous post...

Billy86 wrote: »

Where have I said that, again? Has there even been a mention of Yiannopoulous in our exchanges today?

Oh wait, that's right... I nearly forgot...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100417678&postcount=190
So feel free to link to the other tweets you were happy to accuse her of, or just admit that you were duped like a gullible eejit. Or... do what everyone reading this post knows you will do, which is try to change the subject or shift the goalposts. If you respond of course.

Why would I ignore that? It's stand up comedy. Didn't find it funny myself, it's a tired and boring trope that she didn't add much of any new meaningful material to, but then again the same could be said of the Ghostbusters movie (based on reviews & previews, I haven't seen it and have no plans to).

If you're not a gullible eejit who unquestioningly latches on to anything that supports your own prejudices, then you will be able to provide links for the tweets in your attachment earlier.

Aaaaaaand see above. My previous post links to all but one of the tweets in my attachment, and more besides.

'gullible eejit!'
'gullible eejit!'
'gullible eejit!'
'gullible eejit!'

Look, lad I'm not doing this again, I've **** to do.
I respect you enough to inform you of that, so you can bear it in mind if you feel like typing something at me again here, because I'm just mot going to bother responding. I can't, it's just painful with you...

Penn

Potatoeman wrote: »

He is very outspoken about not harassing people. He criticised and made fun of her. That is not encouraging harassment.

He retweeted obviously faked tweets from people pretending to be her and in the full knowledge that once he does something like that, his followers will go after that person without him having to explicitly encourage it. That's how he operates. Anyone he starts criticising, his followers attack while he can maintain the defence of "Well I didn't say anything offensive"

Potatoeman

Penn wrote: »

He retweeted obviously faked tweets from people pretending to be her and in the full knowledge that once he does something like that, his followers will go after that person without him having to explicitly encourage it. That's how he operates. Anyone he starts criticising, his followers attack while he can maintain the defence of "Well I didn't say anything offensive"

He is not responsible for the actions of other people, especially as he explicitily condems harassment and tells his followers not to do it.

Harika

Turquoise Hexagon Sun wrote: »

He shouldn't have got banned.

However Anita Sarkesian is on the Trust and Safety Council of Twitter so you can see the sort of logic that's going to be applied at Twitter.

Whether you agree with everything Milo says is one thing but you can't disagree with his defence of free speech. As he admits, he's a monster created by the regressive far-left.

For the those of you who don't know who she is...

<-xnip youtube>

Yeah Anita who is as important as Hans Riegel as CEO of the Gummibears company. Never heard of him? Yeah same would happen with Anita and Milo when you are not in the circles that make their life of them. Thunderfoot, Sargon and so on make their money by making videos about how Anita is playing the victim card, causing their fans to go over and break a new boundary, where Anita profits from the PR and the youtubers from ad-revenue, complaining about her.
Most of those YT, started with a focus on anti-religion, and then when the revenue stream declined, moved to Gamergate, Anita, Feminism and now BLM. What you will find with them, that there is no discussion going on. Like e.g. Sargon puts out a video, someone creates a rebuttal clarifying his mistakes or misconceptions, and then it ends.
Funnily Thunderfoot experienced recently how it is when the trolls attack you as he took a stance for the remain campaign and his youtube comments section was flooded with nonsense comments. So tides can turn very quickly in this new world of cyber shoutouts, as you cannot call it discussion.
When you see Milo crushing some Feminist, or “winning” the discussion. you need to know things, his opponents are mostly inexperienced in discussion and he is very good at it. As there is no live fact checking, it is easy to throw in any statistic and use it as your defence if the opponent is not prepared or cannot deal with his tactics.

Thoie

Potatoeman wrote: »

He is very outspoken about not harassing people. He criticised and made fun of her. That is not encouraging harassment.

He knows, from countless past experiences, that he barely needs to make a negative remark about an individual on twitter and that person will be deluged by his followers.

He does the equivalent of holding his hand centimeters from your face and then claims you can't get annoyed because he's not touching you. Except in the meantime his friends are behind you punching you in the kidneys.

Varik

He's going to ride the indignation for a while and then as with a few others have done use our DPC to get himself unbanned.

Maguined

PopePalpatine wrote: »

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

What rules did he break that Leslie herself did not break?

Milo is not saying Twitter cannot suspend his account because of free speech but rather that Twitter is not being honest as it is not applying the rules evenly. Twitter can do whatever it likes with it's rules and can be as biases at it wants but Milo wants them to be honest about it. If Twitter has rules against harassment then those rules should be applied evenly but they currently are not and that is his point.

Potatoeman

Thoie wrote: »

He knows, from countless past experiences, that he barely needs to make a negative remark about an individual on twitter and that person will be deluged by his followers.

He does the equivalent of holding his hand centimeters from your face and then claims you can't get annoyed because he's not touching you. Except in the meantime his friends are behind you punching you in the kidneys.

So he can't criticise anyone?

Stephen Fry and Joss Whedon were harassed off twitter too. Should the people that initially criticised them be banned too?

mariaalice

Its a business decision primarily when journalist and the like are closing their accounts on twitter it was time to step in and do something. It a business and the like of this had the potential to hurt the bottom line eventually.

Grayson

Maguined wrote: »

What rules did he break that Leslie herself did not break?

Milo is not saying Twitter cannot suspend his account because of free speech but rather that Twitter is not being honest as it is not applying the rules evenly. Twitter can do whatever it likes with it's rules and can be as biases at it wants but Milo wants them to be honest about it. If Twitter has rules against harassment then those rules should be applied evenly but they currently are not and that is his point.

except he's been suspended/warned multiple times before. Even if she broke a rule this time, she isn't a serial troller like him. He wasn't suspended just for this, if it was the first time he would have gotten a warning.

Penn

Thoie wrote: »

He knows, from countless past experiences, that he barely needs to make a negative remark about an individual on twitter and that person will be deluged by his followers.

He does the equivalent of holding his hand centimeters from your face and then claims you can't get annoyed because he's not touching you. Except in the meantime his friends are behind you punching you in the kidneys.

Exactly. If it's being claimed that Jones should have just ignored it etc as challenging it publicly would only draw more abuse, it can equally be claimed that Milo should have known that by him tweeting about it, many of his followers would be the ones to jump in with further abuse as they have done numerous times in the past.

Elliott S

Penn wrote: »

He retweeted obviously faked tweets from people pretending to be her...

Wow, that's really pathetic. And even more pathetic that people here are defending him for this trollish behaviour. But it helps me understand why he has so many followers. He's like a cult leader.

20Cent

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.

Maguined

Grayson wrote: »

except he's been suspended/warned multiple times before. Even if she broke a rule this time, she isn't a serial troller like him. He wasn't suspended just for this, if it was the first time he would have gotten a warning.

He was not warned, his suspensions were lifted because he appealed the suspension and during the appeals they found he had not broken the rules.

Turquoise Hexagon Sun

Thoie wrote: »

I absolutely can disagree with a ridiculous claim of "free speech" in this case. Free speech is about the ability to say "the government is useless, and needs to be replaced" without being arrested. It is not a carte blanche to launch personal attacks - not even on an individual member of the government.

He is not "a monster created by the regressive far-left". He's a little notice-box that needs to grow up. His excuse is right up there with "the devil made me do it" and shows a shocking lack of personal responsibility. No-one and no thing made him do anything. If the "regressive far-left" had the power to make people do things, surely they'd make everyone think like them? Or make everyone be nice to each other.

Excuse for being proud of what he does? What? He didn't use it as an excuse. Him being created by the regressives is his tongue-in-cheek stab at the far left, a taste of reactionary PC madness. A taste of their ****. He's a provocateur an entertainer. You're not supposed to take him so seriously. The fact that people are is ridiculous. Also he said he would have been a lefty had he not being "rejected" by their way of thinking which can often be arguing from feels and not facts.

Maybe you don't have experience with the attack on intellectualism in the US college campuses, safe-spaces, trigger-warnings and general censorship the social justice warriors are imposing in the US and across the globe. I think if you were more clued in on this, you would see the humour and relevance of Milo.

That's why people like people like evolutionary psychologist Prof. Gad Saad and big name podcasters like Rubin and Joe Rogan that believe in free speech, libertarianism, promotion of intellectual curiosity and philosophy want him on their shows.

Free speech covers more than that. It's a very narrow view of free-speech and you know it.

pumpkin4life

Free speech is more about being able to criticize and praise people, no matter their position/minority/ skin color/ gender orientation in society etc equally, without ending up getting in trouble for it.

Criticize=! personal attacks/racism.

BTW, not talking about Milo here, barely know anything bout the guy.

Penn

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Free speech is more about being able to criticize and praise people, no matter their position/minority/ skin color/ gender orientation in society etc equally, without ending up getting in trouble for it.

Criticize=! personal attacks/racism.

Okay, so let's evaluate the difference between criticism and a personal attack:

Tweets from Milo:
https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/e7HjH-FInTkR8IrNvwU8q4HtFPY=/600x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6816253/Screen%20Shot%202016-07-20%20at%204.34.49%20AM.png
https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/dxqfTbx4lWLlvkAiR89l35tjFlk=/600x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6816255/Screen%20Shot%202016-07-20%20at%204.36.04%20AM.png
https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/x-KtFwzEUmIzBMrvkJPo-lfoDnQ=/600x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6816257/Screen%20Shot%202016-07-20%20at%204.34.02%20AM.png

Is calling her a man/fat/ugly criticism or a personal attack?

Maguined

Penn wrote: »

Okay, so let's evaluate the difference between criticism and a personal attack:

Tweets from Milo:
https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/e7HjH-FInTkR8IrNvwU8q4HtFPY=/600x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6816253/Screen%20Shot%202016-07-20%20at%204.34.49%20AM.png
https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/dxqfTbx4lWLlvkAiR89l35tjFlk=/600x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6816255/Screen%20Shot%202016-07-20%20at%204.36.04%20AM.png
https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/x-KtFwzEUmIzBMrvkJPo-lfoDnQ=/600x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6816257/Screen%20Shot%202016-07-20%20at%204.34.02%20AM.png

Is calling her a man/fat/ugly criticism or a personal attack?

I am a Milo fan and I can agree these are personal attacks. Do you view Lesie describing Milo as an Uncle Tom a personal attack? Do you think it should be punished?

pumpkin4life

Penn wrote: »

Okay, so let's evaluate the difference between criticism and a personal attack:

Tweets from Milo:
https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/e7HjH-FInTkR8IrNvwU8q4HtFPY=/600x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6816253/Screen%20Shot%202016-07-20%20at%204.34.49%20AM.png
https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/dxqfTbx4lWLlvkAiR89l35tjFlk=/600x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6816255/Screen%20Shot%202016-07-20%20at%204.36.04%20AM.png
https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/x-KtFwzEUmIzBMrvkJPo-lfoDnQ=/600x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6816257/Screen%20Shot%202016-07-20%20at%204.34.02%20AM.png

Is calling her a man/fat/ugly criticism or a personal attack?

Personal attack/crap joke.

Internet can be dodge sometimes for that kind of thing.

Penn

Maguined wrote: »

I am a Milo fan and I can agree these are personal attacks. Do you view Lesie describing Milo as an Uncle Tom a personal attack? Do you think it should be punished?

She didn't. Those were from fake tweets made by something like http://www.lemmetweetthatforyou.com/

Her response to those
https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/755246358609727488

https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/755264911580733440


I fully agree the tweets someone else posted pages back about white people (which let's face it, are hardly comparable to abuse) are legit and stuff that she tweeted. Those ones you're referring to however, are fake.

Turquoise Hexagon Sun

That's a joke. Wow banning people over jokes. Why not ban Ricky Gervais from making any jokes poking fun at celebs. Really. She looks like a man and it's known he likes black guys. This is obviously a joke. The intent is humour.

She also did the very thing Milo got banned for apparently doing. So it's double standards from Twitter.

Penn

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Personal attack/crap joke.

Internet can be dodge sometimes for that kind of thing.

Agreed. What I'm saying is, do you think Free Speech alleviates Milo of responsibility for those comments?

Maguined

Penn wrote: »

She didn't. Those were from fake tweets made by something like http://www.lemmetweetthatforyou.com/

Her response to those
https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/755246358609727488

https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/755264911580733440


I fully agree the tweets someone else posted pages back about white people (which let's face it, are hardly comparable to abuse) are legit and stuff that she tweeted. Those ones you're referring to however, are fake.

I agree that those were fake but she has posted calling a Milo fan a "racist bitch" under her account as well as retweeting someone elses tweet calling Milo and "Uncle Tom". Ban people for abuse I say but apply the rules to all.

Turquoise Hexagon Sun

Interesting from Gad Saaad - Free Speech and a voice of reason

pumpkin4life

Penn wrote: »

Agreed. What I'm saying is, do you think Free Speech alleviates Milo of responsibility for those comments?

Well it depends.

This is twitter and it is their company.

If twitter want to allow their users to throw personal attacks at each other, then have at it. It's a social media platform where you choose to participate, not real life.

If twitter want to ban people for making personal attacks, then fair enough. If that is their policy, then Milo should be banned. If twitter dislike people like Milo to make personal attacks, but not say a liberal who makes a personal attack, then that's fair enough too. Plenty of places on the internet to go to.

Having said that, from a business point of view, it might be a bad idea for twitter. If you start banning people, people will look for an alternative.

Or maybe I'm biased. I like the fact that the internet is half mad/half anarchy tbh.

RayM

I tweeted something very mildly critical about something Yiannopoulos said on Twitter once (I didn't even tweet directly @ him, so he must have been searching his name). He retweeted it and made some sneering comment, deliberately misrepresenting what I had said. I didn't bother replying because I don't 'do' back & forth arguments on Twitter. I was still receiving random 'threatening' and abusive tweets two days later from his barely coherent, acceptance-craving fanboys - many of whom were Irish. Hundreds upon hundreds of them. It was more annoying and inconvenient than anything - I had to switch off Twitter notifications on my phone - it was very clearly a tactic, aimed at silencing people. Some of them even took the time to trawl through my tweets and found a link to my wordpress blog, and they then sent stupid messages through the contact form.

Glad the prick's been banned, tbh. Not because of his shitty right-wing opinions, but because like so many right-wingers, his shitty opinions are accompanied by shitty behaviour.

RWCNT

Turquoise Hexagon Sun wrote: »

Maybe you don't have experience with the attack on intellectualism in the US college campuses, safe-spaces, trigger-warnings and general censorship the social justice warriors are imposing in the US and across the globe. I think if you were more clued in on this, you would see the humour and relevance of Milo.

Like most people I'd imagine his experience of that sort of thing is largely from hysterical threads on here citing right wing media sources which largely misrepresent what's going on in order to stoke the flames of this supposed "culture war" and fill up some more column inches, at best, or drive people to the right, at worst. Who cares if something has a trigger warning on it, anyway?

Elliott S

RayM wrote: »

I tweeted something very mildly critical about something Yiannopoulos said on Twitter once (I didn't even tweet directly @ him, so he must have been searching his name). He retweeted it and made some sneering comment, deliberately misrepresenting what I had said. I didn't bother replying because I don't 'do' back & forth arguments on Twitter. I was still receiving random 'threatening' and abusive tweets two days later from his barely coherent, acceptance-craving fanboys - many of whom were Irish. Hundreds upon hundreds of them. It was more annoying and inconvenient than anything - I had to switch off Twitter notifications on my phone - it was very clearly a tactic, aimed at silencing people. Some of them even took the time to trawl through my tweets and found a link to my wordpress blog, and they then sent stupid messages through the contact form.

Glad the prick's been banned, tbh. Not because of his shitty right-wing opinions, but because like so many right-wingers, his shitty opinions are accompanied by shitty behaviour.

Some of his fanboys are very evidently posting here too.

Cienciano

RayM wrote: »

I tweeted something very mildly critical about something Yiannopoulos said on Twitter once (I didn't even tweet directly @ him, so he must have been searching his name). He retweeted it and made some sneering comment, deliberately misrepresenting what I had said. I didn't bother replying because I don't 'do' back & forth arguments on Twitter. I was still receiving random 'threatening' and abusive tweets two days later from his barely coherent, acceptance-craving fanboys - many of whom were Irish. Hundreds upon hundreds of them. It was more annoying and inconvenient than anything - I had to switch off Twitter notifications on my phone - it was very clearly a tactic, aimed at silencing people. Some of them even took the time to trawl through my tweets and found a link to my wordpress blog, and they then sent stupid messages through the contact form.

Glad the prick's been banned, tbh. Not because of his shitty right-wing opinions, but because like so many right-wingers, his shitty opinions are accompanied by shitty behaviour.

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.

Cienciano

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.

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.