De-platforming fascists works

Veritas Libertas

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

The company has a right to refuse a black person because he is black... Jesus, I didn't actually think you'd take that position.
Very telling though, I'm not sure if someone has identified your authoritarian beliefs to you before.

But if they do tell you why and it's a bull**** reason, does this change things?
.

Just on this point.... You can be refused entry to a private premises for almost any reason, or for no reason at all. Same with a service, you're allowed to use it unless the service provider wants to withdraw your access to that service. Again, for almost any reason, or for no reason whatsoever.

What they cannot do, as it has been made illegal, is say "I'm denying you entry/access because of X", where X is one of the 9 grounds for discrimination. (age, sex, religion, sexual preference, race, travellers etc.).

In fact, it is not even illegal to refuse entry to someone because they are black or gay..... It only becomes illegal if they announce that is the reason or if it can be proven that is the reason.

Veritas Libertas

Deleted User wrote: »

Just on this point.... You can be refused entry to a private premises for almost any reason, or for no reason at all.

What they cannot do, as it has been made illegal, is say "I'm denying you entry/access because of X",

In fact, it is not even illegal to refuse entry to someone because they are black or gay..... It only becomes illegal if they announce that is the reason or if it can be proven that is the reason.

Indeed you make a good nuanced point I completely agree with. But it is illegal to deny people access on grounds of race. You can only prosecute if you can prove it, or they admit it. It is still illegal/immoral even if they don't admit it, just in this case you won't have any evidence to prosecute.

Let's say a company seemed to be dismissing more black people than white people. And everytime they dismissed black people they sent the message "Broke our TOS", would we not instead look at the actions of the company rather than what they're doing?
We could then use this as evidence that the company are discriminating against black people even if they don't say it.

This is what's happening to Avi Yemini and many others on Twitter. If doxing or something was given as the excuse, and a screenshot of the tweet, no one would have issue.
But twitter keep giving bull**** reasons for banning people.

yoke

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

"They should be jailed[parents] for the child abuse they put her[Greta] through"
I'm assuming this is the insult in question.

An insult to a child's parents (in front of the child) is an insult to the child.

Hence "Yore ma <...>" insults.
An insult is an attack, as in how Yiannopoulos repeatedly insulted Leslie Jones, and ordinary discourse cannot happen while insults are being thrown about. When someone insults someone, they are showing a lack of respect for that person, and they cannot expect respect back from them.

Some easy ways people often use to show their own lack of respect back to someone after being insulted:

1. insult them back
2. ignore them
3. hit, damage, or kill them
4. break their property
5. stop serving them/de-platform them

Insulting someone and expecting them to carry on and treat you with the same respect they were treating you with before is pretty retarded, and I'd question the cognitive ability of anyone who expected that. It's the equivalent of hitting a random dog and then being surprised when it bites you back.

"Don't listen to me, listen to scientists".

I don't know what context this was said in, but surely this was said in a context which meant "Don't listen to me, listen to scientists, because they are saying exactly the same thing I am saying"?

Could one not seriously hold the opinion that this is tantamount to child abuse?

IMO it would take a very strange leap of faith not to see that it was written purely as an insult to attack her, perhaps because he was not able to intelligently attack the subject matter (what she was talking about).

One could also claim that one held the opinion that she was talking in a different language, where 'climate change' meant 'my parents molestered me', but it wouldn't be very believable either

Veritas Libertas

yoke wrote: »

An insult to a child's parents (in front of the child) is an insult to the child.

Well it wasn't an insult to the child or the parents. It was Avi Yeminis opinion that he tweeted about on his twitter account and I believe it to be based on fact, not just some random attack on a dog on a street at all.. far from it.

Insult the verb, is a active measure that requires treat with disrespect or scornful abuse. Simply taking offence to something does not mean it was an insult.

A lot of people were calling out Soph's parents when she was similarly famous to Greta for a while. That wasn't seen as hate at the time i.e.

Parents are exploiting their children on YouTube for fame and easy money

As scripted content, the cost to the child is one of time and effort, but more than that, perhaps, one of perception. Most of these children are young – barely out of toddlerhood – when to perform an idea of cuteness and be made aware of its currency is to usher in early a plague of the age: self-consciousness.

Is that not a form of abuse that Greta's parents are inflicting upon her?
Can you see how if the Guardian were instead talking about Greta, they might get banned from twitter?

Insulting someone and expecting them to carry on and treat you with the same respect they were treating you with before is pretty retarded, and I'd question the cognitive ability of anyone who expected that. It's the equivalent of hitting a random dog and then being surprised when it bites you back.

With the risk of sounding rude, I must say I don't quite get the point. I'm not advocating that people should respect others who insult them. In fact if you don't like people you can often block them these days. Why do we need to appeal to a higher authority unless there is slander/malice/incitement to violence doxing etc.. involved.

IMO it would take a very strange leap of faith not to see that it was written purely as an insult to attack her, perhaps because he was not able to intelligently attack the subject matter (what she was talking about).

I hope I've shown that like in the guardian article that it's a very credible opinion to accuse parents of abusing their children if you have evidence such as Greta. In no way can it be construed as definitely an insult. This is totally unfair.

yoke

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Well it wasn't an insult to the child or the parents. It was Avi Yeminis opinion that he tweeted about

It can be his opinion but it can still be an insult. I could walk past someone called Joe Bloggs on the street and think "that guy's a fvcking idiot", but if I took a photo of him and put a tweet online saying "Joe Bloggs is a fvcking idiot", I'd still be insulting him, even though I was only expressing my opinion.

Insult the verb, is a active measure that requires treat with disrespect or scornful abuse. Simply taking offence to something does not mean it was an insult.

As per your quote, it only requires "treat with disrespect" OR "scornful abuse", not both.

Hence, treating someone with disrespect is all that's actually required to insult them, by definition.
I could have an opinion that someone is a smelly little retarded fvck, but once I share that opinion I have insulted them (unless they actually are a smelly little retarded fvck, I guess).

A lot of people were calling out Soph's parents when she was similarly famous to Greta for a while. That wasn't seen as hate at the time i.e.
Parents are exploiting their children on YouTube for fame and easy money

So technically yes, those people were insulting Soph - but Soph insulted a lot of people first, so it was ok.
Greta isn't insulting any group of people to the best of my knowledge, so why the aggro towards her from Avi? He should stick to attacking her subject matter, rather than her, because she didn't attack him first. Soph attacked a lot of people first, hence she can't expect sympathy when she's attacked back.

It's similar to how when a police officer assaults you in order to arrest you, it's OK, because you did something illegal first, ie. resisted arrest. Or when a police car rams a getaway car, it's OK, because they were asked to stop but didn't. Otherwise, every single criminal on the planet would just walk away when asked nicely by the policeman to walk into the jail cell so he could be locked up, because the policeman couldn't use force which under normal circumstances would qualify as a crime.

With the risk of sounding rude, I must say I don't quite get the point. I'm not advocating that people should respect others who insult them. In fact if you don't like people you can often block them these days. Why do we need to appeal to a higher authority unless there is slander/malice/incitement to violence doxing etc.. involved.

In the real world, when you make the first move on someone (eg. an insult), you're leaving it up to them how they want to respond. If you didn't want them to respond a certain way, either you shouldn't have made the first move, or else you should have somehow secured your position so that they couldn't respond in that fashion.

In the "random dog" analogy, you should have either killed the dog, or not attacked it at all - hitting it is stupidity and just inviting trouble. Of course, if you killed the dog, you'd likely make some human enemies who are more powerful than the dog, so perhaps best to just not insult the person (hit the dog) to begin with, and stick to attacking what they are saying instead if you disagree with them.

Veritas Libertas

yoke wrote: »

It can be his opinion but it can still be an insult. I could walk past someone called Joe Bloggs on the street and think "that guy's a fvcking idiot", but if I took a photo of him and put a tweet online saying "Joe Bloggs is a fvcking idiot", I'd still be insulting him, even though I was only expressing my opinion.

In this example you'd have nothing to base your opinion on. It is an insult and could only be classified an insult. I fear you are deviating too far from the example of what Avi said: Just so we keep the context:
Greta: talks about the abuse she's receiving from the entire world.
Avi: "They should be jailed[parents] for the child abuse they put her[Greta] through"

It clearly has some context and is not just a random insult/attack. People say all sorts of things about Trump that clearly are not true, but they are allowed under the guise of 'opinion' we would have to ban all those people too.
As you see in that guardian article they also talk about how parents can abuse their children by using them to advance political talking points, specifically through youtube. There was no outrage at this article, in fact it was seen as helpful for kids.

Hence, treating someone with disrespect is all that's actually required to insult them, by definition.
I could have an opinion that someone is a smelly little retarded fvck, but once I share that opinion I have insulted them (unless they actually are a smelly little retarded fvck, I guess).

Remember Avi didn't insult them by calling them names. He said what the parents were doing to their child was tantamount to child abuse. This is not a baseless accusation. Imagine if Trump could silence everyone who insults him, whether fair or not?

So technically yes, those people were insulting Soph - but Soph insulted a lot of people first, so it was ok.

This is the argument 'it's ok when we do it not when you do it' People have accused Greta of insulting them too. There are 2 active threads in this forum right now about it.

Greta isn't insulting any group of people to the best of my knowledge, so why the aggro towards her from Avi?

She said things bordering on hate speech and I'm sure you know I have a high tolerance for that kind of thing ^_^.
"You have stolen my childhood and my dreams with your empty words"
"We are in the beginning of a mass extinction"
"How dare you"
"If you really understood the situation, and continued not to act, then you would be evil- and that I refuse to believe"

Insulting our intelligence and threatening of armageddon, all in a condescending tone from someone who agrees she doesn't understand the science.

manual_man wrote: »

I have no problem with children wanting to do well for the environment. Kids are generally well meaning. There's certainly no harm in teachers - and parents - introducing the idea of environmentally responsibility to children(from a certain age, at least).

However, there's a lot more at play.

First of all, i think most people can agree that scaring our children to death is not the way to go about things. Instances of 'eco anxiety' are on the rise among children and young adults. It's not surprising when you hear people such as AOC, who are very popular with a younger demographic, saying that the world will end in 12 years if we don't take any action. This is disgraceful and irresponsible. Teaching young people about environmentally responsibility and what they themselves can do (particularly with their own consumption habits) is great. Trying to indoctrinate them with fear is not.

Now, as to Greta Thunberg herself: I really have mixed views. I have nothing against the girl herself. Young people should be protected, and their concerns should be listened to. However, they are still children. I'm not comfortable with her being pushed into an adult's world as she has been. It's a fair question to ask if the adults behind her really have her best interests at heart, or if there are more nefarious motives at play. I heard her initial protest was indeed orchestrated by her parents and others (despite them having denied it at first). Also, as has probably been noted, her parents wrote about her and her sister's challenges with mental health issues in a book not so long ago. Is it really responsible for a parent to make their children's struggles so public??? I personally would say no.

So i think it's myopic to immediately accuse anyone who is raising concerns as 'bullying a child' or 'being threatened by a child'. While i've seen a few distasteful remarks thrown her way, the majority of concern i've seen is not directly critical of her but rather is raising concern of the wisdom of thrusting her to the very forefront of what is a very divisive issue (at least in terms of the best way of going about addressing the issue). I think there's better ways to have this debate. Thrusting a child to the forefront of the debate and demanding that she be listened to (but not questioned) seems a bit nefarious to me. We can do better.

I quoted this post in full because of it's high quality and relevance to the matter.

He should stick to attacking her subject matter, rather than her, because she didn't attack him first. Soph attacked a lot of people first, hence she can't expect sympathy when she's attacked back.

This continues to become about what our definition of attack is. You have admitted you can see it can also be viewed as opinion, what if you're wrong and condemning innocent people? What if her opinion that was an 'attack' on other people was right?
Imagine if before the Church's child molestation scandals they were able to laugh off these claims as hate speech? How dare you call our priests paedophiles.. that's hateful! Surely truth has a part to play in the matter primarily?

In the real world, when you make the first move on someone (eg. an insult), you're leaving it up to them how they want to respond. If you didn't want them to respond a certain way, either you shouldn't have made the first move, or else you should have somehow secured your position so that they couldn't respond in that fashion.

But assault or battery are the first moves! Fighting words perhaps also, but suggestions that you might be abusing your kids based on genuine concerns should not be seen as fighting words no(IMO).
You are free to leave the area of someone who insults you, or block them or ignore them or insult them back. If they continue to insult you this becomes a crime in the form of harassment which can be prosecuted under the law.

I left out large chunks, but I hope I addressed all the points!

(here's another clip skynews australia also claiming greta's parents should be investigated- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYtPTt9fnzc)

yoke

I think the key here is that while Greta's words may be depressing and overly gloomy, she is not saying "Avi has stolen my childhood and dreams", and I do believe she means what she says.

Avi on the other hand, is specifically targetting Greta, and further to that I don't believe he really thinks this is child abuse, or else he has a very low bar for what constitutes child abuse.

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

"You have stolen my childhood and my dreams with your empty words"
"We are in the beginning of a mass extinction"
"How dare you"
"If you really understood the situation, and continued not to act, then you would be evil- and that I refuse to believe"

Insulting our intelligence and threatening of armageddon, all in a condescending tone from someone who agrees she doesn't understand the science.

This part comes down to whether you believe she's correct or not, I guess if I didn't believe man-made climate change existed, then her words could appear somewhat offensive. But I don't see people refuting her points, whereas with Soph, people refuted her points, and she either ignored them or just insulted them more in return, leading them to insult her back.

This continues to become about what our definition of attack is. You have admitted you can see it can also be viewed as opinion, what if you're wrong and condemning innocent people? What if her opinion that was an 'attack' on other people was right?
Imagine if before the Church's child molestation scandals they were able to laugh off these claims as hate speech? How dare you call our priests paedophiles.. that's hateful! Surely truth has a part to play in the matter primarily?

The problem with this is that before the Church's child molestation was corroborated by so many accounts, and hence began meeting the threshold after which we call it "proof", IMO it would actually have been wrong to accuse the church of child molestation without corroborating evidence, and in fact they would technically be correct in saying "how dare you call our priests paedophiles?" - without evidence.
Otherwise, we should end up pre-emptively also calling other groups, eg. doctors, paedophiles, and thus accuse them wrongly.

But assault or battery are the first moves! Fighting words perhaps also, but suggestions that you might be abusing your kids based on genuine concerns should not be seen as fighting words no(IMO).
You are free to leave the area of someone who insults you, or block them or ignore them or insult them back. If they continue to insult you this becomes a crime in the form of harassment which can be prosecuted under the law.

We're going to differ on this IMO - I think its a case of "my life has shaped me to think of someone insulting me as an attack on me, because that's often what came next when I ignored an insult, whereas yours might have shaped you differently".
I also don't believe it's realistic to expect the law to protect you in most of these situations, at least not in any country I've lived in. They're not omni-present/all-powerful and will never be.

I left out large chunks, but I hope I addressed all the points!

[/quote]
Me too - remember, I don't disagree with everything you say. The points I do disagree on tend to be the ones which are due to our different life experiences which have shaped us, so quite often we're approaching the subject from opposite ends of the spectrum. It's good to get an opposing view sometimes!

Veritas Libertas

yoke wrote: »

Avi on the other hand, is specifically targetting Greta, and further to that I don't believe he really thinks this is child abuse, or else he has a very low bar for what constitutes child abuse.

Who are you or anybody else to decide this? Twitter has decided this; what if they're wrong? What if Avi is right and Greta is being abused?

This part comes down to whether you believe she's correct or not, I guess if I didn't believe man-made climate change existed, then her words could appear somewhat offensive.

That is a vast oversimplification of the facts. There are many people that accept man-made climate change that are also offended by how Greta is being paraded about spinning a tale of arma*****n. The relevant part is that she is being thrust into this debate by her parents, to take all the attention and criticism surrouding it, and they also wrote a book about their children's mental ilness'. There is good grounds to call this abuse. Why is this a low bar for calling this abuse? Surely this is opinion, and an opinion twitter know nothing about.

The problem with this is that before the Church's child molestation was corroborated by so many accounts, and hence began meeting the threshold after which we call it "proof", IMO it would actually have been wrong to accuse the church of child molestation without corroborating evidence, and in fact they would technically be correct in saying "how dare you call our priests paedophiles?" - without evidence.

In my example they have evidence but are still dismissed as hate speakers. Their evidence is not even looked at because they have already been judged. My point is that evidence can be dismissed because you have judged the character of the person presenting it, this is what I see a lot in modern day.

To go back to the example, imagine you had evidence of child abuse but weren't allowed to present it because you were called a"Racist" or a "catholicist". People completely dismissed your opinion out of hand BEFORE looking at the evidence is what I'm arguing. How can you present evidence if you are de-platformed? Antifa UK successfully suspending the premiere of "Edge of the city" Which was a documentary meant to highlight struggles of social care workers in West Yorkshire, but ended up starting a nationwide revelation about grooming gangs. The police were afraid to investigate for fear of being called racist. The documentary was temporarily suspended from screening. Can you not see the harm that can be caused by restricting people's speech? If so, is this something you're just willing to accept?

Me too - remember, I don't disagree with everything you say. The points I do disagree on tend to be the ones which are due to our different life experiences which have shaped us, so quite often we're approaching the subject from opposite ends of the spectrum. It's good to get an opposing view sometimes!

I'm happy disagreeing with you and you with me, but I see a problem with your perspective. It's fine when the person deciding what is acceptable or not is righteous and good; but so rarely is this the case as power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Here is that full quote;

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. That is the point at which the negation of Catholicism and the negation of Liberalism meet and keep high festival, and the end learns to justify the means. You would hang a man of no position like Ravaillac; but if what one hears is true, then Elizabeth asked the gaoler to murder Mary, and William III of England ordered his Scots minister to extirpate a clan. Here are the greatest names coupled with the greatest crimes; you would spare those criminals, for some mysterious reason. I would hang them higher than Haman, for reasons of quite obvious justice, still more, still higher for the sake of historical science

Truth and evidence will cease to exist if your world view comes to pass; the character of the person will be the judge. Look at how a previous poster here wouldn't even look at a 90second clip to formulate their own opinion. This is the future that you have outlined. Its already happening.

ohnonotgmail

It is amazing how quickly the mask slips with some posters.

Veritas Libertas

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Indeed you make a good nuanced point I completely agree with. But it is illegal to deny people access on grounds of race. You can only prosecute if you can prove it, or they admit it. It is still illegal/immoral even if they don't admit it, just in this case you won't have any evidence to prosecute.

If you don't have evidence of it, then who's to say it actually happened? It could be all in somebody's head, and starting down that slippery slope is not the way forward. There's already too much attention given over to people being 'offended' by/on behalf of other people.

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

This is what's happening to Avi Yemini and many others on Twitter. If doxing or something was given as the excuse, and a screenshot of the tweet, no one would have issue.
But twitter keep giving bull**** reasons for banning people.

That's the thing, though.........they're 100% allowed to ban people for bull**** reasons.....whether you find it right or wrong is besides the point. Being liberal or right-wing is not one of the grounds for discrimination, so they could even come out and say "we don't like the alt-right", but they don't.

You say they're banning people on the right
They say they ban people who broke the TOS
You say they don't ban everyone who breaks the TOS, just those on the right
They say so what, if you don't wanna get banned, here's the rules for using our product

You can't spew hate speech and vile messages and then turn around and play the victim when you're called on it. Well you can, but nobody will listen.
I've never heard of this guy Yemini, all the searches just return articles about him pleading guilty to punching his wife around. He sounds like a grade A, card-carrying member of the sh1tebag club.

PostWoke

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

People used to obsess about Jordan Chandler as well.

So that's gonna be a no on the 'no deflecting' proposal?

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

How does deplatforming fascists stop mass murderers in New Zealand and Quebec?

UUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH where do you think they learned to hate like this? Exactly where you did, in fact!

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

My outrage is in stopping people from expressing themselves freely. Your red herrings of nazi mass murders only serve to prove Godwin's Law.

Get some worthwhile outrage then, because mass murder trumps (don't get excited) restriction of hate speech. Also you're the only one who mentioned nazis, so in fact you're bringing Godwin's law into this, good job, you're clearly very smart.

Veritas Libertas

Deleted User wrote: »

If you don't have evidence of it, then who's to say it actually happened? It could be all in somebody's head, and starting down that slippery slope is not the way forward. There's already too much attention given over to people being 'offended' by/on behalf of other people.

I agree with you

That's the thing, though.........they're 100% allowed to ban people for bull**** reasons.....whether you find it right or wrong is besides the point. Being liberal or right-wing is not one of the grounds for discrimination, so they could even come out and say "we don't like the alt-right", but they don't.

You are not allowed to ban people for bull**** reasons! you can do it for no reason often times, and this is not illegal. I'm talking purely in the abstract about what is right and wrong. It is wrong to deny someone entry because they're black, it was wrong to ban avi from twitter for this tweet.

It may be ok and acceptable within their rules(which their openness to interpretation is ridiculous).
Wait until youtube/twitter gets bought out by someone like Rupert Murdoch, then I think many people will suddenly agree with me.

You say they're banning people on the right
They say they ban people who broke the TOS
You say they don't ban everyone who breaks the TOS, just those on the right
They say so what, if you don't wanna get banned, here's the rules for using our product

I would argue youtube are pretty fair in their demonetization of anything even vaguely political these days. Twitter are another story entirely. To use my analogy from earlier, they have been turning away so many black people citing stupid reasons, its clear they are becoming racist. Something needs to be done about it.

You can't spew hate speech and vile messages and then turn around and play the victim when you're called on it. Well you can, but nobody will listen.
I've never heard of this guy Yemini, all the searches just return articles about him pleading guilty to punching his wife around. He sounds like a grade A, card-carrying member of the sh1tebag club.

I agree with you from what little I've seen he seems like an a$$hole too. I still agree with a lot of what he's been saying.
Companies can kick assholes off their platform all they want. But twitter have not been consistent kicking off their ass holes , just look at someone like Kathy Griffin:

She literally doxed CHILDREN, and called for violence against them. Response from twitter? None of course because she's on 'their side'.
Tim Pool even brings it up with a Twitter exec in the interview on Rogan's show.

https://twitter.com/kathygriffin/status/1086929980846571520?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1086929980846571520&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2Fkathy-griffin-viciously-targets-covington-catholic-daily-wire

These moron kids don’t even know what the **** their platform is. They just want to start ****. And I have a feeling they know mommy and daddy and all of their white privilege orange dumbass supporters will protect them. Well as they say, times up.

That's fine and acceptable according to twitter. She formulated her opinion from a 10second clip, it later proved just how wrong she was when the entire clip was aired.

Veritas Libertas

PostWoke wrote: »

So that's gonna be a no on the 'no deflecting' proposal?

Ok since you failed to understand the point, let me expain it to you more simply. The point was made that why are people obsessing about greta, since she did nothing wrong.

I said that's not why they were obsessing about greata, they were concerned with her well-being. I gave an example of Chandler, because he too was a young person who people were obsessing about , although they weren't obsessing that he did something wrong.


But you already know this and are purposefully trying to obfuscate the argument. I expect your next reply to contain equal drivel.

UUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH where do you think they learned to hate like this? Exactly where you did, in fact!

you're clearly very smart

Thank you.

Veritas Libertas

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

You are not allowed to ban people for bull**** reasons! you can do it for no reason often times, and this is not illegal. I'm talking purely in the abstract about what is right and wrong. It is wrong to deny someone entry because they're black, it was wrong to ban avi from twitter for this tweet.

You ARE allowed, if it's your platform. You can ban anyone, for literally any reason: "sorry, mate, we've decided that Geminis are no longer welcome so anyone with that star sign is a goner".

It is only when you come out and use one of the grounds of discrimination that you'll encounter any legal challenge. Example: you can ban anybody with blue eyes, if you feel like it. You cannot ban anybody with only one eye, because that's a form of disability.

Right and wrong are subjective. Where you and I draw the line could vary wildly from where Trump or Gemma O'Doherty draws it. Twitter et al can draw their own line and they usually let their users know where that line is in the Ts & Cs. Cross the line, you're head is on the chopping block. Doesn't matter if 200,000 people have already crossed it and gotten away with it........if you cross it, you're in the firing line.

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

To use my analogy from earlier, they have been turning away so many black people citing stupid reasons, its clear they are becoming racist. Something needs to be done about it.

You're trying to equate someone who was banned for hate speech* with people who were systematically oppressed for 100s of years and are still suffering the consequences of institutional racism. I'm not buying it, and I cannot see how one could logically come to the conclusion that the analogy is apt.

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

I agree with you from what little I've seen he seems like an a$$hole too. I still agree with a lot of what he's been saying. Companies can kick assholes off their platform all they want. But twitter have not been consistent kicking off their ass holes , just look at someone like Kathy Griffin.

Again....they do not have to be consistent. That is their prerogative. You can't turn around and start abusing people then cry foul when you're called on it by saying "well Kathy Griffin said X so I should be allowed to say Y and Z". It doesn't work like that.

*Disclaimer: I've no idea of the type of tweets he was putting out, I'm only going by the reasons they gave. What does he say that you agree with?

Veritas Libertas

Deleted User wrote: »

You ARE allowed, if it's your platform. You can ban anyone, for literally any reason: "sorry, mate, we've decided that Geminis are no longer welcome so anyone with that star sign is a goner".

I'm not arguing with you here. You are allowed to do whatever you like for no reason. But if you turn away only black people from your company for no reason everytime, eventually people will cop on that you're acting like a racist company. This abundance of evidence(refusing black people) CAN be used as evidence of racism.

It is only when you come out and use one of the grounds of discrimination that you'll encounter any legal challenge. Example: you can ban anybody with blue eyes, if you feel like it. You cannot ban anybody with only one eye, because that's a form of disability.

Why is having red hair not grounds for discrimination? Shouldn't it be?

Right and wrong are subjective.

The human right to free expression is not subjective. It is ingrained as a human right by the U.N.
It is also morally 'right' to allow free expression.

You're trying to equate someone who was banned for hate speech* with people who were systematically oppressed for 100s of years and are still suffering the consequences of institutional racism. I'm not buying it, and I cannot see how one could logically come to the conclusion that the analogy is apt.

I'm using an analogy to highlight that you can't just act like a racist(or suppress just one political aisle). You're saying a racist can just act like a racist; stop black people from entering their company. I'm saying they can only do this to a point. That point being when people notice this company has turned away so many black people(without citing reason, or giving a bull**** reason). I've tried to explain this point now many times, please tell me if you understand it!
It is a human right not to be denied because of your skin colour;
It is also a human right to free expression.

*Disclaimer: I've no idea of the type of tweets he was putting out, I'm only going by the reasons they gave. What does he say that you agree with?

I would happily answer this question; but this is not what is in question. What is in question is what has he said that warrants being banned. Perhaps better that we focus on that? Unless you can give a good reason..?

ohnonotgmail

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

I'm not arguing with you here. You are allowed to do whatever you like without no reason. But if you turn away only black people from your company for no reason everytime, eventually people will cop on that you're acting like a racist company. This abundance of evidence(refusing black people) CAN be used as evidence of racism.


Why is having red hair not grounds for discrimination? Shouldn't it be?


The human right to free expression is not subjective. It is ingrained as a human right by the U.N.
It is also morally 'right' to allow free expression.


I'm using an analogy to highlight that you can't just act like a racist(or suppress just one political aisle). You're saying a racist can just act like a racist; stop black people from entering their company. I'm saying they can only do this to a point. That point being when people notice this company has turned away so many black people(without citing reason, or giving a bull**** reason). I've tried to explain this point now many times, please tell me if you understand it!
It is a human right not to be denied because of your skin colour;
It is also a human right to free expression.



I would happily answer this question; but this is not what is in question. What is in question is what has he said that warrants being banned. Perhaps better that we focus on that? Unless you can give a good reason..?

YT gave him a reason.

Veritas Libertas

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

YT gave him a reason.

He's still on YT. Twitter kicked him off.

This is the reason Twitter gave:

Violating our rules against platform manipulation and spam

Do you think his tweet was breaking that rule?

His tweet read:

I hate the @UN more than you could imagine, but they didn't steal your dreams or childhood- your parents did.

They should be jailed for the sickening child abuse they put you through.

They've scared you into an extremist

All point of view expressed on this forum, by officer water coolers, and all across the internet for the last few days. Yet twitter bans this guy and cites this reason.

Do you think the reason they cited was correct gmail.?

ohnonotgmail

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

He's still on YT. Twitter kicked him off.

This is the reason Twitter gave:



Do you think his tweet was breaking that rule?

His tweet read:

All point of view expressed on this forum, by officer water coolers, and all across the internet for the last few days. Yet twitter bans this guy and cites this reason.

Do you think the reason they cited was correct gmail.?

did they say that it was that specific tweet, and that tweet alone, that caused him to be banned?

Woodsie1

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

He's still on YT. Twitter kicked him off.

This is the reason Twitter gave:



Do you think his tweet was breaking that rule?

His tweet read:

All point of view expressed on this forum, by officer water coolers, and all across the internet for the last few days. Yet twitter bans this guy and cites this reason.

Do you think the reason they cited was correct gmail.?

Avi Yemini??

Got his Twitter back today,guess Twitter saw the error of their ways.
Strange one because I don't think he's hugely popular.

Veritas Libertas

Woodsie1 wrote: »

Avi Yemini??

Great news. So I was right that twitter shouldn't have suspended him for that tweet, citing that reason.

Veritas Libertas

Woodsie1 wrote: »

Strange one because I don't think he's hugely popular.

RT did a piece on him, helped him with exposure and coverage.

The small man has no hope tweeting the kind of tweet Avi tweeted. They would be banned, they would not get coverage from RT, and they would not be unbanned.

Woodsie1

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

RT did a piece on him, helped him with exposure and coverage.

The small man has no hope tweeting the kind of tweet Avi tweeted. They would be banned, they would not get coverage from RT, and they would not be unbanned.

Your right,they'd be airbrushed from the internet.
I thought that's what would happen in this instance given his links to Tommy Robinson

Veritas Libertas

Woodsie1 wrote: »

Your right,they'd be airbrushed from the internet.
I thought that's what would happen in this instance given his links to Tommy Robinson

From what I've seen he's a far 'lighter' version of TR. I'd say this gives him a lot more silent support.

yoke

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Who are you or anybody else to decide this? Twitter has decided this; what if they're wrong? What if Avi is right and Greta is being abused?

Well, that is similar to saying “who are lawmakers to decide on what laws are made?”. The answer is that “someone has to do it, if it’s right for society”. Who is anyone to do anything?

If Avi turns out to be right by some stroke of luck, it’s still luck and we can’t just go around listening to anyone who spouts anything because then we’ll not be able to function, as we’ll be spending all our time investigating boll0cks claims made randomly.

Incidentally, just because he got back on twitter doesn’t mean twitter were wrong to ban him. He just got back because of popular support.
Popular support gives people power - I mean even Hitler got to host the olympics because of popular support at the time, doesn’t mean he was right to be a nazi or that the olympics comittee endorsed his views.

The relevant part is that she is being thrust into this debate by her parents, to take all the attention and criticism surrouding it, and they also wrote a book about their children's mental ilness'. There is good grounds to call this abuse. Why is this a low bar for calling this abuse? Surely this is opinion, and an opinion twitter know nothing about.

No, this isn’t good grounds for calling it abuse. Judging all the facts available to me, I am absolutely certain Avi doesn’t give a sh!t if Greta was abused, and only wants to suggest it in an effort to mock her. Intentions do matter, when judging an act.
Considering all the information available to you, do you believe Avi cares about Greta?
In anything, you have to consider all the info available to you, not just what is explicitly said, otherwise no argument will ever go anywhere, and the answer to any question will always be “I don’t know”.
Eg. If I asked you right now “Do you think I am actually a flying hippo monster alien?”, on one level you could answer “I don’t know”, and despite sounding clever, it’s actually a stupid answer because actually if you consider all the info available to you, you’d say “probably not, because when you consider the probability both the following things occurring at once, it’s very low - firstly, I see no evidence that flying hippo monsters even exist, and secondly even if they did exist, the chances of them getting on the internet and using their time to talk on an Internet forum doesn’t seem high”.
(Only after you met me would you realize that I am in fact a flying hippo monster alien, but by then I’d have eaten your brains )

Remember, I didn’t ask “can you be 100% sure that I’m not a FHMA?”, I asked “do you think that...”. Every decision we make is based on things we think, if the judge thinks a person did the crime they have to convict them, the judge can never be 100% sure the person did the crime.

In my example they have evidence but are still dismissed as hate speakers. Their evidence is not even looked at because they have already been judged. My point is that evidence can be dismissed because you have judged the character of the person presenting it, this is what I see a lot in modern day.

Obviously people are going to do this and I don’t blame them. Story of the boy who cried wolf, etc. You can’t keep crying wolf and expect people to stupidly ignore your past and re-investigate every time you cry “wolf!”. People don’t have all the time in the world.

To go back to the example, imagine you had evidence of child abuse but weren't allowed to present it because you were called a"Racist" or a "catholicist". People completely dismissed your opinion out of hand BEFORE looking at the evidence is what I'm arguing. How can you present evidence if you are de-platformed?

In that case, I’d try and understand why people were calling me racist. Perhaps get someone else to present the evidence. If they get called racist too, I’d investigate if my evidence was perhaps based on racism - I could find 10 black convicted rapists and present them as evidence that “black people committed rape”, if I was a retarded robot. A smarter robot would go back and look at the fact I found, and realize that white people also commit rape. A dumb robot would then quote “but black people do more crime per capita”. A smarter robot would go back and say “yeah, but black people are poorer in general due to historical factors, and actually it’s more likely that “poor people” do more crime in general rather than “black people”.

Antifa UK successfully suspending the premiere of "Edge of the city" Which was a documentary meant to highlight struggles of social care workers in West Yorkshire, but ended up starting a nationwide revelation about grooming gangs. The police were afraid to investigate for fear of being called racist. The documentary was temporarily suspended from screening. Can you not see the harm that can be caused by restricting people's speech? If so, is this something you're just willing to accept?

Probably more likely that the police did not have the means to break into these gangs easily. Those ethnicity-based gangs were made up entirely out of Asian ethnicity men who lived in a certain area, and the police probably didn’t have enough Asian ethnicity police officers from that same area to infiltrate them to gather evidence. They did get them in the end based on the girls coming forward, which isn’t a quick process and can take years.

Truth and evidence will cease to exist if your world view comes to pass; the character of the person will be the judge. Look at how a previous poster here wouldn't even look at a 90second clip to formulate their own opinion. This is the future that you have outlined. Its already happening.

No it won’t - it’s just the natural order of things, I mean if a dog is foaming at the lips and growling, I’ll assume it’s an unfriendly dog and keep away from it. I’ll miss the chance to pet what may be a lovely dog, but i’ll avoid being that stupid person who pets a growling dog and gets bitten.
The person didn’t miss much by looking at the 90 second clip to be fair, I watched it in its entirety only because I was discussing it with you. I don’t have to read the Bible or the Koran in order to have an opinion on it.
Demanding that the only people’s opinion which matters are people who have read the entire thing is not as clever as it sounds.

Veritas Libertas

yoke wrote: »

I am absolutely certain Avi doesn’t give a sh!t if Greta was abused, and only wants to suggest it in an effort to mock her. Intentions do matter, when judging an act.

This is I believe the heart of the issue. Who judges the act? At present we tell judges they must look for proof of malice, or intent. To remove the need to prove intent, we leave it up for the judge to decide arbitrarily just like you have done with Avi.

I'm saying if you believe that you need to prove it. How can you be so certain of something without proof? If I was absolutely certain about something; I would be able to prove that.
People like twitter are saying they no longer need to prove these things, they know; they are certain.

Avi has already had his ban lifted. Remember, people weren't willing to even listen to his video... If not for an RT piece he would still be banned. What hope does the small man have of expressing an opinion without the help of RT?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

why would i want to listen to a **** like that?

They had prejudged him before looking at the evidence. That is what I'm warning against here.
These people are relying on other people to inform them, they are not making up their own minds. Can you not see how dangerous this is?

ohnonotgmail

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

This is I believe the heart of the issue. Who judges the act? At present we tell judges they must look for proof of malice, or intent. To remove the need to prove intent, we leave it up for the judge to decide arbitrarily just like you have done with Avi.

I'm saying if you believe that you need to prove it. How can you be so certain of something without proof? If I was absolutely certain about something; I would be able to prove that.
People like twitter are saying they no longer need to prove these things, they know; they are certain.

Avi has already had his ban lifted. Remember, people weren't willing to even listen to his video... If not for an RT piece he would still be banned. What hope does the small man have of expressing an opinion without the help of RT?


They had prejudged him before looking at the evidence. That is what I'm warning against here.
These people are relying on other people to inform them, they are not making up their own minds. Can you not see how dangerous this is?

I have a rule about being told to watch a video. If their command of english is so poor that they cannot make an argument in written form then it is very unlikely that they are worth listening to.

Veritas Libertas

yoke wrote: »

Probably more likely that the police did not have the means to break into these gangs easily. Those ethnicity-based gangs were made up entirely out of Asian ethnicity men who lived in a certain area, and the police probably didn’t have enough Asian ethnicity police officers from that same area to infiltrate them to gather evidence. They did get them in the end based on the girls coming forward, which isn’t a quick process and can take years.

The Sunday Mirror did an 18 month report into the Telford affair.

• Social workers knew of abuse in the 1990s but police took a decade to launch a probe
• Council staff viewed abused and trafficked children as “prostitutes” instead of victims, according to previously unseen files
• Authorities failed to keep details of abusers from Asian communities for fear of “racism”
• Police failed to investigate one recent case five times until an MP intervened
• One victim said cops tried to stop her finding out why her abusers had not been prosecuted because they feared she would talk to us

Timeline:

• Early 1980s Vulnerable Telford girls are targeted by groups of mainly Asian men.
• 1996 A concerned resident claims she tells police about the activities of a key abuser selling underage girls for sex.
• Late 1990s Files reveal social workers learn of the problem but do little to help.
• 2000 Lucy Lowe, 16, is killed alongside her mum and sister in an arson attack by abuser Azhar Ali Mehmood, who made her pregnant at 14.
• 2002 Abuse victim Becky Watson, 13, is killed in a road accident described as a “prank”.
• 2009 Becky’s friend Vicky Round dies in a drugs-related incident after enduring nine years of sex hell at the hands of a string of paedophiles.
• 2010-2012 Police probe dubbed Operation Chalice identifies a potential 200 abusers but only nine are jailed. Two further probes collapse.
• August 2016 The Sunday Mirror reports that the problem is continuing outside underage discos in the town but some complaints provided by volunteer street pastors are not properly logged.
• September 2016 MP Lucy Allan calls for a public inquiry but police and council officials in Telford write to Home Secretary Amber Rudd saying this isn’t necessary.
• March 2018 The Sunday Mirror reveals there could be up to 1,000 victims of the scandal and links five deaths to the abuse.

Source

The Telford scandal resembles those exposed in the British towns of Rotherham and Rochdale, but is longer running and likely claimed many more victims.

PostWoke

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

The Sunday Mirror did an 18 month report into the Telford affair.

Well if it was the Sunday Mirror that changes things!

Veritas Libertas

PostWoke wrote: »

Well if it was the Sunday Mirror that changes things!

Are you insinuating there was something wrong with that report?

Its a report the police should have done themselves 20 years ago, but didn't because they were scared of being called racist.

Or are you one of the ones looking for these investigations into rape gangs not to happen?

PostWoke

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Are you insinuating there was something wrong with that report?

Uh, did it come from the Sunday Mirror?

There's your answer.

Nobody is going to take your islamophobic deflections and whataboutisms seriously I'm afraid. The police do police work, not islamophobic plonkers like basically any red-top.