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

osmiumartist · 23-07-2016 01:23PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Yep, keep parroting the Breitshart line there. Absolutely nothing to do with setting his "alt-"/far-right fanboys on her.

In which Tweet did he "set" his fans on her? You know, the way we have proven evidence of her setting her fans on him?

PopePalpatine · 23-07-2016 01:29PM

osmiumartist wrote: »

In which Tweet did he "set" his fans on her? You know, the way we have proven evidence of her setting her fans on him?

He has a cult following on 4chan and operates a Slack chatroom of over 40 "interns" sourced from 4chan. I don't believe his or his fanboys' claims of innocence for a second.

osmiumartist · 23-07-2016 01:40PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

He has a cult following on 4chan and operates a Slack chatroom of over 40 "interns" sourced from 4chan. I don't believe his or his fanboys' claims of innocence for a second.

"In the clip, the user “milo” warns the group not to use racial epithets because of the way it would look if the group chat became public"
So he expressly denounces racism in private yet he is "setting his cult" on people... great link there. Thanks for that.

Junkyard Tom · 23-07-2016 01:42PM

Candie wrote: »

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.

Here's another alarm-bell term:

FA Hayek wrote: »

regressive left.

*gallops off on horseback with ivory-coloured robes flowing behind me*

osmiumartist · 23-07-2016 01:44PM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Here's another alarm-bell term:

*gallops off on horseback with ivory-coloured robes flowing behind me*

"alt-"/far-right fanboys"
Two can play at that game very very very easily.

Junkyard Tom · 23-07-2016 01:55PM

osmiumartist wrote: »

"alt-"/far-right fanboys"
Two can play at that game very very very easily.

Never heard of the term.

Are you a Milo fan yourself?

osmiumartist · 23-07-2016 02:02PM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Never heard of the term.

Are you a Milo fan yourself?

No.
Do you jump to conclusions a lot?

Junkyard Tom · 23-07-2016 02:10PM

osmiumartist wrote: »

Do you jump to conclusions a lot?

How can a question: Are you a Milo fan yourself? be a conclusion?

If I'd said: "you're obviously a fan of Milo".

That would be me jumping to a conclusion.

Capiche?

Mardy Bum · 23-07-2016 02:11PM

osmiumartist wrote: »

"In the clip, the user “milo” warns the group not to use racial epithets because of the way it would look if the group chat became public"
So he expressly denounces racism in private yet he is "setting his cult" on people... great link there. Thanks for that.

You do see his caveat, "in case it ever gets leaked". He doesn't denounce it, he just says don't do it in his group in case it is seen by others.

osmiumartist · 23-07-2016 02:16PM

Mardy Bum wrote: »

You do see his caveat, "in case it ever gets leaked". He doesn't denounce it, he just says don't do it in his group in case it is seen by others.

True. There's also no evidence whatsoever that he has "set" this bunch of people on anybody, as the Ghostbuster woman has. Presumably that would've come out in these exposés too? And yet no sign of it.

osmiumartist · 23-07-2016 02:17PM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

How can a question: Are you a Milo fan yourself? be a conclusion?

If I'd said: "you're obviously a fan of Milo".

That would be me jumping to a conclusion.

Capiche?

Since 99% of people, even in this thread, have never heard of this guy, even asking if I was a fan is jumping to conclusions.
Are you a fan then?

Shanotheslayer · 23-07-2016 02:24PM

osmiumartist wrote: »

Since 99% of people, even in this thread, have never heard of this guy, even asking if I was a fan is jumping to conclusions.

Sure if he assumed you'd give out he was generlizing ffs.

osmiumartist · 23-07-2016 02:28PM

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Sure if he assumed you'd give out he was generlizing ffs.

Is that supposed to make sense?
I'll assume you'll agree with his lame tactic of trying to use being a "fan" as an angle, as it really makes f&&k all difference, as ever, to the rights and wrongs of a case.
So everybody who hates Milo needs to have their opinion scratched from the record too then, or are they magically allowed to speak here?

Outlaw Pete · 23-07-2016 02:43PM

Appearance on Seth Meyers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KxhU_yZLG8

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Yep, keep parroting the Breitshart line there. Absolutely nothing to do with setting his /far-right fanboys on her.

Do you have a link to where he did that? A link has been posted many times now to back up accusations that she did that.

The racism directed at her was wrong, those users should be removed from Twitter imo, but in the context of Milo's permanent suspension, it's a non-issue as he had nothing to do with that crap. Even in her own words that is something she has got used to on Twitter over the years.

You'd swear butter wouldn't melt in her mouth the way she is going on though. Using the term 'white' as a pejorative is something she has done quite often and she retweeted abuse directed at Milo during also this also, where he was called the Uncle Tom of Gay People.

https://twitter.com/backpackerFLASH/status/755229615883292672

silverharp · 23-07-2016 02:45PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Yep, keep parroting the Breitshart line there. Absolutely nothing to do with setting his "alt-"/far-right fanboys on her.

Im not parroting anything, ill defend any free speech up to but not including inciting violence in the real world. for everything else there is block , delete or turn off. simple concept. corporations deciding what is good and ungood speech does not fill me with confidence

osmiumartist · 23-07-2016 03:07PM

silverharp wrote: »

Im not parroting anything

Don't worry, it's an ancient and lame guilt-by-association tactic. If you have the same position on issue X as group Y do, then you are now in group Y, so all my standard insults apply.

FA Hayek · 23-07-2016 03:15PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Yep, keep parroting the Breitshart line there. Absolutely nothing to do with setting his "alt-"/far-right fanboys on her.

What is the proof of this? I have read the thread and looked online but I find nothing. All I see is loose circumstansial logic as if Milo is the cause of all ****e on the net and twitter.

Looked at your profile and you post a lot in the Atheist forum so I am surprised you follow this line of thinking with no evidence to back up your claim.

Calahonda52 · 23-07-2016 03:16PM

pragmatic1 wrote: »

However, freedom of speech has to be absolute.

Twitter is a platform which can decide what it carries or not.
MY is still free to say whatever he likes, but show me where Twitter, or any other such platform, is OBLIGED to give him such a platform: same as boards not obliged to carry what you or I say.

FA Hayek · 23-07-2016 03:21PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

He has a cult following on 4chan and operates a Slack chatroom of over 40 "interns" sourced from 4chan. I don't believe his or his fanboys' claims of innocence for a second.

Ha, this is gas. That article is an April Fools joke. Look at the date.

Again, where is the proof on Twitter (keyword) that he directed and orchestrated abuse at this actor? All the other stuff being posted is just smoke and mirrors. Surely you guys are better than that.

Junkyard Tom · 23-07-2016 03:31PM

osmiumartist wrote: »

even asking if I was a fan is jumping to conclusions.

Asking questions is jumping to conclusions? Haha!

Are you a fan then?

No.

osmiumartist · 23-07-2016 03:35PM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Asking questions is jumping to conclusions? Haha!

Tell me why you asked. Explain why it would make any difference to whether Twitter were right or wrong to ban him.
(And don't start with the platform lark again. I know full well Twitter can do what they like, it doesn't make what they did right or wrong)

Hologram · 23-07-2016 04:38PM

silverharp wrote: »

Im not parroting anything, ill defend any free speech up to but not including inciting violence in the real world. for everything else there is block , delete or turn off. simple concept. corporations deciding what is good and ungood speech does not fill me with confidence

I wouldn't be inclined to defend unprovoked insults being thrown at people (anyone - I don't just mean in this case) as free speech. It can't really be policed, but I would not deem it something as noble as free speech - it's unnecessary and unconstructive, it just brings bad blood to a discussion. Free speech refers to fairly supported ideas and opinions (which I would defend, no matter how unpalatable - discussion needs to be allowed) not just any auld stuff.
Therefore I don't have a problem with someone intervening and saying "Knock it off" if insults are being thrown, and giving a few chances - I don't think it would be entirely fair to just redirect the responsibility to the person on the receiving end, by suggesting they leave (although there can be a point reached where they should just walk away).

osmiumartist · 23-07-2016 05:04PM

Hologram wrote: »

Free speech refers to fairly supported ideas and opinions (which I would defend, no matter how unpalatable - discussion needs to be allowed) not just any auld stuff.

Well that's convenient. "Free speech" is basically what you agree with then, unless you're in the habit of disagreeing with well supported opinions.

Hologram · 23-07-2016 05:14PM

osmiumartist wrote: »

Well that's convenient. "Free speech" is basically what you agree with then, unless you're in the habit of disagreeing with well supported opinions.

That's hardly what I said - I said ideas and opinions no matter how unpalatable, I didn't say anything implying that they should only be what I agree with. I support ideas that I don't agree with being aired, if anything I like to hear a variety of perspectives.
The term "free speech" is not really correct as nobody has ever been able to say anything they want anywhere, but what "free speech" does refer to is an open exchange of ideas, not throwing insults (whether at Milo or Donald Trump or this Leslie woman) but that does happen. Nothing wrong with criticising the stupidity of throwing out insults though (isn't that also free speech?

)

osmiumartist · 23-07-2016 05:25PM

Hologram wrote: »

That's hardly what I said - I said ideas and opinions no matter how unpalatable, I didn't say anything implying that they should only be what I agree with. I support ideas that I don't agree with being aired, if anything I like to hear a variety of perspectives.

Nope, you said they had to be well supported opinions. So unless you don't agree with well supported opinions you really do only think free speech applies to what you agree with, which you will naturally claim is well supported.
It's either free speech or it isn't. "Free speech so long as I've decided it has passed my batch of criteria" isn't free at all.

23-07-2016 05:27PM

osmiumartist wrote: »

Nope, you said they had to be well supported opinions. So unless you don't agree with well supported opinions you really do only think free speech applies to what you agree with, which you will naturally claim is well supported.
It's either free speech or it isn't. "Free speech so long as I've decided it has passed my batch of criteria" isn't free at all.

I'd say you're the only person who read that post who interpreted it that way. It absolutely doesn't read like that to me at all.

You're inferring something that wasn't implied.

Hologram · 23-07-2016 05:33PM

osmiumartist wrote: »

Nope, you said they had to be well supported opinions. So unless you don't agree with well supported opinions you really do only think free speech applies to what you agree with, which you will naturally claim is well supported.
It's either free speech or it isn't. "Free speech so long as I've decided it has passed my batch of criteria" isn't free at all.

Well-supported opinions no matter what the opinion is, does not mean I only support airing of views I agree with. If you think that free speech means being able to broadcast absolutely anything you like whatsoever, well how come there is not a democratic country in the world where that is the case? There is no such thing as speech that is absolutely free - and that is not something I decided, it is simply how things are. The term "free speech" is, as I said, not accurate.

osmiumartist · 23-07-2016 05:36PM

Candie wrote: »

I'd say you're the only person who read that post who interpreted it that way. It absolutely doesn't read like that to me at all.

You're inferring something that wasn't implied.

That reads like blah blah blah I agree with him. Any chance of some content?

osmiumartist · 23-07-2016 05:38PM

Hologram wrote: »

Well-supported opinions no matter what the opinion is, does not mean I only support airing of views I agree with. If you think that free speech means being able to broadcast absolutely anything you like whatsoever, well how come there is not a democratic country in the world where that is the case? There is no such thing as speech that is absolutely free - and that is not something I decided, it is simply how things are. The term "free speech" is, as I said, not accurate.

Didn't notice your example there of a well supported opinion that you don't agree with that would qualify as "free speech" by your definition? Want to try again?
As has been said many times anyway, this isn't a free speech case. It's about Twitter's business model, agenda and hypocrisy.

Realt Dearg Sec · 23-07-2016 05:45PM

osmiumartist wrote: »

That reads like blah blah blah I agree with him. Any chance of some content?

She said you misunderstood the post. Your reading comprehension is either sub par or deliberately off kilter. Funnily enough this reply tends to reinforce that impression. You seem to read whatever you feel like having read, rather than what was written.

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

Comments