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

Penn

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

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

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

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

Renegade Mechanic

RWCNT wrote: »

Vile racist abuse isn't that bad!?

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

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

Would happily trade with either of us.


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

RWCNT

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

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

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

Would happily trade with either of us.


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

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

razorblunt

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

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

ohnonotgmail

razorblunt wrote: »

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

did he deserve to be banned for this?

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

Renegade Mechanic

RWCNT wrote: »

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

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

super_furry

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

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

Would happily trade with either of us.


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

Well this is just getting weird now.

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

Maguined

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

did he deserve to be banned for this?

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

Penn

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Well I'd argue otherwise.

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

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

ohnonotgmail

Maguined wrote: »

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

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

Renegade Mechanic

super_furry wrote: »

Well this is just getting weird now.

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

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

So your point is rubbish.

ohnonotgmail

Penn wrote: »

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

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

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

SEPT 23 1989

I believe Slimer is now transgender

that's a step too far imo

Mardy Bum

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

tritium

Penn wrote: »

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

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

When is it okay to be racist?

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

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

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

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

super_furry

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

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

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

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

orubiru

Maguined wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Oh. No. Wait.

osarusan

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

a)just complete nonsense

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

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

RDM_83 again

Maguined wrote: »

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

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

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

Renegade Mechanic

super_furry wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

riffmongous

So is it just the black lady getting harassed or all of the actresses?

sbsquarepants

super_furry wrote: »

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

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

Whinging little bastard if you ask me, he can afford jewellery - how bad can things be. He's blinged up like kanye at a wedding ffs:mad:

Tasden

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

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

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

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

So how do you know her personally? How do you know whether she has a "genuine struggle" or not. You don't. You know **** all about her, yet you seem to think she is not deserving of sympathy because she hasn't "struggled" enough by your standards. It's that kind of attitude that leads these idiots online to believe that it is fun to insult and degrade a human being because all they see is a famous person with money, not a person worthy of basic respect and decency.

Renegade Mechanic

riffmongous wrote: »

So is it just the black lady getting harassed or all of the actresses?

Well if those troglodytes lay so much as an e-finger on Melissa McCarthy, I'll personally lead a crusade :mad:

sbsquarepants

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Well if those troglodytes lay so much as an e-finger on Melissa McCarthy, I'll personally lead a crusade :mad:

Really?
I can't stand her. Probably the worst "comic" actress working at the moment, (possibly tied with Rebel Wilson) everything she's in is shít

Yea, I don't personally find Melissa McCarthy that funny. She's no Rebel Wilson.

Cienciano

Delighted he's banned, he's an arséhole. He's actually a professional arséhole, he makes money from it. The less soapboxes he's on, the better.

PopePalpatine

Penn wrote: »

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

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

Is it weird I'm imagining Dave Grohl singing this to the rhythm of "The Pretender"? :pac:

razorblunt

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

did he deserve to be banned for this?

Where's the tweet that suggests he rallied them?

This happens all the time, I follow one girl who had the audacity to post something negative about Niall Horan, she either responded to him directly or mentioned him and the response was horrible. Some of the fan accounts were actively encouraging it, they weren't banned.

super_furry

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

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

Where I'm trying to take this? Give over, you posted a picture of a sad looking, wide-eyed child to illustrate why a black woman shouldn't complain about a torrent of racist abuse she received.

Renegade Mechanic

Tasden wrote: »

So how do you know her personally? How do you know whether she has a "genuine struggle" or not. You don't. You know **** all about her, yet you seem to think she is not deserving of sympathy because she hasn't "struggled" enough by your standards. It's that kind of attitude that leads these idiots online to believe that it is fun to insult and degrade a human being because all they see is a famous person with money, not a person worthy of basic respect and decency.

I wouldn't dream of taking part in the harassment, because contrary to the picture you're painting, I don't believe it should have been done.

However, with it having been done, I personally would have either ignored it, or dished it back.
I'm not saying it's never right to be a victim, plenty of people are. I'm saying it serves a purpose this time.

I do believe however that this is another play by people, the likes of whom are churning out "Why you need to get over yourselves and watch this film, and if you don't, it's because you're a misogynistic racist" bull**** articles (I mean seriously, when has this ever happened before a films release!?)

And because the internet is full of brainless dead ends, the smart handful that organised it were promptly clouded out by the many more, spewing their crap.

Either way as wrong as it is, I'm not concerned and I'm not going to be.

ohnonotgmail

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Really?
I can't stand her. Probably the worst "comic" actress working at the moment, (possibly tied with Rebel Wilson) everything she's in is shít

thats a tad unfair. she was very funny in Spy

orubiru

RDM_83 again wrote: »

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

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

I think he is responsible in the sense that maybe he has accused her or lied about her and then others have jumped on.

He hasn't actually said "OK followers, I just hate this woman and you should all go and send her abuse".

I'd be very surprised if there were more than 100 Twitter accounts used to send the abuse and even more surprised if many of those accounts were actually linked to Milo in any way. Most of her abusers would know damn well that they'd be permanently banned after sending those tweets so anyone who actually wanted to continue using Twitter wouldn't be using their primary account anyway.

Who really knows though?

One poster said it's the Twitter/Internet equivalent of diving for a penalty and I really like that analogy.

In this case Twitter is OBVIOUSLY a biased referee.

Fair enough, it's their game and their rules.

Renegade Mechanic

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Really?
I can't stand her. Probably the worst "comic" actress working at the moment, (possibly tied with Rebel Wilson) everything she's in is shít

I know, she's about as funny as a thorough waterboarding session. I was just making a joke. A poor one

Renegade Mechanic

Well what do we have here....

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/647826/392261.jpg

This calls for the worst smiley on the site.

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Somehow, I reckon she's alright..

Somehow, I reckon I'm right. She gives as good ad she gets, which is the right thing to do.
Ah who am I kidding, of course she was hacked all those times!
Like I said. She'll be fine...

Renegade Mechanic

https://mobile.twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/564664734268411906

February 2015.
'Lord have mercy...white people ****'


Like I said, she may get over herself. There's two of them in it ffs

Potatoeman

orubiru wrote: »

I think he is responsible in the sense that maybe he has accused her or lied about her and then others have jumped on.

He hasn't actually said "OK followers, I just hate this woman and you should all go and send her abuse".

I'd be very surprised if there were more than 100 Twitter accounts used to send the abuse and even more surprised if many of those accounts were actually linked to Milo in any way. Most of her abusers would know damn well that they'd be permanently banned after sending those tweets so anyone who actually wanted to continue using Twitter wouldn't be using their primary account anyway.

Who really knows though?

One poster said it's the Twitter/Internet equivalent of diving for a penalty and I really like that analogy.

In this case Twitter is OBVIOUSLY a biased referee.

Fair enough, it's their game and their rules.

So he can't criticise anyone online? I've seen this guy in interviews telling people not to harass the people he criticises. Most of the people that get hassel have already put themselves or views out there and it seems that he just broadcasts them to a different audience.

There is something very Orwellian going on in the larger social media providers. People seem very shortsighted in their embrace of it.

B.A._Baracus

super_furry wrote: »

What? She has money so f*ck her? Sweet Jesus...

Well here is a question for you (and everyone else)
Would you accept or decline the following: you'll earn a couple of million over a couple of years from movies, television and stand up. You will also be famous. But the downside to it is that you'll have jerks moaning about your work, the media being scum and not respecting your personal life and generally overall experiencing the worst from people as you are famous and in the spotlight. What would you choose? :pac:

No brainer for me. Give me the money. Cause there's people out there in customer service jobs (for example) that have to handle the scum of human existence every day. All for minimum-wage.

Personally, and maybe it's just me, but I would rather be a millionaire and deal with assholes than being poor and the same :pac:

Penn

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Well here is a question for you (and everyone else)
Would you accept or decline the following: you'll earn a couple of million over a couple of years from movies, television and stand up. You will also be famous. But the downside to it is that you'll have jerks moaning about your work, the media being scum and not respecting your personal life and generally overall experiencing the worst from people as you are famous and in the spotlight. What would you choose? :pac:

No brainer for me. Give me the money. Cause there's people out there in customer service jobs (for example) that have to handle the scum of human existence every day. All for minimum-wage.

Personally, and maybe it's just me, but I would rather be a millionaire and deal with assholes than being poor and the same :pac:

This wasn't a case of dealing with a few arseholes complaining about your film. This was targeted racial and sexist abuse. Rich & Famous or not, it's not acceptable and shouldn't be tolerated.

Otherwise again, where's the threshold? At what wage bracket does it become acceptable?

Penn

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Well what do we have here....

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/647826/392261.jpg

This calls for the worst smiley on the site.




Somehow, I reckon I'm right. She gives as good ad she gets, which is the right thing to do.
Ah who am I kidding, of course she was hacked all those times!
Like I said. She'll be fine...

Shock horror, professional comedian saying non-PC things.

Does not equate to targeted racial and sexist abuse.

Harika

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Well here is a question for you (and everyone else)
Would you accept or decline the following: you'll earn a couple of million over a couple of years from movies, television and stand up. You will also be famous. But the downside to it is that you'll have jerks moaning about your work, the media being scum and not respecting your personal life and generally overall experiencing the worst from people as you are famous and in the spotlight. What would you choose? :pac:

No brainer for me. Give me the money. Cause there's people out there in customer service jobs (for example) that have to handle the scum of human existence every day. All for minimum-wage.

Personally, and maybe it's just me, but I would rather be a millionaire and deal with assholes than being poor and the same :pac:

Everyone gets critisised on the internet, and there is nothing wrong with a disagreement. But when people terrorize you for fun as they think it is okay, to communicate by sending pictures where they jerked off to, you will realize that you cannot buy happiness with money. And for the call center example, if someone gets abusive you hang up, what in my experience happened in the worst cases once a month.

Milo and his monkey army, consisting of white males, that now think in a world where minorities demand equal rights and opportunities, they are left behind. That's why they react so aggresive.

Then hilariously funny when they want freedom of speech but try to silence others who are not on their team, like you see in this example.

XKCD explains freedom of speech very good
https://xkcd.com/1357/

B.A._Baracus

Penn wrote: »

This wasn't a case of dealing with a few arseholes complaining about your film. This was targeted racial and sexist abuse. Rich & Famous or not, it's not acceptable and shouldn't be tolerated.

Otherwise again, where's the threshold? At what wage bracket does it become acceptable?

It's never acceptable and should never happen. But sadly we're talking about people here.... And alot of people are arseholes.

Things like Twitter have given people a platform to publicly share their bile. Even YouTube... Heck even message boards.

PopePalpatine

Penn wrote: »

Shock horror, professional comedian saying non-PC things.

Does not equate to targeted racial and sexist abuse.

It does when you're desperately looking for something to say "m'based gaylord (or whatever) isn't so bad!"

Zubeneschamali

BattleCorp wrote: »

if twitter are going to ban people for a rather tame statement like that, then they will have to ban most of their users

which would certainly be an improvement.

Renegade Mechanic

Penn wrote: »

Shock horror, professional comedian saying non-PC things.
Does not equate to targeted racial and sexist abuse.
It's ok when they do it.

^Is basically all I'm seeing up there...

And that's ok. You people however seem to think it's not ok whenever "a certain privileged group" does it.

People are entitled to their opinions, she shared hers. She likely engaged in plenty of rough and tumble with other users as well, which again, is perfectly fine. Someone mouths you, dust yourself off and give it back.

It's perfectly fine, and perfectly right, but it also makes her convenient persecution complex, a steaming pile of horse ****.

Stop falling for horse ****.

A Little Pony

I think he learned his gimmick from me.

Billy86

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Well what do we have here....

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/647826/392261.jpg

This calls for the worst smiley on the site.




Somehow, I reckon I'm right. She gives as good ad she gets, which is the right thing to do.
Ah who am I kidding, of course she was hacked all those times!
Like I said. She'll be fine...

You do realise those were all reportedly fake tweets attributed to her, which is apparently part of the reason she left?

Junkyard Tom

How does this professional attention-seeker get to describe his muppetry as 'conservative' without being called out on it?

I thought being conservative would include modesty, decorum, treating people with respect, good manners, an aversion ostentatious language/behaviour etc?

Milo Yappynappyass is the antithesis of the above.

RDM_83 again

Billy86 wrote: »

You do realise those were all reportedly fake tweets attributed to her, which is apparently part of the reason she left?

Are they though? its been sort of hard to find a source on this (admittedly very minor) piece of news that isn't biased as hell one way or the other.
Reddit is all the_donald threads and more mainstream outlets like the Guardian and the Salon aren't very trustworthy about these type of things either.

Penn

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Are they though? its been sort of hard to find a source on this (admittedly very minor) piece of news that isn't biased as hell one way or the other.
Reddit is all the_donald threads and more mainstream outlets like the Guardian and the Salon aren't very trustworthy about these type of things either.

I think there were a lot of tweets that people were creating themselves and attributing to her that night (much worse ones - pretty easy to create http://www.lemmetweetthatforyou.com/#), but I don't think the ones posted above were. I think they're legit.

Again though, black comedian making non-offensive, non-racist jokes about white people? Not a surprise. White basement-dwellers calling her a n****r, comparing her to a gorilla and jerking off on pictures of her, and then taking a picture of that and sending it to her, all because she was in a movie? Not comparable.