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

Hologram

I think an all-female remake of Ghostbusters is a cringey, pandering, tokenistic idea (like quotas it just seems more divisive than inclusive)... and a remake of Ghostbusters full stop is pointless (like all those remakes - however, nobody's childhood is ruined by any of them; the originals are still available, and people's childhoods are as they left them ) so I just won't watch it or deal with it in any way.

Perhaps it depends on what you are being exposed to online but I have never read anyone state that those who have a problem with this remake are misogynists? Not saying it hasn't happened, I have just never heard of it. What I hear more of is complaints about the film (whether just that it's crap, another pointless remake, or a small number of incidents of people just complaining about it being pandering to feminism).

timthumbni

Watched it recently with my kids. It was quite fun.

I really don't know what the craic is with fanboys of the original. The new one was funnier and more exciting. As it should be with modern effects. The girl thing didn't worry me at all and I question what the fanboys want.

Ghostbusters is and always was a 12a movie or for young kids. If it doesn't feel as good as when you were younger for the original, that's because you are old or older. Grow up. People have too much time on their hands now.

My kids loved it. I thought it was good (for a young kids film)

Anyone giving abuse to the black girl can feck right off. Just because they are old nerds is no relevance to the rest of us. Have they watched the original gb recently? It doesn't exactly stand the test of time. One of the better remakes I've watched recently. Not my cup of tea but whatever.

FA Hayek

Mardy Bum wrote: »

I don't know many angry young men. Low self esteem and self loathing would be factors in that though and an insecurity in their own masculinity could also be an issue. Lack of opportunities, lack of advanced education, disconnected childhood, abusive childhood, social alienation, parental issues, depression etc also may cause this.

Perhaps we should address these, rather then call them all basement dwellers and sexist woman hating pigs?

Mardy Bum wrote: »

How about we stop trying to blame everyone else for our own insecurities? How about we attempt an honest examination of self rather than blaming others.

Agree. I look forward to a time where a person like Milo is not needed. However, and I am not sure if this is the correct wording but much of this started with the progressives which we now term the regressive left. They have to take a long hard look at themselves.

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Posting a video of a hysterical woman doesn't prove your point btw.

What hysterical woman? Unless you are calling Dave Rubin a hysterical woman which is madly homophobic by the way as he is gay himself.

Mardy Bum

FA Hayek wrote: »

Perhaps we should address these, rather then call them all basement dwellers and sexist woman hating pigs?



Agree. I look forward to a time where a person like Milo is not needed. However, and I am not sure if this is the correct wording but much of this started with the progressives which we now term the regressive left. They have to take a long hard look at themselves.



What hysterical woman? Unless you are calling Dave Rubin a hysterical woman which is madly homophobic by the way as he is gay himself.

I could only see the image cover on the video which was a woman from a viral scene.

Milo cares but for his own pocket and will turn to whatever is convenient and controversial he is no answer to the pressing issues I mentioned and none of the problems I mentioned were concocted by the regressive left. The RLs biggest issue is their distaste for global cosmopolitanism.

FA Hayek

Mardy Bum wrote: »

I could only see the image cover on the video which was a woman from a viral scene.

So you didn't even watch the video but still commented on as if you did watch it. Right.... This is the exact problem we are describing right here. People just want to correct, regardless and don't listen.

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Milo cares but for his own pocket and will turn to whatever is convenient and controversial he is no answer to the pressing issues I mentioned and none of the problems I mentioned were concocted by the regressive left.

The regressive left have certainly exasperated the situation and have not helped with their weirdly ridiculous causes, lies and claims. Milo is a reaction to that.

Mardy Bum wrote: »

The RLs biggest issue is their distaste for global cosmopolitanism.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

osmiumartist

Elliott S wrote: »

Maybe there is concrete behind the scenes stuff. Twitter wouldn't have to make that public, I don't think.

As I said earlier, freedom cuts both ways. Twitter could have decided they don't like his haircut and banned him, they're a private company. It isn't evidence of anything except he hits their business model really.

osmiumartist

timthumbni wrote: »

The new one was funnier and more exciting. As it should be with modern effects.

If you think a movie has to be funnier because it has better special effects then excuse me if I don't take your opinion seriously.

osmiumartist

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Milo cares but for his own pocket

Unlike, say, Sony and Twitter?

silverharp

A bit of hypocrisy alright there are any number of BLM twatter accounts calling for cops to be killed or Arabic ISIS accounts spouting all kinds of incitements yet Milo is taken off for being critical of an actress.

PopePalpatine

silverharp wrote: »

A bit of hypocrisy alright there are any number of BLM twatter accounts calling for cops to be killed or Arabic ISIS accounts spouting all kinds of incitements yet Milo is taken off for being critical of an actress.

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

osmiumartist

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

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

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

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

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

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

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Never heard of the term.

Are you a Milo fan yourself?

No.
Do you jump to conclusions a lot?

Junkyard Tom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

osmiumartist

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

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

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

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

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.

Hologram

Meh, I can't be blamed for there being no such thing as truly free speech (i.e. the right to broadcast absolutely anything whatsoever, including unprovoked insults) and "free" speech having a set of rules to accompany it even under the U.S. constitution.

From Wikipedia: "Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. The freedom of speech is not absolute; the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are excluded from the freedom, and it has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech."

So it is not actually free, and a bit of a stupid name.

osmiumartist

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

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.

Listen pal, there's a thanks button there if parroting is your game. If you've anything to actually add then we're all ears.

Mardy Bum

Bullying and harassment whether in person or online is still bullying and harassment. Most workplaces, schools, institutions and websites have policies on this. These are very important policies if you want to be successful. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with it. It is mind blowing how blind or misled people are about this.

osmiumartist

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Bullying and harassment

Twitter can ban people for whatever they like at a whim. This happening is of itself evidence of precisely nothing that the person did except Twitter don't like them, or they think he's bad for their business model, or they banned him for sh1ts n giggles.
Oh, I should add "you'd need to be thick or an idiot not to agree with me" here I suppose as everybody else is at it. Nice way to get a dig in when it's addressed to nobody specific, isn't it?

Renegade Mechanic

Can someone make my day please and put a vote in for the purple segment? That would satisfy me immensely..

Outlaw Pete

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Bullying and harassment whether in person or online is still bullying and harassment. Most workplaces, schools, institutions and websites have policies on this. These are very important policies if you want to be successful. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with it. It is mind blowing how blind or misled people are about this.

Nobody disagrees with that.

It's about selective application of the rules, as has been pointed out many times now. They are not alone of course. There are many private enterprises that only seem to have issues with abuse whenever it's being directed at those who happen to share their political ideologies or are part of a minority which they are not in the least bit afraid to be seen to be showing favouritism to, given what it will say about them.

JJayoo

Multi millionaire successful actress crying because some losers on Twitter are talking **** boo fcuking hoo.

Hologram

osmiumartist wrote: »

Oh, I should add "you'd need to be thick or an idiot not to agree with me" here I suppose as everybody else is at it.

Jeez, I'm not.

osmiumartist

Hologram wrote: »

Jeez, I'm not.

It's grand. The mods here don't seem to have an issue with it so it mustn't be abusive <-- see what I did there?

TSMGUY

Hologram wrote: »

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).

Well, if hologram doesn't deem it "noble", it certainly shouldn't be allowed. Puritanical much? And if Twitter started banning things that were unconstructive (don't even think that's a word tbh) and unnecessary they'd have to delete the whole site.