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

Hologram

osmiumartist wrote: »

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?

No really, I can't recall being in any way abusive to you.

osmiumartist

Hologram wrote: »

No really, I can't recall being in any way abusive to you.

It was more directed at who I was replying to, but don't tell me you haven't seen this thread littered with those types of comments. "Idiots who agree/disagree with X" when they know damn well there's people agreeing or disagreeing right here.

InTheTrees

Hologram wrote: »

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.

There's a common legal expression about the limits of free speech "crying fire in a crowded movie theatre".

PopePalpatine

FA Hayek wrote: »

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.

OK, I messed up. I shouldn't have been so naive as to think Milo would confess to what his followers would see as the enemy, i.e. left-leaning news outlets like Buzzfeed.

I guess at this point the two sides (anti- & pro-Milo's banning) are just talking past each other. There's no "smoking gun" (as far as I know) that has been released by Twitter (e.g. DM exchanges in any private groups he's in, which I'd assume they have access to) to definitively prove he was behind the abuse suffered by Leslie Jones.

Hologram

TSMGUY wrote: »

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

Weird amount of misreading on this forum.

Where did I imply that because I don't deem it noble, then it shouldn't be allowed (the irony when all I was doing was expressing my opinion)? (I actually said it would be difficult to police) - I did say it's not unreasonable for people to object to it (free speech and all that) and that unprovoked insults are hardly a noble and worthy ideal to be respected and defended like the exchange of ideas (which is what "free" speech refers to). I don't think Voltaire was including the likes of "Yeah well you're GAY!!!" in his famous quote.

osmiumartist

PopePalpatine wrote: »

OK, I messed up. I shouldn't have been so naive as to think Milo would confess to what his followers would see as the enemy, i.e. left-leaning news outlets like Buzzfeed.

That's about as far from contrite as you can get TBH... my evidence is lies but it's still their fault for not giving me something to work with...

Realt Dearg Sec

osmiumartist wrote: »

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.

You had clearly misunderstood it the first time so it had to be said again. But I suppose you already decided you weren't going to understand it anyway.

Still, for someone who loves free speech, you sure are fond of trying to silence people you don't agree with.

TSMGUY

Hologram wrote: »

Weird amount of misreading on this forum.

Where did I imply that because I don't deem it noble, then it shouldn't be allowed (the irony when all I was doing was expressing my opinion)? (I actually said it would be difficult to police) - I did say it's not unreasonable for people to object to it (free speech and all that) and that unprovoked insults are hardly a noble and worthy ideal to be respected and defended like the exchange of ideas (which is what "free" speech refers to). I don't think Voltaire was including the likes of "Yeah well you're GAY!!!" in his famous quote.

My God, you're an absolute intellectual weasel. And the irony of you invoking Voltaire in an attack on ignoble free speech is just astounding. Voltaire's specialism was the searing insult, the witty ad-hominem. "Well you're gay" is just the laziest strawman argument I've ever seen.
"Not unreasonable" LOL. Stop obfuscating your fascism with unnecessary verbiage. You're saying quite explicitly, not implying, that insults don't fall under the purview of free speech. That's absolute nonsense.

osmiumartist

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

You had clearly misunderstood it the first time so it had to be said again. But I suppose you already decided you weren't going to understand it anyway.

Still, for someone who loves free speech, you sure are fond of trying to silence people you don't agree with.

Oh, you couldn't click Thanks twice so you're back to repeat yourself. Great.
You're welcome to repeat your non-point as many times as you'd like. Knock yourself out.

Hologram

TSMGUY wrote: »

My God, you're an absolute intellectual weasel. And the irony of you invoking Voltaire in an attack on ignoble free speech is just astounding. Voltaire's specialism was the searing insult, the witty ad-hominem. "Well you're gay" is just the laziest strawman argument I've ever seen.
"Not unreasonable" LOL. Stop obfuscating your fascism with unnecessary verbiage. You're saying quite explicitly, not implying, that insults don't fall under the purview of free speech. That's absolute nonsense.

Ignoring your personal attack apropos nothing, are you sure unprovoked insults are included under (the incorrectly named) "free" speech (it being ironically limited - not something decided by me)?
Is it incorrect to say it's not unreasonable to be critical of unprovoked insults? Surely such criticism is also just free speech?

osmiumartist

Hologram wrote: »

Is it incorrect to say it's not unreasonable to be critical of unprovoked insults? Surely such criticism is also just free speech?

You're confusing yourself now. It's YOU that's thinks "unsupported" or "ignoble" things aren't covered by the term free speech.
Why on earth would something be censored just because it's wrong? Who gets to decide?

Hologram

osmiumartist wrote: »

It was more directed at who I was replying to, but don't tell me you haven't seen this thread littered with those types of comments. "Idiots who agree/disagree with X" when they know damn well there's people agreeing or disagreeing right here.

I suppose insults are just free speech though, so fair enough?

(Joking: I don't agree with people insulting you - as per the point I have been trying to make; I think discussion would be more fruitful without people resorting to that crap).

TSMGUY

Hologram wrote: »

Ignoring your personal attack apropos nothing, are you sure unprovoked insults are included under (the incorrectly named) "free" speech (it being ironically limited - not something decided by me)?
Is it incorrect to say it's not unreasonable to be critical of unprovoked insults? Surely such criticism is also just free speech?

No contention that that's part of free speech. You, however, seek to limit free speech to everything minus "unprovoked insults." You either have an absolutist conception of free speech and support it all the time, with the exception of when it incites violence or harm, or you don't believe in free speech at all.

You seem to believe in some sort of conditional free speech. You're like a company inertia selling "free" goods that cost money to claim. That's not a free product and, likewise, what you're advocating isn't free speech.

TSMGUY

osmiumartist wrote: »

You're confusing yourself now. It's YOU that's thinks "unsupported" or "ignoble" things aren't covered by the term free speech.
Why on earth would something be censored just because it's wrong? Who gets to decide?

Hologram's motto: All speech is free but some speech is freer than others:rolleyes:

PopePalpatine

Again with the inferring. I just heard he had a chatroom with some 4channers, I should have paid more attention to the date of the article.

In summary, here's my case:

• He has a cult following amongst 4chan, especially thanks to hopping on the GamerGate bandwagon (having earlier called gamers "pungent beta male bollock-scratchers and twelve-year-olds").
• The abuse aimed at Leslie Jones ramped up following this Breitbart article (which, surprise, surprise has been deleted).
• And finally, that "fat should always be shamed" tweet. So he has form in setting up targets for his followers.

It's a nice evening, so I'll leave you all with Milo saying that trolls should be banned from the Internet, just as we ban drunk drivers from driving.

Hologram

osmiumartist wrote: »

You're confusing yourself now. It's YOU that's thinks "unsupported" or "ignoble" things aren't covered by the term free speech.
Why on earth would something be censored just because it's wrong? Who gets to decide?

I don't "think" it. "Free" speech is limited everywhere, even the "free" speech as outlined by the First Amendment.

Hologram

TSMGUY wrote: »

No contention that that's part of free speech. You, however, seek to limit free speech to everything minus "unprovoked insults." You either have an absolutist conception of free speech and support it all the time, with the exception of when it incites violence or harm, or you don't believe in free speech at all.

You seem to believe in some sort of conditional free speech. You're like a company inertia selling "free" goods that cost money to claim. That's not a free product and, likewise, what you're advocating isn't free speech.

TSMGUY wrote: »

Hologram's motto: All speech is free but some speech is freer than others:rolleyes:

Lol - you and the other person are so upset it is hilarious! But you staunchly believe in free speech. Except you like to shout down the free speech you disagree with

Free speech is not unlimited or absolute (the fact that there is an exception in relation to violence/harm in the first place illustrates this, therefore it is not free) - why do you and the other person steadfastly refuse to admit this? I have only exercised my free speech by saying it is not unreasonable to criticise unprovoked insults and that they're hardly worthy of defending as "free speech" but you keep on attacking me personally and twisting what I say, you big free speech fan you! :D

osmiumartist

Hologram wrote: »

Lol - you and the other person are so upset it is hilarious!

No, no, you're the one with your knickers in a twist etc. Stop getting so worked up etc. "Hilarious".

osmiumartist

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Again with the inferring. I just heard he had a chatroom with some 4channers, I should have paid more attention to the date of the article.

In summary, here's my case:

• He has a cult following amongst 4chan, especially thanks to hopping on the GamerGate bandwagon (having earlier called gamers "pungent beta male bollock-scratchers and twelve-year-olds").
• The abuse aimed at Leslie Jones ramped up following this Breitbart article (which, surprise, surprise has been deleted).
• And finally, that "fat should always be shamed" tweet. So he has form in setting up targets for his followers.

It's a nice evening, so I'll leave you all with Milo saying that trolls should be banned from the Internet, just as we ban drunk drivers from driving.

That's not a case. It's preconception suiting wishful thinking. "He has fans so he's guilty of abuse" is really and truly the extent of what you've got.

super_furry

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It's a nice evening, so I'll leave you all with Milo saying that trolls should be banned from the Internet, just as we ban drunk drivers from driving.

Wow that is just perfect. I mean I knew he was an opportunistic hypocrite as soon as he hitched his wagon to the Gamergate ****wagon after spending the earlier part of his 'career' castigating gamers, but that's a different level.

TSMGUY

Hologram wrote: »

Lol - you and the other person are so upset it is hilarious! But you staunchly believe in free speech. Except you like to shout down the free speech you disagree with

Free speech is not unlimited or absolute (the fact that there is an exception in relation to violence/harm in the first place illustrates this, therefore it is not free) - why do you and the other person steadfastly refuse to admit this? I have only exercised my free speech by saying it is not unreasonable to criticise unprovoked insults and that they're hardly worthy of defending as "free speech" but you keep on attacking me personally and twisting what I say, you big free speech fan you! :D

Jesus, you're denser than a block of cheese. I honestly can't follow your train of thought because it's so transcendentally stupid. I'm not upset at all, I'm actually very entertained by your tenuous grasp on semantics and basic logic. Free speech doesn't begin where your objections end, that's all I can really say.....

osmiumartist

super_furry wrote: »

Wow that is just perfect. I mean I knew he was an opportunistic hypocrite as soon as he hitched his wagon to the Gamergate ****wagon after spending the earlier part of his 'career' castigating gamers, but that's a different level.

That quite apt actually since Anita Sarkessian herself hates computer games in the first place.
(Before you start, they're BOTH twats)

super_furry

osmiumartist wrote: »

That quite apt actually since Anita Sarkessian herself hates computer games in the first place.
(Before you start, they're BOTH twats)

Riiiiiiiiiight. Any other totally unrelated or random thoughts you feel the need to express? Maybe something on Chris Evans.

osmiumartist

super_furry wrote: »

Riiiiiiiiiight. Any other totally unrelated or random thoughts you feel the need to express? Maybe something on Chris Evans.

Anita Sarkeesian is "totally unrelated" to GamerGate?
Care to rephrase that? As in, change it completely so it makes an ounce of sense?

TSMGUY

osmiumartist wrote: »

Anita Sarkeesian is "totally unrelated" to GamerGate?
Care to rephrase that? As in, change it completely so it makes an ounce of sense?

Tread carefully, you don't wanna get a warning like me:D Remember, on boards you have to "BE CIVIL" at all times.....

osmiumartist

TSMGUY wrote: »

Tread carefully, you don't wanna get a warning like me:D Remember, on boards you have to "BE CIVIL" at all times.....

You're doing it wrong. Try "people who don't agree are denser than cheese". You're not insulting anybody then, right?

super_furry

osmiumartist wrote: »

Anita Sarkeesian is "totally unrelated" to GamerGate?
Care to rephrase that? As in, change it completely so it makes an ounce of sense?

Hahaha Jesus, I can't even begin..... It's like tourette's isn't it? Someone mentions Milo being a hypocrite, the fact that he changes his views to suit whatever group he's trying to sell himself to and the outbursts just come. "YEAH WELL THERE'S THIS WOMAN AND SHE'S A TWAT!"

mansize

osmiumartist wrote: »

You're doing it wrong. Try "people who don't agree are denser than cheese". You're not insulting anybody then, right?

Osmium Would be a bigger burn tbf

osmiumartist

super_furry wrote: »

Hahaha Jesus, I can't even begin..... It's like tourette's isn't it?

Hey TSMGUY, what's the odds this one is mysteriously deemed not abusive?

TSMGUY

osmiumartist wrote: »

Hey TSMGUY, what's the odds this one is mysteriously deemed not abusive?

LOL was gonna bold it and ask that myself. Slim to none chance he'll get a warning......

osmiumartist

TSMGUY wrote: »

LOL was gonna bold it and ask that myself. Slim to none chance he'll get a warning......

Your card took just SEVEN minutes to arrive! There'll probably be some variation of "mods are volunteers very busy etc" if they're questioned about why other abuse gets ignored.

TSMGUY

osmiumartist wrote: »

Your card took just SEVEN minutes to arrive! There'll probably be some variation of "mods are volunteers very busy etc" if they're questioned about why other abuse gets ignored.

I'm sure I'll live. The funny thing is I made it clear it was my last comment on the thread and that's when I get a warning

A Little Pony

She is basically trying to deflect away from the fact the movie sucked balls and everyone knows it. You can only play on the feminist card for so long until most movie goers have went and saw it and guess what, it sucks donkey dick. Time she accepted it.

TSMGUY

A Little Pony wrote: »

She is basically trying to deflect away from the fact the movie sucked balls and everyone knows it. You can only play on the feminist card for so long until most movie goers have went and saw it and guess what, it sucks donkey dick. Time she accepted it.

the trailer is the most disliked movie trailer on all of youtube. Says a lot....

Outlaw Pete

I didn't mind the movie so much, humour just seemed immature to me, far more than the original was. I think for that reason any young kids seeing it would most like enjoy it maybe a little more. The annoying stuff would just (hopefully at least) go over their heads, like them all shooting the ghost in the balls and making a joke about hitting him there. Then we have images like this from the premiere with Leslie suggestively standing on his balls and it's all a bit, well... fashionable pandering really.

https://twitter.com/shoe0nhead/status/754835055386562560

ancapailldorcha

Beta? Jesus feckin' Christ. Why can't people just say something straight instead of inventing trendy new words?

TSMGUY

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Beta? Jesus feckin' Christ. Why can't people just say something straight instead of inventing trendy new words?

Only alpha males understand;)

And it should be said in Paul Feig's defense, he did some great work on The US Office

A Little Pony

TSMGUY wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

She is basically trying to deflect away from the fact the movie sucked balls and everyone knows it. You can only play on the feminist card for so long until most movie goers have went and saw it and guess what, it sucks donkey dick. Time she accepted it.

the trailer is the most disliked movie trailer on all of youtube. Says a lot....

I wasn't going to go it as I thought the original reviews early on would destroy it. Then I see its got decent reviews and so went and watched it. And once I did I figured out what exactly was going on. Reviewers playing it safe solely down to the feminist brigade.

No serious movie goer will have rated that movie above a 3 out of 10. It was utterly dreadful. One of the worst films I have seen.

osmiumartist

super_furry wrote: »

Hahaha Jesus, I can't even begin..... It's like tourette's isn't it?

More than an hour and still there... I guess saying other posters have mental illnesses is OK then... am I right all you spastic autistic schizos out there? :pac:

Realt Dearg Sec

TSMGUY wrote: »

I'm sure I'll live. The funny thing is I made it clear it was my last comment on the thread and that's when I get a warning

You're a victim of the left wing authoritarian agenda.

The state of the pair of ye.

osmiumartist

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

You're a victim of the left wing authoritarian agenda.

The state of the pair of ye.

How does this work again, you insult us nothing happens, we insult you, we get a card....
Nah, don't wanna play. Mmmmk?

Skylinehead

osmiumartist wrote: »

How does this work again, you insult us nothing happens, we insult you, we get a card....
Nah, don't wanna play. Mmmmk?

Mod: Nobody plays. Take it to feedback if you have a problem.

TSMGUY

Skylinehead wrote: »

Mod: Nobody plays. Take it to feedback if you have a problem.

I didn't know Archer was a mod:eek:

osmiumartist

super_furry wrote: »

Hahaha Jesus, I can't even begin..... It's like tourette's isn't it?

Nobody plays... sure... WTF is this then? A card for calling someone "dense as cheese" and nothing for saying somebody has a mental illness?
You know what, I'll skip your Feedback offer... I've looked through it and any mention of bias gets locked in seconds.
Hey, it's your site (just like Twitter) but you'll be called on your bias all the same.

Renegade Mechanic

TSMGUY wrote: »

I didn't know Archer was a mod :eek:

Do you want to get carded?
Because that's how you get carded.

Skylinehead

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Do you want to get carded?
Because that's how you get carded.

I fear most won't get that. Rest easy TSMGUY :pac:

osmiumartist

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Do you want to get carded?
Because that's how you get carded.

You have Tourette's.
Because that's how you don't get carded.
(depends on who you are of course...)

Skylinehead

osmiumartist wrote: »

You have Tourette's.
Because that's how you don't get carded.
(depends on who you are of course...)

It was a reference, he's fine.

You, on the other hand, are just looking for irrelevant arguments. Don't post in this thread again please.

TSMGUY

Skylinehead wrote: »

I fear most won't get that. Rest easy TSMGUY :pac:

LOL, I looked it up. For a minute I thought he was serious.

https://memegenerator.net/instance/49526077

osmiumartist

Skylinehead wrote: »

It was a reference, he's fine.

You, on the other hand, are just looking for irrelevant arguments. Don't post in this thread again please.

Hang on, we have clear evidence that saying somebody has Tourette's is OK here! I reported a post saying that and it's still there!
Surely moderation policy doesn't depend on WHO posts something but on whether it's ABUSE or not? That'd be, ya know, biased n stuff? Yeah?