+38 38 0
Published 7 years ago by AdelleChattre with 50 Comments

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
Conversation 33 comments by 9 users
  • SMcIntyre
    +7

    Oh Twitter, will you never learn that The Streisand Effect is very real? And you think Leslie Jones was getting harassed before? But no, Twitter's probably right, I'm sure this guy's fans will handle his suspension in a grown-up and responsible manner.

    Someday, hopefully, even if by accident, people will finally get a clue and realize that banning speech you don't like never fucking works! The only counter for "bad speech" is more "good speech". Always has been. Always will be.

    • NomadiChris (edited 7 years ago)
      +7

      The only counter for "bad speech" is more "good speech"

      Meh, I don't think that's true. At least not in all cases. I don't think you can generalize that in the sense that a call to arms is not the same with someone calling you a dick-turd. Am wondering just how much good speech would have been required to prevent Hitler from rising to power; and exactly at what point in time did his words become truly dangerous (so that they'd mandate a different counter than merely good words)

      • SMcIntyre
        +3

        If you want an accurate example of what I'm talking about, look at the protests around Donald Trump's campaign. When you have people show up saying "build a wall", the only effective counter for that is having people show up and say "Don't build a wall". When you use violence to suppress opposition, all you do is strengthen the opposition. That's why Martin Luther King Jr. was a hundred times more effective than Malcolm X, and why Gandhi succeeded where Bose and others failed.

        Am wondering just how much good speech would have been required to prevent Hitler from rising to power

        You're making the same false equivalent. Hitler wasn't just "speaking", he was also murdering his political opposition. Murder is not speech.

        • NomadiChris (edited 7 years ago)
          +4

          You're making the same false equivalent. Hitler wasn't just "speaking", he was also murdering his political opposition.

          Get your facts straight, Hitler did not murder anyone until he had enough power to do so, in fact he had 2 full years of active public speaking, between his early beer hall speeches in 1921, up to when he - indirectly, via the SA - had 4 police officers killed during a failed coup attempt, in 1923. What you are probably hinting at is the 'Night of the Long Knives' from 1934: that makes it 13 years of propaganda, most of it based on public speeches until he got to the murdering his political opposition part.

          Here's an excerpt from his early speeches, back when there were only words:

          "No salvation is possible until the bearer of disunion, the Jew, has been rendered powerless to harm." (September 18 1922)

          So yes, Hitler was only speaking for quite some time, without murdering anyone. His public speeches along with his famous fucking book he wrote while in Landsberg prison were major factors in his rise to power.

          Non-violence as a counter and absolute freedom of (hate) speech are not the answer in any possible circumstance. Intention is what truly matters: the intent behind your words.

    • AdelleChattre (edited 7 years ago)
      +5

      So if you've having a party at your house and it's crashed by asshats fighting with chains and knives, your best move then is to invite more, even closer, friends? Because freedom of expression.

      Nope.

      • SMcIntyre
        +8

        Yes because when I said:

        realize that banning speech you don't like...

        I obviously meant violent physical altercations.

        I think you dropped this...

        • AdelleChattre
          +6

          I saw your point. Can you see mine?

          • SMcIntyre
            +4

            I saw your point, and I dismissed it because it was nonsense.

            • AdelleChattre
              +7

              Can't help but wonder where you got lost. Is it that Twitter is a private company that hosts users? The parallel that a site like that could be like a party to which you invite guests? Maybe you weren't able to see that a site banning a user could relate to a host ejecting an unwanted guest. Hard to know where your selective understanding trailed off. Let's start somewhere simple. Is anyone off the street welcome to be abusive to your friends and family in your home?

            • SMcIntyre
              +2
              @AdelleChattre -

              Oh Adelle, I know reading is hard but you've really gotta try to keep up. I'll walk you through this one since you seem to be having so much trouble with it:

              The topic at hand was Twitter banning speech it finds offensive, or even just downright hateful.

              To which I posted:

              ...people will finally get a clue and realize that banning speech you don't like...

              See, the key word here is "speech". Webster's defines speech as: "The communication or expression of thoughts in spoken words." and [The] exchange of spoken words.

              To which you replied:

              ...if you've having a party at your house and it's crashed by asshats fighting with chains and knives...

              So either out of sheer ignorance, or an attempt to straw man your way into the discussion, you're trying to equate speech with violent physical altercations. You also use the example of a "party at my house", which is likewise ridiculous because Twitter is a public forum, open to any and everyone. So your "point" was nothing more than you using false equivalents, in a ridiculous comparison to a totally unrelated topic. Your point was, and still remains, nonsense.

            • Appaloosa
              +7
              @SMcIntyre -

              Twitter took a side. They made their choice and they will have to survive by it.

            • AdelleChattre (edited 7 years ago)
              +7
              @SMcIntyre -

              Yes, you did say one thing over and over. And yes, I did say a different thing later on. No, that’s not a ‘straw man.’ That’s a conversation. Or it would’ve been if it wasn’t one-sided. Thanks, though, for giving me a Webster’s definition. Up until then, I thought you may’ve been dealing in good faith.

              No, I wasn’t trying to equate speech and fighting. Nor was I speech and abuse. You said something. I thought about it, and said something else. No, that’s not ‘false equivalents,’ even though you may’ve seen a phrase like that used in actual conversations before. That’s you refusing to consider another point of view. In an actual dialog, what I said to you would’ve been something you would’ve given thought to in some way.

              Seems to me you’re backward chaining from your conclusion, using terms you barely know yet think you have to throw around, to what you’ll intentionally misunderstand in order to maintain that conclusion. Which explains why you appear to believe bigoted abuse is nothing more than speech, that bigots like Yiannopoulos are owed the largest possible audiences for their abuse by birthright from private companies like Twitter, and that I’m easily offended by remarks about whether I can read. As that covers the facts, and you’ve nothing to say you haven’t already, I’d say we’re done here.

              It’s a shame, though. I’d’ve liked to’ve seen you fallacy-dropping a while longer. I just think it’s hilarious when people get really serious about things they’ve got impossibly wrong. You know, like making an utter ass of yourself on Snapzu.

            • Appaloosa
              +5

              "I saw your point. Can you see mine?" A yes with an objection and reason would have been a good response, a dismissal as nonsense, a bit terse, and I know you can do better than that.

            • [Deleted Profile]

              [This comment was removed]

            • SMcIntyre
              +5
              @Appaloosa -

              Twitter is in desperate need of a buyer if they're going to survive, and when they make unforced errors like this, it just makes finding a buyer that much harder.

            • SMcIntyre
              +5
              @Appaloosa -

              Humoring stupid is nothing more than rewarding bad behavior. I won't do it. @AdelleChattre and I have had discussions in the past, and even though we don't agree on mu-- anything really, she's clearly not an idiot. That she would make such an inane comment is out of character for her, which is why initially I laughed it off and used a silly image to keep the mood light. When she pressed the issue, is when I told her that her "point" was nonsense... because it is. Terse? Possibly? Deserved? Absolutely.

            • Appaloosa
              +4
              @SMcIntyre -

              "Adelle" can be confrontational, I have seen that. There is a good heart in there though.

            • Appaloosa
              +3
              @ -

              God, I so much hate the straw man thing, really. can we not do that one?

            • [Deleted Profile]

              [This comment was removed]

            • SMcIntyre
              +2
              @AdelleChattre -

              Yes, you did say one thing over and over. And yes, I did say a different thing later on.

              I made one top-level comment, the one you initially replied to. There was no "over and over", nor was there a "later on". Again, it was one comment.

               

              The simple fact is, you used a ridiculous example to try and equate offensive speech with physical violence. And the reason I know that's what you were doing is because that's literally what you wrote:

              So if you've having a party at your house and it's crashed by asshats fighting with chains and knives, your best move then is to invite more, even closer, friends? Because freedom of expression.

              Again, there was no discussion here, and no conversation; you were replying to a top-level comment-- the only comment I had made at that point.

              If you want to have a discussion about censorship by social media companies, and free speech in the marketplace, then I'm all for it. If you want to keep spouting nonsense and making fallacious arguments, then Reddit's that way. ----------------->

            • Appaloosa
              +4
              @ -

              Just me, but such a cliche

            • [Deleted Profile] (edited 7 years ago)

              [This comment was removed]

            • drunkenninja (edited 7 years ago)
              +13
              @SMcIntyre -

              Figured I'll jump in to clarify a few things. A while back, in July of last summer there were a number of redditors here during the PAO drama that was happening (the banning of fatpeoplehate, etc.).

              One of the new members asked about our policy on banning hateful, bigoted and or abusive comments/users/tribes with which I replied "absolutely". I used a similar argument comparing the Snapzu community platform as a private enterprise ran buy a few hosts, and literally compared it to a house party where any friend can invite another friend to come over (think of our invite system).

              In the argument I made it very clear that the rules were written up on a sign outside on the lawn just next to the door, and if those rules were broken, you're out. So now, if one of those people you invited was going around and being racist, bigoted and generally making the rest of the party feel uncomfortable, people would be able to come to the host and let them know what's happening. I believe the point was actually about tribes like fatpeoplehate and others that follow that same abusive principle, which I compared to as rooms within the house that were dedicated to such behavior.

              I can safely say that our rules have not changed since then, and if the same thing was happening where people were "free to express themselves" in any way they want, yet their "expression" was breaking our rules, they would be out of the party very quickly free to go down the street and drunkenly yell any racist, bigoted, abusive comments they want, of course until such a time that the cops picked them up for disturbing the peace and being drunk in a public place :)

              Edit: Corrected a couple of typos.

            • [Deleted Profile]

              [This comment was removed]

            • Appaloosa
              +6
              @ -

              Yeah man, I get the metaphor, it's just tired for me. Like I said, It's just me. It's a good meme.

            • drunkenninja
              +12
              @ -

              Funny, maybe, but it makes a point and I feel at the end of the day that that's the most important part. This is a private social community, it has rules, those rules are set up by private individuals that have every intention of keeping a certain set of rules alive. For those who feel these rules are not to their liking they have a decision to make when they join, if they don't wish to abide by them, they can leave or be helped to leave, for admins it's one and the same.

            • Gozzin (edited 7 years ago)
              +6
              @drunkenninja -

              . I agree. That's why I come here and post. I like this community and I find it a comfortable place to interact. I don't like free-for-all- whatever websites and don't use them.

            • SMcIntyre
              +3
              @drunkenninja -

              I've never had an issue with any private website (Twitter, Reddit, Snapzu, etc.) setting their own rules, and banning people who break them. To go it a step further, I don't even really have a problem with users being arbitrarily banned by a site for no reason. Again: "Their house. Their rules.". My point was that, not only is it almost never effective, but it nearly always ends up making things worse than they were to start with.

              Since you mentioned the PAO drama, specifically "The Fattening", then I'm sure you remember what happened after Reddit banned those particular sites. For about a week, it was flooded with new copycat subs, and then when that finally died down, the users who, up to that point had been in their own little corner of the playground, migrated into the other subs, bringing their nonsense with them. Now I know Reddit didn't want to let the inmates run the asylum, but I think everyone would agree that it was much easier for users to ignore one subreddit than it is to ignore a few thousand individual users who are now spread across a couple dozen of the most popular subreddits, and who are still posting the same nonsense to this day, more than a year later.

            • drunkenninja
              +4
              @SMcIntyre -

              Honestly thought, dont you think this problem existed in the first place because reddit let that problem grow for far too long? I mean if you let a squatter live at your house for far too long, they start thinking its theirs and its much harder to remove them and their friends after its been such a long time. I figure if we continue enforcing the rules, we wont let those types of individuals to setup camp in the first place.

            • Project2501 (edited 7 years ago)
              +4
              @drunkenninja -

              This whole drama is ridiculous, people should know by now that trolls love to find boundaries, step over them, and press buttons, and with juvenile shock racist/sexist humour being able to be get a rise out of a celebrity, and being spread, being quoted by the likes of the bbc and the NYTimes. Anyone wants insight into the thought processes behind the sustained racist tweets, this is a forum link I saw tweeted. We are in an age where Carlin's seven words you won't hear on television is quaint, and old fashioned. When you understand there is an entire culture of using 10 minute email services as a way to make troll accounts on twitter, it starts to make sense. snapzu has never been a "bastion of free speech" the same way as twitter or reddit. twitter, and DNS servers were being used as graffiti to bypass government limits on speech. That's why I ditched reddit, because I never got an answer as to if 09 F9 11 02 9D ... was against their terms of service.

              I know people hate brietbart, same way its readers hate vox, themarysue, salon, it is modern media and how it gets out a message. Brietbart had a series of "the left is controlling twitter, and here is how" articles all lined up for when Milo was going to be banned for being Milo. Like this one. Brietbart just needs to prove twitter's hypocrisy when it comes to their enforcement of their rules, and suddenly, they are not spouting some form of crazy right wing conspiracy, but actual modern issues in the digital age.

              (and yes, I find this shit fascinating, I blame Metal Gear Solid 2). EDIT: spelling mistake, and an incomplete sentence.

            • SMcIntyre
              +4
              @drunkenninja -

              Honestly thought, dont you think this problem existed in the first place because reddit let that problem grow for far too long?

              Reddit never saw it as a problem though. They spent years branding themselves as a bastion of free speech, and consistently telling people that they wouldn't ban controversial/offensive subreddits, so long as the content were legal. So to use your metaphor, these weren't squatters. These were people that Reddit invited in, told them to make themselves at home, used them to help renovate the house, and then busted in one morning, threw their shit out onto the street and told them they had to go.

    • [Deleted Profile]

      [This comment was removed]

  • NinjaKlaus
    +6

    Based on his tweets and hers, I'm not seeing where he ordered his followers to harass her... I'm sure some, maybe a lot would attack her because that's what internet fools do, but I don't know how he's responsible for that but somebody like Bieber isn't responsible for his fans.

    • AdelleChattre
      +7

      You’ll find that’s dealt with directly in one of the related links.

    • [Deleted Profile] (edited 7 years ago)

      [This comment was removed]

  • TonyDiGerolamo
    +5

    Can someone link the exact tweet where Milo tells his users to mess with this actress? I read the review and looked around on the Twitter archive. I don't see it.

Here are some other snaps you may like...