|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 20 2016 13:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 13:26 CorsairHero wrote:On July 20 2016 12:35 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 12:33 CorsairHero wrote:On July 20 2016 12:21 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 12:14 CorsairHero wrote:On July 20 2016 12:05 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 11:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 20 2016 11:57 oBlade wrote:On July 20 2016 11:55 CorsairHero wrote:
[quote]
"the left want to silence those who disagree with them" Well, Milo just got banned from Twitter. I was going to ask why, but I think it would be better to reword the question as "What incendiary dipshit thing did he post that was the final straw for Twitter?" He direct his fan base to harass the black actress from ghost busters who's name escapes me. And she decided not to put up with it. If he got banned for saying that then that's pathetic. If at first you don't succeed (because your work is terrible), play the victim.
EVERYONE GETS HATE MAIL FFS No, its reality. You see, she is a bigger star than Milo and did more could do more damage to them through negative PR. That is all Twitter cares about. They don't give a flying fuck about free speech, they care about their stock price. And she wasn't going to stop. So they banned him because he directed his shitty fanbase of racists to attack her. And yes, they are racists because they send her photos of burning crosses, photos of monkeys with her name on them and other forms of racist imagery. This is the free market at work. Milo is a little narcissist that can't write for shit and is only around because he panders to shitty people. He finally picked the wrong fight to get into and lost. On July 20 2016 12:20 Falling wrote:On July 20 2016 12:14 CorsairHero wrote:On July 20 2016 12:05 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 11:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 20 2016 11:57 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
Well, Milo just got banned from Twitter. I was going to ask why, but I think it would be better to reword the question as "What incendiary dipshit thing did he post that was the final straw for Twitter?" He direct his fan base to harass the black actress from ghost busters who's name escapes me. And she decided not to put up with it. If he got banned for saying that then that's pathetic. If at first you don't succeed (because your work is terrible), play the victim.
EVERYONE GETS HATE MAIL FFS However, however apparently the majority of her 'criticism' had to do with her being an 'ape' or 'savage'. So 'play the victim' because 'you don't succeed' seems rather misplaced. The part that got twitter in trouble was that she would tweet out the racist tweet and the response to the report staying it didn't violate their TOS. And other black celebrities were following and retweet those. Terrible PR for Twitter, which already has a bad reputation for doing nothing about harassment. Thanks for your explanation but I wouldn't group Dave Rubin under "shitty people". You are entitled hold an option I don't agree with. Its fine. On July 20 2016 12:34 OuchyDathurts wrote:On July 20 2016 12:31 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 12:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Are you accusing the left leaning people in this thread of harassing Melania Trump? Or supporting the harassment? On July 20 2016 12:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:
I'm all for free speech, even being a piece of shit if that's REALLY what you want to do. But I've never understood this delusion that being on twitter or whatever site is some sort of right. The guy is a scumbag of the highest order to be sure and he played with fire for attention. I sort of agree twitter taking away his check mark was childish, not because I agree with the man at all but it's just petty. At that point you either ban him entirely or don't do anything IMO. Taking a verification check just makes it so people can impersonate you if you're a figure with stature which he was. That's just grade school BS. Equally as childish is going to the white house to cry about it like a baby, come on now.
The only real argument I've seen that's remotely compelling is they ban him but they let accounts that are openly supporting terrorism slide. The only counter argument there is that maybe the FBI or someone tells twitter to let those accounts slide so they can continue monitoring them. But yeah, ideally that sort of thing shouldn't fly either. Being verified provides a bunch of features that are useful for anyone who uses twitter in a professional fashion. Removing it wasn't' just symbolic, it removed a lot of the functionality of twitter as a serve for him. Its still childish. Milo you were naughty so we're taking your gold star away. Either pull the trigger then or do nothing, don't beat around the bush. Yes, he should have been banned years ago. It should not have taken this long and him being suspended nearly 20 times. Twitter is a garbage service run by not awesome people. What is it about Dave or his opinions that you don't agree with? I dislike people who have made careers vilifying the other side of the political spectrum. His popularization of the term "regressive left" and general taking points are about creating an ethereal enemy, opposition he can rail against to please his fan base. And it has to be vague and ethereal so he can always rail against it. He is like Michael Moore, msnbc, Rush and all the others making a buck off division. He is In show buisness. Crowd pleasing. Not solving problems or making anything of substance.
Are you saying he creates ghosts? No wonder Leslie Jones got so upset, she's a Ghostbuster and she and her fellow Ghostbusters just stopped some guy who was doing exactly the same thing! Then Milo comes along and creates more ghosts and I just couldn't even if I had that happen to me either.
He has never been vague about who and what he talks shit on though.
Leslie Jones, naturally, gets a free pass on her blatantly racist tweets over the last 4 years of which there have been several. She claimed her Twitter was hacked with regards to racist and homophobic tweets the account made yesterday but nothing about racist tweets she tweeted in 2012, 2014 (at least 3), and this year.
|
On July 20 2016 14:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 13:37 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 13:26 CorsairHero wrote:On July 20 2016 12:35 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 12:33 CorsairHero wrote:On July 20 2016 12:21 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 12:14 CorsairHero wrote:On July 20 2016 12:05 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 11:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 20 2016 11:57 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
Well, Milo just got banned from Twitter. I was going to ask why, but I think it would be better to reword the question as "What incendiary dipshit thing did he post that was the final straw for Twitter?" He direct his fan base to harass the black actress from ghost busters who's name escapes me. And she decided not to put up with it. If he got banned for saying that then that's pathetic. If at first you don't succeed (because your work is terrible), play the victim.
EVERYONE GETS HATE MAIL FFS No, its reality. You see, she is a bigger star than Milo and did more could do more damage to them through negative PR. That is all Twitter cares about. They don't give a flying fuck about free speech, they care about their stock price. And she wasn't going to stop. So they banned him because he directed his shitty fanbase of racists to attack her. And yes, they are racists because they send her photos of burning crosses, photos of monkeys with her name on them and other forms of racist imagery. This is the free market at work. Milo is a little narcissist that can't write for shit and is only around because he panders to shitty people. He finally picked the wrong fight to get into and lost. On July 20 2016 12:20 Falling wrote:On July 20 2016 12:14 CorsairHero wrote:On July 20 2016 12:05 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 11:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
I was going to ask why, but I think it would be better to reword the question as "What incendiary dipshit thing did he post that was the final straw for Twitter?" He direct his fan base to harass the black actress from ghost busters who's name escapes me. And she decided not to put up with it. If he got banned for saying that then that's pathetic. If at first you don't succeed (because your work is terrible), play the victim.
EVERYONE GETS HATE MAIL FFS However, however apparently the majority of her 'criticism' had to do with her being an 'ape' or 'savage'. So 'play the victim' because 'you don't succeed' seems rather misplaced. The part that got twitter in trouble was that she would tweet out the racist tweet and the response to the report staying it didn't violate their TOS. And other black celebrities were following and retweet those. Terrible PR for Twitter, which already has a bad reputation for doing nothing about harassment. Thanks for your explanation but I wouldn't group Dave Rubin under "shitty people". You are entitled hold an option I don't agree with. Its fine. On July 20 2016 12:34 OuchyDathurts wrote:On July 20 2016 12:31 Plansix wrote:Are you accusing the left leaning people in this thread of harassing Melania Trump? Or supporting the harassment? On July 20 2016 12:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:
I'm all for free speech, even being a piece of shit if that's REALLY what you want to do. But I've never understood this delusion that being on twitter or whatever site is some sort of right. The guy is a scumbag of the highest order to be sure and he played with fire for attention. I sort of agree twitter taking away his check mark was childish, not because I agree with the man at all but it's just petty. At that point you either ban him entirely or don't do anything IMO. Taking a verification check just makes it so people can impersonate you if you're a figure with stature which he was. That's just grade school BS. Equally as childish is going to the white house to cry about it like a baby, come on now.
The only real argument I've seen that's remotely compelling is they ban him but they let accounts that are openly supporting terrorism slide. The only counter argument there is that maybe the FBI or someone tells twitter to let those accounts slide so they can continue monitoring them. But yeah, ideally that sort of thing shouldn't fly either. Being verified provides a bunch of features that are useful for anyone who uses twitter in a professional fashion. Removing it wasn't' just symbolic, it removed a lot of the functionality of twitter as a serve for him. Its still childish. Milo you were naughty so we're taking your gold star away. Either pull the trigger then or do nothing, don't beat around the bush. Yes, he should have been banned years ago. It should not have taken this long and him being suspended nearly 20 times. Twitter is a garbage service run by not awesome people. What is it about Dave or his opinions that you don't agree with? I dislike people who have made careers vilifying the other side of the political spectrum. His popularization of the term "regressive left" and general taking points are about creating an ethereal enemy, opposition he can rail against to please his fan base. And it has to be vague and ethereal so he can always rail against it. He is like Michael Moore, msnbc, Rush and all the others making a buck off division. He is In show buisness. Crowd pleasing. Not solving problems or making anything of substance. Are you saying he creates ghosts? No wonder Leslie Jones got so upset, she's a Ghostbuster and she and her fellow Ghostbusters just stopped some guy who was doing exactly the same thing! Then Milo comes along and creates more ghosts and I just couldn't even if I had that happen to me either. He has never been vague about who and what he talks shit on though. Leslie Jones, naturally, gets a free pass on her blatantly racist tweets over the last 4 years of which there have been several. She claimed her Twitter was hacked with regards to racist and homophobic tweets the account made yesterday but nothing about racist tweets she tweeted in 2012, 2014 (at least 3), and this year.
Which tweets? Those clearly faked ones?
Ok, quick few things. First of all the tweet I see from that brick dude isn't even in the right font. Second of all I just legitimately put you in the middle of this twitter thread by dicking with the HTML. Its INSANELY easy to fake tweets. Like retardedly easy so take that stuff with a salt mine. Man why is Leslie trying to kill esports anyway? Hating on TL, wtf.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GFRWcXP.png)
|
+ Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/755140563184259072
smh directly telling her followers to go after them
|
On July 20 2016 14:32 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 14:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 20 2016 13:37 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 13:26 CorsairHero wrote:On July 20 2016 12:35 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 12:33 CorsairHero wrote:On July 20 2016 12:21 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 12:14 CorsairHero wrote:On July 20 2016 12:05 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 11:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
I was going to ask why, but I think it would be better to reword the question as "What incendiary dipshit thing did he post that was the final straw for Twitter?" He direct his fan base to harass the black actress from ghost busters who's name escapes me. And she decided not to put up with it. If he got banned for saying that then that's pathetic. If at first you don't succeed (because your work is terrible), play the victim.
EVERYONE GETS HATE MAIL FFS No, its reality. You see, she is a bigger star than Milo and did more could do more damage to them through negative PR. That is all Twitter cares about. They don't give a flying fuck about free speech, they care about their stock price. And she wasn't going to stop. So they banned him because he directed his shitty fanbase of racists to attack her. And yes, they are racists because they send her photos of burning crosses, photos of monkeys with her name on them and other forms of racist imagery. This is the free market at work. Milo is a little narcissist that can't write for shit and is only around because he panders to shitty people. He finally picked the wrong fight to get into and lost. On July 20 2016 12:20 Falling wrote:On July 20 2016 12:14 CorsairHero wrote:On July 20 2016 12:05 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
He direct his fan base to harass the black actress from ghost busters who's name escapes me. And she decided not to put up with it. If he got banned for saying that then that's pathetic. If at first you don't succeed (because your work is terrible), play the victim.
EVERYONE GETS HATE MAIL FFS However, however apparently the majority of her 'criticism' had to do with her being an 'ape' or 'savage'. So 'play the victim' because 'you don't succeed' seems rather misplaced. The part that got twitter in trouble was that she would tweet out the racist tweet and the response to the report staying it didn't violate their TOS. And other black celebrities were following and retweet those. Terrible PR for Twitter, which already has a bad reputation for doing nothing about harassment. Thanks for your explanation but I wouldn't group Dave Rubin under "shitty people". You are entitled hold an option I don't agree with. Its fine. On July 20 2016 12:34 OuchyDathurts wrote:On July 20 2016 12:31 Plansix wrote:Are you accusing the left leaning people in this thread of harassing Melania Trump? Or supporting the harassment? On July 20 2016 12:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:
I'm all for free speech, even being a piece of shit if that's REALLY what you want to do. But I've never understood this delusion that being on twitter or whatever site is some sort of right. The guy is a scumbag of the highest order to be sure and he played with fire for attention. I sort of agree twitter taking away his check mark was childish, not because I agree with the man at all but it's just petty. At that point you either ban him entirely or don't do anything IMO. Taking a verification check just makes it so people can impersonate you if you're a figure with stature which he was. That's just grade school BS. Equally as childish is going to the white house to cry about it like a baby, come on now.
The only real argument I've seen that's remotely compelling is they ban him but they let accounts that are openly supporting terrorism slide. The only counter argument there is that maybe the FBI or someone tells twitter to let those accounts slide so they can continue monitoring them. But yeah, ideally that sort of thing shouldn't fly either. Being verified provides a bunch of features that are useful for anyone who uses twitter in a professional fashion. Removing it wasn't' just symbolic, it removed a lot of the functionality of twitter as a serve for him. Its still childish. Milo you were naughty so we're taking your gold star away. Either pull the trigger then or do nothing, don't beat around the bush. Yes, he should have been banned years ago. It should not have taken this long and him being suspended nearly 20 times. Twitter is a garbage service run by not awesome people. What is it about Dave or his opinions that you don't agree with? I dislike people who have made careers vilifying the other side of the political spectrum. His popularization of the term "regressive left" and general taking points are about creating an ethereal enemy, opposition he can rail against to please his fan base. And it has to be vague and ethereal so he can always rail against it. He is like Michael Moore, msnbc, Rush and all the others making a buck off division. He is In show buisness. Crowd pleasing. Not solving problems or making anything of substance. Are you saying he creates ghosts? No wonder Leslie Jones got so upset, she's a Ghostbuster and she and her fellow Ghostbusters just stopped some guy who was doing exactly the same thing! Then Milo comes along and creates more ghosts and I just couldn't even if I had that happen to me either. He has never been vague about who and what he talks shit on though. Leslie Jones, naturally, gets a free pass on her blatantly racist tweets over the last 4 years of which there have been several. She claimed her Twitter was hacked with regards to racist and homophobic tweets the account made yesterday but nothing about racist tweets she tweeted in 2012, 2014 (at least 3), and this year. Which tweets? Those clearly faked ones? Ok, quick few things. First of all the tweet I see from that brick dude isn't even in the right font. Second of all I just legitimately put you in the middle of this twitter thread by dicking with the HTML. Its INSANELY easy to fake tweets. Like retardedly easy so take that stuff with a salt mine. Man why is Leslie trying to kill esports anyway? Hating on TL, wtf.
I don't have a Twitter so haha!
But seriously no not the clearly faked ones from yesterday. You don't even need to look at the font, the syntax and grammar of those is so different from her other tweets it's painfully obvious that she did not write them.
Of course tweets can easily be faked eighteen different ways, that doesn't prove that the ones from the less recent past were.
But the real issue is that Twitter allows alleged hate campaigns all the time, it only consistently bans conservatives who have allegedly participated in hate campaigns. People who celebrate and advocate killing cops, no. People who tweet about how they'd like to beat to death the mother of Benghazi victim Sean Smith because she vehemently criticizes Hillary Clinton, no, that's apparently fine. People who do not send death threats or say racist things to Leslie Jones but are collectively guilty for others doing those things, yes, bant.
Under the standard just applied to Milo, every pro-BLM twitter account should have been bant a month ago at least. After all, aren't they responsible for the people tweeting 'yay cops are dead I wish there were more'? Under the Milo standard they are, those pro-BLM accounts are 'legitimizing' Twitter hate campaigns against police. Under the standard just applied to Milo, pro-Clinton accounts are responsible for tweets by other accounts that call for the assassination of Donald Trump and should also be bant. It's collective guilt and collective guilt is just wrong.
|
On July 20 2016 13:38 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 08:16 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 08:11 Simberto wrote:On July 20 2016 07:52 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:48 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:43 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:32 Plansix wrote:
Xdaunt: I taught history before I went into law. I have well beyond a rudimentary understanding. You are just wrong by almost every metric.
And second: that specific line, "what other sub group(race) has contributed more to civilization t(han the white race?)" is straight out of a clan meeting. It is white supremacist talking points 101. You many not be familiar because you seem willingly ignorant on the subject, but it is a common argument used by white supremacist. And it is born of knowing every little about history as a whole. Welp, facts are facts. Given that western culture is largely a creation of the white race (though I'll note that not all whites are part of western culture), and given the relative supremacy of western culture in the historical record, we run into a rather uncomfortable predicament, don't we? Civilization is larger than just western culture. And the majority of the accomplishments of western cultures are on the foundation of other races discoverys. Yeah, and we go all the way back to some form of monkey by that logic, which is why it's absurd to place undue emphasis on foundational issues. Sheer cultural dominance is a far better metric. Most historians don't really care about that metric. But it's works nice for your argument, so I can see how you would like it. And if that was the metric, China wins hands down. China has never has never had global dominance at any level. And we aren't too far removed (less than 100 years) from when China was little more than a colony to Western powers and countries emulating Western powers (Japan). So the according to your metrics, it only matter who was the last dominant power. Because they will surely have contributed the most advances in the recent past, and foundations don't matter. This is patently ridiculous. China never achieved global dominance. The extent of its power and influence never strayed far beyond its current borders today. The simple fact is that no civilization projected power and influence at a global level like Western civilization did, both in terms of global reach and in terms of sustained influence (you can make a case for Muslims, but even they clearly fall short). That fact, combined with the fact that modern civilization is largely a product of Western civilization makes it very to conclude that Western civilization is the most dominant historically. Yeah I actually agree with Kwark. It's kind of meaningless to talk about "contributions to civilization" according to race, as if race (i.e. genotype/phenotype) had the defining impact on those contributions. If you look at flows of matter, energy, genetic material, and cultural materials through history on an extended timeline, yes, Europe had a lot of interesting attractors that came to dominate the global network, but that is a contingent historical reality that had little to do with "white"/Western culture per se.
I have been very explicit about talking about culture, which, as you know, is distinct from race. A cursory look at the American brand of Western culture makes that very clear. That said, the genesis of Western culture is fairly inseparable from European whites, so it isn't really wrong to say that adherents to Western culture (ie most of us) are the heirs to the legacy of white dudes.
|
On July 20 2016 14:58 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 14:32 OuchyDathurts wrote:On July 20 2016 14:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 20 2016 13:37 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 13:26 CorsairHero wrote:On July 20 2016 12:35 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 12:33 CorsairHero wrote:On July 20 2016 12:21 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 12:14 CorsairHero wrote:On July 20 2016 12:05 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
He direct his fan base to harass the black actress from ghost busters who's name escapes me. And she decided not to put up with it. If he got banned for saying that then that's pathetic. If at first you don't succeed (because your work is terrible), play the victim.
EVERYONE GETS HATE MAIL FFS No, its reality. You see, she is a bigger star than Milo and did more could do more damage to them through negative PR. That is all Twitter cares about. They don't give a flying fuck about free speech, they care about their stock price. And she wasn't going to stop. So they banned him because he directed his shitty fanbase of racists to attack her. And yes, they are racists because they send her photos of burning crosses, photos of monkeys with her name on them and other forms of racist imagery. This is the free market at work. Milo is a little narcissist that can't write for shit and is only around because he panders to shitty people. He finally picked the wrong fight to get into and lost. On July 20 2016 12:20 Falling wrote:On July 20 2016 12:14 CorsairHero wrote:
[quote]
If he got banned for saying that then that's pathetic.
[quote] However, however apparently the majority of her 'criticism' had to do with her being an 'ape' or 'savage'. So 'play the victim' because 'you don't succeed' seems rather misplaced. The part that got twitter in trouble was that she would tweet out the racist tweet and the response to the report staying it didn't violate their TOS. And other black celebrities were following and retweet those. Terrible PR for Twitter, which already has a bad reputation for doing nothing about harassment. Thanks for your explanation but I wouldn't group Dave Rubin under "shitty people". You are entitled hold an option I don't agree with. Its fine. On July 20 2016 12:34 OuchyDathurts wrote:On July 20 2016 12:31 Plansix wrote:Are you accusing the left leaning people in this thread of harassing Melania Trump? Or supporting the harassment? On July 20 2016 12:30 OuchyDathurts wrote:
I'm all for free speech, even being a piece of shit if that's REALLY what you want to do. But I've never understood this delusion that being on twitter or whatever site is some sort of right. The guy is a scumbag of the highest order to be sure and he played with fire for attention. I sort of agree twitter taking away his check mark was childish, not because I agree with the man at all but it's just petty. At that point you either ban him entirely or don't do anything IMO. Taking a verification check just makes it so people can impersonate you if you're a figure with stature which he was. That's just grade school BS. Equally as childish is going to the white house to cry about it like a baby, come on now.
The only real argument I've seen that's remotely compelling is they ban him but they let accounts that are openly supporting terrorism slide. The only counter argument there is that maybe the FBI or someone tells twitter to let those accounts slide so they can continue monitoring them. But yeah, ideally that sort of thing shouldn't fly either. Being verified provides a bunch of features that are useful for anyone who uses twitter in a professional fashion. Removing it wasn't' just symbolic, it removed a lot of the functionality of twitter as a serve for him. Its still childish. Milo you were naughty so we're taking your gold star away. Either pull the trigger then or do nothing, don't beat around the bush. Yes, he should have been banned years ago. It should not have taken this long and him being suspended nearly 20 times. Twitter is a garbage service run by not awesome people. What is it about Dave or his opinions that you don't agree with? I dislike people who have made careers vilifying the other side of the political spectrum. His popularization of the term "regressive left" and general taking points are about creating an ethereal enemy, opposition he can rail against to please his fan base. And it has to be vague and ethereal so he can always rail against it. He is like Michael Moore, msnbc, Rush and all the others making a buck off division. He is In show buisness. Crowd pleasing. Not solving problems or making anything of substance. Are you saying he creates ghosts? No wonder Leslie Jones got so upset, she's a Ghostbuster and she and her fellow Ghostbusters just stopped some guy who was doing exactly the same thing! Then Milo comes along and creates more ghosts and I just couldn't even if I had that happen to me either. He has never been vague about who and what he talks shit on though. Leslie Jones, naturally, gets a free pass on her blatantly racist tweets over the last 4 years of which there have been several. She claimed her Twitter was hacked with regards to racist and homophobic tweets the account made yesterday but nothing about racist tweets she tweeted in 2012, 2014 (at least 3), and this year. Which tweets? Those clearly faked ones? Ok, quick few things. First of all the tweet I see from that brick dude isn't even in the right font. Second of all I just legitimately put you in the middle of this twitter thread by dicking with the HTML. Its INSANELY easy to fake tweets. Like retardedly easy so take that stuff with a salt mine. Man why is Leslie trying to kill esports anyway? Hating on TL, wtf. I don't have a Twitter! But seriously no not the clearly faked ones from yesterday. You don't even need to look at the font, the syntax and grammar of those is so different from her other tweets it's obvious. Of course tweets can easily be faked eighteen different ways, that doesn't prove that the ones from the less recent past were.
You not having a twitter doesn't matter if I just put your name into the code on my computer it shows up like you do. I take a screenshot, post it saying its an incendiary tweet that I took a pic of before you deleted it and throw that out into the ether. It looks 100% real because it is 100% real as far as the code in my browser that I've altered knows. Things can get really gross really fast, and disturbingly easily when you can just make up evidence.
I don't know which older tweets you're talking about.
|
Part of the reason this circle jerking of hate is because people don't properly self police their own "sides". People know that they can cross lines and have people support/agree with them even if it is out of line or going too far. Then you simply just circle the wagons when the other side calls you out. If your a conservative you should absolutely call out people like Milo for being a dick and if your liberal you should do the same. The reason people like Milo exist is because as long as he is acting like a dick on behalf of conservatives he is "their dick" who does their dirty work and he knows it.
Change never happens from outside criticism unless its overwhelming (which you won't get in lib vs con arguments in the US). Self reflect on the people who are publicly representing your side of things and ask yourself if you really want them to represent your views to the public.
|
What's there to police and why should we be policing it? What the regressive PC left no longer understands is that ideas should be left to the court of public opinion. Once you stop trusting the people to make those decisIons for themselves, then you're on the road to a police state. Yes, Twitter is a private entity that grants licenses to its users to use its product, but the attitude and sentiments that are behind their decision and held by those justifying their decision are radically undemocratic, and should be universally condemned by anyone who values free speech.
|
On July 20 2016 15:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 13:38 IgnE wrote:On July 20 2016 08:16 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 08:11 Simberto wrote:On July 20 2016 07:52 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:48 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:43 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:32 Plansix wrote:
Xdaunt: I taught history before I went into law. I have well beyond a rudimentary understanding. You are just wrong by almost every metric.
And second: that specific line, "what other sub group(race) has contributed more to civilization t(han the white race?)" is straight out of a clan meeting. It is white supremacist talking points 101. You many not be familiar because you seem willingly ignorant on the subject, but it is a common argument used by white supremacist. And it is born of knowing every little about history as a whole. Welp, facts are facts. Given that western culture is largely a creation of the white race (though I'll note that not all whites are part of western culture), and given the relative supremacy of western culture in the historical record, we run into a rather uncomfortable predicament, don't we? Civilization is larger than just western culture. And the majority of the accomplishments of western cultures are on the foundation of other races discoverys. Yeah, and we go all the way back to some form of monkey by that logic, which is why it's absurd to place undue emphasis on foundational issues. Sheer cultural dominance is a far better metric. Most historians don't really care about that metric. But it's works nice for your argument, so I can see how you would like it. And if that was the metric, China wins hands down. China has never has never had global dominance at any level. And we aren't too far removed (less than 100 years) from when China was little more than a colony to Western powers and countries emulating Western powers (Japan). So the according to your metrics, it only matter who was the last dominant power. Because they will surely have contributed the most advances in the recent past, and foundations don't matter. This is patently ridiculous. China never achieved global dominance. The extent of its power and influence never strayed far beyond its current borders today. The simple fact is that no civilization projected power and influence at a global level like Western civilization did, both in terms of global reach and in terms of sustained influence (you can make a case for Muslims, but even they clearly fall short). That fact, combined with the fact that modern civilization is largely a product of Western civilization makes it very to conclude that Western civilization is the most dominant historically. Yeah I actually agree with Kwark. It's kind of meaningless to talk about "contributions to civilization" according to race, as if race (i.e. genotype/phenotype) had the defining impact on those contributions. If you look at flows of matter, energy, genetic material, and cultural materials through history on an extended timeline, yes, Europe had a lot of interesting attractors that came to dominate the global network, but that is a contingent historical reality that had little to do with "white"/Western culture per se. I have been very explicit about talking about culture, which, as you know, is distinct from race. A cursory look at the American brand of Western culture makes that very clear. That said, the genesis of Western culture is fairly inseparable from European whites, so it isn't really wrong to say that adherents to Western culture (ie most of us) are the heirs to the legacy of white dudes.
It's inseparable from European whites and it's also inseparable from the intensified flows of matter and energy that coursed through its historically contingent circuits of networks and hierarchies. But for innumerable contingencies Europe would not have flowered as she did.
My point is that there is nothing a priori about white or western dominance. Imagine being a Turk in the 16th century and claiming that Anatolian Islam is the greatest culture in the world.
|
On July 20 2016 13:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
As I imagine many here don't know, Uncle Tom was actually first written as a hero and based on a real person. Later when white people wanted to make it a production, they changed him into a "subservient fool who bows down to the white man".
"Uncle Tom" is in a nutshell how White America takes a cultural positive and turns it into a negative and then it gets reinforced by those it's meant to oppress. As repugnant as it is, I can't help but appreciate its efficacy.
Do you ever stop blaming 'white people' for things 'black people' do to themselves?
I've only ever heard of black people calling other black people uncle toms these days
|
On July 20 2016 15:04 Slaughter wrote:
Part of the reason this circle jerking of hate is because people don't properly self police their own "sides". People know that they can cross lines and have people support/agree with them even if it is out of line or going too far. Then you simply just circle the wagons when the other side calls you out. If your a conservative you should absolutely call out people like Milo for being a dick and if your liberal you should do the same. The reason people like Milo exist is because as long as he is acting like a dick on behalf of conservatives he is "their dick" who does their dirty work and he knows it.
Change never happens from outside criticism unless its overwhelming (which you won't get in lib vs con arguments in the US). Self reflect on the people who are publicly representing your side of things and ask yourself if you really want them to represent your views to the public.
This is absolutely true, though now days you'd just get further fracturing in the party. If you don't like Milo you're a cuckservative bitch. Things get hideous too fast.
Milo is a douche nugget because it gives him attention and money. People have found that being as big of an asshole as humanly possible on the internet gets you eyeballs. People will come to rally behind you and people will come to call you a dick. You can easily cash in on being as ridiculous as possible because the internet provides a megaphone the size of which we couldn't even fathom a decade ago.
The problem comes down to people not wanting to actually have an open honest discussion. To be real a lot of people don't want to really do it because their brain would explode, it takes better people than I willing to bash their heads into the proverbial wall over and over and over and over again to try and chip away at it. Willing to remain calm and reasonable through it all. Takes a stronger man than I lol. Stronger person than most really.
People use charged words on both sides which can be taken the wrong way and put people on the defensive. If you call me a racist the discussion is over. You win because you've thrown a hand grenade into my fox hole. That's not the best way to have a real talk if you want to have a real talk. However people also get super defensive and brush things off that are actual legitimate problems. There are people that believe we live in a post racial society, those people are clearly nuts, but so long as they think there is no problem nothing revolving around that problem can be fixed. Something can be legitimately racist but its hard to talk about it because people throw around the term so much that it cheapens the meaning and people get so defensive about it they shut down, which is a completely natural reaction.
I don't know how to explain it really. If someone calls you out on a racist joke that doesn't mean they think you're David Duke, you just said something that was messed up. It might be a super light check but people go to DEFCON 1 immediately.
On July 20 2016 15:16 xDaunt wrote:
What's there to police and why should we be policing it? What the regressive PC left no longer understands is that ideas should be left to the court of public opinion. Once you stop trusting the people to make those decisIons for themselves, then you're on the road to a police state. Yes, Twitter is a private entity that grants licenses to its users to use its product, but the attitude and sentiments that are behind their decision and held by those justifying their decision are radically undemocratic, and should be universally condemned by anyone who values free speech.
They're under zero obligation to be democratic. They thought Milo has been an asshole to too many people for too long. He knew what he was doing and wanted to be martyred. He's been playing the victim on this forever. I'm mega turbo for free speech but this has nothing to do with it.
|
+ Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/564664734268411906
There's this tweet but I also don't know what DEB is referencing generally.
|
On July 20 2016 15:16 xDaunt wrote:
What's there to police and why should we be policing it? What the regressive PC left no longer understands is that ideas should be left to the court of public opinion. Once you stop trusting the people to make those decisIons for themselves, then you're on the road to a police state. Yes, Twitter is a private entity that grants licenses to its users to use its product, but the attitude and sentiments that are behind their decision and held by those justifying their decision are radically undemocratic, and should be universally condemned by anyone who values free speech.
It's reflected in its share price. Twitter has lost 75% of its value in just 2.5 years.
|
On July 20 2016 15:17 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 15:02 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 13:38 IgnE wrote:On July 20 2016 08:16 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 08:11 Simberto wrote:On July 20 2016 07:52 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:48 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 20 2016 07:43 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 07:38 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Welp, facts are facts. Given that western culture is largely a creation of the white race (though I'll note that not all whites are part of western culture), and given the relative supremacy of western culture in the historical record, we run into a rather uncomfortable predicament, don't we? Civilization is larger than just western culture. And the majority of the accomplishments of western cultures are on the foundation of other races discoverys. Yeah, and we go all the way back to some form of monkey by that logic, which is why it's absurd to place undue emphasis on foundational issues. Sheer cultural dominance is a far better metric. Most historians don't really care about that metric. But it's works nice for your argument, so I can see how you would like it. And if that was the metric, China wins hands down. China has never has never had global dominance at any level. And we aren't too far removed (less than 100 years) from when China was little more than a colony to Western powers and countries emulating Western powers (Japan). So the according to your metrics, it only matter who was the last dominant power. Because they will surely have contributed the most advances in the recent past, and foundations don't matter. This is patently ridiculous. China never achieved global dominance. The extent of its power and influence never strayed far beyond its current borders today. The simple fact is that no civilization projected power and influence at a global level like Western civilization did, both in terms of global reach and in terms of sustained influence (you can make a case for Muslims, but even they clearly fall short). That fact, combined with the fact that modern civilization is largely a product of Western civilization makes it very to conclude that Western civilization is the most dominant historically. Yeah I actually agree with Kwark. It's kind of meaningless to talk about "contributions to civilization" according to race, as if race (i.e. genotype/phenotype) had the defining impact on those contributions. If you look at flows of matter, energy, genetic material, and cultural materials through history on an extended timeline, yes, Europe had a lot of interesting attractors that came to dominate the global network, but that is a contingent historical reality that had little to do with "white"/Western culture per se. I have been very explicit about talking about culture, which, as you know, is distinct from race. A cursory look at the American brand of Western culture makes that very clear. That said, the genesis of Western culture is fairly inseparable from European whites, so it isn't really wrong to say that adherents to Western culture (ie most of us) are the heirs to the legacy of white dudes. It's inseparable from European whites and it's also inseparable from the intensified flows of matter and energy that coursed through its historically contingent circuits of networks and hierarchies. But for innumerable contingencies Europe would not have flowered as she did. My point is that there is nothing a priori about white or western dominance. Imagine being a Turk in the 16th century and claiming that Anatolian Islam is the greatest culture in the world.
Europe went through some pretty rough contingencies over the last 2,000 years. But for innumerable contingencies the superior material and intellectual productivity of the West in the last ~350 years would be even greater. And Europeans certainly aren't immune to creating their own contingencies that drag them down, Communism and Nazism were some pretty damaging contingencies and they weren't created by anyone but Europeans.
Every culture has had innumerable contingencies pushing them down and lifting them up as well, some external, some internal.
There's this tweet too and a couple-three others:
|
Canada11373 Posts
On July 20 2016 15:16 xDaunt wrote:
What's there to police and why should we be policing it? What the regressive PC left no longer understands is that ideas should be left to the court of public opinion. Once you stop trusting the people to make those decisIons for themselves, then you're on the road to a police state. Yes, Twitter is a private entity that grants licenses to its users to use its product, but the attitude and sentiments that are behind their decision and held by those justifying their decision are radically undemocratic, and should be universally condemned by anyone who values free speech.
A start would be someone like Milo not defending people posting black people = monkeys. The lack of defence of the appalling sections is a good step. And really as far as Milo is concerned that's really all that would be needed- I really have no idea what are the political persuasions of the gorilla posters.
But supposing they were of similar political persuasions, then self-regulation used to be a great thing: Buckley's reading out of certain undesired groups within the conservative movement. I doubt any such thing would matter any more as the internet is anarchic by nature, but no apologetics for the racist tweets would be great.
edit
There's a bunch of random Leslie tweets getting brought up. Is there any context at all to these because I don't even understand what they are talking about- as far as I can understand it's along the lines of 'white people be all crazy', which is pretty meh, we're really digging for something to bring her down so we don't have to worry about all those gorilla pictures.
|
On July 20 2016 15:27 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 15:16 xDaunt wrote:
What's there to police and why should we be policing it? What the regressive PC left no longer understands is that ideas should be left to the court of public opinion. Once you stop trusting the people to make those decisIons for themselves, then you're on the road to a police state. Yes, Twitter is a private entity that grants licenses to its users to use its product, but the attitude and sentiments that are behind their decision and held by those justifying their decision are radically undemocratic, and should be universally condemned by anyone who values free speech. A start would be someone like Milo not defending people posting black people = monkeys. The lack of defence of the appalling sections is a good step. And really as far as Milo is concerned that's really all that would be needed- I really have no idea what are the political persuasions of the gorilla posters. But supposing they were of similar political persuasions, then self-regulation used to be a great thing: Buckley's reading out of certain undesired groups within the conservative movement. I doubt any such thing would matter any more as the internet is anarchic by nature, but no apologetics for the racist tweets would be great.
I haven't seen any of his tweets defending people who tweeted pictures of gorillas at her, I'd love to see them because if he actually did that's fucked up. The closest one I saw was the tweet where he said "everyone gets hate mail FFS" which is not exactly a defense of hate mail.
|
On July 20 2016 15:25 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 15:16 xDaunt wrote:
What's there to police and why should we be policing it? What the regressive PC left no longer understands is that ideas should be left to the court of public opinion. Once you stop trusting the people to make those decisIons for themselves, then you're on the road to a police state. Yes, Twitter is a private entity that grants licenses to its users to use its product, but the attitude and sentiments that are behind their decision and held by those justifying their decision are radically undemocratic, and should be universally condemned by anyone who values free speech. It's reflected in its share price. Twitter has lost 75% of its value in just 2.5 years.
i feel like it's pretty questionable to imply its failure as a business investment has much to do with their anti-free speech / undemocratic policies
only blind optimists thought they'd be able to monetize well in any case
|
On July 20 2016 15:25 oBlade wrote:+ Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/564664734268411906 There's this tweet but I also don't know what DEB is referencing generally.
These are basically the same tweet. Personally this is benign, especially compared to the targeted ongoing Ape calling. I laugh and joke about white people being white af all the time but I'm white. This isn't much of a smoking gun to me. I guess if everyone is going to be hyper sensitive about everything then yeah its shitty. But I grew up on Chris Rock so...Personally some racial jokes don't bother me at all as long as they're not crazy, and its not clear that the person that's telling them legitimately has hate in their heart for that group. If you make some well crafted comedy (not that these tweets are Richard Pryor) that takes some jabs at people in good fun go for it. But to equate a bunch of people calling her a gorilla repeatedly for 2 days to those is laughable. I think that movie looks like ass, I get why people are shitting on it. But you can think something looks like crap without just laying into someone and being racist af about it.
On July 20 2016 15:25 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 15:16 xDaunt wrote:
What's there to police and why should we be policing it? What the regressive PC left no longer understands is that ideas should be left to the court of public opinion. Once you stop trusting the people to make those decisIons for themselves, then you're on the road to a police state. Yes, Twitter is a private entity that grants licenses to its users to use its product, but the attitude and sentiments that are behind their decision and held by those justifying their decision are radically undemocratic, and should be universally condemned by anyone who values free speech. It's reflected in its share price. Twitter has lost 75% of its value in just 2.5 years.
That's more to do with Twitter's complete lack of any business plan and zero way to monetize anything at all ever. The site is popular but it can never make a dime, investors are going to have a problem with that.
|
On July 20 2016 15:36 kapibara-san wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 15:25 CorsairHero wrote:On July 20 2016 15:16 xDaunt wrote:
What's there to police and why should we be policing it? What the regressive PC left no longer understands is that ideas should be left to the court of public opinion. Once you stop trusting the people to make those decisIons for themselves, then you're on the road to a police state. Yes, Twitter is a private entity that grants licenses to its users to use its product, but the attitude and sentiments that are behind their decision and held by those justifying their decision are radically undemocratic, and should be universally condemned by anyone who values free speech. It's reflected in its share price. Twitter has lost 75% of its value in just 2.5 years. i feel like it's pretty questionable to imply its failure as a business investment has much to do with their anti-free speech / undemocratic policies only blind optimists thought they'd be able to monetize well in any case
It almost certainly is wishful thinking but schadenfreude has never required any real accuracy. Jack Dorsey has overseen the stagnation of the Twitter userbase and huge drop in its share price, Jack Dorsey does things I don't like, the things he does that I don't like are why Twitter is struggling! It doesn't really matter if that is true. It never does. It's a charge impossible to verify or refute. Unless you want to spend tens of millions of dollars on intensive market research.
These are basically the same tweet. Personally this is benign, especially compared to the targeted ongoing Ape calling. I laugh and joke about white people being white af all the time but I'm white. This isn't much of a smoking gun to me. I guess if everyone is going to be hyper sensitive about everything then yeah its shitty. But I grew up on Chris Rock so...Personally some racial jokes don't bother me at all as long as they're not crazy, and its not clear that the person that's telling them legitimately has hate in their heart for that group. If you make some well crafted comedy (not that these tweets are Richard Pryor) that takes some jabs at people in good fun go for it. But to equate a bunch of people calling her a gorilla repeatedly for 2 days to those is laughable. I think that movie looks like ass, I get why people are shitting on it. But you can think something looks like crap without just laying into someone and being racist af about it.
If we're going on volume, there is a large amount of anti-white commentary on Twitter and in more private settings, it's not a situation where there is 1 instance of bad things said by one side and 10,000 by the other. The anti-black racists on Twitter are not lacking for anti-white counterparts.
Just because you view of them as benign doesn't mean someone out there didn't feel bad because of them. I didn't but if this is the standard that's going to be applied then it should be uniformly applied. If it isn't, you get people like Trump, you get people like Marine Le Pen, you get parties like Austria's Freedom Party, and not as sideshows but as serious political contenders. Although Trump's having a real shot at winning is more because Hillary is an awful candidate than anything else, any other Democrat would be whipping Trump by 15-20 points. I mean the man has an unfavorable rating in the mid to high 60s, how can a candidate with those kinds of numbers be within striking distance of his opponent. When that opponent has an unfavorable rating in the low 60s! That's just about the only way and somehow (personally I think because God hates us, or at least God's VP for The Course of History does) that's what has happened.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Letting it slide for some people and not others is not going to improve the attitude or behavior of the latter. All it does is give them the crankypants.
|
they certainly would've done somewhat better if they made themselves a more inclusive platform overall
i'm just skeptical that it'd ever have that much market value
then again having more demographics in their userbase would make the metadata they're able to sell on their users more valuable
maybe he has a point after all
regardless, twitter's importance as a human enterprise really isn't about how well it does as a business investment to me
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
