Twitter permanently bans Gay Conservative Milo Yiannopoulos for mocking a Ghostbuster

[Pens1566]

It is, read what I said again.

Its a free speech issue, but its not a first amendment issue. Obliviously too hard of a concept for you too grasp.

Uh, you're the one that really can't grasp the concept. He's entirely free to say whatever the hell he wants to. That doesn't mean he isn't subject to consequences of those statements.

 

[agent00f]

Yeah I have no idea why we have keep mentioning he is gay though his orientation seems to have nothing to do with his trolling.

It gets mentioned because he plays it up to excess so it would be obvious the bigots have a gay friend.

 

[bshole]

The people responding to this thread demonstrate the hypocrisy of the left. Diversity is required by the left. But if you belong to one of the "disenfranchised groups" represented by diversity, but don't accept their group think mantra, you are labelled, called names like an "Uncle Tom" and lose your rights.

You people make Senator McCarthy look like Mother Theresa.

Twitter is a company. They can BAN whomever the fuck they want to ban. If you are going to bitch about it, bitch about it to Twitter. At least blame the correct entity for heaven's sake!

 

[zinfamous]

I really don't think you're understanding how this works. Using extant power structures to suppress discourse is a terrible thing only when the wrong people do it. See also, everyone in this thread coming up with reasons that they don't care that he was suspended from twitter.

what extant power structures? Owners of a brand repeatedly told this apparent garbage dumpster that he was in violation of their terms and in their opinion (aren't corporations great?) not representing their brand properly.

So ignoring their warning, they banned him.

I don't see any violation of any rights. I see him blatantly violating the terms of their service as they explained to him.

So the fuck what?

If you don't like it then don't use Twitter. Encourage your friends not to use Twitter. boycott them. Start your own Conservatwitter (as previously suggested in this thread).

You have options, because this is a free country and it is functioning remarkably well despite many delusions to the contrary.

Oh, Twitter, is, by virtue of its current popularity, an intrinsic part of society and an embedded information resource that should be protected under some specific constitutional amendment that has never restricted any news media from ever controlling the nature of its own content? That is quite the precedent that you are claiming.

Are you sure that the chili stain on your "pocket constitution" isn't obscuring some important parts of the 1st Amendment?

 

[umbrella39]

From the article. I find this amusing because it's just more of conservatives showing they have absolutely no concept of how free speech works.

For a guy that complains constantly about others being "triggered" you sure to whine and cry a hell of a lot anytime the right isn't babied and pampered. You're not quite as bad as 0roo0roo or BlueMax who are the most afraid of women losers I've ever seen, but you're a really sad and pathetic individual.


Also, am I the only one who thinks the concept of a gay conservative is weird. That's a very similar idea to being an African American KKK supporters.

When being an attention whoring gay guy, what would be the best way to get your 15 minutes... pretend to be conservative. This guy is and always will be a paid fraud... Back to the feigned indignant buttsore cry baby posts...

 

[VtPC83]

This theory presupposes the notion that there really are 2 sides to every story. That is a complete myth and really isn't couched in general logic, much less reality...

I respect your opinion on this but I feel that this guy does provide a valid counterpoint. Some of it is poison but the vast majority of it is on topic. You just have to look past the language at the actual message. Poison is not good to introduce to discussions as it provides no benefit I agree but if both sides do the same thing it seems rather absurd to only punish one side for it, yes?

If we were being fair there are MANY other people on various social media sites that should be banned, on either side of the political spectrum. The argument here is that it seems the more conservative leaning members of these sites get punished/banned more often than the liberal leaning members.

 

[umbrella39]

Free speech issue?

It's a social issue. An issue of free speech would be if you said something, and then you were sent off to the gulag.

Being a dick on an internet toy, then having that toy taken away from yer grubby lil' hands, isn't an attack on free speech.

Don't confuse this profoundly stupid triggered cry baby with facts...

 

[woolfe9998]

The people responding to this thread demonstrate the hypocrisy of the left. Diversity is required by the left. But if you belong to one of the "disenfranchised groups" represented by diversity, but don't accept their group think mantra, you are labelled, called names like an "Uncle Tom" and lose your rights.

You people make Senator McCarthy look like Mother Theresa.

Yes, because a private company banning someone from posting on the company's own servers is worse than having people blacklisted from working in their field and publicly accusing them of treason with no evidence to support it.

Sometimes I wonder if some of the posts people write here are intended to be taken seriously. It's hard to tell over the internet.

 

[zinfamous]

Twitter is a company. They can BAN whomever the fuck they want to ban. If you are going to bitch about it, bitch about it to Twitter. At least blame the correct entity for heaven's sake!

I find that those most complaining about rights and most demanding their "constitutional freedoms" be protected! to understand little of the first and completely inventing the entirety of the second.

I think such conservatives (and certainly some crazy liberals as well) to merely be peons doggy paddling in a tide that has swelled far beyond their individual relevance. It's probably frustrating for such people to realize that their arcane thoughts and non-protected status has long been a fart in the wind of progress.

 

[bshole]

If we were being fair there are MANY other people on various social media sites that should be banned, on either side of the political spectrum. The argument here is that it seems the more conservative leaning members of these sites get punished/banned more often than the liberal leaning members.

Has anybody done an actual scientific analysis? Otherwise they are just speculating. Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[bshole]

I find that those most complaining about rights and most demanding their "constitutional freedoms" be protected! to understand little of the first and completely inventing the entirety of the second.

I think such conservatives (and certainly some crazy liberals as well) to merely be peons doggy paddling in a tide that has swelled far beyond their individual relevance. It's probably frustrating for such people to realize that their arcane thoughts and non-protected status has long been a fart in the wind of progress.

Poetically articulated! :thumbsup:

 

[zinfamous]

I respect your opinion on this but I feel that this guy does provide a valid counterpoint. Some of it is poison but the vast majority of it is on topic. You just have to look past the language at the actual message. Poison is not good to introduce to discussions as it provides no benefit I agree but if both sides do the same thing it seems rather absurd to only punish one side for it, yes?

If we were being fair there are MANY other people on various social media sites that should be banned, on either side of the political spectrum. The argument here is that it seems the more conservative leaning members of these sites get punished/banned more often than the liberal leaning members.

well, as Welsh said, then he was banned for being a colossal dickstamp. Maybe he did have a useful counterpoint to offer on some issues (I wouldn't ever know as I've seen maybe 7 tweets in my lifetime).

If he felt that his message was so important, then he should have learned to present that message in a useful manner. Are his enemies getting away with far worse? I have no idea and, honestly--they are all bunch of useless sockpuppets on either side of this nonsense. Is Twitter treating one side unfairly? Fuck if I know, but so what? I guess it's their prerogative.

 

[agent00f]

I respect your opinion on this but I feel that this guy does provide a valid counterpoint. Some of it is poison but the vast majority of it is on topic. You just have to look past the language at the actual message. Poison is not good to introduce to discussions as it provides no benefit I agree but if both sides do the same thing it seems rather absurd to only punish one side for it, yes?

If we were being fair there are MANY other people on various social media sites that should be banned, on either side of the political spectrum. The argument here is that it seems the more conservative leaning members of these sites get punished/banned more often than the liberal leaning members.

Have you actually seen him talk? At first I thought this might be the case, but after investigating further the vast majority of his speech is trolling/shitposting which doesn't exactly help his cause.

The reality is if you stripe that away he doesn't have much to say, and a private company like twitter is going to do some cost/benefit analysis on his value to their platform.

That's the point the dumbasses don't get. This isn't like some gubmint court of justice, it's a business decision.

 

[Knowing]

what extant power structures? Owners of a brand repeatedly told this apparent garbage dumpster that he was in violation of their terms and in their opinion (aren't corporations great?) not representing their brand properly.

Twitter.

Your homophobia doesn't belong here.

Of course he doesn't represent their brand. They're bay area liberals and he's a gay conservative.

I don't see any violation of any rights. I see him blatantly violating the terms of their service as they explained to him.

I didn't say anything about violating his rights.

What did he tweet that was a violation of their terms, specifically, and how long should I expect to wait after I find someone tweeting the exact same thing before they're suspended indefinitely?

Oh, Twitter, is, by virtue of its current popularity, an intrinsic part of society and an embedded information resource that should be protected under some specific constitutional amendment that has never restricted any news media from ever controlling the nature of its own content? That is quite the precedent that you are claiming.

When did I claim this though?

Are you sure that the chili stain on your "pocket constitution" isn't obscuring some important parts of the 1st Amendment?

I used to keep my pocket constitution in my back pocket where it would be safe from food stains. It got worn out from use and I only have one more nice one. I can recall most of the bill of rights and my oft quoted clauses from memory so I stopped carrying it.

 

[tynopik]

They literally said the ban was due to harassment. You would think people who can type can also read.

and then you can read his tweets and realize 'harassment not found'

if what he said rises to the level of 'harassment' then half of twitter should be banned

yet saying cops need to die is still A-OK

 

[tynopik]

I don't see any violation of any rights.

strawmen, how do they work?

I see him blatantly violating the terms of their service as they explained to him.

what exactly did he say that violated the TOS and how was it worse than the scads of other people who say much worse stuff and never get suspended even after being repeatedly reported?

it's the typical double standard of the left that we're mercilessly and deservedly mocking here

"disagree with me and i'll silence you any way i can" - typical liberal thought pattern

 

[TheGardener]

Twitter is a company. They can BAN whomever the fuck they want to ban. If you are going to bitch about it, bitch about it to Twitter. At least blame the correct entity for heaven's sake!

Well my comment was to the people here in P&N. Isn't this a discussion board? I get so confused.

Regarding Twitter, they should put in their TOS that moderate and conservative thoughts are never welcome. If they object to gays, then they should state that too. Oh wait, they can't do that, as that is discrimination. The fourteenth amendment says that you can't discriminate against gays, unless they follow and expound conservative ideas.

Twitter should be consistent in their enforcement, and start purging a few hundred million members from their app. Other than that, I have no problem with Twitter applying heavy handed banning. Of course the stock price would plunge and top level managers would lose their jobs. But I don't care about that.

Did I meet your expectation for blaming the correct entity?

 

[WelshBloke]

really? this is what the world needs more of?

Was that her response to someone calling her an ape?

 

[master_shake_]

and then you can read his tweets and realize 'harassment not found'

if what he said rises to the level of 'harassment' then half of twitter should be banned

yet saying cops need to die is still A-OK

they don't need to be harrasing.

they just have to go against the majority.

and that's what happened.

 

[Pens1566]

Was that her response to someone calling her an ape?

Well, they can't post the full conversation as that would take away their high ground.

 

[TheGardener]

Sometimes I wonder if some of the posts people write here are intended to be taken seriously. It's hard to tell over the internet.

I wonder about that too.

 

[tynopik]

Was that her response to someone calling her an ape?

doesn't matter what it's in response to

targeted attacks are against the TOS and are grounds for banning

or at least that's what you all keep telling me

 

[zinfamous]

Twitter.

Your homophobia doesn't belong here.

Of course he doesn't represent their brand. They're bay area liberals and he's a gay conservative.



I didn't say anything about violating his rights.

What did he tweet that was a violation of their terms, specifically, and how long should I expect to wait after I find someone tweeting the exact same thing before they're suspended indefinitely?



When did I claim this though?



I used to keep my pocket constitution in my back pocket where it would be safe from food stains. It got worn out from use and I only have one more nice one. I can recall most of the bill of rights and my oft quoted clauses from memory so I stopped carrying it.

lol WHAT? where did you get homophobia from anything I said, dummy?

...and of course you have a pocket constitution. I guess you only keep the one amendment that actually matter right?

lol--pocket constitution. Have you ever pulled it out to wave at someone on the street for daring to cross ahead of you?

 

[Knowing]

lol WHAT? where did you get homophobia from anything I said, dummy?

...and of course you have a pocket constitution. I guess you only keep the one amendment that actually matter right?

lol--pocket constitution. Have you ever pulled it out to wave at someone on the street for daring to cross ahead of you?

You called a gay man names and said mean things about him. That's textbook homophobia.

I didn't deface my pocket constitution or the bill of rights if that's your question.

No, why would I wave it at anyone for any reason?

 

[agent00f]

and then you can read his tweets and realize 'harassment not found'

if what he said rises to the level of 'harassment' then half of twitter should be banned

yet saying cops need to die is still A-OK

I have some news for you about life. If you make a business look bad in public, they're going to do something about it. It's nothing personal, just how capitalism works.

Supposedly this is like the 5th or whatever time his account has been suspended for the same crap, except permanently this time, so twitter deserves some credit for their patience.