• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Twitter permanently bans Gay Conservative Milo Yiannopoulos for mocking a Ghostbuster

Page 17 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
PokerGuy said:
Oh, you mean like advocating for the gang rape of celebrity like Palin? Oh wait, that was not grounds enough for any action.

Does the term "double standard" mean anything to you?
Click to expand...

Go cry a river somewhere. Milo got standard that he applied to others applied to himself.
 
fskimospy said:
It fits my world view of requiring real evidence before making statements of bias. Anecdotal evidence is by definition one person's story.
Click to expand...

This is not "one person's story". There are many specific examples of behavior that is tolerated vs tweets that are not tolerated that cannot logically be explained in any other way. There is a double standard.
 
PokerGuy said:
Only if by "disruptive" you mean "holds a different political belief than we do". Again, it's been shown umpteen times that others don't get banned when doing far worse things than him, so the "disruptive" argument doesn't hold water. The difference is that the other "disruptive" trolls are lefties so they are tolerated. He's a righty, so they booted him.
Click to expand...
Paranoia will destroy ya.
 
senseamp said:
Why do you hate free enterprise?
Click to expand...

What makes you think I don't want free enterprise? Unlike the regressive left, I'm not looking for the force of government to force everyone to agree with my view. Twitter can be as biased and hypocritical as they want.
 
PokerGuy said:
This is not "one person's story". There are many specific examples of behavior that is tolerated vs tweets that are not tolerated that cannot logically be explained in any other way. There is a double standard.
Click to expand...

What is your objective basis for determining that there's a double standard? Saying 'I have five stories' instead of saying 'I have one story' is no more objective or empirical a basis for forming this opinion.

Remember all the times when conservatives claimed the media was biased against them? Endless anecdotes of media bias. Then actual research was done and it has generally found little to no bias. That should be a warning to people that taking anecdotes as facts is a bad idea.
 
PokerGuy said:
What makes you think I don't want free enterprise? Unlike the regressive left, I'm not looking for the force of government to force everyone to agree with my view. Twitter can be as biased and hypocritical as they want.
Click to expand...

You want enterprise, just not free enterprise. In Milo's logic: Calling Twitter biased or hypocritical has a chilling effect on free enterprise.
 
fskimospy said:
What is your objective basis for determining that there's a double standard? Saying 'I have five stories' instead of saying 'I have one story' is no more objective or empirical a basis for forming this opinion.
Click to expand...

If someone presents case after case that can't be logically explained in any other way, then that's sufficient to conclude that there is a double standard. Is it conclusive? No, because only twitter has all the info for a systemic review, and they aren't about to expose their own bias and hypocrisy. Duh.

Remember all the times when conservatives claimed the media was biased against them? Endless anecdotes of media bias. Then actual research was done and it has generally found little to no bias.
Click to expand...
By "actual research" you mean "lefty groups trying to confirm their beliefs with "studies", then sure. Otherwise, no.

That should be a warning to people that taking anecdotes as facts is a bad idea.
Click to expand...
Uh, anecdotes can very easily be facts. I think what you're trying to say is that drawing conclusion from anecdotes might be a bad idea.......
 
PokerGuy said:
Huh? No, only lefty idiots would adhere to that kind of logic.
Click to expand...

Read Milo's Breitbart article I posted, where he argues that merely reporting on what someone says has a chilling effect on people saying stupid stuff, which he thinks is what the 1st Amendment is about. So reporters are to be suppressed. Well, he got a taste of his own medicine.
 
PokerGuy said:
If someone presents case after case that can't be logically explained in any other way, then that's sufficient to conclude that there is a double standard. Is it conclusive? No, because only twitter has all the info for a systemic review, and they aren't about to expose their own bias and hypocrisy. Duh.
Click to expand...

So we don't know if it can be logically explained in any other way because we don't have sufficient information.

By "actual research" you mean "lefty groups trying to confirm their beliefs with "studies", then sure. Otherwise, no.
Click to expand...

No, I mean actual empirical research. If you think all academic research is inherently biased then you're basically in a neverending positive feedback loop where no contrary information can ever be admitted. I mean if you think the media is biased and then researchers show you it isn't to which your response is they must then be biased too you've made yourself immune to facts.

Uh, anecdotes can very easily be facts. I think what you're trying to say is that drawing conclusion from anecdotes might be a bad idea.......
Click to expand...

Yes, my mistake!
 
It's simple, Twitter has a right to ban this loser. If Republicans don't like it, you can get off Twitter too. Something is telling me Trump is not about to stop his verbal diarrhea there.
 
senseamp said:
It's simple, Twitter has a right to ban this loser. If Republicans don't like it, you can get off Twitter too. Something is telling me Trump is not about to stop his verbal diarrhea there.
Click to expand...

Hellllooooooo..... don't you get tired of battling that same strawman? Nobody has said they don't have a right to ban that loser. Can we put that one to rest already?
 
PokerGuy said:
Hellllooooooo..... don't you get tired of battling that same strawman? Nobody has said they don't have a right to ban that loser. Can we put that one to rest already?
Click to expand...

Are Republicans going to get off Twitter too? I mean they have to stand up for "free speech."
 
fskimospy said:
So we don't know if it can be logically explained in any other way because we don't have sufficient information.
Click to expand...

We have plenty of sufficient information to make that determination for those instances presented. What other logical explanation could there be for allowing advocating murder of white people, gang rape of Sarah Palin etc, while banning people for saying relatively innocuous things? I'd love to hear a logical explanation for those things.

No, I mean actual empirical research. If you think all academic research is inherently biased then you're basically in a neverending positive feedback loop where no contrary information can ever be admitted. I mean if you think the media is biased and then researchers show you it isn't to which your response is they must then be biased too you've made yourself immune to facts.
Click to expand...

"Research" can be used to come to any conclusion you want it to. Who's doing the research? How are they doing it? Who's funding it? What is the goal? etc etc Those are all pertinent questions. I don't think all academic research is inherently biased, but I've spent enough time in academia to know that there is a very heavy general left lean, so we need to be skeptical of politically charged "research".

Not immune to facts at all, but in this case the facts are anything but clear and easily discernible on an objective basis.
 
PokerGuy said:
Hellllooooooo..... don't you get tired of battling that same strawman? Nobody has said they don't have a right to ban that loser. Can we put that one to rest already?
Click to expand...

But that was your whole shtick, that banning someone for being a dick is infringing on freedom of speech.
 
Bottom line, they booted him for being conservative and gay. This is a combination that dismantles most SJWs' arguments in a heartbeat and therefore he was a threat to their political agenda. Telling someone to suck it up =! "harrassment", not even here at AT. Twitter embarrassed itself and made Milo the martyr which is exactly what he wanted.
 
SP33Demon said:
Bottom line, they booted him for being conservative and gay. This is a combination that dismantles most SJWs' arguments in a heartbeat and therefore he was a threat to their political agenda. Telling someone to suck it up =! "harrassment", not even here at AT. Twitter embarrassed itself and made Milo the martyr which is exactly what he wanted.
Click to expand...

Great! He got what he wanted, and what he wanted for others. Nobody cares if he is a "martyr" to some idiots.
 
PokerGuy said:
Oh, you mean like advocating for the gang rape of celebrity like Palin? Oh wait, that was not grounds enough for any action.

Does the term "double standard" mean anything to you?
Click to expand...

I have no idea who said that but did they show up with a couple of hundred thousand followers and cause chaos?



SP33Demon said:
Bottom line, they booted him for being conservative and gay.
Click to expand...

Bottom line, they booted him for being a troll and inimical to their business.
 
senseamp said:
Great! He got what he wanted, and what he wanted for others. Nobody cares if he is a "martyr" to some idiots.
Click to expand...
Actually, the tens of articles written about twitter arbitrarily banning someone has had an effect. You must be living in a cave, you can come out anytime now.

Let's take a look at the effect on the stock price. Contary to what you idiots said, it has fallen off a cliff since banning Milo:
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TWR.BE

Click on the 1M chart. Notice that steep drop since 8:00am on 7/19 when Milo was banned? What was the price?

I'll tell you. It was $17.05. Today? A mere 3 days later? $14.98.

Twitter is down 12.14% since Milo was banned. Total bloodbath. Better hope someone buys out your Stalinist friends soon or they're filing for bankrutcy in the next year at this rate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top