Milo Yiannopoulos banned from Twitter.

[Imperializt Russia]

Well, then why do we allow people to insult others?

Why is poking someone not considered assault?

I think it is.

[Minzerland]

Well, then why do we allow people to insult others?

Why is poking someone not considered assault?

It is.

Also, you said insults can cause 'unignorable damage', poking cannot (except when applied to the eye, ouch ).

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Awesome that makes it even more ridiculous, about as ridiculous as "cyber-bullying." The person in question literally just didn't have to let the "harassment" to to him yet they did and it's somehow the other group's fault?

The feelings of the black female targeted are entirely irrelevant. I'm not sure how this is going over your head: Milo Yiannopoulos repeatedly, blatantly, and egregiously violated Twitter's policies - their terms for user conduct that everyone must agree to when they create their account. As a private company, Twitter is entirely justified in banning Yiannopoulos from their private website; every capitalist should recognize that a man's being told he may not use/reside on another person's private property is 100% justified on the part of the property owner, regardless of his reasoning (or lack thereof).

In the words of another poster here, "you might as well repeal the first amendment because someone called me an idiot."

The First Amendment has nothing to do with Twitter's long-established rules that everyone with a Twitter account - including Yiannopoulos - has agreed to. Just like on NationStates: This is Max's website, and he determines what is acceptable and not. The US Constitution has nothing to do with it.

In fact, I'd kind of like to know why the hell you thought it would.

If you honestly can't handle banter or "harassment" online or in real life like any other human being who exists, because news flash people aren't required by law to be nice to everyone, then you're literally on the same mental level as a child.

Leslie Jones decided to leave Twitter after months of virulent abuse and harassment. She did not ban Milo Yiannopoulos from Twitter. Essentially, she left a room filled with men yelling insults at her.

There is nothing wrong with that. In no way does it indicate a juvenile mentality - I'm pretty sure that would be unprovokedly abusing, harassing, and trolling a woman, with a rather unsettling degree of malevolence, for no other conceivable reason beyond a feeling of bitterness because blacks and females are actually being included in things nowadays.

[Alvecia]

Why is poking someone not considered assault?

I think it is.

Huh, so it is.
But then I suppose we can all agree that prosecuting someone for doing such is very silly.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

By your opinion anyone should be allowed to shoot another person because, "oh well I was offended you see."

Incorrect.

You might be opposed militantly to my political views but I am not. This is basically what we see in real life right now with Antifa, BLM, and Anti-Trump supporters going out and physically harming others because they're offended and don't like others of a different political stance.

That is not why we are taking action.

It's quite literally terrorism.

And?

[Imperializt Russia]

I think it is.

Huh, so it is.
But then I suppose we can all agree that prosecuting someone for doing such is very silly.

All depends on context.

[Costa Fierro]

What was she replying to?

Don't know.

Why do you think that Milo was banned for racism, when we've repeatedly shown that he was banned for participating in a massive trolling campaign against Leslie Jones?

I don't think he was banned for racism. The person I replied to said that Milo was "bigoted and hateful" so I posted the picture showing, oddly enough, bigotry and hate from the "victim" of this trolling campaign.

The fact that she left Twitter is great, because it means that you can't go around posting this kind of crap on the internet and not get called out for it or be the subject of the same kind of crap you post.

Moral of the story: play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

[Alvecia]

Huh, so it is.
But then I suppose we can all agree that prosecuting someone for doing such is very silly.

All depends on context.

Indeed, most things do.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I find it funny how an anarchist is all for rule of law now when it suits his political bias. As I said, hypocrisy at its finest.

*shakes head in disappointment*

Bruh, bruh, bruh. You're either really bad at this whole debate thing, or better than anyone suspects. I'm not advocating the whole Lockean property rights thing. I am presenting that to you, and the others on that side of the argument, as evidence of your own hypocrisy. *sighs*

In any case, I'll be the first to say that tactics are just that: tactics. Actions are just actions, methods are simply methods; they are all means to ends. And though there is certainly nuance to this (and every other) concept, what is most important is the end - the result, objective, goal. A punch is just a punch; an explosion, just an explosion; an arrest, just an arrest. What is important is who was punched, what exploded, and who was arrested.

And it's perfectly fair for Twitter as a private entity to do what it pleases I'm not arguing at all against that, but I as a private citizen also have the right to not be pleased when a private entity does what it pleases which is what I'm doing. The freedom to organize and freedom to protest is a vital part of our society, wouldn't you agree?

Freedoms you haven't so much as mentioned until now. I assume you are fully in support of the rule of law. General adherance to rules and whatnot. Considering his status as a malevolent and unashamed Twitter recidivist who shows no signs of repentance: From your political and legal perspective, do you really think the banning of Milo Yiannopoulos is unjust?

The fact that you advocate terrorism is great actually, it makes it even easier to conduct such actions of violence in equal kind to those who commit it against us. Just don't be surprised when it happens because you're bringing it upon yourself.

I have not advocated any violence, much less terrorism.

That said, I've already made it clear I am capable of defending myself.

[Ostroeuropa]

His tweets:

"If at first you don't succeed, pretend to be a victim. Everyone gets hate on the internet."

She replies telling him she reported him. (With grammar mistakes, worth noting.)

"Barely literate, we need better schools."

She then blocks him.

"Rejected by another black male "


Where is the incitement to harassment?
Where is the harassment?


Compare this to Bill Maher tweeting:

"Trumps kids look like the date-rapists from every after school special."

Like I said. It's nothing to do with milos behavior, it's to do with his politics.

I also note that none of the people supporting this ban seem able to actually engage with the arguments being made by the people opposing it.

None of them are proposing the government force Twitter to stop censoring milo. They are criticizing the behavior of the company.

They are advocating a culture of free speech, not a legal reality of one.

They've also consistently demanded evidence of the accusations being leveled at milo, to no avail.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Huh, so it is.
But then I suppose we can all agree that prosecuting someone for doing such is very silly.

All depends on context.

Entirely irrelevant thread of discussion considering there's no prosecution or legal action occurring (or even being threatened) whatsoever.

[Ostroeuropa]

All depends on context.

Entirely irrelevant thread of discussion considering there's no prosecution or legal action occurring (or even being threatened) whatsoever.

Oh, suddenly you understand the difference between the government and private action when its convenient for the argument.

Then why do you keep bringing up how the constitutionally protected right to free speech only limits the government? The opponents of the ban aren't contesting that. They're saying that twitters actions are going against freedom of speech as a concept and as a cultural practice.

[Ostroeuropa]

That looks fairly tame compared to some of the bile you find on Twitter.

It wasn't the only tweet he sent that night as part of the mass harassment, nor was it the first tweet that he'd sent to specifically troll her.

Racist and sexist bigot makes loud proclamations of prejudice in public space, is shocked when people decide to insult and argue against her, and wails to management to help stop it.

So Milo responded to someone who has made themselves a public figure and engaged with the public repeatedly. so what.

If she didn't want to engage with the public, she wouldnt log in to twitter. Like milo said, everyone gets hate on the internet. She gets more hate because she's publically a bad person. But that's not milos fault.

he wouldn't have noticed her if it werent for her statements.

If we're going to ban people for trolling on twitter, we'd have to ban lots of people that twitter doesnt want to ban.

[Miarie]

http://imgur.com/a/Lot1c

[Vassenor]

http://imgur.com/a/Lot1c

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Oh, suddenly you understand the difference between the government and private action when its convenient for the argument.

Feel like actually noting an instance where I've maintained the opposite of what I am at the moment?

Then why do you keep bringing up how the constitutionally protected right to free speech only limits the government? The opponents of the ban aren't contesting that. They're saying that twitters actions are going against freedom of speech as a concept and as a cultural practice.

...it isn't practiced by any institutions apart from the state. The fuck? Not many websites have anything close to "free speech." Not this one. Not Twitter. Not Facebook, Stormfront, Club Penguin, or Bluelight. Maybe Reddit is close. Free speech isn't a fucking "cultural practice," considering how goddamn rare it is; it isn't a concept that should be expected by any means, because of said rarity.

Quit being ridiculous, Ostro.

[Ostroeuropa]

http://imgur.com/a/Lot1c

It's pretty much true when it comes to institutional action.

Like the pro-milo side has kept saying. If they'd just admit they banned him for being against their ideology rather than pretending he did something wrong, there'd be no argument.

Instead they insist he broke the rules, are repeatedly shown instances of their allies breaking rules (Up to and including outright incitement of violence), asked which tweets of his do what they said he has done, and they ignore it and just repeat the claims.

One of the people in charge of their recent policy changes is a repeated doxxer, harassment inciter, has incited violence, and has twice urged people to send bomb threats.

But it was against anti-feminists, so never mind, she can be on the twitter safety committee.

Sarkeesian outright defines disagreeing with her as sexist, and sexism as harassment.

She's also on the committee.

ISIS literally recruits using twitter, but they don't openly challenge SocJus orthodoxy, so it's not a problem.

[The Skye Corporation]

I think it is.

Huh, so it is.
But then I suppose we can all agree that prosecuting someone for doing such is very silly.

It's all about context, really. In real life and on the internet, you probably won't get in trouble for just poking someone. The reason that poking can be considered assault is because of situations where, theoretically, you could go with your six buddies and crowd around someone, poking them repeatedly as they try to carry out their daily business. That's basically the same thing we see on twitter. No single insult is more than a momentary annoyance, but when hundreds or thousands of people band around the idea of insulting one person constantly, it has to be regarded as something more knowingly abusive than just a collection of pokes.

[Ostroeuropa]

Huh, so it is.
But then I suppose we can all agree that prosecuting someone for doing such is very silly.

It's all about context, really. In real life and on the internet, you probably won't get in trouble for just poking someone. The reason that poking can be considered assault is because of situations where, theoretically, you could go with your six buddies and crowd around someone, poking them repeatedly as they try to carry out their daily business. That's basically the same thing we see on twitter. No single insult is more than a momentary annoyance, but when hundreds or thousands of people band around the idea of insulting one person constantly, it has to be regarded as something more knowingly abusive than just a collection of pokes.

That's a consequence of the medium. It's not the fault of users that Twitters design lends itself to groups ganging up on people. Is there any evidence milo incited this? No.

Is there any evidence he organized it? No.

All there is, is Twitter doing what Twitter does, but since it's a SocJus victim this time, they act outraged and start banning people.

"Only WE can mob people! Not you!"

[Wolfmanne2]

She's also on the committee.

ISIS literally recruits using twitter, but they don't openly challenge SocJus orthodoxy, so it's not a problem.

Are you insinuating what I think you're insinuating?

[Hirota]

Why does Twitter have to give Milo a platform? It doesn't have to give me a platform.

Actually, under EU law, twitter might have difficulties. Yes, twitter is a US organisation, but non-US users are handled in Ireland, and thus fall under EU law

[Ostroeuropa]

She's also on the committee.

ISIS literally recruits using twitter, but they don't openly challenge SocJus orthodoxy, so it's not a problem.

Are you insinuating what I think you're insinuating?

I can't read minds. I'm pointing out that the only thing seperating milo from all these examples of people currently using twitter, is he openly criticizes socjus. That's what he was banned for.

[Wolfmanne2]

Are you insinuating what I think you're insinuating?

I can't read minds. I'm pointing out that the only thing seperating milo from all these examples of people currently using twitter, is he openly criticizes socjus. That's what he was banned for.

To me it seemed like you were saying Twitter don't ban so-called Islamic State recruiters because they don't challenge 'soc-jus ideology', but are happy to ban Milo because he does.

[Ostroeuropa]

I can't read minds. I'm pointing out that the only thing seperating milo from all these examples of people currently using twitter, is he openly criticizes socjus. That's what he was banned for.

To me it seemed like you were saying Twitter don't ban so-called Islamic State recruiters because they don't challenge 'soc-jus ideology', but are happy to ban Milo because he does.

That appears to be the case yes.
I'd say it's outright proven that Twitter simply doesn't rank organized international violent terrorist activity on their site as a big issue compared to someone mocking feminists and BLM. Why else would Milo receive action before ISIS?

When you look at whos on their committee, it's fairly obvious why this has become the case.

I wouldn't say that they support ISIS. Just that they don't care.

[Imperializt Russia]

Why does Twitter have to give Milo a platform? It doesn't have to give me a platform.

Actually, under EU law, twitter might have difficulties. Yes, twitter is a US organisation, but non-US users are handled in Ireland, and thus fall under EU law

You have failed to address what I posted, I believe.