Twitter silencing conservatives again - Woman who posted Trigglypuff shadowbanned

[Sama-81]

Just as a for-instance, the gender wage gap. Even if you're going to take issue with the $0.77 figure (which I admit is too generic), if you control for factors like variance of personal choices and such, the gap narrows but does not vanish. Again; this is obvious, if you bother to look at the statistics with an open mind, rather than hunting for a reason to discard anything that contradicts your faith-based view.

To be fair, the $0.77-gender pay gap is itself close to faith-based - which makes calling the opposition 'faith-based'...a little sketchy, one has to admit - at the least, I've never seen a single study that actually has anything akin to evidence of it existing, ie there being such a gap ($0.77, and that that gap is there due solely/primarily to gender (ie not secondary reasons, that are in themselves non-sexist/discriminatory). In fact, most data I've seen that "supported" that number, in any sort of general sense, has been straight out atrocious - they didn't even attempt to show that it was, just ignored testing for more than a few relevant factors (such as individual salary negotiations, for example), found a difference in the ones they did test for, and then attributed the entirety of it to gender.

Something that every scientist, obviously, would find to be an absoutely hilarious (or rather, completely outrageous) practice, if applied to their own field (I for one could easily show that I've found the cure for cancer, tomorrow, with that approach). This not being what should be refered to as science, obviously doesn't change the underlying premise. To be taken seriously, a study needs to uphold certain standards, and needs to be able to show evidence for the conclusions that are drawn. If not, it's not worth the paper it's written on, and opinion pieces are uninteresting - after all, I think almost everyone already agrees on a gender pay gap being an utterly ridiculous concept, that is a relic of different past.

(just as a side note, around here, the better studies I've read actually places the gender pay gap at a few percent - which is still too much, mind you, but nowhere near $0.77 (granted, though, we're expected to do better than the west as a whole in this regard)).


Edit: To clarify, I'm not trying to say that there isn't a difference in what men and women get paid, I'm saying that the evidence of it being primarily or mainly due to the actual genders of people, is atrocious at best. At least in regards to numbers anywhere near $0.77.

[Shinzai]

Endus, arguing about genders on a gaming forum, populated majorly by one gender, many of which game to escape their real life problems and blame the opposite gender for them - is a waste of time, trust me.

That's an incredibly sexist and small-minded statement.

[apples]

good then we have this word called "Humanist" and it fits wanting Equality FAR FAR FARRRRRRR better then the word Feminist

the word Feminist is now dead when it comes to Equality

it now means something else your current definition of feminist is wrong


the only reason why "Feminists" use the word Equality is in a attempt to gain support
saying Feminism means Equality is nothing but propaganda.. if you do not understand what propaganda is there is a link below for you good day sir

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
The word propaganda is often used in a negative sense, especially for politicians who make false claims to get elected or spread rumors to get their way. In fact, any campaign that is used to persuade can be called propaganda.

the exact same thing couldve and probably was said when blacks wanted/want equal rights

the fact is that if someone is going to gain something, odds are someone else is gonna lose something. because of this the equality wanted is not going to seem equal to those who have to give.

in the end, yes, there shouldnt be any differentiation between humans, and we should all be equal, but until then we need people to promote equality in gender, sex, religion, commerce, etc, etc etc because if not then well never make it to the next step.

[Canpinter]

I mean, it is really obvious that there would be attacks on conservatives before the internet. There were probably attacks on Liberals, dem, pubs, progressives, socialists, etc all before the internet. But since, it seems, that reasoning is beyond your capability, here you go. Here are some attacks on Reagan (conservative) before cell phones and the net:

http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-...vatives-today/

its cyclical one group is in power and tries to silence the other while a small portion of people on both sides who actually care about free speech and free debate rather then just using them as buzzwords try to fight it. this is not at its core liberals vs conservatives its people who actually care about the ideas of free speech vs those that see it only as a tool they want for themselves and no one else.

[May90]

That's an incredibly sexist and small-minded statement.

Sexist? I haven't even mentioned either sex, mate. "Everything is sexist", eh?

[apples]

Sexist? I haven't even mentioned either sex, mate. "Everything is sexist", eh?

either?

as someone who identifies as an attack helicopter i find it offensive that you would put everyone into either male or female genders

*this comment is hilarious and will get me banned

what????

i do not understand what you just said

men and women have equality in Western Cultures already we are all Equal under the law

the law and society are two radically different things

the law cant force anyone to do anything

if it could there would be no crime by definition.

cmon man use that brain of yours

[Shinzai]

Sexist? I haven't even mentioned either sex, mate. "Everything is sexist", eh?

I disagree.

populated majorly by one gender, many of which game to escape their real life problems and blame the opposite gender for them

Regardless of which gender you're referring to, you're insinuating that they have an innate desire to blame and shame the other.

And I don't really see what anyone's being blamed for to begin with.

either?

as someone who identifies as an attack helicopter i find it offensive that you would put everyone into either male or female genders

*this comment is hilarious and will get me banned

You attack helicopters always get valued so much higher than us personnel carriers. I believe it's copterism inherent in society.

[Deleted]

That's an incredibly sexist and small-minded statement.

And a factually untrue as well. Genders are now pretty much equal in numbers amongst gamers. (In the west, asia is another story)

[May90]

I disagree.



Regardless of which gender you're referring to, you're insinuating that they have an innate desire to blame and shame the other.

And I don't really see what anyone's being blamed for to begin.

No, I'm saying that specific crowd has a percentage of people having the desire to do that. Whether we are talking about online forums dominated by males or females, it is not that hard to realize that some of them are going to make statements supporting their theory about the opposite gender having easier life and privileged position in the society, supported by like-minded individuals and suppressing any voices telling otherwise, as those who disagree that females have easier lives on these forums get attacked in every thread by the same set of individuals, all of which are... correct, the gender dominating these forums.

[Orbitus]

This makes no sense, the people who gave her money did it voluntarily, she promised videos about video games and she made them:

Sarkeesian initially planned to release the Tropes vs. Women in Video Games series in 2012, but pushed it back explaining that the additional funding allowed her to expand the scope and scale of the project. The first video in the Tropes vs Women in Video Games series was released on March 7, 2013.[20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian

No other kickstarter or indiegogo campaign has had an internet mob harass them endlessly years after the project, despite there being quite a few real frauds and false products being sold. I wonder why that is.

Wrong. I call her a stupid bitch and the people that funded her are stupid too. She said she was a "gamer". Yet didn't know that the Hitman series of games docks you points for killing the non-target in a video game. She also used footage from other people and not herself, if she was a gamer, she would have done it herself.

She also claimed that she was going to make, what? A dozen videos in 2 years? She gave maybe 3 on those 2 years.

[May90]

And a factually untrue as well. Genders are now pretty much equal in numbers amongst gamers. (In the west, asia is another story)

There was a thread earlier on this website, with a poll on "What gender are you?", and the vast majority turned out to be men. In general, yes, I suppose they are pretty equal.

[Deleted]

While i enjoy fine wordsmithing as much as the next guy i would urge you all to judge arguments based on the strength of their merits, for it is my experience that people who write well are wrong just as often as those who do not.

[Orbitus]

I mean, it is really obvious that there would be attacks on conservatives before the internet. There were probably attacks on Liberals, dem, pubs, progressives, socialists, etc all before the internet. But since, it seems, that reasoning is beyond your capability, here you go. Here are some attacks on Reagan (conservative) before cell phones and the net:

http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-...vatives-today/

If you are using Mark Levin as your source, then you have to be fucking kidding me right? He is worse than Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh when it comes to fucking conspiracies and falseness of stories.

[TwistedSkull]

While Twitter is a private entity and can do whatever they want. Though i find it morally wrong to silence peoples opinions especially in a western society.

With that being said most conservative values can go die in a fire.

[Narwal]

Thus far all "exposure' of the issue is unfounded and speculation at best. So it's little more than persecution complex and conspiracy theory. Which one should (in my opinion) ideally not give a flip about regardless of political stance.

Making claims of what people would/would not do is pretty absolute in your phrasing. That is obvious suspect and not provable by any means sans time machine. Again, this is merely fantasy.

Morality has nothing to do with this "story". This is not a moral issue- Twitter does not have to abide by some object moral stance. They only need to obey the law. The law does not reflect poorly on Twitter in this regard. If you mean, unethical (and you likely do) instead of immoral, that too is in favor of Twitter as they are expressly clear in their TOS of the use of their platform.

Screaming about persecution doesn't make those with particular viewpoints any more valid in a conspiracy of the blind. Not anymore than the "tumbler feminists" are right for screaming about their pet peeves and woe-is-me complex(es).

There is no evidence of wrong doing on Twitter's part (there will never be more than likely) and Twitter has no obligation to allow anyone to say whatever they feel like on any given Wednesday. They are within their rights legally and ethically.

Understandable, I just don't like the hypocritical nature of people and the media. If a business doesn't support gay marriage (chic-fil-a) which at the time was just a political stance because of the law on the books around marriage, it's branded by the media as an immoral business and help make known the agenda of those looking to boycott. If an information service is filtering out information based on political stances, of which the language and stances are not illegal, the same vigor should be applied in making that known to the public.

[Endus]

Understandable, I just don't like the hypocritical nature of people and the media. If a business doesn't support gay marriage (chic-fil-a) which at the time was just a political stance because of the law on the books around marriage, it's branded by the media as an immoral business and help make known the agenda of those looking to boycott. If an information service is filtering out information based on political stances, of which the language and stances are not illegal, the same vigor should be applied in making that known to the public.

Nobody's really disputing this.

We're pointing out there isn't the least scrap of evidence suggesting that this is happening.

[Alydael]

its cyclical one group is in power and tries to silence the other while a small portion of people on both sides who actually care about free speech and free debate rather then just using them as buzzwords try to fight it. this is not at its core liberals vs conservatives its people who actually care about the ideas of free speech vs those that see it only as a tool they want for themselves and no one else.

I agree, I am not really a labels person myself, I feel labels are for the simple minded. The point of my original post was that it shouldn't be surprising. Zucks has never made his political affiliation/goals secret.

- - - Updated - - -

If you are using Mark Levin as your source, then you have to be fucking kidding me right? He is worse than Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh when it comes to fucking conspiracies and falseness of stories.

I could post you the 800 other some odd post about attacks in the past, but it really doesn't even need to be proven. I don't even think the attackers would deny it. When Reagan told Gorbachev to "tear down this wall," they were calling him a war monger and saying he was going to cause world war 3. Reagan was even attacked by the pubs themselves as he sought the nomination. This is all established fact. Asking me for links to prove it is like asking me to link something claiming Washington was the first US President.

[Pangean]

I amended that to 'Asking for proof of legitimate residency.' - I did it in the post you are fucking responding to.


Point conceded then.


Yes, but they are not the defendant, which is important, and more importantly, the US considers virtually all SA countries as safe, so you cant apply for asylum.

Lol You are now resorting to dishonest edits to dodge taking responsibility for your ignorance. Not surprised.

I don't care if you "amended" your original claim. You stated what the process was and claimed it was asking for a birth certificate and what was currently done. I told you that was not the process and that the birth certificate does not show citizenship. Your point was wrong and you simply couldn't admit so. Given your posts that I have read I understand why.

Re the military. You claim was: "He is the CINC - (or would be) - He can order the military to do a lot of things and their opinions don't matter." I pointed out that he could not order them to do that as it was not a legal order and that such an order could as such be refused. Your response that some in the military participated in torture. I agreed that some did. But then you dishonestly deleted the rest of my comment and claimed I conceded the point, which clearly I did not.

"That doesn't mean they had to or could not refuse to as it's not a legal order. Nor does it mean they did not violate the law while doing so. They did. That changes nothing about what I explained to you. Nice try though."

If you can't reply honestly going forward don't bother.

Oh and I love the last paragraph. Somehow because the person is named respondent instead of defendant it's not a hearing under due process? A hearing in an Immigration court in front of a judge with lawyers on both sides, where the government lawyer presents evidence as to why they believe the person is in the country without authorization, where the person presents evidence why they should be allowed to say, where a judge reviews arguments for and against the deportation, reviews evidence, listens to witnesses and is process that can be appealed. That is the process. That is following due process. And that is law. And that is what Trump thinks he can ignore with his deportation plan. Which of course was my original point.

And applying for asylum? Hmmm I thought all they had to ask for was their birth certificate or as you later "modified" (when it was pointed out you were ignorant of the actual process), "proof of legitimate residency" and you were sent back. Guess there is a lot more than that oh dishonest one.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't have a defense mechanism. I find it as good banter.

You assume its childish behaviour. It doesn't actually matter what you think of it. I will call fat people out and they can throw a punch at me if they disagree that much with me but they don't, because deep down they know they are unhappy for being so fat. I was once very fat, it sucks and I will help every fatty I see to no longer be fat.

Ahhh that explains it all. It is childish behavior which is a function of the shame you yourself felt. That explains so much about your posts.

[Bushtuckrman]

Lol You are now resorting to dishonest edits to dodge taking responsibility for your ignorance. Not surprised.

I don't care if you "amended" your original claim. You stated what the process was and claimed it was asking for a birth certificate and what was currently done. I told you that was not the process and that the birth certificate does not show citizenship. Your point was wrong and you simply couldn't admit so. Given your posts that I have read I understand why.

Re the military. You claim was: "He is the CINC - (or would be) - He can order the military to do a lot of things and their opinions don't matter." I pointed out that he could not order them to do that as it was not a legal order and that such an order could as such be refused. Your response that some in the military participated in torture. I agreed that some did. But then you dishonestly deleted the rest of my comment and claimed I conceded the point, which clearly I did not.

"That doesn't mean they had to or could not refuse to as it's not a legal order. Nor does it mean they did not violate the law while doing so. They did. That changes nothing about what I explained to you. Nice try though."

If you can't reply honestly going forward don't bother.

Oh and I love the last paragraph. Somehow because the person is named respondent instead of defendant it's not a hearing under due process? A hearing in an Immigration court in front of a judge with lawyers on both sides, where the government lawyer presents evidence as to why they believe the person is in the country without authorization, where the person presents evidence why they should be allowed to say, where a judge reviews arguments for and against the deportation, reviews evidence, listens to witnesses and is process that can be appealed. That is the process. That is following due process. And that is law. And that is what Trump thinks he can ignore with his deportation plan. Which of course was my original point.

And applying for asylum? Hmmm I thought all they had to ask for was their birth certificate or as you later "modified" (when it was pointed out you were ignorant of the actual process), "proof of legitimate residency" and you were sent back. Guess there is a lot more than that oh dishonest one.

- - - Updated - - -



Ahhh that explains it all. It is childish behavior which is a function of the shame you yourself felt. That explains so much about your posts.

Wrong again and zero points for unimaginative banter.

[Pangean]

Wrong again and zero points for unimaginative banter.

It's not banter at all. It simply is me pointing out that I now understand why you engage in childish attacks on folks for their weight. You want them to feel the shame that you did when you were fat.