Twitter silencing conservatives again - Woman who posted Trigglypuff shadowbanned

[Cthulhu 2020]

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.

The same people who are very angry at feminism are the same ones who whined about women never wanting to be anything more than friends with them a few years ago. Funny, that.

[Vyxn]

Nobody's really disputing this.

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

hen maybe you can explain this

“Sarah Palin needs to have her hair shaved off to a buzz cut, get headfucked by a big, veiny, ashy black dick then be locked in a cupboard,”
was a tweet sent out by Azealia Banks directed at Sarah Palin and was reported but according to Twitter it did not violate their rules which you can read here

Abusive Behavior

We believe in freedom of expression and in speaking truth to power, but that means little as an underlying philosophy if voices are silenced because people are afraid to speak up. In order to ensure that people feel safe expressing diverse opinions and beliefs, we do not tolerate behavior that crosses the line into abuse, including behavior that harasses, intimidates, or uses fear to silence another user’s voice.

Any accounts and related accounts engaging in the activities specified below may be temporarily locked and/or subject to permanent suspension.
•Violent threats (direct or indirect): You may not make threats of violence or promote violence, including threatening or promoting terrorism.
•Harassment: You may not incite or engage in the targeted abuse or harassment of others. Some of the factors that we may consider when evaluating abusive behavior include:
•if a primary purpose of the reported account is to harass or send abusive messages to others;
•if the reported behavior is one-sided or includes threats;
•if the reported account is inciting others to harass another account; and
•if the reported account is sending harassing messages to an account from multiple accounts.
•Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease. We also do not allow accounts whose primary purpose is inciting harm towards others on the basis of these categories.

what Azealia Banks wrote is a clear violation of the rules of Twitter

[adaker777]

Tigglypuff hp level rivals charizard og

[Endus]

hen maybe you can explain this

“Sarah Palin needs to have her hair shaved off to a buzz cut, get headfucked by a big, veiny, ashy black dick then be locked in a cupboard,”
was a tweet sent out by Azealia Banks directed at Sarah Palin and was reported but according to Twitter it did not violate their rules which you can read here

what Azealia Banks wrote is a clear violation of the rules of Twitter

Yeah, that tweet doesn't break any of those rules. It's not a threat, and unless Azealia Banks' account's primary purpose was sending stuff like that, it wouldn't qualify as harassment.

So this is you ignoring what's in front of you.

[Vyxn]

Yeah, that tweet doesn't break any of those rules. It's not a threat, and unless Azealia Banks' account's primary purpose was sending stuff like that, it wouldn't qualify as harassment.

So this is you ignoring what's in front of you.

what the fuck are you actually being serious?
I know I should have changed the name from Sara Palin to Michelle Obama and you would have come to the opposite conclusion
you once again have demonstrated a blatant undeniable bias a bias so deep so prominent that you aren't even aware of it
a bais that has been pointed out to you by dozens of other forum users a bias so intrenched it should disqualify you being a impartial fair moderator

[Endus]

what the fuck are you actually being serious?
I know I should have changed the name from Sara Palin to Michelle Obama and you would have come to the opposite conclusion
you once again have demonstrated a blatant undeniable bias a bias so deep so prominent that you aren't even aware of it
a bais that has been pointed out to you by dozens of other forum users a bias so intrenched it should disqualify you being a impartial fair moderator

Yes. I'm serious.

No, my opinion wouldn't have changed. There is no "bias". There's you not understanding things that you read. Likely because you don't read them.

Those rules boil down to two issues; threats, and harassment. The former requires a threat. The tweet in question was incredibly rude and crass, but there's no threat there.

And unless it's what Azealia Banks is mostly using her account for, it doesn't fall under "harassment".

The rules don't say that her tweet was actionable. This is pretty darned clear. Unless you have a bias, and aren't actually looking at the facts.

[Jimmy Woods]

hen maybe you can explain this

“Sarah Palin needs to have her hair shaved off to a buzz cut, get headfucked by a big, veiny, ashy black dick then be locked in a cupboard,”
was a tweet sent out by Azealia Banks directed at Sarah Palin and was reported but according to Twitter it did not violate their rules which you can read here



what Azealia Banks wrote is a clear violation of the rules of Twitter

Trump supporters are just mean and rude on twitter. Also while Trump and his followers aren't necessarily conservative, based on exit polling from the primaries most identify as very conservative. So why isn't the conservative Azealia Banks being banned if twitter is out to get conservatives?

[Joresh]

A drag indeed.. when it is the government. Otherwise, one should not care.

Why am I not surprised a moderator on MMO-Champ isn't concerned about censorship of ideas that he doesn't agree with. Thanks for the new signature though

[Deleted]

The same people who are very angry at feminism are the same ones who whined about women never wanting to be anything more than friends with them a few years ago. Funny, that.

No I have ever once whined about that.
But classic tactics.

[Deleted]

Yeah, that tweet doesn't break any of those rules. It's not a threat, and unless Azealia Banks' account's primary purpose was sending stuff like that, it wouldn't qualify as harassment.

So this is you ignoring what's in front of you.

•Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease. We also do not allow accounts whose primary purpose is inciting harm towards others on the basis of these categories.

Foot, meet mouth.

[Moralgy]

O.O Since when is stopping a person who is being an over the top dick to a random idiot considered "silencing conservatives"?

[Deleted]

The same people who are very angry at feminism are the same ones who whined about women never wanting to be anything more than friends with them a few years ago. Funny, that.

Not really.

Women hate me and I still hate feminism, they never want to be my friend.

[Steve French]

This whole thing just looks like a persecution complex. There's typically valid reasons for these bans on the individual level; it isn't because they're "conservative". It's generally because they're "acting like asshats".

Yes but YOU tend to think anyone that doesn't share your world view is "acting like asshats", doesn't make it true.

[Pangean]

Not really.

Women hate me and I still hate feminism, they never want to be my friend.

So you are just the super-size version of that guy then.

[Deleted]

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

I did not edit that post.
Or the prior post.

I don't care if you "amended" your original claim.

That means to change - It was late, I wrote birth certificate by mistake.

Your point was wrong and you simply couldn't admit so. Given your posts that I have read I understand why.

Well there was another poster who understood what i meant, but whatever, My point wasn't wrong - Because my point, was that the respondent need to show a right of residency.

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.

How did bush order torture? Because since he did, the Cinc can.

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.

Dishonestly deleted? - No, you lost the point.

"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."

Has bush been tried? - Has anyone been tried for torture? No? - Still taking the point here.

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?

Oh gods - Its a different Due process ... - Do you know what the burden of proof is?
Hell do you know what due process means? - Its not very complicated.

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.

Applying for asylum is one of the easiest ways to extend your stay in a country that wants to deport you.
The process takes a few hours - You are summoned, have a short hearing (where proof of legitimate residency quashes the action), then a second hearing (the 'trial') All in all, it can be done in a few hours - the only reason it takes more time, is because of waiting time - Its not complicated.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, that tweet doesn't break any of those rules. It's not a threat, and unless Azealia Banks' account's primary purpose was sending stuff like that, it wouldn't qualify as harassment.

So this is you ignoring what's in front of you.

Locking someone in a cupboard is a crime Endus - Its kidnapping and false imprisonment.

[Pangean]

I did not edit that post.
Or the prior post.

Sure you did. Now you are lying about it. I don't waste time with folks that engage in dishonest behavior. Bye Bye.

[Deleted]

So you are just the super-size version of that guy then.

I just like to think I hate everyone equally.

[Pangean]

I just like to think I hate everyone equally.

You truly are an ass, but at least you have a sense of humor.

[nonameelf]

O.O Since when is stopping a person who is being an over the top dick to a random idiot considered "silencing conservatives"?

Since conservatives feel the need to feel victimized over every little thing.

[Fencers]

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.

There is just no proof of this happening for 'political' reasons though. Twitter's inability to disclose why an account is banned or otherwise compromised, only feeds into conspiracy theory nonsense of victim-hood. They can't disclose that info, so whether one is simply being a dick or actually promoting the death of Trump, the public can never be privy to that info.

We need proof and evidence that is consistent verifiable from multiple sources or a direct statement of purpose by Twitter. Again, this is unlikely to happen.

Maybe Conservative Dave was going about twitter just fine till one day he crossed the line in a DM, post or email- we can't know without evidence of such.

Chick-Fil-A reps made direct public statements. Which were out of line with the current social temperature.