Twitter suspends account of Breitbart "tech" editor

[PC2]

Yeah its almost like a certain individual devolved the entire thread immediately because I criticized Milo.

Criticism is welcome, but I wouldn't say it's "good" when people are silenced for unpopular speech.

[KrazyK923]

Criticism is welcome, but I wouldn't say it's "good" when people are silenced for unpopular speech.

Jesus christ are we back to this again.

That isn't why he was banned dude.

Try and be even a tiny bit objective. This is my last response to your trolling off-topic nonsense.

[Ryme]

I'm looking at the tweets in the article but coming up short, where did he "lead a harassment campaign" against this person?

[Deleted]

Criticism is welcome, but I wouldn't say it's "good" when people are silenced for unpopular speech.

You must take offense to Libel laws, then.

[KrazyK923]

I'm looking at the tweets in the article but coming up short, where did he "lead a harassment campaign" against this person?

Its a bit hard to show off now since his account is gone. I know there are ways to go back and see what he was saying before that but I have no idea how.

[AndaliteBandit]

Oh boy. When he lost his verified checkmark on Twitter, he actually went to the White House to complain about it. I can't even fathom what kind of tantrum he's going to throw this time.

[Milchshake]

Fascist Annie Lenox was pretty clearly abusing the platform.

Annie had much better hair. The clothes are kinda like Michael Jackson, during his neverland-sleep-over-club period.

[PC2]

That is itself not a rational argument.

Socrates, that asshole, is a philosopher.
All philosophers are wise.
Socrates, that asshole, is wise.

Notice how the inclusion of name calling does nothing to change the rationality of the argument. It is merely an irrelevant insertion of an opinion and has no bearing on whether or not the rest of it is logical.

Correct you could be both emotional and logic. However, I'm only interested in the part where they are used in decision making.

[THE Bigzoman]

My SJWs?

Jesus that's a new one.

Milo gets as much done as Trigglypuff does by yelling about "hate speech in campus." As in: nothing.

He gets nothing done. He's a troll in real life who has made his entire fame, at least in the last 3 years, from doing nothing but going around being a professional asshole. He hasn't furthered a discussion about social justice or authoritarianism creeping into the US or anything. He's just an attention whore who uses fools like yourself by indulging in your basest desires: schadenfreude. And I'll admit its fun watching these SJW douches squirm, when that's ALL you do, then you're a nobody who just goes around ruining everything for everybody.

And that's all he is.

But, no, you're right. I'm as SJW. Bahahaha.

He manages to get quite a bit done.

When was the last time anyone has heard from Triggles?

[Emode]

I love Milo, he is so funny, and fabulous!

[Shadowmelded]

By gathering specific evidence.

Such as...? How do you prove intent? And should twitter have to hire prosecutors?

In the USA those are the main two. Being physically damaged or financially damaged based on a lie. I understand there are other places that convict based on more petty and highly subjective emotions.

I'm too drunk for this. I mean if this was the case, drug offences and solicitation wouldn't be a thing, nor would intimidation, stalking, blackmail to name but a few.

[PC2]

Look. You are essentially taking an extremely bad approach to this in which you 1) assume you are rational and 2) assume to be rational is to think like you. You are placing your own viewpoint above reproach, a most unwarranted move, and excluding anyone who views things differently from rationality. This is essentially a combination of a No True Scotsman Logical Person and the obnoxious tendency for seemingly all persons to start from the premise that they are nothing if not rational.

Okay, I respect your right to an opinion without being banned.

On what basis do you claim that to call someone an asshole requires one be emotional and/or offended? Or do you merely assume it to be true?

Milo gets banned. First four words "Good. Dude's an asshole". I personally do believe this is coming from a place of emotion and it effected decision making. I am not telepathic, so I cannot say for 100% sure. Regardless, none of the arguments were strong enough to justify silencing someone for unpopular speech.

[Deleted]

Okay, I respect your right to an opinion without being banned.



Milo gets banned. First four words "Good. Dude's an asshole". I personally do believe this is coming from a place of emotion and it effected decision making. I am not telepathic, so I cannot say for 100% sure. Regardless, none of the arguments were strong enough to justify silencing someone for unpopular speech.

He asks you for a reasoning, and you respond with ONLY "I personally believe this is the cause".

You are basically proving his point.

[KrazyK923]

He also didn't get banned for an opinion he had.

He got banned for participating in concerted harassment against a single individual.

Curious how a certain person just flatout ignores this fact and substitutes a different reason.

[timberx]

Criticism is welcome, but I wouldn't say it's "good" when people are silenced for unpopular speech.

He wasn't silenced, goddamnit, he was banned from Twitter for breaking their code of conduct multiple times. He can still continue spouting his bullshit on Breitbart all he wants.

[Skaiz]

Milo's review of ghostbusters was comedy gold. His suggestions for the "true" feminist ghostbusters would have me donating thousands to see it

[LiiLoSNK]

He didn't incite anything. It was in full swing before he commented once. SJWs and retards crying until someone is punished.

[Sky High]

Of all the "conservative" voices that should be shut down its that clowns. Guy only exists to agitate and demean other people with no real point or message being attached to it. Fuck him and all these alt right shit heads that follow him.

[PC2]

He asks you for a reasoning, and you respond with ONLY "I personally believe this is the cause".

You are basically proving his point.

My reasoning is that I disagree with Twitters policy of silencing people without specific proof of physical threat or proven damages based on a lie(libel).

Lets say a person starts up an Islamist account. As long as they are non-violent, I see no reason why we can't beat them through superior arguments.

[Deleted]

My reasoning is that I disagree with Twitters policy of silencing people without specific proof of physical threat or proven damages based on a lie(libel).

Lets say a person starts up an Islamist account. As long as they are non-violent, I see no reason why we can't beat them through superior arguments.

And what would be the line to be proven, are you assuming?

The factual happening of libel and/or harassment, occurs as soon as you factually fabricate such accusations.

There is no deep mystery to that.