Twitter suspends American far-right activists' accounts, cracks down on hate speech

[Venant]

You're clearly grossly misunderstood something, then, since nothing I said even remotely suggests anything of the sort. You're so completely off-base that I can't even begin to unpick where you're misconstruing things, because you're so completely divorced from my argument I have no idea how you got from there to here.

My understanding is that your argument is that a private business has an absolute right to decide who it conducts business with.

Is this statement consistent with your actual ideology, or are you only making it because you are engaging in sophistry and it is the most convenient argument available?

[Nomadic]

It's a private company so sure go ahead, but nothing good ever comes from denying someone a voice. Yeah they can still talk to there friends IRL and facebook might be cool with them, but sooner or later bad things come when silencing is done, Public or Private .. Right or Left .. bad things can follow.

NO This is NOT a MASS silence, but many will jump to this thought as I easily have.

[Paranoid Android]

While twitter is private and they have the right to do this. Im kinda rolling my eyes, twitter somehow doesent ban many known member of Isis using their services.

Nope. Never. Twitter deletes 125,000 Isis accounts and expands anti-terror teams

See I'm guessing you read some alt-right or biased news site and thought your statement was true.

[Endus]

Okay i mostly agree regarding this, but your making a flawed comparison, twitter is the only actor like it, sure, there are similar social media, (FB, Tumblr)
But this is comparing a soft drink to tea, they are not the same thing, even if both count as 'social media' (like this forum).

I can't agree with this at all. Sure, Twitter's got a unique "flavor", but that's it. And anyone who wants to can start up a competitor with a similar system. There's no monopoly.

And Saudi's have free speech as long as they are outside Saudi Arabia.

And the issue with Saudi Arabia would be, follow along with me, a state actor that was acting to silence speech within their borders. No matter what platform it was on.

Twitter's just a single platform. Take your message anywhere else that'll have you.

[perasite]

You're clearly grossly misunderstood something, then, since nothing I said even remotely suggests anything of the sort. You're so completely off-base that I can't even begin to unpick where you're misconstruing things, because you're so completely divorced from my argument I have no idea how you got from there to here.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah. This didn't happen. That's the simple answer.

Hilarious!!!! EXACTLY WHAT I SAID YOU DO IN A PREVIOUS POST! You guys are SO predictable!

Ah, the circular argument dismissal. Classic liberalism.
"I have no way to actually dispute what you said so I'm going to:
1) Call you racist, hateful, xenophobic, sexist, some other derogatory remark
2) Dismiss anything you say and pretend that it doesn't happen when it does in fact happen constantly"

One of the main reasons that Trump got elected, and caused the current panic and over-reaction in the liberal circles, is that people are tired of being told they have to tolerate all of your nonsense and then immediately being told one of the two above because liberals refuse to be tolerant like they demand.

[Astigmatizm]

Yeah. This didn't happen. That's the simple answer.

I usually enjoy reading your posts Endus but that was a poor comment to make. There have been a few pieces of research done detailing the rise of Identity Politics in the last decade. This last election cycle alone should've shown the sheer appeal to emotion the media gave with regards to racism/sexism.

Most people still think Trump was talking about Mexicans - and not Illegal Immigrants with regards to his comments.

So did it not happen? Did it -truly- not happen even once?

[Endus]

My understanding is that your argument is that a private business has an absolute right to decide who it conducts business with.

Is this statement consistent with your actual ideology, or are you only making it because you are engaging in sophistry and it is the most convenient argument available?

It's fairly consistent, when you add in the few anti-discrimination policies. If you divorce the sister of the local grocery store owner, and he bans you from the store and you have to drive miles out of your way to a competitor, tough nuts, that's his choice.

At no level does this spring to "corporations have the power to choose who lives and who dies", which is what you'd actually tried to claim.

[perasite]

My understanding is that your argument is that a private business has an absolute right to decide who it conducts business with.

Unless they decide not to bake a cake for a marriage they feel goes against their religious beliefs. Then they are HATE FILLED HOMOPHOBES AND MUST BE RUN OUT OF BUSINESS!!!!!

Tolerance... liberals have none.

[Endus]

Hilarious!!!! EXACTLY WHAT I SAID YOU DO IN A PREVIOUS POST! You guys are SO predictable!

So if I were to claim that the alt-right were engaging in a campaign to literally resurrect Hitler and bring about the Fourth Reich, exterminating all non-Aryans with their army of Reichbots, you'd say that this is true, or would you deny it because I'm clearly making shit up?

I usually enjoy reading your posts Endus but that was a poor comment to make. There have been a few pieces of research done detailing the rise of Identity Politics in the last decade. This last election cycle alone should've shown the sheer appeal to emotion the media gave with regards to racism/sexism.

Most people still think Trump was talking about Mexicans - and not Illegal Immigrants with regards to his comments.

So did it not happen? Did it -truly- not happen even once?

It's not about whether some individuals took things too far on some particular occasions. The claim was that any comment of "I don't like Obama" was met with screaming outrage about that person being a racist. That didn't happen. Did it perhaps happen in some few instances, unwarranted? Sure. Did it happen in others, where it WAS warranted? Also sure. Was it happening constantly to every single person who said they didn't like Obama? That didn't happen. And that was the claim I was contesting.

[Vyxn]

Hey, why do the twisted people tweeting assassination threats to Trump still have accounts?
http://twitchy.com/loriz-3139/2016/1...have-accounts/


So according to Twitter a lefty can make assassination threats on the soon to be President and their accounts remains open actual physical threats breaking the law threats

But if your on the right and hurt some ones feeling your account gets suspended

So don't one minute think you can fool anyone forum liberals that Twitter actions with the recent account suspensions wasn't political in nature that they didn't discriminate according to political affliction
this is why we need to make political affiliation a protected class because it is just going to get worse the more and more liberalism becomes rejected and irrelevant they will vindictively strike out

[Skroe]

Unless they decide not to bake a cake for a marriage they feel goes against their religious beliefs. Then they are HATE FILLED HOMOPHOBES AND MUST BE RUN OUT OF BUSINESS!!!!!

Tolerance... liberals have none.

I'm not liberal.

There is no such thing as morally justifiable tolerance against racial or religious discrimination. Period. Using religion as a cloak for that intolerance disgraces both the religion and the practitioner. Especially since the expression of it is in such an absurdly petty manner.

[IIamaKing]

I guess to clarify, I mean judging them for things they didn't choose. They didn't choose to be whatever race they are. I think most of the time, being fat is a personal fault. I disagree with your second example though. Not liking mexicans for no other reason than because they're mexican seems pretty hateful.

Yeh even after rereading it, I think the second one might be lol. Probably should have put "I do not like illegal immigrants" or something. Doesnt matter, seems we are on the same page any way.

[PC2]

They're a subset of the penal law code, just as misdemeanors and felonies are. They're a lighter class, but they're still part of the same code, not a civil code violation. Defamation, by comparison, is under the Civil Rights Law, Article 7.

I specifically said "at the criminal level", which the harassment you mentioned is not. The punishment of the charge you mentioned may not even be compatible with the constitution. The results need to be upheld to be legitimate, simply being on the books doesn't mean anything by itself.

[Endus]

Hey, why do the twisted people tweeting assassination threats to Trump still have accounts?
http://twitchy.com/loriz-3139/2016/1...have-accounts/


So according to Twitter a lefty can make assassination threats on the soon to be President and their accounts remains open actual physical threats breaking the law threats

But if your on the right and hurt some ones feeling your account get suspended

So don't one minute think you can fool anyone forum liberals that Twitter action with the recent account suspensions wasn't political in nature that they didn't discriminate according to political affliction
this is why we need to make political affiliation a protected class because it is just going to get worse the more and more liberalism become rejected and irrelevant they will vindictively strike out

You realize that your argument here is that;

1> People A got their feelings hurt by People B
2> Twitter banned People B
3> People B got their feelings hurt by being banned, and
4> People B are going to "vindictively strike out", which clearly implies violence?

You're describing an escalation, and your motives are no better than those you vilify. Worse, you're not even accurate about the reasons for the bans. But you're going to insist that you are because it justifies the violence you want to engage in.

And you claim to be the ones with the moral high ground, here?

[minteK917]

Life would be easier if everyone, hated everyone like i do. Peaceful reciprocated unilateral hatered. Cant offend anybody.

[perasite]

So if I were to claim that the alt-right were engaging in a campaign to literally resurrect Hitler and bring about the Fourth Reich, exterminating all non-Aryans with their army of Reichbots, you'd say that this is true, or would you deny it because I'm clearly making shit up?



It's not about whether some individuals took things too far on some particular occasions. The claim was that any comment of "I don't like Obama" was met with screaming outrage about that person being a racist. That didn't happen. Did it perhaps happen in some few instances, unwarranted? Sure. Did it happen in others, where it WAS warranted? Also sure. Was it happening constantly to every single person who said they didn't like Obama? That didn't happen. And that was the claim I was contesting.

It didn't happen every time =/= "that didn't happen"

And "I didn't see it happen" =/= it didn't happen

You said it didn't happen... then said it didn't happen EVERY time. That's irrelevant. It happened. A LOT more than you think. It happened frequently. But living in your liberal world where everyone echoes everyone else, you don't see it. We did. On a very regular basis.

[Vyxn]

You realize that your argument here is that;

1> People A got their feelings hurt by People B
2> Twitter banned People B
3> People B got their feelings hurt by being banned, and
4> People B are going to "vindictively strike out", which clearly implies violence?

You're describing an escalation, and your motives are no better than those you vilify. Worse, you're not even accurate about the reasons for the bans. But you're going to insist that you are because it justifies the violence you want to engage in.

And you claim to be the ones with the moral high ground, here?

writing to assassinate anyone is against the law that isn't hurt feelings that is breaking the law

[Endus]

I specifically said "at the criminal level", which the harassment you mentioned is not.

It explicitly is.

Maybe you meant "at the felony level", or something. It's part of the criminal code, not the civil code. It's the same level of offense as flashing people.

The punishment of the charge you mentioned may not even be compatible with the constitution. The results need to be upheld to be legitimate, simply being on the books doesn't mean anything by itself.

Unless you've got precedent, this isn't an argument.

[TwoNineMarine]

Yet if Twitter cracked down on left activists' accounts, you would sing a different song then.

Twitter actions being legal doesn't make them right. I have no love for "far-right", but let them talk, the world needs to know its anti-heroes!

Basically this.

[minteK917]

Isn't that the plot of Hellboy?

According to Mass Effect our kind will be extinct in the future. PLZ mechahitler save us.