Does Twitter Have An Anti-Conservative Bias, Or Just An Anti-Nazi Bias?
from the springtime-for-jack-dorsey dept
In an article for Quillette titled, “It Isn’t Your Imagination: Twitter Treats Conservatives More Harshly Than Liberals,” Columbia University research fellow Richard Hanania offers us proof–once and for all–that social media companies are biased against conservatives. Either that, or it’s the latest in a growing list of bogus, exaggerated or otherwise dubious anti-conservative bias claims (I’ll let you judge for yourself).
“Until now, conservatives have had to rely on anecdotes to make their case,“ Hanania writes. Adding that, “[m]y results make it difficult to take [social media platforms’] claims of political neutrality seriously.” The data he collected (with the help two research assistants, no less) looks at “prominent, politically active” people suspended from Twitter since the company’s launch in 2006.
Accounts included in the data set were selected from individuals and organizations whose suspension was covered in a “mainstream” news outlet, and who expressed a preference for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.
Out of 22 (!!!) accounts in the data set that met these criteria, 21 (or 95%) were Trump supporters. Despite the small sample size, the author argues this is compelling evidence for Twitter’s anti-conservative bias. Even if conservatives are more likely to break Twitter’s rules, he argues, it “doesn’t seem credible” the disparity would be so wide.
But let’s look a little more closely at this. These are the 22 accounts make up the data set:
- Rose McGowan (the list’s lone Clinton supporter)
- Azealia Banks
- Tila Tequila
- James O'Keefe
- Richard Spencer
- Baked Alaska
- Roger Stone
- Gavin McInnes
- Candace Owens
- Alex Jones
- Chuck Johnson
- Robert Stacy McCain
- Milo Yiannopoulos
- Radix Journal
- National Policy Institute
- Craig R. Brittain
- David Duke
- American Nazi Party
- James Allsup
- American Renaissance
- Jared Taylor
- Laura Loomer
Scanning the list, you probably noticed the “American Nazi Party.” This is not an anomaly. The bulk of the list is a who’s who of outspoken or accused white nationalists, neo-Confederates, holocaust deniers, conspiracy peddlers, professional trolls, and other alt-right or fringe personalities (go ahead, pick a couple and Google them). It does not include any mainstream conservatives, unless, I suppose, you count recently-indicted Trump campaign advisor and “dirty trickster” Roger Stone.
Reasons listed for banning these individuals in Hanania’s own data sheet include “violent threats,” “harassment,” “inciting violence,” “targeted abuse,” “doxxing,” “pro-Nazi tweets,” and “racist slurs.” Additionally, about a quarter of the accounts listed are still active and no longer suspended.
Kicking off a bunch of Nazis and trolls isn’t very compelling evidence that your average conservative is getting unfair treatment on Twitter. The majority of the “victims” here seem to have been engaged in abuse, and it’s reasonable for a private company like Twitter to kick off people who are undermining the quality of their platform by harassing or threatening other users.
Considering the alt-right’s propensity to scream and yell about getting “deplatformed,” these 22 accounts probably aren’t that representative of Twitter’s 67 million U.S. monthly active users. Nor does their small number (despite the author having two research assistants) indicate a broad, systemic problem.
Of course, social media companies may be not be perfectly neutral when it comes to politics. The Bay Area, where many of these companies are based, is a very liberal place. In 2016, only 9.4% of San Francisco County voted for Donald Trump. It’s entirely plausible that this disposition affects their products and policies in subtle ways. Yet, to date there has not been compelling evidence of systemic bias or a grand conspiracy to silence conservatives (despite this becoming a standard trope in congressional hearings and conservative conferences).
But social media platforms aren’t bastions of free speech, either. Their evolving norms and policies around content moderation raise a host of concerns and issues. At minimum, platforms could do a lot better at being transparent in their enforcement and governance decisions.
For conservatives, as I’ve argued before, crying wolf about censorship is a self-defeating strategy that will only make people not listen when it actually happens. Nazis, while sometimes useful in edge cases around free speech or references to Godwin’s law, are not stand ins for the median conservative American. Targeted abuse or incitements to violence are also not the same thing as free speech. Let’s not get these things mixed up.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bias, conservatives, content moderation, nazis, richard hanania, trolls
Companies: twitter
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Question: How much literal bodily pain does treating transgender people with basic decency and respect cause you to feel?
made the First Word by Gary
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corporatist, YES.
You kids who think that it's good to side with corporate power had better read "1984" again with better understanding: the exercise of power is an end in itself. Just because right now Twitter supports YOUR views doesn't mean they won't tomorrow "deplatform" you for not being sufficiently with The Party.
Example: Tennis player Martina Navratilova, known for decades as lesbian, recently said that letting "trans" people play against genetic women will simply mean that the women lose. -- Which is clearly so. -- And the "LGBT" association (sorry, can't recall exactly which, but think it's that name), anyway, they KICKED OUT THIS FAMOUS LESBIAN FOR INDEPENDENT OPINION.
NO corporation is your friend: they're AMORAL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corporatist,
they KICKED OUT THIS FAMOUS LESBIAN FOR INDEPENDENT OPINION.
No, they removed her from their advisory board and ambassador program for opinions incompatible with their core mission. As they said in their announcement:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corporati
"We reached out directly offering to be a resource as she sought further education, and we never heard back."
God, what an amazing amount of arrogance, condescension, and self-righteousness rolled up in one little sentence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corpo
God, what an amazing amount of arrogance, condescension, and self-righteousness rolled up in one little sentence.
So what would you have them do? They are an organization with a very clear mission, and she - as a person with important roles in that organization - was undermining it. What was the correct response on their part?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-c
It's the presumption of moral superiority which has led to the rise of Trump.
Liberals truly believe they are morally superior to conservatives, even when they clearly are not, and if anyone points out to them any flaw in their political logic, or that they too facilitate or ignore injustice, they throw tantrums and cry for censorship, which they often get.
Jussie Smollett knew he'd be believed. What he allegedly did was a crime, and what the media did enabled it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, p
Your agenda is showing. As for moral superiority.. Organizations have missions and goals and if someone who is on say your advisory board is publically making statement against your core mission you offer to educate or discuss. They did that. She didnt reach back so she was removed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, p
Against Trump and his supporters it isn't a presumption - it is cold hard fact. We are better than a bunch of people who want to keep children in concentration camps with pedophiles for profit, support corruption, and call for opening up libel law to suppress dissent and want to abuse emergency powers for things they flat out admit aren't emergencies or even effective. It is like Lincoln's request to the states at the start of the civil war - just send representatives to congress. Instead they attacked Fort Sumter. Only in this case it doesn't involve travel - just not supporting literal fascists.
Sorry conservatives but you are objectively in the wrong - that is why you are so pissed off like the rants against California being a 'moocher' when it is a world economy in itself and a major net contributor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalis
If you actually think we have child concentration camps in this country then you are absolutely batshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corporati
I really wonder what kind of "data" that might be. But nice of them they wanna teach everyone who doesn't agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corporatist,
Hello there! I almost did na-zi you there!
Globalist is a dog whistle for "jew" so you are really implying it's anti-american, pro-jew, and pro corporatist.
You are getting in a tizzy with companies kicking off repulsive people off private platforms and use white supremacist language to help get your point across and throw in some projection trying to invoke 1984 even though you'd totally love a 1984 society if it was your flavor of facism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corporati
Since there are globalists who exist who are factually not Jews, what is the politically correct word we can use when we want to talk about them that won't cause guys like you to come running in whining about dog sirens and pig whistles and whatnot?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corpo
Better question, dood: what do you call a being who can hear a dog whistle that normal people don't notice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-c
That's not a better question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You call them “globalists”, but you make it absolutely clear that you are referring to globalists in the non-dog-whistle sense through context. Bringing up globalism/globalists without prompting and without any other context is typically how the dogwhistle works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
COMMENTER: "This is exactly what globalists want."
(Disclaimer: My comment refers to non-Jew globalists.)
TECHDIRT COWARD: "Dogwhistles! Anti-Semitism code! Aaaaggghh!"
COMMENTER: "No, I was told that a disclaimer of Jewishness relieves me of pig siren evil code responsibility."
TECHDIRT COWARD: "You're only saying you don't mean Jews. We know you really do! Disclaimer nullified!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You can't reason your way out of a Kafka trap, dood, because people who deploy them aren't capable of sound reasoning!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Prinny, I just want to say you're my absolute favorite new commenter here. Thanks, dood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
(Disclaimer: My comment refers to non-Jew globalists.)
lol. When you find yourself needing to make a disclaimer like this, it's time to have a think about how you got here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or, you could be not an ass about it by talking abot "non-jew globalists" which, you know, just begs for people to draw conclusions, and instead attempt to have an actual discussion regarding the aims of an actual globalist viewpoint by providing a simple, quick definition of globalism. Let's clean up your example:
COMMENTER: "This course of action supports the aims of the globalist ideology - namely the idea that there should not borders between countries."
Then hopefully they expand on that, since on its own it's not exactly much.
At that point it should be possible to have a discussion, though I wouldn't be surprised if Prinny pops in to be an annoyance. If indeed the AC's insist you're a racist at that point, then you can ignore them and talk to the people who are willing to talk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corporati
Dogwhistle is a dogwhistle for "I can't argue against your actual words so I'll put my own in your mouth instead"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corporati
The policies aren't the problem. The selective enforcement of those policies is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corporatist,
That isn't "siding with corporate power". Also, corporatism is exactly American, so try again. It is one of the things which is totally wrong with the US. Let us know when and where your fairyland version of "America" existed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corporatist,
Athlete Ally, (not ""LGBT" association", by with I assume you meant the ILGA) an LGBT advocacy organisation pushing for acceptance of LGBTQ individuals in sports, removed her from the advisory board after several attempts to tone her commentary down because her outspoken views were not in line with the goals of the organization. That's a bit necessary for an advocacy organization, which relies on donations from those they are advocating for. If those you advocate for do not believe you are acting in their interests, they stop donating and you can no longer fund the research, legal council, messaging (through advertising), and lobbing that are the essential functions of an advocacy organization.
I am confused why your largely incoherent statement is against the idea that an advocacy organization should have to be advised by people who disagree with the goals of the intended advocacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corporati
Ack! slight misstatement due to rewording a statement and not shifting other wording around.
I am confused why your largely incoherent statement is promoting the idea that an advocacy organization should have to be advised by people who disagree with the goals of the intended advocacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Neither, but anti-Troll
Cole, please explain why you aren't a troll? 1) Makes ad-hom atack labeling views "Kids." 2) Threadjacks the article to complain about global corporate threat. 3) Ignores facts in article, cites unrelated article. 4) Frequent use of caps.
I didn't list your Jew-Globalist anti semitic bias since it was only implied, not stated.
But thanks for posting. While we have your attention, could you please explain how a service like twitter would actually work without terms of service and moderation? Is there any example you can site for a completely unmoderated service or posting board?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Neither, but anti-Troll
Cole is just another name for blue. You'll recognize his patterns immediately, the kids thing is particularly telling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corporatist,
Twitter has gone off the deep end when it comes to the transgender nonsense. They're banning people for stating scientific facts (e.g., no amount of surgery or hormones will change a person's genetic make-up) and for committing two activist-invented offenses: referring to a person by his/her legal name if that's not the name they currently identify with, and 'misgendering', which is refusing to use inaccurate or grammatically incorrect pronouns when referring to someone. In some cases, you can be banned for refusing to use completely made-up words that don't even exist in the English language (zhe, zhir) when a transgender demands it of you.
A journalist was suspended by Twitter for tweeting that the company is censoring "basic facts and silencing people who ask questions about this [transgender] dogma". After the suspension was over, she posted a message to the Twitter CEO saying, "Hey, Twitter, journalist here. Are we no longer allowed to report facts on your platform?" That tweet resulted in another suspension.
They can do whatever the like with their service but the idea that they can still profess with a straight face to be the 'free speech wing of the Free Speech Party' is such laughable bullshit that they should be publicly shamed and mocked for it whenever and wherever possible. At this point, they're as much champions of free speech as was the Soviet Politburo of old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corporati
completely made-up words
All words are completely made up.
can still profess with a straight face to be the 'free speech wing of the Free Speech Party'
They don't "still profess" that, nor did they ever even really "profess" it. Their UK General Manager said that, once, seven years ago.
Meanwhile, here's what Jack Dorsey said about it four months ago:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corpo
Oh, for fuck's sake. Seriously? Way to thoroughly (and purposely, one suspects) miss the point. I suppose there always has to be one relentlessly pedantic asshole in every bunch.
In other words, even Dorsey realizes how completely foolish that quote makes his company look now and is backpedaling away from it. Notice he never gave those disclaimers in the past when glowing major media reports made it the unofficial motto of the company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-c
Oh, for fuck's sake. Seriously? Way to thoroughly (and purposely, one suspects) miss the point. I suppose there always has to be one relentlessly pedantic asshole in every bunch.
No, it's that you're seeing a distinction where there isn't one. Language evolves.
You're also lying, of course. Twitter does not ban anyone for refusing to use words - it bans people for repeated, targeted misgendering. If you don't want to use someone's chosen pronoun, you are free to refer to them by name or not at all. What you will get banned for is repeatedly, insistently calling them by a different pronoun as a way of harassing them.
In other words, even Dorsey realizes how completely foolish that quote makes his company look now and is backpedaling away from it
Amazing how fast you pivoted from "they should be mocked for continuing to claim this" to "they should be mocked for backing down on this claim". Apparently, realizing that you utterly misrepresented a situation doesn't slow you down in the slightest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, p
Better be careful, you're laying into btr pretty hard there and we all know what happens when you give someone a fit and there's nobody around to hook up a defrembulator. Their mind. Blown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, p
"it bans people for repeated, targeted misgendering."
Then explain the existence of account bans for single incidences of misgendering?
Heck, @TSJessikaJayne was banned for misgendering HERSELF.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, p
Who is targeted by the statement that "men aren't women?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-c
I can decide to call you a "nazi" if I want.
Everyone here can choose to call you a "nazi" if they feel that it describes you better than other words you may prefer.
Hopefully that's not a problem. It would be a shame if you felt that being called a "nazi" was in some way abusive, if someone here chose to refer to you as such.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, p
Knock yourself out, chief. Small minds enjoy small pleasures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalis
Then with your blessing, you are now to be known as "That nazi."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-glob
Someones projecting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-
btr1701 is, as usual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-glob
It's like the comment section of this forum is populated mostly by 12-year-olds, but like I said, whatever floats your boat, child.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corpo
Yeah, claiming that something embarrassing from your past was "just a joke" is a classic deflection tactic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question: How much literal bodily pain does treating transgender people with basic decency and respect cause you to feel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not that someone like you would understand concepts like honesty, integrity, or honor, but to those who do, compromising those is even more harmful than physical bodily harm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Fine. How does it harm your honesty, integrity, or (I really don’t understand this one) honor? I understand these ideas, but not how they apply here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, you see, if he doesn't believe that transwomen are actual women, it would be dishonest and dishonorable of him to pretend otherwise.
This is actually a very simple concept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even a simple concept can make no sense. This is one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What dishonesty have I committed if I call someone by a name they prefer? How is my integrity harmed if I refer to someone with their preferred pronouns? If I treat a trans person with the same dignity and respect with which you would ask them to treat you, what have I dishonored, and how did I dishonor it?
Also, quick thought exercise for you. Say you know a woman at your job named Jane Doe. She gets married to Buck Wilde (I heard they had one hell of a reception) and legally changes her name to Jane Wilde, a name she was not born with. For the purposes of any future formal meetings, she asks people to call her “Mrs. Wilde” instead of “Ms. Doe”. How much of an affront to your honesty, integrity, and honor does her request represent — and how is it any different than a trans person asking you to use their preferred name when talking to/about them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So... yeah. As I predicted, you don't understand these concepts.
It's not surprising, really. Look up the research that's been done on the psychological foundations of morality. There are five basic axes, but the weird thing is that liberals seem to only understand two of them (care/prevention of harm and fairness/equality, on full display here). The further to the left you go, the more blind you become to the other three, to the point where a lot of extremist SJW types like yourself are literally unable to comprehend the reality of the rest of it! (The other three being loyalty and honor, respect for authority and tradition, and respect for sanctity. Again, the incomprehension of these principles is on full display here.)
They ask a conservative person how they think a liberal person would react to various moral scenarios, and he can predict their behavior fairly accurately. But ask a SJW how a conservative person would react, and their predictions come entirely through the filter of the two axes liberals understand and turn out to be completely wrong most of the time. It's as if you guys honestly believe that the other three don't exist and conservative people are simply lying and being hypocritical when they talk about them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, that's amazing, dood! You're saying it's not just trolling to say SJWs are crazy, but there's actual scientific research that proves it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Meh. Not crazy per se. Just... you know... a bit mentally deficient.
The truly crazy ones are the Libertarians. The research seems to indicate that their malfunctioning brains literally only have one axis, the respect for authority one, and it's installed backwards!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rather than trying to hunt it down, perhaps you could provide references about how liberals only understand two of the moral axes and conservatives understand all of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's a lot of good research on the subject, but not all of it is easily accessible online. This TED talk by one of the primary researchers in the field is a good starting point, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's the key part from Wikipedia:
I didn't spend enough time on it to evaluate how well this theory is supported by the evidence. But even if it becomes the generally accepted theory of human morality, I would be very cautious about what you do with it. Sensitivity to a larger number of moral foundations doesn't make a group "more moral". It's just a different focus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just look again at what those supposedly "moral" axes are - unquestioning obedience of authority, adherence to the in-group, and blind acceptance of tautological faith.
What Liberals are missing isn't morality, it's religion - something largely tangential/orthoginal to true morality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I consider not deferring to the wishes of other people when the burden is as minimal as remembering a name to be disloyal and dishonorable.
“We’ve always done it this way” is one of the most dangerous phrases in the English language. I respect authority and tradition so long as I have a good reason to do so.
Two things.
“SJW” is a marvelously vague phrase that can mean whatever you want it to mean for the purposes of a given argument. Use more concrete language.
Lived experience does tend to make me believe that, yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Did you even watch the video? From your astoundingly ignorant response here, particularly the first half which the video directly addresses and takes apart, I would assume not. But you really should, and this one as well featuring the same guy, speaking at Duke University ostensibly about moral issues in higher education, but a lot of it is quite generally applicable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And what does any of this have to do with treating trans people with basic human dignity and respect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Do you know what the fact that you persist in attempting to frame the discussion in those specific terms tells me? It tells me that your mind is still literally not capable of comprehending the answer if I were to give it to you. It would be like trying to explain calculus to someone who had never taken algebra or trig; you simply lack the basic framework to understand more advanced concepts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“The answer is too intelligent for your dumb ass to understand” is no excuse…for you. If you understand what you are talking about well enough, you can craft a version of your answer for five different levels of understanding/difficulty. If you cannot answer a simple question — “When someone is transgender, how does calling them by a name they were not born with somehow become a hassle?” — with an answer that matches up with what you presume is my level of intellect, you are the one with the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He's projecting to you that he's merely parroting his argument from elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The question is difficult to answer because it is not valid in the first place. It seems like a simple question to you, but to people with the broader perspective afforded by the moral axes you're missing, it sounds a whole lot like "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" It's a trap question that, in order to give any answer at all, forces you to acknowledge an invalid premise. The only valid answer I can give is "Mu."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Damn, man, just say “I can’t answer the question” if you can’t answer the question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Seriously? I explained that this is an invalid question that has no proper answer, and you twist that into "can't answer the question"?
OK, now you have to be doing it on purpose. At this point, Prinny might be right about you simply being malicious, because there's no way you can possibly be that stupid. I've seen some of the other things you post on other topics, and they can't be produced by a mind that's dense enough to legitimately come up with that answer.
Please, take some time, step away from these comments, watch the videos I linked to expand your mind a little, and reconsider your life choices. I don't know what it was that led you to this point, but it's kinda screwed up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only proper answer is the one you can give me based on your own opinions and thinking. This is not a yes-or-no thing, honey — if you cannot give an answer to the question (“When someone is transgender, how does calling them by a name they were not born with somehow become a hassle?”), just say so. I promise I won’t think any less of you than I already do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So not only are you trying to force your values on people, dood, you are openly trying to also force your lack of values on them as well!
This makes me doubt both the "crazy" and the "mentally deficient" theories; it's starting to look more like you're simply evil!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bold of you to assume I have the power, never mind the will, to force my values on other people, but go off if you must.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, and I can't believe I missed this the first time around:
This right here just proves my basic thesis.
Of course you have things you treat as sacred. To give one very obvious example: the doctrine of accepting transgender people's preferred identity is sacred to you. Look at the way you are doing exactly what you clam you never do in regards to this very issue: you treat any disagreement or questioning of the doctrine as blasphemy!
But of course you don't realize this, because (as was my point way back at the start) you are so deep in SJW territory that your mind literally lacks the moral axis to properly comprehend it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do not consider this a holy “doctrine” to be placed above all else. I consider it common goddamn courtesy and an offer of basic human respect.
No, I treat it as you having an issue with offering trans people the same level of dignity and respect as you would ask them to give you. If a trans person kept calling you by a name you did not go by and explicitly did not want them to use when talking to/about you, how is that any different than you doing that to a trans person?
This is not a religious/sanctity issue. This is an issue of basic human dignity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps. I can't read your thoughts. But I can read your actions, and they say quite clearly that you still consider it a thing that Simply Can Not Be Questioned By Decent Folk, and you react to said questioning according to classical, well understood patterns of aversion to desecration and blasphemy.
Are you familiar with the term "gender dysphoria"? It's the technical, clinical explanation of what transsexualism is. It's a recognized, studied psychological condition.
With that in mind, let's go to one of the classics. Let's say that the name I wanted people to use when talking to me was Napoleon, because I believed myself to be him. (Yes, that Napoleon.) Would you say that basic respect and courtesy demands that you feed my delusion? Certainly not; your argument would almost certainly be the exact opposite, and here's the truly interesting part: it would be motivated by the same moral axis that you're applying here, namely Care/Prevention of Harm.
But because this issue has become so heavily politicized by the extreme Left, people who have internalized those values are unable to apply that principle consistently without exposing themselves to painful cognitive dissonance, so instead they hack their brains into applying a lesser standard of Care that still lets them feel like they're being moral, but with less effort.
As someone who explicitly claims nothing is sacred, you have no grounds for stating that, about this or any other issue. Do you have any idea how ridiculously arrogant it sounds to hear somebody say "because I don't believe something is sacred, no one else is allowed to hold that opinion either"?
You keep using that word. I do not think you know what it means. I also think you haven't seen the second video, in which the lecturer explains specifically what dignity is about and how it's almost literally the exact opposite of the cultural values you're espousing here. Here's a hint: the entire point of dignity is that it's not something someone else can give you or take away from you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If I considered you decent, you might have a point. And I recognize that calling trans people by their preferred name is a thing that can be questioned — but if you can question the subject, I can question you about your position. Don’t like it? Door’s to your left.
I react to that questioning by wondering how calling trans people by their given name is apparently a burden greater than any other; if you can provide solid reasoning for that belief of yours (that isn’t just pseudo-intellectual claptrap about morals that you dug up from a TED talk to make yourself sound smarter), I’ll be more than happy to listen to and consider your position.
Your delusion is not even remotely similar to gender dysphoria. I would have no issue with referring to you by your given name — or with reporting you to the proper authorities for a psychiatric evaluation. And by the by, I despise the notion that people with gender dysphoria are someone psychologically “damaged” or “mentally ill”, so how about you stay away from using that little bit of bullshit again.
Except it wasn’t.
And what the hell is so bad about not wanting to harm other people? You demonize the idea so much that it comes off as you not caring about doing harm to others regardless of the other moral axes.
Trans people face higher rates of suicide if their gender identity isn’t consistently affirmed. Rather than give them the dignity of referring to them with their preferred name/pronouns and treating them like you would treat any cis person who presents as that trans person’s gender, you would continually misgender and deadname them — and you would then say “oh but I care about that poor thing” and act as if your intentional disrespect and mistreatment of that person is “love” and “caring”.
You know who else passed off abusive behaviour as “love” and “caring”? Anti-gay religious folks who were (and still are) all about telling gay people they will burn in Hell and will never be more than unclean sinner filth in the eyes of God…and justifying that emotionally abusive bullshit as an act of “love”.
If you would treat a trans person no better than an anti-gay religious person would treat a gay person, you may want to reconsider your values. I mean, unless you want to drive a trans person to suicide, in which case what the fuck.
The funny thing is, holding something sacred is what results in the “no one else is allowed to hold an opinion” mindset. I do not treat the discussion of “transgender people and deadnaming” as sacred precisely because I know other people will have different opinions than mine and that is fine. My whole schtick has been about getting you to answer a simple, single question: “When someone is transgender, how does calling them by a name they were not born with somehow become a hassle?” If I thought my opinion was the definitive word on the matter and no one else could dare differ from my position, I wouldn’t even bother asking the question — I would tell you how to think about it and say “fuck you” if you disagreed.
And yet you would want to impugn the dignity of trans people — to treat them with less respect than you would any cis person who asks you to call them by a preferred name — only because they are trans. You want to make trans people feel as if they have no dignity, no place in your part of society, no sense of worth as a person trying their best to get along in a world that actively wants them gone.
You wanna do that? I cannot stop you. But you can be damn sure I would do my best to make you feel like a piece of cold dog shit for doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is the point. Because I question your sacred dogma, it places me outside of what you consider decent.
Believing onself to be something that they objectively are not? How is it different in any way?
Of course you do. It causes painful cognitive dissonance that you would prefer to avoid. That's how the dogmatic mentality works: any facts that disagree with the doctrine are blasphemous and must be ignored or suppressed, by force if necessary.
I can't be sure, but it's likely also mixed up with incorrect, stigma-laden ideas about what it means to be "mentally ill" that make the conclusion sound a lot worse to you than it really is.
Not quite. It's a lot more nuanced than that; it involves the concept of antifragility. Defining it formally gets really involved, but the TLDR version is "whatever does not kill me makes me stronger." While this isn't universally true--crippling, permanent damage is a thing that does exist, both for bodies and for minds--generally speaking it's a feature of nearly every aspect of humanity.
It's a completely uncontroversial statement to claim that your bones and muscles grow stronger with low-level abuse and strain (commonly known as "working out") and atrophy into uselessness with disuse. It's also well-known that if a body, particularly a young, developing one, is shielded from disease by a hyper-sterile environment, the immune system will go on a rampage and create allergies rather than doing its job right.
Well, a person's psyche is the same way. It grows strength and resilience by dealing with difficult situations. Shielding them from that kind of "harm" is just as harmful in the bigger picture as shielding them from germs or the need to physically exert themselves. It leaves them fragile by denying them the opportunity to exercise their mental antifragility.
Yeah. What was that you were saying about it not being a mental illness?
Flag on the play. Dignity is not something that can be given or taken away by others.
No, that is not a simple question. It's a simplistic question, which is a very, very different thing.
Not at all. You're projecting like wow here! What I truly want is to be able to help them. And that's not an abstract thought or wishy-washy "it would be nice if" sort of thing.
A close friend of mine is afflicted with gender dysphoria and he suffers immensely from it. Not from how people react to it or to knowing that he's trans, but from the issue itself. For various reasons, he regards me as his closest (or occasionally "only", depending on his current state of mind) friend, even though he's well aware of my views and I've told him multiple times, to his face, that I don't consider him a woman. Despite that, he remains a loyal friend and I end up frequently getting an earful about the struggles he's going through and acting as a "shoulder to cry on." So this is not an abstract concept to me. It's not a fuzzy moral issue that happens to other people. It's something I'm personally very familiar with, and that experience has done a lot to inform my opinions on the subject. I would love nothing more than to see him fixed, but that can't happen without first acknowledging that a problem that needs fixing exists!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’m no longer in the mood to continue this discussion for a variety of reasons, but I did want to say one more thing:
This is pretty much the same excuse used by the people who drove gay people to suicide and self-harm through the emotional and physical torture known as “conversion ‘therapy’ ”. Psychologically abusive treatment done out of “love” is still psychologically abusive. To wit:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Cis Short for cis-gendered, meaning someone who identifies with the sex they were born as. Typically used by whiny tumblr users who complain about not being accepted for who they are and yet bash these "cis" people for being born and being okay with the sex they were born with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really? Because I don’t use Tumblr, yet I see that term used all the time. And only very rarely in the manner you claim it’s “typically” used in.
Also, do you have a better term for the opposite of transgender?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
is your video just that scene from the simpsons with Milhouse's dad playing charades?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not that someone like you would understand concepts like honesty, integrity, or honor, but to those who do, compromising those is even more harmful than physical bodily harm.
What are you, a fucking Klingon?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Qapla'!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Can we claim to be of retirement age when we decide we are ready to retire at 30? I demand to be referred to as 65 and you better respect my rights and give me my pension.
Fuck off
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes you can technically but only if you are already set for life. It isn't wrong for say a founder of a successful start up who sold and doesn't have to work anymore as 'retirement age'. While retirement age is usually used to refer to 'getting into decline and secure enough that they can stop working' the first part is technically optional. Not the typical usage and usually tongue in cheek but it is perfectly accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Gender is incomparable to age. You’re comparing apples to oranges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Are you telling me what I feel inside is wrong? Now I feel even older.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don’t see how.
At any rate, I was merely saying that gender and (chronological) age are incomparable. I was not saying anything about how accurate your feeling/belief about your age is. It’s immaterial to the argument.
Gender is a mix of biological (genetic, hormonal, whatever), developmental, social, and psychological factors. It was specifically being discussed in this thread in the context of social linguistics and morality.
Age is a mix of mental and physical capabilities, a measurement of time, and one’s mental and physical health. You’re discussing it in terms of financial, legal benefits.
If you can’t see the difference between the two, then I can’t help you.
At any rate, I was saying that, regardless of what actual answer to your question I might give, it would say nothing about the overall topic of this thread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I demand to be referred to as 65 and you better respect my rights and give me my pension.
Classic asshole dodge. You can't actually make the real thing you're arguing against sound absurd or unfair, because it's not, and because you would sound like a monster if you tried - so you have to invent something that literally nobody has ever asked for, and make fun of that instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
based on a true story
earned nickname of "gramps" while in their teens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Acting older than your age does not change the fact of your age. As for gender, your physical sexual organs which determine whether you are male or female are independant of the social label of man or woman.
Additionally referring to someone by the name they prefer is generally a common accepted practice. This applies to men and women.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dont call me sir, call me ma'am
Transgender Flips Out on Gamestop Worker for Calling Her 'Sir https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdzWpoNSSjU
Yes, I am the monster, making an absurd argument. She will take you outside and show you a sir. Probably make you suck her cock as well.
I am glad he is switching sides and is no longer a representative of the male species. Same for this one.
Caitlin Jenner will see to it that you leave in an ambulance if you don't call him a woman. The moment this transgender debate got heated https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgQy70_LPS4
Makes me wonder why women aren't equally represented in the prison system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's absolutely happened, though the other way around.
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/08/665592537/69-year-old-dutch-man-seeks-to-change-his-legal-age -to-49
Of course, it didn't work.
https://people.com/human-interest/man-loses-bid-to-legally-change-his-age-from-69-to-49/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Already seen how close minded they are, no point in confusing them with facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wow someone get triggered extra easy today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How does claiming "men aren't women" disrespect anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How does refusing to humor them hurt you?
Note: I’m not saying one way or the other about the legitimacy of either side of the discussion of whether trans women are men or women. I’m just asking why you can’t call them their preferred gender/name. In my experience, politeness and basic human decency doesn’t really care about reality (or perceptions of reality) like that. Even if trans women aren’t women, why not pretend that they are for the sake of pronouns and gender-specific nouns and adjectives? Why is that such a problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corporati
Always funny when people, like you, who don't understand science try to pretend science is on their side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corpo
They're just dusting off their old "science" they used to claim that Blacks physically lacked the capacity for being human.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing
I must be missing something - how is 22 names a "Dataset" and not just cherry picked examples?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missing
You're not missing anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missing Digits?
Of the three purported researchers only one could count past 7.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missing
It doesn't even qualify as a joke version of a sample population.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another day
Another techdirt water-carrying article defending hatred of free thought when it doesn't align left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another day
[asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another day
Read the article, and the previous month's. Whenever there's a scandal affecting the left, techdirt is quick to bring out articles reminding their useful idiots that the right is big bad and scary. They won't cover the left scandal for another month, when it's forgotten.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another day
Whenever there's a scandal affecting the left, techdirt is quick to bring out articles reminding their useful idiots that the right is big bad and scary. They won't cover the left scandal for another month, when it's forgotten.
Citations very much needed...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Another day
Just from this week. Bias right in the titles.
Catholic School Teen's Lawyers File $250M Defamation Suit Against The Washington Post; Fail To List Any Actual Defamation
Justice Thomas Is Apparently Serious About Completely Upturning Over 50 Years Of 1st Amendment Law
United States Gifted With 33rd National Emergency By President Who Says It's Not Really An Emergency
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another day
Those titles are all factual, and only mildly opinionated in how they state those facts.
I think this just isn't the blog for you. There are lots of sources out there with an angle you'd find more palatable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another day
I don't see how any of those involve "scandals affecting the left." Nor do any of them appear to be "remindeing [our] useful idiots that the right is big and scary."
The first one is about a defamation lawsuit, in which we criticize the lawsuit. We have written about tons of defamation lawsuits, often to criticize them, without any bias towards the political leanings of the participants. Indeed, we criticized a silly defamation lawsuit against the President. And another one against actor James Woods, who is famously a Trump supporter (though we also criticized one of his silly defamation lawsuits). So, I don't see how that has anything to do with what you claimed.
The second one is about Justice Thomas looking to shake up defamation law massively. I don't see how that's anything about "the right" being "big bad and scary." Indeed, most of the 1st Amendment scholars who I follow and who were aghast at this are considered right leaning. I didn't realize that defending the 1st Amendment had magically become a leftist thing.
The final one was pointing out how the National Emergency process is abused regularly, but every president since it's been around. That covers three Democratic Presidents and four Republican Presidents, including the latest one. I, again, don't see how that's "biased." It's a factual reporting, that also mentions the fact that it's been abused in the past. And we regularly criticized the previous president for his (regular) abuse of executive power as well.
So... um, I'm afraid I need to go back and ask you again for some citations that actually back up your statement. Because, accurate stories that make people you like look bad is... not the same same thing as systemic bias against your beliefs, skippy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another day
I see no real bias there... If you only look at the good things or bad things in any given scenario, you're trying to impose a view of the world that can't really exist: the idea of a black and white morality with no gray in between.
TD posts both good and bad things about their prefered topics all the time, often going into the why and how. Though I can't speak for Mike himself (nor any of the other authors for that matter), To my understanding he just calls it as he sees it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another day
When your worldview is so far out of step with how a majority of people perceive the world, every headline not conforming exactly to your ideas will seem to be biased.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another day
The titles are fed to Google News for people to read regardless of whether or not they click through to this site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another day
Top Right Corner: search box Type "Obama" Enjoy.
Currently, the "Right" is taking heat because they're the ones with the power to do stupid crap. When the pendulum swings the other way, the "Left" does their own despicable nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another day
Another Anonymous Coward boldly taking the pro-nazi position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another day
If course I'm anonymous. The left loves to dox and censor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another day
If course I'm anonymous. The left loves to dox and censor.
Kinda weird then how this "lefty" blog Techdirt allows anonymous comments and doesn't interfere with you posting as many dumb garbage ones as you please, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Another day
You have not apparently seen the flag button that hides comments the left disagrees with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another day
You have not apparently seen the flag button that hides comments the left disagrees with.
Quick challenge: list three other news or opinion websites that allow fully anonymous comments without holding them for moderation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another day
AOL is one. I've seen others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another day
the flag button is for people who are stupid, not "left", right, or middle. Just because "right posting" is getting flagged as you hilariously see, it's easily because they're incapable of making a factual argument that isn't "LEFTIST BIAS".
Should they make an argument of something even remotely coherent (high bar and all), I'd be willing to guess it's not going to be flagged. Call it...the things other news organizations don't care to uphold?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Another day
Ah yes, because a single example disproves the trend right? Let's imagine he used the name SquiggleyMumps on Techdirt while spewing right wing views. Now let's imagine he uses the name SquiggleyMumps on Reddit where he maintains a corporate friendly image and represents his business. Would it be smart for him to do that? No. Because he is right and you know it. Here's a prime example of how the left loves to dox straight from the left's own favorite news source https://money.cnn.com/2016/06/22/technology/every-trump-donor-bot/index.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another day
I’ve seen right-wingers dox, too. Doxxing isn’t exclusive to either side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another day
Also, I think most left-leaning people find CNN fairly dull.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another day
...and between "Anonymous Coward" and "pro-nazi", the one you take issue with is "Anonymous Coward", huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Another day
No, just adult enough to recognize hyperbole and ignore it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another day
I’m not 100% sure it is, at least by much. You’re asserting that removing Nazi accounts for online behavior that clearly goes against the ToS and human decency is an example of anti-conservative bias, which implies that Nazis are (relatively) mainstream conservatives, and assuming that you are a conservative, that means you are effectively supporting Nazis.
That may not be accurate, but given the context, it is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw from your comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Impotence is usually curable.
Poor Jhon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another day
Another techdirt water-carrying article defending hatred of free thought when it doesn't align left.
That's right. Zach Graves, whose career includes working at Cato, R Street and Lincoln Networks. All notoriously "leftist" organizations... oh wait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another day
Another techdirt water-carrying article defending hatred of free thought when it doesn't align left.
And another pseudo-conservative decrying the right of private businesses to refuse service to whomsoever they choose, when those refused happen to align right. (Even if there's insufficient evidence to show that that's happening in this case.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is a Anti-Nazi ...
What is a Anti-Nazi Bias when everyone you disagree with is a Nazi to you...
The only Bias there should be on any social media is an anti-extreme one. But right now i see some crazy leftist spouting race baiting things so hatefull, that any Nazi would be proud. Furthermore they remain almost never censored in any way.
Lately i can read a clear bias in most Techdirt article too. You should start reflecting in your own bias before you end up so far on one side, YOU will be the Nazi that need to be censored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is a Anti-Nazi ...
What is a Anti-Nazi Bias when everyone you disagree with is a Nazi to you
Did you notice the part where the American Nazi Party is one of the banned accounts? If you're trying to understand what a nazi is, start there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What is a Anti-Nazi ...
I sure saw that, but the communist party is still up there. Even though the ideology resulted in almost as many death if not more. So my point is still valid on that regard.
Oh and since you actually took the time to answer my "poorly" written comment. This is clearly proof that you are an Undercover Nazi and need to banned from the whole internet.
Try again you nazi scum ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What is a Anti-Nazi ...
I sure saw that, but the communist party is still up there. Even though the ideology resulted in almost as many death if not more.
Um, Twitter isn't banning accounts based on the history of their ideology - it is banning them based on their current practices on Twitter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What is a Anti-Nazi ...
Whoops, you're wrong! https://mashable.com/2017/11/17/twitter-hate-speech-symbols-december-18/#esJOAwwdFOqT
"In what amounts to a major shift in Twitter policy, the company announced on Friday that it will be monitoring user's behavior "on and off the platform" and will suspend a user's account if they affiliate with violent organizations, according to an update to Twitter's Help Center on Friday. "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What is a Anti-Nazi ...
Next time you call someone nazi scum don’t put a question mark there. It makes you sound like an indescisive cunt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What is a Anti-Nazi ...
Or, start with the fact that the famous ACLU case of "defending Nazis” only happened because the "Nazi ”in the case was Jewish.
His name was Frank Collin~Cohen.
Just like Milos Yiannopoulis and so many other alleged right wingers, extremists, and actual terrorists are also Jewish.
But when their name hits the papers, discussing their religious fanaticism and what radicalized them, or their negative effects on others is VERBOTTEN.
This is what happens when the racist and sectarian ADL and SPLC become arbiters of open discourse, and cockblock(cockchop? ) democratic engagement .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is a Anti-Nazi ...
Is this really the best you can come up with? It's just sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is a Anti-Nazi ...
In order to define what an antiNAZI is it would first be necessary to know what a NAZI was.
If you can define what a Ruthenian was then you may be well on your way to defining what a NAZI really was. Problem is defining a Ruthenian is damn difficult bordering on nearly impossible. The only thing one can be said with certainty is the NAZI really hated then. Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's called crying wolf
Mainstream conservatives really need to push-back more on these kinds of "studies" since it gives them all a bad reputation. Then like the boy who cried wolf: We're being censored on Twitter! No you're not. We're being censored on Facebook! No you're not. We're being censored on YouTube! No you're not. We're being censored on some other site! No you're not. We're being censored for real this time! Sorry, no one cares any more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's called crying wolf
Of course, at a certain point we're just going to have to stop pretending that people like the trolls and nazis on this list are anything other than "mainstream". Most of them are household names for the pro-Trump wing of the GOP (which is most of it) and there are plenty of examples of them being quoted or promoted by elected GOP representatives, defended by major conservative news organizations, etc.
So perhaps we should start talking about what "moderate" conservatives need to do, since they can no longer even claim to have a firm hold on the "mainstream".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fails to demonstrate a lack of balance
If Mr. Hanania had really wanted to demonstrate a lack of balance by Twitter, he would have to also provide a list of liberals engaging in equally-bad behavior but NOT getting kicked off the platform. The fact that he's only provided a list of 21 "prominent conservative accounts" that got kicked off only proves that he was able to find 21 accounts with a conservative bent that got banned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fails to demonstrate a lack of balance
Oh, it's out there. You can get kicked off Twitter for 'abuse' because you refuse to use made-up gibberish words to refer to a transgender person, but repeated and credible death threats against conservative writers get no action from Twitter no matter how many times they're reported.
I agree, however, that this study has many flaws in its methodology and doesn't prove what it purports to prove.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fails to demonstrate a lack of balance
This is pretty much what goes on, but conservative views can find a home even on Twitter, or Facebook, and particularly on YouTube and probably Instagram. Censorship tends to be self-correcting anyway.
It should be pretty obvious after the Jussie Smollett case that the media has a clear liberal bias. People have decided that because they don't like Trump, his supporters are fair game for abuse or even worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fails to demonstrate a lack of balance
This is pretty much what goes on, but conservative views can find a home even on Twitter, or Facebook, and particularly on YouTube and probably Instagram. Censorship tends to be self-correcting anyway.
It should be pretty obvious after the Jussie Smollett case that the media has a clear liberal bias. People have decided that because they don't like Trump, his supporters are fair game for abuse or even worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fails to demonstrate a lack of balance
Troll/astroturf fail right here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fails to demonstrate a lack of balance
You are not wrong.
A very wealthy minority of NGO sponsored neocons are activelly and literally controlling, aka “influencing ” our democratic dialogues.
Sadly, many of them are Jewish, or other minority views, which Karl Bode covered here at Techdirt awhile ago; and worse,these are anti -democratic in the worst, most fascist sense, as described by a post Holohoax scholar, Viktor Frankel, who wrote “Mans Search For Meaning, ” which was soundly shit upon by theoretically feminist organizations, and other Israelified, ADL infused and infected organizations and crisis PR pundits who find the term "man " to be offensive.
But thankfully, the Jussie Smollet thingy will be revealed eventually as yet another Anti Defamation League inspired hoax, like most of these ADL sponsored cases:
https://static1.businessinsider.com/r-us-israeli-man-sentenced-in-israel-over-global-bomb-threats-2 018-11
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fails to demonstrate a lack of balance
So you're a holocaust denier too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fails to demonstrate a lack of balance
"Wahhhh, I can't be a bigot on Twitter!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fails to demonstrate a lack of balance
LOL! Another mental midget arrives to let us know that he arrogantly considers his own political beliefs to be so self-righteously correct that there can be no legitimate disagreement with him, and that anyone who does is per se a bigot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fails to demonstrate a lack of balance
Another mental midget
Classic burn! It's a bit high level though, so let me explain: "midget" is a non-technical term, now broadly regarded as offensive, for people with dwarfism - a disorder that causes someone to be small in stature.
What btr1701 has cunningly done is taken that term and couple it with the adjective "mental" - suggesting, quite coyly and hilariously, that the commenter's intelligence is smaller than normal, and that its growth is stunted.
I'm dyin' over here!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fails to demonstrate a lack of balance
Thanks for the tongue in cheek deconstruction of a classic. I looked it up, and at least one book cites the origin as 1951!
Complete side point: Midget used to refer to a small person with proportional features, and dwarf used to refer to the more common disproportional type. Now the word midget, like moron, idiot, and imbecile, are formerly technical terms that are now insults. Thanks, euphemism treadmill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fails to demonstrate a lack of balance
Valkor, is this you, a military supplier /contractor?
http://www.valkortactical.com/
Its nice to know how military trolls and their surveillance state apparatchiks are infecting dialogues, and influencing our democratic discourse, dontchathink?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fails to demonstrate a lack of balance
Oh no, the person who wants to intentionally misgender transgender people because the world will end if he has to type a different word doesn't think he's a bigot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fails to demonstrate a lack of balance
Careful. You are currently projecting at .6 OOTBs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fails to demonstrate a lack of balance
You’ve said this bit about pronouns several times but have yet to provide even one example. Nor have you provided examples of “leftists” not being banned for abusive behavior that conservatives have been.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kinda said the quiet part out loud there, no?
When you try to prove that the right is being cencored & your list short list of "prominent" conservatives is half EXPLICIT white nationalist.
...twitter destroyed with facts & logic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kinda said the quiet part out loud there, no?
I've seen twitter ban people for simple conservative postings that did nothing more than dismantle liberal logic.
The bias is real, and so what? Everyone can get their message out online. The internet was designed to survive a nuclear war, which is why it's almost impossible to censor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Kinda said the quiet part out loud there, no?
Here’s the thing: I’ve not seen them, you’re not showing them, and crucially, this was supposed to be an unbiased study definitively proving this, yet it’s not showing them either.
For the record, I have heard of liberal people banned over posts espousing liberal views, so I’d need more than just anecdotal evidence to convince me that Twitter’s bans have an anti-conservative bias. I’ll need thorough, comparative studies.
Regardless, even if Twitter does have an anti-conservative bias, and that bias affects the enaction of account-banning and post-removal, this “study” doesn’t show that, which is the point.
That said, you’re right about one thing: “so what?” It doesn’t matter. There are plenty of other ways to get the message out on the internet, not all of which are moderated significantly. Furthermore, Twitter absolutely has the right to favor liberals over conservatives on their platform if they want to.
Basically, this was a dumb study that tries but fails to prove a point that doesn’t even matter to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kinda said the quiet part out loud there, no?
and other black /female /other .
What -is diversity only ok when it is batshit crazy Jewish supremacism /ADL sponsored?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
According to conservatives it's a liberal world gone mad (which is redundant to them: "liberal" and "world gone made" being the same thing). They just don't get it that they're the ones out of step with reality... and they never will get it. That's what it means to be "conservative". They also can't differentiate between platforms and the people that use them (as opposed to the people that run them--who, generally, try to be even-handed with their policies).
Dear conservatives: isn't it sad feeling persecuted? OK, now you know how all of your victims have felt for the past several thousand years. Congrats! Don't you wish you could lean more toward the center? treat everyone else the way you'd like to be treated? ...no? well, too bad for you. I guess "live and learn" just ain't your thing.
P.S. BTW, liberals are pretty much the same but in a reverse way--a lot less "stick in the mud" (or "stick up the ...well, you know).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An Anti-Conservative Bias, Or Just An Anti-Nazi Bias?
There's a difference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An Anti-Conservative Bias, Or Just An Anti-Nazi Bias?
Yes there is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: An Anti-Conservative Bias, Or Just An Anti-Nazi Bias?
Words like "Conservative" and "Liberal" have lost their literal meaning in the U.S. "Conservative" is usually associated with the Republican Party which has nothing to do with the abolitionist party of Lincoln. Let's see whether there is a difference between "Conservative" and "Nazi" when Twitler overrides the House of Representatives in its core role of budgeting the government in the division of powers.
Frankly, looking at McConnel's face when serving a leading role in dismantling U.S. democracy makes me wonder what Trump has on him. But it's not like the others don't fall in line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To me what this list highlights is that those with extreme conservative views are more likely to behave abusively towards those who don't agree with them than those with extreme liberal views (which include concepts like tolerance and acceptance).
So I don't think it's even anti-Nazi bias; it's anti-abuse bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Those who claim "trans" women are still men have gotten banned.
I've seen conservatives threatened with violence and nothing happens, but they speak a wrong word and they're gone.
The bias is real.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not exactly disproving the premise that people are getting banned for being abusive there, Mr. Coward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Calling that abusive, yet allowing phrases like #toxicmasculinity, reflects a bias. Many WOMEN don't like being forced to treat transgendered individuals born male as if they were female.
I've seen direct threats of rape and murder against conservatives that go unpunished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, you've made your point. You're a bigot, and you're mad that people sometimes get banned from Twitter because they're bigots.
If you believe conservatism is synonymous with bigotry, well...that does indicate that there's a real problem here, but it's not a problem with Twitter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wasn't the one who made the anti-transgender remarks.
I don't rely on Twitter to build an audience because that audience can too easily be nuked. The bias against conservatives is pretty obvious. Milo is a good example. Anti-male, anti-white narratives are given their own hashtags, while conservatives, particularly white males, have largely been silence or marginalized on the platform.
It doesn't make me a bigot to point out the bias in Twitter enforcement, which includes ignoring rape and death threats against conservatives while banning conservatives for minor infractions. Your namecalling changes nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Exactly how is it "abusive" to note that "transgendered women" were born male?
Do we all have to fall in line with some PC-think not to be censored? That's Orwellian. Look at the Jussie Smollett case: the media didn't question the story, and said it was a consequence of Trump's presidency. That could have started a race riot.
The presumption that you get to lay down the political law with others that you do not allow to lay down the law with you is very telling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That’s not what was said. They said they were born that way and still are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A woman was banned from Twitter for claiming that "men are not women." This was seen as anti-trans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is, or at least it is very reasonable to take it as such. The fact that you don’t see that is troubling.
I could see possible interpretations of that claim that aren’t anti-trans, but I don’t see any of them as likely to pop up on Twitter. Without the full context, I can’t say for sure whether Twitter was right to ban her, but it was a reasonable and understandable action for them to take.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I believe that I have found the woman you’re talking about in a court case. If I’m right about that, then I’d have to say that you are way underselling all that she said. While one of the posts she was banned over did say “men are not women”, others were a lot more explicitly transphobic. And since Twitter’s TOS explicitly bans anti-LGBT rhetoric, I’m not sure that she has a leg to stand on. It’s not exactly evidence of anti-conservative bias, either, at least when it comes to its discretion of how it exercises its power, since this is a pretty straightforward violation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twitter is a shithole. It's only value now is a place for mental people to be angry and suicidal. Every other post on twitter is some form of "I want to kill myself" or "Hey, look at my virtue! I'm doing really good hating today!". It's trash. It's the worst of us.
The worst human beings on Earth use twitter. Our mental defectives. People not over not being popular in high school mostly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As I've been saying pretty much since day 1, it's a service that's full of Twits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As I've been saying pretty much since day 1
And yet it's still never gotten a laugh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wait, I take it back. It took me an hour, but I just got it!
For folks still in the dark: see, the service is named "Twitter", which is a word referring to birdlike sounds. But if you look closely, you'll notice the first four letters are T, W, I and T. Now the hilarious thing is - bear with me here folks - those four letters spell "twit", which is a word meaning a silly or stupid person.
This joke is fucking genius.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Im no Mason Wheeler fan, but it /he /she /cis /non -cis unspecified is correct.
But I would go one further and state that Twitter is full of Twats.
And, many of those with yeast infections, or worse: halitosis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, fuck people for being open about depressions I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So why aren’t you there then bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Social media's hate toward to conservatives is just like the link between vaccines and autism - it takes an awful lot of fudging, ignoring, and editing the data to make anything appear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seriously, do you think twitter treats liberal tweeters and conservative tweeters equally? Holds them to the same standards of behavior?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It isn't just contradiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes it is!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No it isn’t!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A question is an interrogative sentence or clause which is neither an argument nor a contradiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's a leading question built on the false premise that it the treatment that's different (debunked by evidence) and not, as releatedly shown, the behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All credit to Twitter user @ndrew_lawrence:
Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views
Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?
Con: LOL no…no not those views
Me: So…deregulation?
Con: Haha no not those views either
Me: Which views, exactly?
Con: Oh, you know the ones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's actually a brilliant commie plot.. They are slowly making the conservatives all into complete converts.. Today convert them into deciding a private company shouldn't be able to make it's own decisions about who can use it's service.. Tomorrow rations and food stamps?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would agree BUT ONE PROBLEM
Why is Louis Farrakhan still on there? Why was Laura looker who is Jewish and believe me not a white supremist banned on there. While we're at it, why is David Duke still have an account. Sorry the people are banning are conservatives. Pleasr research more
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Would agree BUT ONE PROBLEM
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure that David Duke is conservative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Would agree BUT ONE PROBLEM
It’s funny when their own examples undermine their stupid ass argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You mean Laura Loomer
Yeah why does David Duke and Louis Farrakhan still have twitter accounts? No one on techdirt talks about that and I am jewish
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You mean Laura Loomer
Wow it took you 8 minutes to write a second sentence pretending to be a different outraged Jew... have you been tested for lead exposure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You mean Laura Loomer
Hey Gary/John: when you reply to yourself, it shows up for everyone to see that you're actually the same person pretending to be a different person... but nice work "Gary/John". Also, your statement doesn't make any sense. As the article explains, people were banned -- temporarily or permanently -- based on abusive behavior. Not because of their views.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You mean Laura Loomer
Shouldn't a poster's identifying information be private?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You mean Laura Loomer
It is, other than one little tidbit that can trip people attempting to sockpuppet up if they're not familiar with the site, and said tidbit is not only visible to everyone, it doesn't provide any information beyond whether or not multiple comments are coming from the same IP address.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You mean Laura Loomer
It's better than nothing, but ip addresses can be shared. I use a VPN to help protect my privacy, which means I share an outgoing IP address with potentially thousands of people. And since privacy interested people are more likely to read Techdirt that means the likelyhood of sharing an IP with someone else here isn't vanishingly small.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You mean Laura Loomer
Can be, but the odds of two or more people sharing the same IP address and commenting on a given article at the same time are pretty small, so it's not likely to be an issue except very rarely. If someone's really concerned about being confused with other AC's it's simple enough to use a throwaway name for their comments in a given thread(TD's #1 fan/stalker does this) without actually needing to sign in.
Barring potential confusion from an occurrence like that it's handy for people who don't feel like signing in to hold long conversations with others as clearly from the same person, and occasionally tripping up putz's who try to sockpuppet only to faceplant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You mean Laura Loomer
It is. Look at the little picture next to your inputted name. If the pic is the same then the comment came from the same IP address. No one sees what the IP address is but you know that a person sent a mesaage from the same one.
So just changing a name and posting later pretending to be someone else usually trips up stupid trolls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You mean Laura Loomer
Weren't you the guy who argued that copyright trumps privacy? Privacy's important all of a sudden?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You mean Laura Loomer
Thanks for sharing.
Heres a bagel.
Stick it in your yap, while you study identity -flagging, and “argument from authority ”, which, these sad days means “argumentum ad Judaica ”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Craig R. Brittain - he isn't a dataset he is a laughing stock. Known for making bank by extorting cash from people over their nudes, he then went on to harass VC's who laughed at his Uber but not enough like Uber to get sued startup, then running (he'd have taken a car but his service had no drivers & well he dislikes having to bike everywhere) for office, to suing Twitter and everyone else for kajillions of dollars because they banned him (and the long list of sock puppet accounts he created & controlled to support his fantasy that he was serious) & then whined because he couldn't ride his bike to the appropriate district to argue his lawsuit.
Its cute people like to hold him up as a great white hope for poor conservatives, but if you scratch the surface you find him acting in ways they decry others doing & ignoring those facts because he is part of their tribe.
I've seen him naked, I can't take anything including him seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone should do an *actual* study
I strongly suspect there is some bias in Twitter's banning, although not of the anti-conservative variety, but rather towards less popular accounts. I mean hell, a random Twitter friend of mine just got his account seemingly auto-banned because he tweeted a joke to another friend that their cat was going to "kill [them] dead" . . . which also shows pretty hilariously poor automation, since you'd think even an automated system would realize that "kill you dead" is the formulation of a joke rather than a threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone should do an *actual* study
English is your first language isn't it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone should do an *actual* study
If there is bias, it isn't the bias anyone suspects. It is the bias caused by wanting to please to everyone & failing to do so. The entire system has become a joke b/c Twitter fell into the 'we have to do something" game. As I've said multiple times Twitter needed to demand people grow up & block or mute things they find offensive. The second you give into the if x people report it nuke it, you get that number of people reporting it. A shitty game of tit for tat grows out of this, with Twitter just giving the timeout first, ask question later.
I mean seriously does anyone think saying Learn To Code is super offensive?? Yet people got banned, timedout for saying it. Of course if you look closer you'd see it was "payback" towards journalists who told fly-over country people to learn to code if they wanted to succeed or advance when their jobs/industries were failing. So mean that people offended by journalists previously were having a moment of joy when the script flipped and they were being put out of a job... but the punishments were bias against conservatives TAC! Shocking, it was the conservatives who were mocked in the first place & they enjoyed when the same thing happened to those who told them to code... but that offended people so we have to punish all these people... while the group who did it first never was punished.
If the phrase learn to code offends you so much, there is this feature to mute that statement and you can block people who annoy you....
But that requires actual thought & not just knee jerk reactions to whoever is whining the loudest...
But then what do I know, I got timed out for a 3 yr old tweet calling myself faggot while I've seen full on White Supremacist rants untouched (the same goes for some other groups as well but there seems to be different bars for difference races in play).
When you are catching someone joking their cat is going to kill them, you've completely failed... because while you were working on adding that to the bot you've ignored actual targeted harassment thats been reported 20 times but your backlog is so large because you have to check each report of people offended because someone said a hot dog is not a sandwich.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Someone should do an *actual* study
I seem to remember someone on twitter talking about being suspended for calling themselves that.
Wonder if it's the same person who posted that story here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Someone should do an *actual* study
Its happened to a few people... I'm just the loudmouth who hangs out here & yelled about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
twitter blocker, facebook blocker, urlblocker
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I find amazing is ...
What I find amazing is that anyone takes any of these arguments seriously. The difference between the Conservative view and the Liberal view is that the Liberal view has become based on hatred. Racial hatred, sexual orientation hatred, old/young hatred, hatred hatred hatred.
There is no doubt that the liberal party has changed over the last few years. There is also no doubt that the Conservative party has changed as well. The Conservative party (Republicans) now includes libertarians in large part, because the Liberal (Democratic) party doesn’t want them. Just look at Alan Dershowitz as an example.
Personally, I think the Democrats with their “intersectional” definition of Hatred will burn itself out. It doesn’t matter how much Twitter bans conservatives, or Facebook, or even Techdirt. Conservatives have a superior world view, basically because it is not based on hatred.
Jews are worth hating according to Farracon, who is not banned. People who had slaves are worth hating. People who wear blackface are worth hating (wtf?). Blackface? Wow, that’s a crime now.
The picture that the liberals are painting of America is worth hating, that’s for sure. There is no America where MAGA hat wearing white boys are putting nooses around anyone’s neck - that’s an absurd fantasy. If you hate America, and you hate White people, and you hate Old people, and you hate Jewish people, you’re either a liberal or a nutcase.
Maybe both.
Anyone with an ounce of sense sees what’s going on. It’s a farce, it’s people like Bezos the clown trying to incite hatred and promote violence and discord. It’s not who we are or who we want to be. I hope he gets sued into oblivion, along with the rest of the misguided idiots who promote such time-wasting enterprises.
And yes, I think Techdirt sucks, too. The writing here is ridiculous and absurd. Outlandish. Outrageous. Humorous, silly and kind of fun to critique. Enjoyable, actually. Fun, in a perverse kind of way. Death threats? I don’t think so, any more than Smollett received “threats”. It’s all a farce.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What I find amazing is ...
[asserts facts not in existence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What I find amazing is ...
Do you ever post anything other than some variation on that same tired shtick?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What I find amazing is ...
My condolences to your Reading teachers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What I find amazing is ...
How much hate does it take to ban gay couples from your bakery?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What I find amazing is ...
How much selective enforcement of an ostensibly neutral policy does it take to constitute censorship?
I've had people claim they were outside of my home ready to shoot me, or were on their way there to kill me, yet their Twitter accounts survived unscathed. I've seen the same thing happen to others. The bias is real.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What I find amazing is ...
Great way to deflect the question:
How much hate does it take to ban gay couples from your bakery?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What I find amazing is ...
Loaded question, as it presumes that being anti-gay is "hating" someone rather than an act.
Women have no problem using violent men against "creeps" who hit on them or pretend to want just friendship. They say men are "toxic" yet this logic seems not to be applied with regard to straight men who endure the same behavior from gay men, except the gay men are presumed not to be interested.
Liberals define many things as "hate" which are not defined the same way for conservatives. That is bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I find amazing is ...
Am I the only one who doesn't understand this sentence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I find amazing is ...
Apply a sufficiently copious amount of hammers (the tool) and screwdrivers (the drink) and eventually you might think there's something in there to understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I find amazing is ...
I'm sure there's a lot you don't understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I find amazing is ...
Oh, sick burn bro!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I find amazing is ...
If women have to worry about unwanted sexual advances from creepy straight men, would straight men not also have to worry about unwanted sexual advances from creepy gay men who can also pretend to be straight?
Either they should, since gays and straights are equals, or gay men are superior (and therefore not equal to) straight men.
Which is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I find amazing is ...
Without doing any research into the matter, I would think the difference is women are more worried about unwanted advances from men because of A) the greater possibility of physical intimidation or assault, B) there are way more straight men than gay men and C) it's still more socially acceptable for a man to hit on a woman than on a man and therefore more likely.
Well I think I just demonstrated that your question is a false dichotomy by showing several other possible reasons why the situations could be different besides the two that you presented.
Also, why would a gay man hitting on another man pretend to be straight?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I find amazing is ...
In the Liberal framework, every minority is superior. Extra points if you are “intersectional”, like gay and black. WItness Smollett.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I find amazing is ...
It's more likely for a man to OPENLY hit on a woman. Gay men cloak and can get much closer while still "under the radar." If straight men are so predatory, and straight men and gay men are equals, that would make gay men equally predatory.
Women can get other men to be violent on their behalf. Much "male violence" is rooted in some dispute over a woman. Women talk about "incel" violence without noting that many workplace shootings of innocent co-workers happened because some ex was hunting his lover down at her job.
If the standards for "homophobia" were applied equally, straight women would be "heterophobic." If the standards for dealing with unwanted advances from straight men were applied to unwanted advances from gay men, the consequences of such an advance would become much more severe for the "creepy" homosexual.
Most men don't realize that half or more of their male friends may very well be gay. The numbers won't reflect the population because gay men specifically target straight men, particularly the ones ignored by women.
In an attempt to make this more on-topic, Twitter should get out of the censorship business OR just admit they have a bias. If they want to be biased, that's fine, because some other internet company will step in to the market, but if they want to market themselves as promoting an open exchange, they should allow a post like this, when odds are they would not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I find amazing is ...
So where the hell are you getting all this information? This sounds like four paragraphs of unsourced crap from r/redpill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I find amazing is .
I understand him without any problem, and I think he is right on point.
It really is hilarious to hear criticism of “unsourced crap” on this “unsourced crap” (crap is often in the headline) and extremely biased website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I find amazing
So you can't back any of it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I find amaz
Much “male violence” is rooted in some dispute over a woman.
You might not be familiar with that,unless you’ve actually had a relationship with a woman.
Which I doubt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I find amaz
You are Mr. “Sick burn bro”, right? Are you gay? Or are you 12?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I find
I was going to explain what you misunderstood, but I guess the fact that you seem to think "gay" is an insult speaks for itself. Unless I have misunderstood what you mean when you ask me if I'm gay, in which case pardon me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I f
I didn’t say that gay was bad. And you didnd’t Answer the question. You write like a child.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What
OK, I'll pretend your question was sincere. I am neither gay nor 12.
Another amazing example of your quick witted repartee. Truly cutting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I find amazing is ...
How much hate does it take to start pizzagate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What I find amazing is ...
Name one bakery which has BANNED gay couples. I bet if you can find one it's gonna be Muslim owned.
The bakery which you are thinking of did not ban gays people, it refused to write a message on a cake congratulating their wedding. That is a clear first amendment issue. Gay couples are still welcome to shop there and order any messages they like that do not require the bakery to violate their beliefs in the writing.
Or, well, they would be if the bakery hadn't been forced to shut down by the hate mob.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What I find amazing is ...
They can hate the bakers for not baking. They can hate white people on behalf of generations past (even the good slave owners, which were many). They can hate the MAGA hat wearing noose bearing bleachers (imaginary, of course). They can HATE you because someone HATES them. Basically, that’s the equation. Round up every low frequency societal group, remind them that once THEY felt hated (which is often integral to their identity), so they should HATE the HATERS more.
Welcome to the Democratic Party, Hate Squared. That’s the equation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You read InfoWars, don’t you, Squidward?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You a chameleon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What I find amazing is ...
Voted funny. Sad, but still funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What I find amazing is ...
Sad at the potential humanity that was wasted on a shell that could make such ridiculous a claim seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Minimum
"At minimum, platforms could do a lot better at being transparent in their enforcement and governance decisions."
No, "at minimum," they could tell us all that governance decisions and the enforcement thereof are only as transparent as they wish, since the company is privately held, not a governmental agency or public utility. If they want to pretend to give more of a damn than that, it's above minimum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Minimum
If they "wish" to be seen as supporting freedom of speech, they give that up when they refuse to be transparent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is kevin hart the actor banned on Twitter for all his gay joked
NO BECAUSE HE IS PART OF THE LEFT AND HATE IS OK ON TWITTER FROM THE LEFT. Techdirt has good articles but there political bias shows here in this article. Truth is truth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about LEFTIST Rep Omar said about Jews
HAS TWITTER BANNED HER ACCOUNT...NO. LEFTIST TECHDIRT YOUR LYING WITH THIS ARTICLE https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/house/430888-lhan-omar-apologizes-to-jewis h-groups-over-aipac-tweet-report%3famp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So Diamond and Silk who are African American were banned!!!
All Diamond and Silk who are on YouTube was support Trump were African American got banned on both Facebook and twitter. So there white supremisist huh techdirt. Give me a break, your article shows your TRUE POLITICS. Go vote for Obama again who gave us SOPA and the Trans Pacific Partnership which would have hurt the Net. Your just a bunch of leftist and your article proves it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So Diamond and Silk who are African American were banned!!!
Wow, John/Joe/George. You went with three tired, unsound arguments. For the record, Techdirt has a long history of criticizing Obama and his administration, including over TPP and SOPA. Those things also have absolutely nothing to do with this article or the topic of anti-conservative bias in general.
Furthermore, this article doesn’t accuse All Diamond and Silk of being white supremicists. It doesn’t even claim that all of the 21 conservatives in the list provided are white supremacists, though many of them are. It just notes that all of those mentioned in the article as being banned are bigots and/or conspiracy theorists who were being abusive. All Diamond and Silk were not even on that list, so this article says absolutely nothing about them because it’s irrelevant.
Similarly, Kevin Hart and Rep. Omar not being banned is also irrelevant because the person being criticized did not mention them, either. In fact, the “study” being discussed doesn’t talk about anyone who wasn’t banned, which is another problem with it.
As such, not discussing these particular individuals does not show bias on the part of Techdirt. Not bringing up your favorite examples of anti-conservative bias doesn’t diminish the argument this article makes in any way. Also, three cases of possible bias is insufficient when far, far more people than that have been banned from Twitter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: ~Let’s not get these things mixed up.
And this, preceded by what amounts to a classic ADL -ish smear of a group of people.
And, as Israeli apartheid and their hasbara troll factories and associated racist, genocidal zionists get not a single blip of media attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure they do, they get regularly smeared by idiots like yourself, who call their legitimate attempts to defend themselves from terrorism, invasion, and actual genocidal campaigns "genocide" and "racism."
Quick question: which side is it who has repeatedly, openly asserted in the media that the other side has no right to exist and ought to be driven into the sea?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think its the Israeli fascists, racists, and murderers, and their zionazis who are winning, in case I havent made myself clear.
To be even more precise: what a shithole Israel is, because it is the embodiment of Abrahamuc supremacy, and the Jewish -christian -islamic mental disorder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
More middle-eastern trivia:
Projection is a river in Egypt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Transgender are born that way, like the LGBTQ? Aren't pedophiles born that way too?
asking for a friend....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Possibly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Causes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twitter Bias
Twitter has suspended my account for threatening a LIBERAL POLITICIAN !!! What I said was that SCH___R given enough rope he would HANG him self !! So I guess it was so close to the truth it scared twitter & so they suspended me. FATE--It was great they did because twitter was becoming as bad as FACEBOOK so it helped me decide to just stop any and all activity with the LIBERAL BIASED AMERICAN HATING RAG SERVICE.
THE PESSIMESTT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
twiiter bias
twitter is diff biased, I trolled it long enough to get banned twice
and for comments way milder then liberal socialist had posted.
plus shadow banned so followers could not read my posts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BIAS
I was kicked out of Twitter because i called out a racist comment. I did not use any language. My exact words were Funny she is a coon because of what she believes. sarcasm The person had called a lady a coon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BIAS
Bots are not good at context and really not good at sarcasm. As you discovered, you use racist epithets on a bot-moderated forum at your own risk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]