Twitter permanently bans Gay Conservative Milo Yiannopoulos for mocking a Ghostbuster

[agent00f]

Are you saying that Senseamp is confusing?

No, he's just making a shitty retort.

 

[WelshBloke]

No, he's just making a shitty retort.

That was my plan dammit!

 

[CitizenKain]

There are numerous examples of twitter ignoring egregious tweets by some and then banning others (like Milo) for smaller violations.

Azalea Banks calls for gang rape of Sarah Palin. Account suspended and banned? Nope. Countless BLM members and other racists repeatedly calling for murder of white cops. Banned? Nope. Racist tweets, including by Jones herself. Banned? Nope.

Twitter should just put a big splash graphic up for their app when it launches: "everyone welcome except conservatives". At least that would be truth in advertising.



If that parent disciplines one child for stealing a cookie, but ignores the other children stealing cars, that's a problem (even if disciplining the child for stealing the cookie is the right thing to do). The hypocrisy of punishing people for speech the leftists at twitter don't like while not punishing the vile speech of those the leftists favor is hypocrisy at its finest.

Its not like he had multiple account suspensions and warnings in the past. Turns out being a worthless piece of shit will eventually get someone kicked off twitter.

Maybe he can make his own twitter clone, but that would require him to accomplish something.

 

[senseamp]

Its not like he had multiple account suspensions and warnings in the past. Turns out being a worthless piece of shit will eventually get someone kicked off twitter.

Maybe he can make his own twitter clone, but that would require him to accomplish something.

He still got Breitbart, they'll take anyone.

 

[Blue_Max]

Heh... I'd love to see our resident progressives reactions if the sides were reversed and it was someone like Anita Sarkeesian that was banned for "hate speech" because she accused all men of being sexists.

I may not like what liars and idiots have to say, but removing their right to speak removes it from EVERYONE eventually.

 

[glenn1]

No, keep reading. Apparently his repertoire of harassment in just one case runs so deep that individual articles can't even cover it all.

So link the best articles you can that lays out your case because so far you haven't. A handful of mean spirited tweets about someone's grammar and appearance are all you have so far. Surely if he did something egregious as you say it should be easy to link citations of his harassment.

 

[CitizenKain]

Heh... I'd love to see our resident progressives reactions if the sides were reversed and it was someone like Anita Sarkeesian that was banned for "hate speech" because she accused all men of being sexists.

I may not like what liars and idiots have to say, but removing their right to speak removes it from EVERYONE eventually.

I know this is confusing for you, but he still has a right to speak. Twitter just said he can take his worthless opinions somewhere else.

 

[WelshBloke]

I may not like what liars and idiots have to say...

You're a fine one to talk Mr Bullshit McMisquote.

 

[SP33Demon]

Twitter’s Stalinist Unpersoning of Gay Provocateur Milo Yiannopolous

The world has been down this road before. The USSR had a long and consistent practice of turning individuals into “unpersons.” It was an assault on those who violated the taboos of the time or those who offended the powers that be.

Occasionally these men and women were given some perfunctory trial. But the result was the same: their very existence was stricken from the public record. Their writings were banned, even those once propagated as official dogma. Photographs were doctored; not only did the ex-citizens effectively cease to exist, but they retroactively never existed to begin with.

Historically speaking, the biggest opponents of the fascists were the communists. In fact it was the Soviets and not the Americans who managed to reach Hitler’s bunker first. George Santayana would hardly be surprised to see that the main opposition to Yiannopolous’s neo-fascist supporters come from the neo-Soviet left.

The decision to unperson Yiannopoulos was done in secret in some hidden Twitter office, no doubt one with cheerful Twitter blue birds on every wall. His “suspension” was retroactive: His past posts—virtually all of which were once regarded as acceptable—have been vanished just as much as any problematic ones.

It is unclear which was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Nor is it clear which were the past straws. Twitter’s only statement regarding Yiannopolous’s ban was a reiteration of its terms of service, which is akin to reading the criminal code aloud when someone is accused of a crime. There is, however, a very profound difference here. Twitter does not have a Soviet monopoly on the media. It is still largely open to criticism, both on the platform itself and in other venues. This is not a First Amendment issue. But it still remains, quite obviously, an issue.

I challenge any libs to read this article and respond intelligently (probably an oxymoron since it's proven your IQs will naturally be lower). :biggrin:

 

[Vic]

Sorry, but the right to free speech doesn't include a right to be published by somebody else. Twitter is a private company, they can ban or not ban whoever they see fit to. Don't like it, don't use it.

 

[senseamp]

Republicans only read the second part of second amendment.

 

[agent00f]

So link the best articles you can that lays out your case because so far you haven't. A handful of mean spirited tweets about someone's grammar and appearance are all you have so far. Surely if he did something egregious as you say it should be easy to link citations of his harassment.

The reason I made you search for it is because it requires the bare minimum of reading & effort necessary to form some kind of coherent opinion.

The kind of effort for example that would see more people figure out why he was banned, or what harassment means.

Twitter’s Stalinist Unpersoning of Gay Provocateur Milo Yiannopolous


I challenge any libs to read this article and respond intelligently (probably an oxymoron since it's proven your IQs will naturally be lower). :biggrin:

I recall asking for a coherent narrative to your userbase argument, which frankly isn't a lot to ask. Why should anyone entertain "challenges" from a complete fucking joke?

 

[SP33Demon]

The reason I made you search for it is because it requires the bare minimum of reading & effort necessary to form some kind of coherent opinion.

The kind of effort for example that would see more people figure out why he was banned, or what harassment means.



I recall asking for a coherent narrative to your userbase argument, which frankly isn't a lot to ask. Why should anyone entertain "challenges" from a complete fucking joke?

Coming from someone who still cannot say why Milo was banned, that's rich. You should start there padawan instead of repeating - "search for it yourself!" - like a petulant child.

 

[alcoholbob]

Sorry, but the right to free speech doesn't include a right to be published by somebody else. Twitter is a private company, they can ban or not ban whoever they see fit to. Don't like it, don't use it.

If Twitter was a private company they wouldnt even exist today given their revenue stream. The only reason they exist is because they are a publically traded company that got financed by an IPO. If they were a purely private company (like the UFC for example) they wouldve gone bankrupt ages ago.

 

[umbrella39]

It's fun to watch the buttsore apologists pretend that tweeting fake, profanity-laden, homophobic, pseudo-ebonic "tweets" isn't against their TOS and is actually denying him free speech. But why should that be a surprise coming from the kings of ex-banned and ALT accounts...

 

[DrDoug]

Heh...[... blather and a lame image]

Someone has been triggered by this. You have my symp... heheheheheheh... I can't go any further without LMAO at how lame you whiny babies are.

 

[agent00f]

Coming from someone who still cannot say why Milo was banned, that's rich. You should start there padawan instead of repeating - "search for it yourself!" - like a petulant child.

I realize your brain's blocked out the multiple times I've explained that, but please note anyone who hasn't can now see you're a worthless shitposter just like your hero here. I suppose you don't really care either way, but it only reinforces why they're terrible people who aren't worthy of participating in civilized society.

 

[DrDoug]

Twitter’s Stalinist Unpersoning of Gay Provocateur Milo Yiannopolous


I challenge any libs to read this article and respond intelligently (probably an oxymoron since it's proven your IQs will naturally be lower). :biggrin:

Sure... Twitter isn't a government and Milo is (still an asshole of) a person who has only permanently lost access to a service offered by a company that he was a serial abuser of. He has no right to Twitter and they are not censoring his speech, they simply eliminated it from their platform it because he exercised his free speech in violation of their terms. He lost his precious check mark as a big warning and yet he refused to cut out his bullshit. Twitter has a right to ban him and kudos for them for finally doing so.

That was a lame article whose only purpose is to wash Milo's balls. The only person who would be impressed by that bullshit would have an IQ lower than the temperature of a deep freeze (Hi Speedy!). How about something that shows that Milo has some redeeming qualities that would make him an asset to Twitter?

Good luck with that...

 

[Pens1566]

Twitter’s Stalinist Unpersoning of Gay Provocateur Milo Yiannopolous


I challenge any libs to read this article and respond intelligently (probably an oxymoron since it's proven your IQs will naturally be lower). :biggrin:

Hard to respond to a pile of textual diarrhea.

 

[sandorski]

Some more details and hypocrisy

 

[umbrella39]

Some more details and hypocrisy

This Kyle guy shredded his and his followers entire argument... Whether he knew or not is of little importance. Based on the very obvious and over the top content of those retweets it's clear he knew they weren't from her and we was only being his usual attention whoring asshole self to his band of self loathing followers...

 

[mikeymikec]

Twitter’s Stalinist Unpersoning of Gay Provocateur Milo Yiannopolous

I challenge any libs to read this article and respond intelligently (probably an oxymoron since it's proven your IQs will naturally be lower). :biggrin:

So if I get banned from an Internet forum and my posts are hidden from view, that forum is guilty of stripping my identity and any trace of my existence like the ultimate nemesis of freedom, Stalin's USSR? Do you really think that someone who escaped the harsher end of Stalin's regime would even vaguely agree with that notion?

How gullible do you have to be to buy into the bullshit that the author of that article is peddling?

 

[woolfe9998]

Twitter’s Stalinist Unpersoning of Gay Provocateur Milo Yiannopolous


I challenge any libs to read this article and respond intelligently (probably an oxymoron since it's proven your IQs will naturally be lower). :biggrin:

Sure thing. The author's point is that although Twitter, being a private company, has a legal right to ban its users, there is value to society in having an open, free wheeling debate, and hence it is reasonable to criticize Twitter for its decision. I agree with that as a general sentiment. The problem is that the reason Twitter purportedly banned him was for "targeted harassment" of Jones and others before her. While permitting people to express extremist or even repugnant views may well have social value, harassment of individuals does not because harassment doesn't provide diversity of views. It's just harassment.

Your article doesn't address the reason Twitter actually gave for the suspension. Rather, the implicit assumption behind the entire article is that Twitter had simply banned someone for having unpleasant political views that they disagreed with.

As to whether or not he really did incite his followers to harass Jones, I have no idea. I only know that is the reason Twitter gave, and IF that is true, I see no basis whatsoever for criticizing them over it.

So your article is way off base. How can you criticize Twitter for banning a user without even addressing its stated reason? Even if the author thinks that this harassment never happened, then say that in the article. But ignoring it and pretending the motive was something other than what they said it was is specious at best. Unless your author has proof that Twitter banned him for reasons other than those they gave, writing an entire article about how it is wrong for a private company to ban someone because of extremist political views is nothing more than a gigantic straw man.

 

[Bitek]

To understand this story you must see the two big Twitter user groups involved here. Celebrities and trolling assholes.

1. Trolls are turning Twitter into a cesspool of bigotry and hate.
2. Jones and the the ghostbuster movie has been under a sustained attack by trolls for some time.
3. Celebrities have finally decided to quit Twitter due to trolls, threatening to create a stampede of coveted users out the exit.
4. Twitter, smartly, realizes the damage the trolls are doing to their product and finally acted to satisfy their preferred users and mitigate the damage the bigoted, loudmouth pieces of shit are doing to the free service they feel entitled to use and abuse.
5. Twitter needs to clean up their platform to maintain any viability.

Milo is an useless asshole and they have no need to grant him free use of their service.

 

[Bitek]

Twitter’s Stalinist Unpersoning of Gay Provocateur Milo Yiannopolous


I challenge any libs to read this article and respond intelligently (probably an oxymoron since it's proven your IQs will naturally be lower). :biggrin:

Why don't you make the case how you're entitled to abuse a free service without consequence?

Or you can continue to be a whiny little bitch, cry how the world is against you, and point to some constitutional right that doesn't exist.