Twitter suspends alt-right accounts
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-11-2016, 05:18 PM
RE: Twitter suspends alt-right accounts
@Metazoa Zeke

I thought it was odd that you considered most members of the alt-right to be harmless trolls and pranksters instead of real racial supremacist, but considered genuine black and Muslim supremacist on Twitter to be genuine. Why one and not the other? Subversion of racism by minorities is well known. Absurd calls for racial war, apologies of white supremacist or black supremacy are part of Black satirical litterature and theatre according to Bernard Bell on his book on Afro-American litterature (think about the Boondocks anime or the movie Undercover Brother who both cash on this type of humor and message). Where did you get you information on the Alt-Right. Personnaly, my knowledge of it comes from anti-discrimination groups and former reformed members of the Alt-Right. Is there good source of info on them, their demograpghic and their beliefs online?

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2016, 05:26 PM
RE: Twitter suspends alt-right accounts
(18-11-2016 08:21 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  ...
This isn't a forum for free speech; it's a community.
...

Respectfully, I disagree.

(18-11-2016 08:21 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  ...
If you think the forum shouldn't stand up for longstanding and highly-contributing members who are being deliberately abused for the sole purpose of doing harm to them,
...

Fair enough.

@earmuffs, you're banned!

Laugh out load


(18-11-2016 02:09 PM)Dom Wrote:  So, what do you think of facebook and google's new policy of banning sites that publish untrue stories and memes?

That would be a shame. It's very convenient to have the bible and the quran on-line.

Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2016, 05:31 PM
RE: Twitter suspends alt-right accounts
(18-11-2016 05:26 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(18-11-2016 08:21 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  ...
This isn't a forum for free speech; it's a community.
...

Respectfully, I disagree.

Hmm, I think it's a community that tries to preserve free speech. Muffs is a member of that community.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2016, 05:40 PM
RE: Twitter suspends alt-right accounts
(18-11-2016 04:14 PM)TurkeyBurner Wrote:  
(18-11-2016 09:59 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  I don't know what you are talking about; are you talking about the Twitter thing? What law? The cross-burning thing? I'm legitimately unsure if we are talking about private entities, laws, or what? I don't know of any law proposal that has been brought up here...

Look, man, I've got certain information, all right? Certain things have come to light. And, you know, has it ever occurred to you, that, instead of, uh, you know, running around, blaming me, you know, given the nature of all this new shit, you know, I... this could be a lot more, uh, complex, I mean, it's not just, it might not be just such a simple... you know?

Cocaine is a hell of a drug.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2016, 05:52 PM
RE: Twitter suspends alt-right accounts
(18-11-2016 10:51 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(18-11-2016 09:51 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  Getting rid of people who could cause legal problems, or who "we" (whoever that is) decide is bad is a common-sense solution. I advocating for not banning the topic because there is plenty of ways to discuss the topic that doesn't advocate for harm. For example, historical discussions, philosophical, legal, etc. That was and is my opinion.

And how would you suggest limiting the discussion to those perfectly reasonable aspects without letting it deteriorate into more repulsive and detestable aspects? Censorship seems like the only way to me. Just prohibiting it all together is far more practical and involves far less censorship than what you suggest. This censorship is implicit, if discussion of the topic has to be monitored and it deteriorates to some unacceptable level your only recourse would be explicit and ongoing censorship. That or allowing it.

I thought I had already addressed the things you are questioning me on pretty well. There is no need to actively monitor for it anymore than there is a need to monitor for porn. If it's posted, it gets reported. I don't understand what you mean when you say censoring more content is censoring less than censoring some potential content. Do you mean it's simpler to censor by a total ban, and would therefore require less moderation? That's the only thing I could think of that would be a logical interpretation of what you said. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If that's what you meant, I'd say it isn't a good enough argument to convince me, so we would just have to disagree. The unintended consequences of this ban prevent us from debating some points about Mohamud of the Qu'ran, or Lot from the Bible, for example. I'd consider that unacceptable if I were god-king of the domain. But, alas I'm not (nor do I want to be).

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2016, 09:50 PM
RE: Twitter suspends alt-right accounts
(18-11-2016 01:53 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(18-11-2016 10:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  It's not that they actually care about what is true or not, they're interested in catering to the people who agree with them. It's a marketing tactic.

And yet their losing money. Kinda a horrible tactic seeing as people are starting to leave twitter on their own. To add, a christian book store wouldn't mind selling a book about the bible to an atheist, they just want they fucking money.

Do you work at Twitter? Do you know they are loosing money?

No, you do not. You are speculating.

A Christian book store will be happy to take an atheist's money. But they wouldn't be afraid of throwing atheists under the bus if they thought it would help them sell more books.


(18-11-2016 01:53 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(18-11-2016 10:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I doubt Twitter, or your local Christian book store, give a fuck about your opinion if you are not their target audience. And if you don't like what Twitter is doing? Don't use Twitter. It's why I don't shop at Christian bookstores. They're not offering a service I'm interested in.
Here is the problem with that. Now you are right about not using something you don't like, but when more and more people do the same a problem arises. How do we get people to use our product? As I said before people are leaving twitter. Not because they are alt-right, but because a website that said it would be for free speech, decided that free speech isn't a thing anymore.

So? if it is corporate suicide, then let them get on with their seppuku already. The only people who should care should be shareholders, and even then that's assuming that this is a net negative. If they saw those Alt-Right users as a toxic element that needed to be purged to improve their ecosystem, that's their purview.


(18-11-2016 01:53 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  To add to that, there is a glaring hypocrisy to what twitter is doing. The christian book store will sell christian books the whole time and not go towards atheist, muslim, hindu, etc books. Twitter however is willing to block "hate speech" they see that "bothers" people, yet when a person calls for the death and/or harm of white people or are a muslim saying how horrible gays are to islam, nothing happens to them.

So? You mean to tell me that a corporation is not 100% perfectly applying their own policies across the board? The same ones they are not legally bound to because every Twitter user signed away their rights when they accepted the Twitter EULA when they made an account? Heavens to betsey, whatever shall we do? It's their service, they make the rules, and they can even ignore them.

Don't like it, don't use it. Like I said, it's why I don't shop at Christian bookstores.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
18-11-2016, 10:41 PM
RE: Twitter suspends alt-right accounts
I've been watching Muffs for a year and a half, now, and I don't think I've ever seen him be deliberately cruel to anyone for the sole purpose of harming them. I've seen him be abrasive and foul-mouthed, to be sure, but never has he crossed the line I'm talking about. On the rare occasions he approached it, he listened to others who asked him to back off. I'm not particularly a fan of his, but he respects the community. That's the major difference.

I think the true motivation behind this supposed "free speech" ideology revealed itself when they started wondering if they'd get banned for having the "wrong opinions", which is the sort of paranoia I've come to expect from the right. The sad thing is that my liberal values tell me I should stand up for people with "wrong" opinions most of all. I happen to strongly oppose the censorship of Alt-Right posters on Twitter, unless they are harassing or otherwise attacking people. They can say whatever they want... it's how they say it to whom that might change the equation.

No one should ever banned for their opinions, but for their intentions.

If I am mistaken that this is a community, rather than a place that puts unlimited "Free Speech" up on the a pedestal and sacrifices members on the altar of its worship, then I should perhaps take DarkLight's advice (and my original reaction) and find somewhere that is... especially if this is going to be thrown in my face until the end of time.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
18-11-2016, 11:25 PM
RE: Twitter suspends alt-right accounts
(18-11-2016 10:41 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I've been watching Muffs for a year and a half
...

I wouldn't do that if I were you... you'll go blind. Ohmy

(18-11-2016 10:41 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  ...
I don't think I've ever seen him be deliberately cruel to anyone
...

It was an historical reference. I could have chosen a number of others but I enjoy taunting the untauntable. Big Grin

(18-11-2016 10:41 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  ...
I'm not particularly a fan of his
...

I am.

We both have fabulous hair. Yes Drinking Beverage

(18-11-2016 10:41 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  ...
No one should ever banned for their opinions, but for their intentions.
...

We agree.

And even then, offenders get the chance to make amends if they are capable.

(18-11-2016 10:41 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  ...
If I am mistaken that this is a community, rather than a place that puts unlimited "Free Speech" up on the a pedestal
...

False dichotomy. Tongue

No, I was making a definitional point. Having discussed this with Seth some time ago, he sees the TTA Community as all that he does (podcast listeners, facebook, conference attendees etc.); this forum, in which he plays no role except of Divine Creator Laughat is where shit can go down.

It's a bit like the original Roman fora which has a specific purpose within the wider civil society.

The fact (undeniable) that it has evolved a culture of community because of the collective behaviours of the participants means that the gift of free-expression can and will be used by all to maintain a general stability. Which is nice.

Civil societies do have a few pedestals, I think, and freedom of expression is one.

However, we do not have "unlimited "Free Speech"" here. There are limitations in the Introduction section, in Personal Issues and Support and The Boxing Ring; and limitations on nudity (much to Dance42, and my and others' irritation) and advertising/soliciting etc.

So I would argue that, as much as possible, it is both "a forum for free speech;" and "it's a community."

Wink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
18-11-2016, 11:54 PM
RE: Twitter suspends alt-right accounts
(18-11-2016 11:25 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(18-11-2016 10:41 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I've been watching Muffs for a year and a half
...

I wouldn't do that if I were you... you'll go blind. Ohmy

(18-11-2016 10:41 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  ...
I don't think I've ever seen him be deliberately cruel to anyone
...

It was an historical reference. I could have chosen a number of others but I enjoy taunting the untauntable. Big Grin

(18-11-2016 10:41 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  ...
I'm not particularly a fan of his
...

I am.

We both have fabulous hair. Yes Drinking Beverage

(18-11-2016 10:41 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  ...
No one should ever banned for their opinions, but for their intentions.
...

We agree.

And even then, offenders get the chance to make amends if they are capable.

(18-11-2016 10:41 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  ...
If I am mistaken that this is a community, rather than a place that puts unlimited "Free Speech" up on the a pedestal
...

False dichotomy. Tongue

No, I was making a definitional point. Having discussed this with Seth some time ago, he sees the TTA Community as all that he does (podcast listeners, facebook, conference attendees etc.); this forum, in which he plays no role except of Divine Creator Laughat is where shit can go down.

It's a bit like the original Roman fora which has a specific purpose within the wider civil society.

The fact (undeniable) that it has evolved a culture of community because of the collective behaviours of the participants means that the gift of free-expression can and will be used by all to maintain a general stability. Which is nice.

Civil societies do have a few pedestals, I think, and freedom of expression is one.

However, we do not have "unlimited "Free Speech"" here. There are limitations in the Introduction section, in Personal Issues and Support and The Boxing Ring; and limitations on nudity (much to Dance42, and my and others' irritation) and advertising/soliciting etc.

So I would argue that, as much as possible, it is both "a forum for free speech;" and "it's a community."

Wink


If you wanted a hug and a kumbaya circle jerk, just ask for one, ya' fucking hippie. Wink

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
19-11-2016, 07:34 AM
RE: Twitter suspends alt-right accounts
Quoting Seth, from a post he made here at TTA (please don't ask me to dig it up):

Quote:In our free nation, we abide the bitter diatribes of the Klu Klux Klan under the First Amendment, because free speech must cover more than just what is palatable, or moral, or popular, or right. It must cover the best AND the worst.

I don’t see the forum or social media pages as a First Amendment haven, nor have I surrendered my right to set a specific tempo for the community. I do, however, allow many unpleasant and indefensible ideas to be presented so that they can be seen, absorbed and ultimately given the white-hot light of scrutiny that the skeptical community is so well known for. In almost all cases, the good men, women and youth of the TTA community actually provide the rebukes, the refutations and the outrage these bitter pills deserve.

In a rare case, though, I do step in and pull the plug. TTA’s forum is a place of discussion, yes, and free discussion at that. However, is it NOT required to pander to everyone and everything that comes along, and ultimately, it exists to provide conversation, support, encouragement, information and community to the atheist, the agnostic, the freethinker.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: