Twitter Is Working On Anti-Harassment Keyword Filtering Tool, Says Report (bloomberg.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Twitter Is Working On Anti-Harassment Keyword Filtering Tool, Says Report (bloomberg.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Friday August 26, 2016 @12:45PM from the cease-and-desist dept.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has made it a top priority for company to limit hateful conduct. In late December 2015, for example, the company changed its rules to explicitly ban "hateful conduct" for the first time. A new report says Twitter is working to further curb the rise of hateful conduct as it is "working on a keyword-based tool that will let people filter the posts they see, giving users a more effective way to block out harassing and offensive tweets." Bloomberg reports: "The San Francisco-based company has been discussing how to implement the tool for about a year as it seeks to stem abuse on the site, said the people [familiar with the matter], who asked not to be identified because the initiative isn't public. By using keywords, users could block swear words or racial slurs, for example, to screen out offenders. The filtering tool could eventually become a moderator for any kind of content, the people said. For example, users could block a hashtag about an event they don't care to read about."

122 of 204 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

it'll still be political by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-26 12:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

I bet all the keywords will be carefully chosen to avoid hitting political allies like the social justice nutters.
1. Re: it'll still be political by nitehawk214 · 2016-08-26 18:57 · Score: 1
  
  Things that disagree with you are offensive? Got it.
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
2. Re: it'll still be political by Opportunist · 2016-08-26 21:38 · Score: 1
  
  If you filter out crap you do not want to hear from things you read, be my guest. It's your prerogative to keep yourself sheltered from reality (but please don't complain to me should reality somehow enter your world regardless and hit you in the face unprepared).
  If you filter out crap you don't want to hear from things I read, I have to leave, because that's not your prerogative. It's mine.
  If they make it OPTIONAL, so people with fragile souls and special snowflakes can avoid facing opinions that don't match theirs and feel safe inside their echo chamber of friends who only parrot their own opinion, fine. If it is mandatory, why bother going on Twitter anymore? I already know my opinion, testing it for validity requires pitting it against opposing opinions, only that way I can actually find out whether it is valid.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
3. Re: it'll still be political by Opportunist · 2016-08-26 21:40 · Score: 1
  
  No, it's called dumb and quite funny.
  I know it's a guilty pleasure of mine to laugh about the feeble minded, but "arguments" like that are just hilarious. It's like being insulted by a 4 year old who doesn't even know how to insult someone properly.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
4. Re:it'll still be political by Opportunist · 2016-08-26 21:41 · Score: 1
  
  Insulting me in a language I don't speak is kinda pointless. With insults, even more than with any other message, it's not what you send, it's what is received.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
5. Re: it'll still be political by Fragnet · 2016-08-26 22:04 · Score: 2
  
  Nobody's "constantly exposed to it" on Twitter. This is a censorship tool plain and simple. There's no agreed definition of "hateful conduct" anyway. For the typical SJW, just disagreeing with them is "hateful". And if you can't even do that on Twitter all the fun is sucked out of it and it becomes just another fucking marketing stream.
  
  If you own shares, sell them.
6. Re: it'll still be political by serviscope_minor · 2016-08-26 22:59 · Score: 1
  
  I have to leave,
  I'm sure that bothers them deeply.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
7. Re: it'll still be political by Fragnet · 2016-08-27 00:00 · Score: 2
  
  There are already three tools for filtering: (1) block, (2) mute, (3) don't bother logging in.
  
  Do you also walk up to randos in public and interject in their conversations too?
  Are you fucking serious? Twitter is a public platform. It's for putting it out there publicly. If you don't want that you can change your account such that only people you specifically flag can see your tweets. Listen dude, if you don't understand the subject why the fuck do you bother having an opinion about it?
  
  Fucking idiot.
8. Re: it'll still be political by Izuzan · 2016-08-27 00:06 · Score: 2
  
  It is only a Tool if it is allowed to be selectivly used. If it is forced on all users it is censorship.
9. Re: it'll still be political by serviscope_minor · 2016-08-27 00:18 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  There are already three tools for filtering: (1) block, (2) mute,
  Except we both know those are ineffective against harassment swarms.
  (3) don't bother logging in.
  So the only option is currently to let a bunch of assholes bully you off the site so you can no longer engage in the conversations you actually want to engage with.
  I seriously do not understand why you object to people having control over their own feed. It's almost like you think you should be able to either force your opinions on them or force them off the site.
  Are you fucking serious? Twitter is a public platform.
  Yes I am serious. Being in public is also in public. Just because something is in public does not give you some sort of moral right to be an asshole without consequences. If some people are having a conversation on a park bench, they can't stop you joining the conversation without leaving. If you do that and the only way to make you stop is to leave then congratulations, you're a major asshole.
  People on twitter having public conversations is not all that dissimilar to having a conversation in public. If you keep butting in on people's feeds o the point where they leave twitter, then congratulations, you're a major asshole.
  Simply existing in public does not give every jerk with an axe to grind some sort of ethical free pass on being a dickhead.
  Oh and if not being enabled to be a massive dickhead by twitter actually hampers you in any way, then you really, really need to reconsider your life.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
10. Re: it'll still be political by Jack_the_Tripper · 2016-08-27 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  I've got no dog in this fight but...
  
  All the reasons you give sound like the justification for 'free speech zones', like 'why should I have to listen to some nutter with a megaphone while I'm trying to enjoy feeding these pidgins' because, you know, reasons.
  
  Makes me sad.
11. Re: it'll still be political by serviscope_minor · 2016-08-27 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious. Free speech isn't about obnoxiously forcing people to listen to you. You have a right to say what you like without being arrested. You have no right to make yourself a nuisance to people who don't want to hear what you have to say.
  And the existence of public spaces doesn't imply that they should be a free for all only usable by the most annoying of people.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
12. Re: it'll still be political by AmiMoJo · 2016-08-27 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  Free Speech Warriors demand freedom from consequences. There is no such freedom, when you speak either do so anonymously or accept that it will influence how people treat you.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
13. Re: it'll still be political by Jack_the_Tripper · 2016-08-27 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  You have no right to make yourself a nuisance to people who don't want to hear what you have to say.
  Yeah, you're right, all those civil rights activists who got lynched and the 'four dead in Ohio' at Kent State were asking for it because they were a nuisance.
  
  Seriously, now I'm even sadder...
14. Re: it'll still be political by serviscope_minor · 2016-08-27 20:07 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, you're right, all those civil rights activists who got lynched and the 'four dead in Ohio' at Kent State were asking for it because they were a nuisance.
  Do you believe you should be allowed to stand on my front lawn, exercising you free speech with a megaphone at 2am?
  If no, then where do you draw the line?
  If yes, then you don't have the faintest clue what free speech is or what it's for.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
15. Re: it'll still be political by Coren22 · 2016-08-29 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  Your front lawn is private property. Unless you are using private messages, or restricting access to your feed, your Twitter feed is public property. This is you complaining about the protesters peacefully protesting in the public areas of a city during the day, not 3 am in your yard.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
16. Re:it'll still be political by Coren22 · 2016-08-29 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  Google translate, and a regular Google search give no clues, I am guessing it doesn't actually have a meaning.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
17. Re: it'll still be political by serviscope_minor · 2016-08-29 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  Your front lawn is private property.
  So's twitter.
  Twitter feed is public property.
  It's visible to the public and from public property like my front lawn. That doesn't mean you have a right to put yourself on it, just like my front lawn.
  This is you complaining about the protesters peacefully protesting in the public areas of a city during the day, not 3 am in your yard.
  If I'm able to filter my feed, it's like choosing to not let people on to my property.
  Also peaceful? So you have no problem with twitter letting people filter out libel, death threats and rape threats then? Or do you consider those to be "peaceful protest" too?
  Not that I have a twitter feed or front lawn IRL. You get the point.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
18. Re:it'll still be political by Coren22 · 2016-08-30 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Really, a Slashdot search shows you are exactly what you say I am.
  https://www.google.com/search?...
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
19. Re:it'll still be political by Coren22 · 2016-08-30 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  APK, Coren22 doesn't talk in the third person like he thinks he is a king. Perhaps you should learn how to use "I".
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
20. Re:it'll still be political by Coren22 · 2016-08-30 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  Like anyone thinks this is some concerned third party, APK?
  I know you are in love with me and all, but stalking me all over Slashdot, and trying to get me to out who I am is no way to get with me. I'm not interested in you, so get over it man.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
21. Re:it'll still be political by Coren22 · 2016-08-31 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  Look, no matter how many times you try to claim I do it, I don't use your tactics. I don't need to post as a third party to thrash you, I do it as Coren22, and nothing else. Also, as I don't have other accounts, saying that I down modded your posts is silly, you get down mods because you are a terrible poster, not because I am on some campaign to discredit you (which you do quite well on your own).
  There is no conspiracy, so stop with the conspiracy theories. People rightfully downmod your posts as you:
  1. spam
  2. post off topic
  3. troll constantly
  4. don't actually offer anything constructive to the conversation.
  So, as all you ever do APK is post as AC, and post as AC "concerned third party", where do you even come off complaining about what I might be doing? You don't actually improve the comment sections when you "contribute", you just spam it with your crap about hosts like it is the best thing evar!
  Keep up the campaign of spamming and stalking APK, no one thinks this isn't you.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
22. Re:it'll still be political by Coren22 · 2016-09-01 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  Funny, I don't see anything in that link saying I use those methods. Considering that I do not, I am not sure what you are trying to say.
  No, I don't post AC, and no, I don't mod you down, as wouldn't me replying to you prove that I didn't? No, I don't have other accounts either. I am not the only one who has identified that you are an offtopic troll, so acting like I am the only one just makes you look ignorant.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-26 12:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

The problem for Twitter is there just aren't enough Feminists/SJWs out there to keep a dying social media platform alive.
1. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by quantaman · 2016-08-26 14:27 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  The problem for Twitter is there just aren't enough Feminists/SJWs out there to keep a dying social media platform alive.
  So is the only draw of Twitter the opportunity to harass Feminists/SJWs?
  Because that's the only piece of functionality you'll actually lose with these changes.
  If you're harassing someone and they don't want to hear you anymore that's not "Feminist/SJW" talk, that's just common sense.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
2. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by quantaman · 2016-08-26 15:28 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  I don't even use Twitter, but it sounds like they'll just end up making a clbuttic mistake.
  On the contrary doing nothing would be a mistake.
  The risk twitter faces isn't being taken over by "Feminists" and "SJWs", it's harassment driving ordinary people away until there's nothing left but the alt-right.
  It's the same decision reddit made, there's some communities that are simply unable to co-exist in the same ecosystem.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
3. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by quantaman · 2016-08-26 16:14 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  The problem for Twitter is there just aren't enough Feminists/SJWs out there to keep a dying social media platform alive.
  So is the only draw of Twitter the opportunity to harass Feminists/SJWs?
  Because that's the only piece of functionality you'll actually lose with these changes.
  As it is impossible to have an Intelligent discussion, andy any disagreement == harassment, yes.
  Intelligent discussion?
  We're apparently thinking of entirely different things because I don't know how anybody could classify these as examples of an intelligent discussion.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
4. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by Shadow+of+Eternity · 2016-08-26 17:25 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you for demonstrating exactly what we're all talking about. Thoughtcrime is "harassment", disagreement is "threatening".
  
  --
  A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
5. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by Shadow+of+Eternity · 2016-08-26 17:27 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Two in a row, you're really doing a great job as a living example. "Alt-right" along with "reactionary" is just yet another smear word invented by SJWs to attack anyone committing thoughtcrime. EVERYONE they dislike is an alt-right reactionary misogynist gamergater MRA pissbaby fuckboy.
  
  --
  A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
6. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by Opportunist · 2016-08-26 21:45 · Score: 1
  
  Considering that SJWs consider everything that disagrees with them as "harassment", you lose a lot more. You lose the main function of Twitter: The exchange of expressions of opinions.
  Twitter could have been the proverbial "marketplace of ideas", where people can offer their point of view and by approval and disapproval we could have seen the true opinions of people visiting, unblemished and unencumbered by peer pressure, due to the general anonymity of the medium. Yes, that does mean that you get to see the radical and even the mean side of society, but if that is what you see, this is what we are.
  We might not want to see that, but if this is what such a place ends up to be, it does mean that we are down in our core radical assholes, moderated by a society.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
7. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by Opportunist · 2016-08-26 21:46 · Score: 1
  
  No, Breitbart is the same shit on the other side of the spectrum.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
8. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by Mashiki · 2016-08-26 23:01 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  No one is stopping you from spewing whatever inane stupidy passes for incitement commentary among your crowd. You'll be just as free to make an idiot of yourself on Twitter once these changes are in effect.
  Really? You should pay more attention, because that's exactly what's happening. This is just one case of many, where there is one set of rules for one group of people and another for the "right kind of people."
  Keep in mind that Milo never did that, but Leslie Jones sure did. So have several other people who were verified including a rapper, reporter, and a EiC of a magazine ...all of whom sic'd their followers on other people for engaging in wrong think. There's also another case of a person threatening a reporter with rape...for weeks(wish I could remember her name but it escapes me atm). Those are just off the top of my head. You know what the difference between them and Milo is? Milo doesn't carry the same political ideology as them. That reporter? She's a conservative. But in both cases when there are actual threats against them? Twitter has done nothing.
  
  Disagree all you want, but when you cross into harassment then GTFO. No one is under any obligation to stand there while you abuse them.
  Sure thing. Let me know when they actually start going after the actual harassers okay? You know people like Zoe Quinn, Kathleen Cross, Randy Harper, Izzy Galvez, Chris Kluwe and so on. You know, the people who claim that they're against harassment...right out there...harassing people, doxing people, and so on.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
9. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by serviscope_minor · 2016-08-26 23:14 · Score: 1
  
  Considering that SJWs consider everything that disagrees with them as "harassment", you lose a lot more. You lose the main function of Twitter: The exchange of expressions of opinions
  Ah yes. The exchange of opinions. Like, you know, for example, libel. I'm sure it was Milo's opinion that Leslie Jones said that stuff even though she didn't.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
10. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by serviscope_minor · 2016-08-27 00:30 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, you forgot to rag on Sarkeesian. You're losing your touch, though you haven't forgotten to include lots of links to incredibly dubious sources though.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
11. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by AmiMoJo · 2016-08-27 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  Strange, Twitter's page views don't seem to be in decline. Reddit didn't die either.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
12. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by Mashiki · 2016-08-27 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, you never did reply to my other post a few weeks ago that disproved all your other bullshit. Then again, kathleen cross(Quinnae) is in those logs...you know, Sarkeesian's right-hand at the time. But it's always so good when you trot out the "I don't like the facts, they show the side I have a vested interest in doing bad shit!"
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
13. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by Mashiki · 2016-08-27 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  No he didn't fake a tweet. Rather he tweeted something he believed to be true from another twitter user who had faked it. That guardian article, like usual is full of factual inaccuracies.
  There's a fundamental difference between the two, but I'm glad that you like always ignore the rest. After all, can't let that narrative you've clung onto for two years be disproven in your mind. And those people you've been defending really were and are just plain shitty people who were unworthy of your white-knighting and were engaging in the exact thing that they claimed gamergate did. Never mind 2 years on, that there continues to be no proof of anyone in gamergate having done anything. But it continues to come out that the "non-existent anti-ggers" as you've put it in the past, really were out there doing it. Fun reminder: In that heatst article, Ian is one of the people in those logs and had a change of heart after realizing he had become that which he claimed he was fighting against.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
14. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by serviscope_minor · 2016-08-27 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Tell you what, I'll address the facts when you use any. And no, those incredibly dubious sources you use are not sufficient evidence of the facts.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
15. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by serviscope_minor · 2016-08-27 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  He's not the messiah, he's a ... very naughty boy?
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
16. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by quantaman · 2016-08-27 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  No one is stopping you from spewing whatever inane stupidy passes for incitement commentary among your crowd. You'll be just as free to make an idiot of yourself on Twitter once these changes are in effect.
  Really? You should pay more attention, because that's exactly what's happening. This is just one case of many, where there is one set of rules for one group of people and another for the "right kind of people."
  Or you're missing context, when someone is currently the target of a harassment campaign they're given a little more leeway than someone who tweets something out of the blue.
  And even if there was a double standard (which I don't concede) your comment is still wrong, the alt-right would still be free to say whatever it wants, it would just be that only one side would be able to harass.
  
  Keep in mind that Milo never did that
  Milo was clearly encouraging his followers to go after Jones and his other targets. Twitter isn't a court of law, "everybody knows" can be a sufficient standard for them to bad someone for persistent harassment.
  
  but Leslie Jones sure did.
  
  Again context, Jones was trying to retaliate and protect herself from a campaign initiated by Milo.
  
  So have several other people who were verified including a rapper, reporter, and a EiC of a magazine ...all of whom sic'd their followers on other people for engaging in wrong think. There's also another case of a person threatening a reporter with rape...for weeks(wish I could remember her name but it escapes me atm). Those are just off the top of my head. You know what the difference between them and Milo is? Milo doesn't carry the same political ideology as them. That reporter? She's a conservative. But in both cases when there are actual threats against them? Twitter has done nothing.
  I'm not familiar with all of those cases, certainly not the rape threats, and Twitter may have been inconsistent in the past. If so, they will hopefully fix that in the future. No one should be the target of harassment.
  But you're also conflating harassment with with social campaigns, like trying to excerpt pressure against shady businesses, or outing people who have done something bad (these campaigns are very troubling, but different from harassment).
  For instance I don't think I'd mind as much if Milo had encouraged his followers to call the producer or studio to complain about the movie. The problem is that he was making Twitter into a place where a black actress couldn't really stay.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
17. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by Shadow+of+Eternity · 2016-08-27 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  Like amimojo you're engaging in the classic tactic of trying to make it impossible to even name the group or ideology at hand, thus silencing debate. Imagine trying to argue against republican economic policies when you're not even allowed to say the words "trickle down" or "neoliberal".
  "Alt-right", like "reactionary", has no meaningful definition. SJW is the response to people like you demanding we stop calling SJWs feminists even though they self-identify AS feminists. It has a specific definition, and refers to tangible actions and a describable ideology.
  
  --
  A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
18. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by Shadow+of+Eternity · 2016-08-27 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  Because only things you agree with are facts. As usual. Then again one of the core tenets of feminism is the total rejection of the very idea of an objective knowable truth or the existence of empirical facts. The only that that matters are the "lived experiences" and feelings of the person with the most oppression points in the room.
  
  --
  A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
19. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by quantaman · 2016-08-27 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  Again context, Jones was trying to retaliate and protect herself from a campaign initiated by Milo.
  Still doesn't make her actions right.
  No, it explains why her actions weren't punished.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
20. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by serviscope_minor · 2016-08-27 20:12 · Score: 1
  
  Ah I see, you're just going to make up stuff because while I'll accept actual facts, I won't necessarily draw the same conclusions. Your opinion is not an objective, knowable truth. It's just, like, your opinion man.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
21. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by serviscope_minor · 2016-08-27 20:19 · Score: 1
  
  It has a specific definition, and refers to tangible actions and a describable ideology.
  No it doesn't, not any more than a miscellaneous grab bag of "shit I hate on the internet". But sure let's go down this route. So, I've got two questions for you (and maybe a third):
  1. Do you think I'm an SJW?
  2. What's your definition of "SJW"?
  and
  if yes to 1:
  3: do you have any evidence of the things you're accusing me of?
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
22. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by Opportunist · 2016-08-27 23:41 · Score: 1
  
  I would tread lightly on the whole Ghostbusters blunder if I tried to argue FOR the SJW side. Remind me, who was it again that labeled (or "libeled" rather) everyone who dared to not think this turd is going to be Oscar material a misogynist or worse? Just for disagreeing.
  There were very valid, well worded and well argued points that were brought against this movie, with Jones' portrait of the black ghetto mama from da hood as a racist stereotype being not even the worst offense against good taste this movie had to offer, which prompted the director (no less) to go into full rant mode on how people who dare to disagree with his "vision" of the movie to be misogynist bastards.
  So if you want to choose a topic to portrait SJWs in a good light, anything surrounding the Ghostbusters 2016 movie is probably not the best start.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
23. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by serviscope_minor · 2016-08-28 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  Are you denying that Milo propagating fake tweets is libel our are you trying to justify it on the grounds that two wrongs make a right?
  Or, do you simply consider libel to be part of an honest exchange of opinions?
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
24. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by Mashiki · 2016-08-28 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  Tell you what. You dispute those facts, which have pretty little pictures, and links(either directly or archived links) which prove what's in the articles to start with.
  But anyone who's looked at the articles can already tell what'll happen. They disprove your point, you can't offer any proof contrary to what's being said. And you refuse to look at a countering point of view because it would hurt the narrative you've been holding onto for the last two years. That social justice and many of them that claim they're "part of that movement" are just plain terrible people who are only in it to make themselves feel good. And in the very worst cases, they do everything that they accuse those they're attacking of doing.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
25. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by Mashiki · 2016-08-28 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  Ah I see, you're just going to make up stuff because while I'll accept actual facts ...
  
  Funny, there's actual facts in all those little links I posted. Strange that you don't find them to be the "right kind of facts" for you though. Which of course says a hell of a lot about what you'd believe, that being the only facts that fits your ideology and agenda are the type you'd accept.
  It'd kinda like that stuff with Gamergate. You'll wholly believe the wikipedia article is accurate, but when proven how each section you quoted is factually inaccurate you ignore it, try to move the goal posts, or simply run away. When shown that the people who claimed "gamergate is harassing them" are shown to be the actual harassers, you ignore it or run away. Perhaps you should just save everyone the trouble and move to a country that still has an operating politburo.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
26. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by ultranova · 2016-08-28 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  Twitter could have been the proverbial "marketplace of ideas", where people can offer their point of view and by approval and disapproval
  
  It sounds like you had an interesting and considered point to make. Sadly, since you're limited to 140 characters, it got cut off. Better have simpler ideas, ones easily reducible to soundbytes, if you want to market them on Twitter.
  Twitter is awful as a marketplace of ideas, is what I'm saying. Forums like Slashdot itself are far better alternatives.
  
  the true opinions of people visiting, unblemished and unencumbered by peer pressure, due to the general anonymity of the medium
  
  A pseudonymous platform isn't immune to peer pressure because it allows karma whoring. Not even truly anonymous platforms like the *chans are immune, because there's an instinctual need to conform and thus peer pressure exists even without any consequences to anything you say or do.
  
  Yes, that does mean that you get to see the radical and even the mean side of society, but if that is what you see, this is what we are.
  
  And it turns out being mean has consequences, such as being shunned or even thrown out. This, too, is what we are. The important question is whether we should be either mean or censorship-happy.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
27. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by Opportunist · 2016-08-28 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  I don't give a shit about that professional inciter. SJWs do. And that's basically all that makes him relevant in any way, that's his gimmick. That guy simply noticed that pushing trigger buttons he can get a huge reaction, and by broadcasting it, he gains followers who are entertained by people going apeshit over perceived slights. That's basically all there is behind that Milo guy. He's only relevant because SJWs make him relevant. If they simply went "tsk, buzz off, fag", he's have vanished into oblivion before he even appeared on the radar. Instead, he's now an internet phenomenon. Yes, he is pretty good at rhetoric and he knows how to make flashy appearances, but seriously, he wouldn't have half the impact without SJWs pretty much building his stage and propping him up by staging protests that are so badly organized that he can easily turn them around and make the SJWs protesting him basically his cheerleaders.
  And that's already one paragraph more than I'd want to dedicate to this person.
  What I am talking about is valid, sensible arguments being considered "harassment". Disagreeing with someone and making an argument is not harassment. I am talking about the various well worded and sensible arguments made why people wouldn't watch that movie that were instantly slandered as being misogynist, without even considering the arguments. Allow me to point at the short YouTube announcement James Rolfe made concerning him not going to watch the movie.
  Note that Rolfe is not a professional critic, let alone one that works for any kind of important movie review magazine. He's doing movie reviews on his channel, but they are a side project between his own work and the one thing he's actually known for, reviewing ancient video games in a humorous fashion. When you watch his "non-review", you'll even notice that he talks more about reboots and remakes in general and the history of Ghostbusters in general than why he doesn't want to watch the movie.
  The reaction it generated was simply insane.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
28. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by Shadow+of+Eternity · 2016-08-28 19:49 · Score: 1
  
  1. yes
  2. People who subscribe to a critical theory based ideology which rejects the existence of an objective knowable truth and empirical facts in favor of "lived experiences", ranks humans by their immutable characteristics (ie identity politics), and loosely follows marx's descriptions of class warfare and oppression only applied to gender and race instead of the original means of production/proletariat dynamic. In behavior SJWs are politically illiberal, dismissive of enlightenment values such as freedom of speech and even thought, hostile to dissenting opinions and cast disagreement as "harassment" and "violence", openly engage in racism and sexism but claim it "doesn't count" because of their own internal definition for those words granting them immunity, and generally hostile to the idea of the presumption of innocence. As a group the dynamic hits on basically every definition of a cult or abusive relationship and they respond with extreme hostility and often outright violence to anyone disagreeing with them, often verbalizing that they're allegedly being attacked and victimized even while they physically attack someone else. Given the cult-like nature of SJWism it's unsurprising that high ranking or profitable in-group members are given a pass for any level of misconduct, even for things like pedophilia and rape (sarah nyberg and amy schumer respectively), as long as they rank highly enough in the oppression olympics or continue to "kiss the ring" and bring in money or influence.
  I could keep going into more specific ideological tenets common across the SocJus spectrum but these are the generalities.
  3. Your entire post history is filled with rampant illiberalism, hostility to due process and the presumption of innocence, witch hunting, and the defense of in-group members for things you'd pillory outsiders over.
  
  --
  A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
29. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by Shadow+of+Eternity · 2016-08-28 19:51 · Score: 1
  
  I'm just describing Critical Theory's basic tenets in plain language instead of opaque academic jargon.
  
  --
  A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
30. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by serviscope_minor · 2016-08-28 21:10 · Score: 1
  
  SJWs do.
  And all his numerous fans. Are they all SJWs too? Or are you just ignoring them for some reason?
  Disagreeing with someone and making an argument is not harassment.
  Disagreeing with someone isn't a fish either. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
  Allow me to point at the short YouTube announcement James Rolfe made concerning him not going to watch the movie.
  Ugh videos. Must I?
  OK, I'm 2:55 in and I already feel like the guy is a grade A prat. No, youngsters don't have an obligation to see the first movies no matter how much he (or I) enjoyed it. Yes remakes are almost always called the same as the movie they're remaking. This is not new or unusual. And finally greatest franchise? Seriously? Don't get me worng, I enjoyed the second one a lot, but it's a scene-for-scene remake of the first. Go watch the "Honest Trailer" for Ghostbusters II where they show them side by side.
  OK see this is why I generally avoid random youtube videos except from sources I like. Most people are plonkers. I'm 3 minutes in, I think the guy's an idiot and I can't simply scan the text to get to the bit you want me to read.
  Wow, now he's complaining about the lack of fanservice in the trailer. Sure it's fun but wow the entitlement!
  Christ how much more of this drivel is there?
  OK, so you wanted me to watch an insufferable prat give a bad, ill thought out non review and what? I sort of lost the will to live half way through that video.
  So the main take away message is that I was absolutely right about youtube. I should tick to AvE and beardy types (and whatever the beardless equivalent is) giving deep insights on the subtleties of using a lathe.
  So anyway, seems like he received a lot of hate and our right assholery on twitter for having an opinion some people didn't like. So there's a bunch of assholes on twitter. Probably in the youtube comments too. I'm not delving there.
  But I don't get the point you're trying to make. All that means is there are assholes on both "sides" if you insist on polarising things that way.
  It doesn't support your peculiar assertion that his opinion is somehow a form of harassment.
  The reaction it generated was simply insane.
  No matter how insane, misplaced or assholey the reaction it still does not support your claim. Just because bad things happened doesn't mean that your inventions of other bad things are true.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
31. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by serviscope_minor · 2016-08-28 21:31 · Score: 1
  
  1. yes
  OK. This should be entertaining.
  2. People who subscribe to a critical theory based ideology which rejects the existence of an objective knowable truth and empirical facts in favor of "lived experiences",
  Prove I did that.
  ranks humans by their immutable characteristics (ie identity politics
  No evidence I did that either.
  and loosely follows marx's descriptions of class warfare and oppression only applied to gender and race instead of the original means of production/proletariat dynamic.
  The only Marx I follow is Groucho.
  dismissive of enlightenment values such as freedom of speech and even thought
  Inventing more stuff about me! Given I'm actually a strong supporter of free speech (not extending to incitement/solicitation of violence or libel, however), you'll have a very hard job claiming I'm against this.
  cast disagreement as "harassment" and "violence",
  Not something I've ever done. It seems to be something that you and Opportunist invented recently.
  generally hostile to the idea of the presumption of innocence.
  Yet more inventions of something I've not done.
  often verbalizing that they're allegedly being attacked and victimized even while they physically attack someone else
  I'll bet you 50 bucks you can't find any post I've ever made where I claim to have been attacked or victimized. I'll give you $100 if you can find evidence of me saying that while I was physically attacking anyone else.
  Given the cult-like nature of SJWism it's unsurprising that high ranking or profitable in-group members are given a pass for any level of misconduct, even for things like pedophilia and rape (sarah nyberg and amy schumer respectively), as long as they rank highly enough in the oppression olympics or continue to "kiss the ring" and bring in money or influence.
  u wot? I don't really know anything about either of those. I think I've heard you whining about Nyberg before, though I can't recall why. Schumer is moderately famous but that's about how far my knowledge goes. And let's see...
  (30 seconds of googling later)
  Oh looks like you don't care about the presumption of innocence, as long as it's someone you dislike. AFAICT, none of the evidence against Nyberg isn't remotely verifiable. And the Schumer one? I don't see any evidence of rape there either.
  3. Your entire post history is filled with rampant illiberalism,
  Like what?
  hostility to due process and the presumption of innocence,
  Liar.
  So here's the odd thing. I don't appear to tick any of the boxes which you ascribe "SJW" to, and yet you call me an "SJW". That proves to me that you have no real definition of it other than some sort of outrage for people who hold different opinions.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
32. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by serviscope_minor · 2016-08-28 21:33 · Score: 1
  
  Funny, there's actual facts in all those little links I posted.
  Hypothetically that could be true. But the credibility of the sources is so poor that it's hard to call them verifiable. If you want to show facts, you need some evidence they exist. Or you know random blog posts and archives of fake tweets. Either's good.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
33. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by Opportunist · 2016-08-28 21:37 · Score: 1
  
  Milo's fans are his fans for exactly the reason that he manages to get SJWs to go apeshit. He himself isn't that terribly interesting.
  As for that other guy, yes. That video isn't too interesting. It is just some random guy saying he's not going to watch the movie. He has a medium sized number of people subbed to his channel, nothing that would make or break a movie. We're not talking about Roger Ebert by any means, and yet people went mental about his announcement of not watching the movie, calling him misogynist or worse just for saying "Well, my viewers asked me for my opinion 'bout it, but I ain't gonna watch it, sorry". He stated his opinion, I think even without mentioning that it's an "all female" Ghostbusters team, all he said was that he didn't like the jokes in the trailer and that he might watch it should reviews say that the trailer doesn't do it justice. That was enough for some people to start the name calling.
  And just for the record, my point was not that "his opinion is somehow a form of harassment". My point is that it is not. Please don't try to switch seats.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
34. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by Mashiki · 2016-08-29 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  Hypothetically that could be true. But the credibility of the sources is so poor that it's hard to call them verifiable. If you want to show facts, you need some evidence they exist. Or you know random blog posts and archives of fake tweets. Either's good.
  Well since those posts all show their proof of what happened, it sure does explain why you refuse to look at it and ignore facts when you're faced with them. Go on, I'll wait. Tell everyone how those people didn't actually sic their followers on people, and how those stories fabricated their own tweets which are linked. Go on and tell people how those chat logs are faked too, when the people named in there say that they're true. But apparently those are fake too right?
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
35. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by Mashiki · 2016-08-29 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  Or you're missing context, when someone is currently the target of a harassment campaign they're given a little more leeway than someone who tweets something out of the blue.
  And even if there was a double standard (which I don't concede) your comment is still wrong, the alt-right would still be free to say whatever it wants, it would just be that only one side would be able to harass.
  Apparently that was easy to disprove, as one can see what happens when you turn around and post exactly what someone else has said, but just happen to have the right connections inside twitter. Notice a similarity here? No? How about when facebook turned around and started removing groups for various imaginary thought-crimes. Starting to see a trend with social media now?
  
  Again context, Jones was trying to retaliate and protect herself from a campaign initiated by Milo.
  Context: She was doing it before Milo was involved. Read the story, click on the other links in the story.
  
  I'm not familiar with all of those cases, certainly not the rape threats, and Twitter may have been inconsistent in the past. If so, they will hopefully fix that in the future. No one should be the target of harassment.
  You mean like their "trust and safety council" which has done nothing? Or all of the past cases which they generally just sweep under the rug, unless it gets plenty of media attention.
  
  But you're also conflating harassment with with social campaigns, like trying to excerpt pressure against shady businesses, or outing people who have done something bad (these campaigns are very troubling, but different from harassment).
  For instance I don't think I'd mind as much if Milo had encouraged his followers to call the producer or studio to complain about the movie. The problem is that he was making Twitter into a place where a black actress couldn't really stay.
  No, he wasn't doing anything of the sort. Then again, I suppose if you engage in the right kind of racism it's perfectly fine right? Just like it's okay with the right kind of sexism. See julie bindel, jessica valenti and so on, along with the lovely #killallmen stuff.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
36. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by serviscope_minor · 2016-08-29 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  Well since those posts all show their proof of what happened,
  No, they state without proof that things happened. That's not showing the proof.
  Go on and tell people how those chat logs are faked too
  You've lost me. Chat logs of which incident are you referring to?
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
37. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by serviscope_minor · 2016-08-29 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  He stated his opinion, I think even without mentioning that it's an "all female" Ghostbusters team,
  He calls it "the female Ghostbusters". But whatever, I don't really care.
  That was enough for some people to start the name calling.
  So? You claimed that people think his opinion is harassment. That's not the same as general name calling. You seem to be engaging in your usual tactic of inventing a wild, ludicrous and unprovable claim, then when being called on it, watering it down and pointing to other things people have done.
  A cheap rhetorical trick, and rather ineffective in a written medium with obvious threading.
  And just for the record, my point was not that "his opinion is somehow a form of harassment". My point is that it is not. Please don't try to switch seats
  You have misunderstood me. I though your point was that some people consider his mere opinion to be harassment and you disagree with that stance. I that is an invention of yours and next to no one[*] believes such a ludicrous notion.
  [*]The internet is large. The existence of a few lone nutters proves nothing except that a few lone nutters exist. That said I'd be surprised if you can find even one person saying such a thing. I'll bet good money you can't find as many people as you can find genuine flat-earthers.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
38. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by Opportunist · 2016-08-29 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  He calls it the "female Ghostbusters" because that is what it is being called by various people on the internet, and he uses it as a way to show how calling it "Ghostbusters" without an additional qualifier was not a good idea because now people make up monikers to tell it apart from the 1984 movie.
  If you made the effort you could easily have found out, either from reading the comments to the video, by looking at the video reactions or simply by looking at the suggested watching at the side bar, that there has been a LOT of negative feedback to this video along with reactions to that feedback. It's not my claim. It is easy to find out, it's not some obscure, arcane conspiracy that you have to unearth by digging through pages and pages of google results to carefully crafted search statements, it's plain to see if you wanted to. Since you don't like watching videos, I'll refrain from linking them, but allow me to say that much: It's not my claim. You'd just have to scroll down to the comments to the video.
  I do not have to engage in "tricks" or try to deceive you, what I say is easy to show in the links provided and even easier to find for yourself if you wish to. Again, we're not talking about obscure webpages hidden somewhere in the dark web, that shit was all over YouTube and Twitter, people made comment videos to it, commented on the amount of hate it generated, etc. This is hardly difficult to find.
  And yes, there were people who called him all sorts of things for just having this opinion. Take a few minutes to go through the comment section of the video and you'd be amazed.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
39. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by Coren22 · 2016-08-29 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  Kind of funny you link to that, when it clearly shows how racist she was being as well. Or do you think calling people Kikes or fags is suddenly acceptable? Is it acceptable to call for "gas dese goddamn faggots to death"?
  You are supporting a racist bigot in her attacks of others, while calling for the censorship of others who point it out. What did Mila say in that thread that was so bad? All I see is him pointing out that she needs to call weight watchers...which is rude, but hardly comparable to suggesting faggots should be gassed to death.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
40. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by serviscope_minor · 2016-08-29 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  You: He didn't refer to the all female cast.
  Me: He called it the female ghostbusters. Whatever, I don't care.
  You: He calls it the "female Ghostbusters" because that is...
  I didn't care before. Why do you think I care now?
  blah blah dodge weave blah blah blah
  You claimed that other people said his mere opinion was harassment.
  Basically no one said that.
  Now put up or shut up and enough with "the truth is out there" bullshit. I'm not wading through innumerable youtube comments or reaction videos to prove a point that you refuse to provide evidence for. If you have one as evidence, give me the video and date of the comment, and the text so I can be sure it's the right one, or the link to the reaction video.
  At this point your repeated failure to back up your point is a pretty strong emperical proof that you simply made it up.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
41. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by Shadow+of+Eternity · 2016-08-29 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  Schumer is a self-admitted rapist who has herself publicly told the story of how she raped a man too drunk to know where he was or who he was with, and Nyberg is a self-admitted pedophile and child predator who's been publicly given pictures of people's children for gratification.
  Thanks for demonstrating exactly the behavior I just described.
  
  --
  A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
42. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by Opportunist · 2016-08-29 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  It was not HIS "invention" to call them the "female Ghostbusters", he pointed out ... you know what, forget it. I'm done with you, if you want to twist words around in mouths, try some other mouth instead of mine.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
43. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by serviscope_minor · 2016-08-29 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  It was not HIS "invention" to call them the "female Ghostbusters
  Fine whatever. I don't care. Why are you making much a fuss about it?
  Oh I know, because you invented a thing about people thinking mere opinions are harassment and now you have to get all outraged over something to try to distract.
  It's quite funny that I caught you red handed and your pathetic attempts to wriggle out of it are so blindingly obvious.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
44. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by Coren22 · 2016-08-30 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  Funny, isn't that exactly what you are doing APK? Libeling me, stalking me, harassing me, and trolling with off-topic crap. Yup, you have perfected the thing that you demonize.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
45. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by Coren22 · 2016-08-30 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  Funny, I don't see myself as unable to take it, I am just pointing out that you are trying to fault me for something you do all the time. Perhaps you just hate yourself?
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
46. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by Mashiki · 2016-08-30 20:57 · Score: 1
  
  No, they state without proof that things happened. That's not showing the proof.
  So you're now saying that those people linked didn't engage in harassment according to twitters own rules, or what you claimed was harassment by another individual(milo) for doing exactly the same thing? Might want to take those blinders off.
  
  You've lost me. Chat logs of which incident are you referring to?
  The ones you couldn't be bothered to read, or check in the linked stories. Maybe a few more will help.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
47. Re:Feminist/SJW Echo Chamber Circling The Bowl by Coren22 · 2016-08-31 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  No, it says that I prefer my anonymity over the possibility of idiots like you harassing me in real life. You would know all about that, wouldn't you APK?
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Who gives a shit by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-26 12:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

What ever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me?" If someone offends you, ignore them. If you can't bear to do that, a Block option has been on Twitter forever, use that. If you're still getting triggered, maybe you should step away from the computer for awhile.
1. Re:Who gives a shit by Truekaiser · 2016-08-26 13:17 · Score: 1
  
  Helicopter parents wrapping their kids in bubblewrap that started back in the early 90's.
2. Re:Who gives a shit by negRo_slim · 2016-08-26 13:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What ever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me?"
  In the Age of Feels what you speak of is now unthinkable. Just like sending your kids out to play until dark and limits on screen time, being able to handle mere words with tact is loooong gone my friend.
  
  --
  On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
3. Re:Who gives a shit by Shadow+of+Eternity · 2016-08-26 17:33 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  these are the de facto leaders of the MRM. You'll notice that the majority are women, one's black, and one's a bisexual single mom. The elderly woman in the center is the woman who founded the very first domestic violence shelter in the modern world... and had a drive by shooting at her house for daring to shelter male victims as well as female ones.
  The only people that can't stop being offended by women and minorities seem to be feminists and the regressive left.
  
  --
  A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
4. Re:Who gives a shit by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-26 17:37 · Score: 2
  
  The emergence of the alt-right was an inevitable response to the PC shithole the world has become. White people are sick of having the rules dictated to them by minorities; men sick of having the rules dictated to them by radical feminists. Every issue championed by neo-marxist regressives results in a deliberate inversion of power, whereby the majority is held to ransom by a small but vocal minority with an axe to grind. People are sick of it.
5. Re: Who gives a shit by Opportunist · 2016-08-26 22:00 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe let's try something radical new and have laws written by sane people for a change.
  Unfortunately sane people don't tend to elbow their way to the foreground and into a position where they could.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
6. Re:Who gives a shit by serviscope_minor · 2016-08-26 23:21 · Score: 2
  
  What ever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me?"
  What happened was it is and always was obvious bullshit. Let me counter with another trite saying: the pen is mightier than the sword. If speech is inconsequential, then there's no need to fight hard to keep it free, because you'd lose nothing of consequence.
  If someone offends you, ignore them.
  That's exactly what this is about.
  If you can't bear to do that, a Block option has been on Twitter forever, use that.
  No it hasn't, at least not one that's remotely effective. I mean sure you can block one user, but they can (and do) just come back with sock puppet accounts and keep spamming you with crap.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
7. Re:Who gives a shit by serviscope_minor · 2016-08-27 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  being able to handle mere words with tact is loooong gone my friend.
  It's weird how the supposed free speech advocates favourite way of advocating free speech is to try to convince everyone how unimportant and inconsequential speech is. If speech is of no worth, it's not worth protecting. The entire reason for protecting it is precisely because it is important.
  And no, being an asshole on a private platform is not protected free speech in any legal, ethical or moral way.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
8. Re:Who gives a shit by serviscope_minor · 2016-08-27 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  and had a drive by shooting at her house for daring to shelter male victims as well as female ones.
  That sounds like a rather tall story. Got a legit source?
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
9. Re:Who gives a shit by bfpierce · 2016-08-27 01:00 · Score: 2
  
  "If someone offends you, ignore them."
  That's exactly what such a tool would allow you to do. It just allows a user to automate the process of avoiding post by racist/bigot dipshits.
10. Re: Who gives a shit by Izuzan · 2016-08-27 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  No. What this is about is not ignoring them. It is essentialy putting tape over their mouths because you dont like what they say. Totaly different than ignoring them.
  Yes words can hurt, it is the sign of a healthy adult that they can let it go and know they are just words.
  It is NOT the sign of a healthy adult mind to want to duct tape someones mouth because you dont like what they say and only remove it when they want to say something you like.
11. Re: Who gives a shit by serviscope_minor · 2016-08-27 04:50 · Score: 2
  
  That's rubbish. Allowing people to filter you out of their feed is not equivalent to gagging you. You have no right, mitral or otherwise to make people listen to you or force them away if they don't want to. If you interrupt a conversation I'm having in public with someone else, me telling you to eff off isn't gagging you either. You have no right to be listened to.
  And here's the thing, if words are "just words" and of little consequence, why bother defending the right to use them freely. You cannot have it both ways where words are so important that their free use must be defended yet so unimportant that they are inconsequential.
  With defenders like you, free speech doesn't need enemies.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
12. Re: Who gives a shit by Izuzan · 2016-08-27 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  That depends entirely if it is a selectable option or not. If you can ignore someone and not see their posts thats fine as long as I can see them.
  If it is a blanket setting that looks at what is being said and deletes the post as it is being posted so NO ONE can see it. That my little friend is censorship and is deplorable.
13. Re:Who gives a shit by Shadow+of+Eternity · 2016-08-27 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  Serviscope I've told you about Erin Pizzey, and linked you to her own written testimonial about her experiences, multiple times.
  
  --
  A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
14. Re:Who gives a shit by serviscope_minor · 2016-08-27 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  Mmm have you. If so, it'll be easy to send a nice link about the drive by shooting. You know if it actually happened because she dared house men.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
15. Re:Who gives a shit by Shadow+of+Eternity · 2016-08-27 12:21 · Score: 1
  
  Enough of your bad faith shenanigans. I've linked you to her articles a fucking dozen times already, you've got her full name, you know what we're talking about, either go read your own old replies or google it. This memory-of-a-goldfish bent you and amimojo have gotten on recently where you demand things you've literally been given over and over again and pretend it never happened is getting old.
  
  --
  A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
16. Re:Who gives a shit by serviscope_minor · 2016-08-27 20:00 · Score: 1
  
  Ah yes, the truth is out there. Just like aliens!
  wooo ooooo eeeee ooooo
  I remember you making this claim many times. I remember you linking rather dubious, peripherally related things, but you've never ever once provided anything which could be described as "credible evidence" that she was subject to a drive by shooting because she was housing men.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
17. Re:Who gives a shit by quantaman · 2016-08-28 13:31 · Score: 1
  
  Irrelevant. I don't care about any of that stuff but I still hate people who don't have enough sense to block or log off.
  Blocking doesn't work when you have someone like Milo Yiannopoulos who will send waves of individual followers to harass you. Hence the need for different approaches that can pre-emptively block those would-be harassers.
  As for logging off... Well if someone is going to be driven off the service I'd prefer it be the people doing the harassment.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
18. Re:Who gives a shit by Shadow+of+Eternity · 2016-08-28 19:52 · Score: 1
  
  Funny how you "believe women" and will insist women never make false claims right up until it's a woman talking about feminist misconduct then suddenly it's "dubious" and "peripherally related".
  
  --
  A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
19. Re:Who gives a shit by serviscope_minor · 2016-08-28 21:36 · Score: 1
  
  Funny how you [...] will insist women never make false claims
  I see you've resorted to your endgame tactic of simply lying about me.
  right up until it's a woman talking about feminist misconduct then suddenly it's "dubious" and "peripherally related".
  And you've changed from driveby shooting for daring to house men to "feminist misconduct". Good bait and switch.
  Now post evidence for your claim of the drive by shooring or admit you're simply lying.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
20. Re:Who gives a shit by tepples · 2016-08-29 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  I've linked you to her articles a fucking dozen times already
  You haven't linked me though. I can only assume serviscope_minor's request was for the benefit of others reading this discussion, such as myself.
  I tried "Erin Pizzey" on Wikipedia, and though it does mention "harassment, death threats, bomb threats and defamation campaigns", it says nothing about a drive-by shooting in particular. (But then Wikipedia aims to include only claims that can be backed up by what it considers independent reliable sources.) Nor do the snippets in the first ten results for Google erin pizzey drive-by shooting appear relevant. What am I missing?
21. Re:Who gives a shit by Coren22 · 2016-08-29 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  Blocking doesn't work when you have someone like Milo Yiannopoulos who will send waves of individual followers to harass you.
  
  I see this claim a lot on here, and have yet to see a single instance of a citation to back up the claim that Milo asked other people to harass anyone. Please, provide a citation to a reputable source that he himself told anyone to do any of that.
  I'll wait, I'm sure you have it right on your fingertips as the claim has been made by you and many others.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
22. Re:Who gives a shit by Coren22 · 2016-08-29 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  Aww, poor APK, wants me to out myself so he can stalk me in real life. Still not going to happen, you enjoy harassing me here enough as is.
  Love how you posted in that first link and tried to sign it as from me. No, I don't even know what the Keystone center is, and doing a little research, it is far off base.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
23. Re:Who gives a shit by Coren22 · 2016-08-29 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  You mean where I replied directly to his post? Somehow now I am trolling to reply to what you say APK?
  Not lying, as I have proven myself numerous times, not trolling, as you can see by my moderation, and not offtopic as I was responding to the topic your brought up.
  However, you following me around all over the place and posting as a third party is offtopic trolling, so keep it up APK.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
24. Re:Who gives a shit by Shadow+of+Eternity · 2016-08-29 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  I've already linked you to her own firsthand testimonial many times. You call that "dubious" and "peripherally related" or pretend it's never happened.
  
  --
  A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
25. Re:Who gives a shit by Shadow+of+Eternity · 2016-08-29 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Finding her shooting is not difficult at all. As for the cute trick you pulled weaseling in the claim about wikipedia and "independent reliable sources" nothing could be further from the truth. Wikipedia's definition of a "reliable source" is any source which says something approved of by Wikiproject:Feminism. Personal blog posts and tweets are reliable sources for any claim if the person making them is someone like Zoe Quinn while third party newsmedia articles are unreliable if they dispute feminists' claims.
  
  --
  A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
26. Re:Who gives a shit by serviscope_minor · 2016-08-29 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  I've already linked you to her own firsthand testimonial many times.
  Ah yes, the truth is out there. Like aliens! Wooo oooo eeee ooo.
  So tell me, how did she know the drive-by shooting (if it ever existed) was because she dared to house men? Did the drive by shooters break with tradition, stop half way through and inform her why there were driving by while shooting?
  Anyway links or it didn't happen.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
27. Re:Who gives a shit by Shadow+of+Eternity · 2016-08-29 14:21 · Score: 1
  
  Gee someone whose mail had been sent directly to a bomb squad rather than her home due to the sheer amount of violent threats, who lived with constant abuse and threats of violence, who was forced to leave one country already due to those threats of violence and continued to receive them here in the US, finally had one of those threats made good on.
  I wonder.
  
  --
  A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
28. Re:Who gives a shit by serviscope_minor · 2016-08-29 20:23 · Score: 1
  
  You said "drive-by shooting" for daring to house men.
  Stop bullshitting and admit you made that up, or, you know, provide some evidence.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
29. Re:Who gives a shit by Shadow+of+Eternity · 2016-08-30 19:41 · Score: 1
  
  I love your double standards. Everything feminists want to blame on the current boogeyman is incontrovertibly the fault of that scapegoat. But when someone was so targeted by feminists that her mail was sent directly to a bomb squad, that she was forced to flee the country, and the threats against her are actually played out suddenly you can't accept it.
  
  --
  A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
30. Re:Who gives a shit by serviscope_minor · 2016-08-31 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  I love your double standards.
  Does that absolve you of flat-out inventing stuff?
  But when someone was so targeted by feminists that...
  You said drive-by shooting for daring to house men earlier. Stop changing the subject and admit you lied.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
Twitter's finally up to 20th-century standards by Pluvius · 2016-08-26 13:05 · Score: 1

Not a typo. It's sad how long it's taking social media to even get to what we had in the Usenet days.
Rob
Insults? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-26 13:16 · Score: 1

Let me guess, insults that are thrown out willy-nilly, such as "racist" won't be blocked, right?
Does it filter #FREEMILO? by jafiwam · 2016-08-26 13:21 · Score: 3, Funny

Well? Does it?
1. Re: Does it filter #FREEMILO? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-26 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  Considering they already blocked it from trending and autocompleting when writing tweets, I think it's safe to assume it will.
  #FreeMilo
2. Re: Does it filter #FREEMILO? by slasher999 · 2016-08-26 14:08 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  lol, rate this up! And by the way, #freemilo.
What's next after Twitter? by slasher999 · 2016-08-26 13:33 · Score: 1

We need a new poll. Now that Twitter is just about done, where should I go? I jumped on Twitter years ago as my news "firehouse". Over the years it's morphed - my feed that is - into a pretty narrow view of the world. Time to move on because this isn't healthy!
1. Re:What's next after Twitter? by geek · 2016-08-26 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  We need a new poll. Now that Twitter is just about done, where should I go? I jumped on Twitter years ago as my news "firehouse". Over the years it's morphed - my feed that is - into a pretty narrow view of the world. Time to move on because this isn't healthy!
  There's a new company in beta trying to replace twitter https://gab.ai/ haven't used it so far but they've committed themselves to free speech. That said, they are a Russian outfit so take it with a grain of salt.
calling Norton Juster by jabberw0k · 2016-08-26 15:16 · Score: 1

at first I thought this was a Phantom Tollbooth reference but now I see it's something about #right-alt #left-ctrl #shift-meta-esc must be an emacs-versus-vi thing.
Facebook as an example by BradMajors · 2016-08-26 15:44 · Score: 1

Facebook provides an example of how these filters will work:
http://www.naturalnews.com/055...
Just eliminate messaging and mentions by pauljlucas · 2016-08-26 16:00 · Score: 2

One way to fix Twitter would simply be to eliminate mentions and messaging. IMHO, the use-case for Twitter is to allow people to receive broadcast (one-way) messages from others.
For example, if I follow Bob, then I (and everyone else who follows Bob) would receive Bob's tweets. If EvilJerk also follows Bob, he can be as outraged and tweet about it as much as he wants -- nobody except those who opted-in to follow EvilJerk would get his tweets.
Problem solved.

--
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
Twitter, meh by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2016-08-26 16:25 · Score: 1

As has been said before, "Twitter is the confetti of the internet".
I'm too long-winded to use Twitter; it takes me more than 140 characters to say "Good morning". :)
Frankly, the vast majority of what I've seen on Twitter is self-referential "look at me!" stuff.
It's not micro-blogging, it's micro-bragging. "Look at my amazing coffee/breakfast/sandwich/shoes/tattoo"....etc etc etc.
It's not for me, but if people want to use it, then great- have at it.

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
1. Re:Twitter, meh by serviscope_minor · 2016-08-27 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  And in other news, old man shakes his cane at the internet.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
2. Re:Twitter, meh by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2016-08-27 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  And in other news, serviscope_minor makes another stupid post.
  What part of, "It's not for me, but if people want to use it, then great- have at it" seemed so awful to you?
  
  --
  Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Won't work by Hognoxious · 2016-08-26 18:36 · Score: 1

It won't work, because https://www.google.com/maps/pl...

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The list better not be secret by Z80a · 2016-08-26 18:59 · Score: 1

Otherwise, besides the obvious politics stuff, i can see funny things like for example AMD,ARM and PEPSI becoming "racial slurs".
Re:Just an FYI by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-26 19:06 · Score: 1

Maybe it is expensive to live near the beach?
#TRIGERRED by Hognoxious · 2016-08-26 20:45 · Score: 1

insults that are thrown out willy-nilly
Phallocrat!

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Good idea by Opportunist · 2016-08-26 21:34 · Score: 1

So it being an echo chamber isn't enough anymore?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Once new portals become very boring by AHuxley · 2016-08-28 18:44 · Score: 1

all the fun people go to other social media for their fun.
If every creative word gets instant corrected or another new word suggested are you really free anymore?
When even using the basic text input interface of a site gets dragged into a mess of guidelines policy, why stay?
Under new rules censorship flourishes...

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Milo's meat puppets by tepples · 2016-08-29 01:40 · Score: 1

Killfiles don't work if a harasser can summon an army of meat puppets.