Slashdot Mirror
'Verified' Is Now a Derogatory Term on Twitter (theoutline.com)
From an article on The Outline: Since 2009, Twitter has added a blue checkmark symbol to certain accounts that have been deemed "verified," which means "that an account of public interest is authentic," according to Twitter. For some, the verified distinction is coveted. For others, it's become a dirty word. "Verifieds" or "blue checks" are the elite, the establishment. Since many members of the media are verified, they have also become associated, for some, with the perceived liberal bias of the fourth estate. Conservatives, alt-righters, and Donald Trump fans have noticed that when Trump tweets, there is invariably a flood of "blue check liberals" responding in a negative way. There is also the perception that Twitter, a California company, is biased toward liberals. Also, according to Twitter, there are now about 250,000 people who're verified on the site, some of which are for unknown reasons.
Not widely. I've never heard of this.
Dark Reflection
So does reality. And sanity.
A sane world is a free one. Because only in a free world you will get to hear ALL opinions, even the ones you do not want to hear. Ideas that go against your religion, your groupthink, your echo chamber and your peer group approval. They will not be filtered and they will reach you.
Reality on the other hand simply is. No matter how much you wish it away. Saying it ain't simply isn't going to serve you well, for reality is a cruel mistress who will remind you that she's in charge. No matter your wishes, no matter your doctrine or your conviction.
And yes, that works for the alt-right as much as for the alt-left (or whatever the term is for the regressive left is today, I fail to keep track and quite honestly, I couldn't care less what attribute they want to be associated with today). Sanity as well as reality is found in the middle ground. Not the extremes.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The biases of Twitter can be quite easily seen by looking at the "Safety Council", tasked with keeping Twitter free of undesireables.
( https://about.twitter.com/safe... )
Furthermore, it is quite telling that Twitter punished notorious troll and agitator Milo Yiannopoulos by removing his verified tag. Why would they do that if the tag was only there to assert that the account was in fact verified as belonging to the real Milo Yiannopoulos?
It does look elitist. I'm not so sure that it's a nefarious scheme so much as a by-product of a sorting algorithm. It would be nice to be able to easily sort those responses. When showing replies to a Tweet, Twitter prioritizes the verified accounts, as they are typically more visible (more followers see and like their replies). We see them first, even if we have no clue who the person is. For high profile accounts, like the president, there is bound to be thousands of responses. If even a small percentage of those are "blue checks", they tend to drown out the other responses. Their voice gets a priority. It can be pretty tiring, especially when the first few people responding have multiple replies. They appear to be "hogging" the comments.
Silly person - they won't ban Trump because the press NEEDS Trump on Twitter.
Without his tweets, how would they know what to complain about?
@realDonaldTrump is a blue check. What more do you need?
So what you're saying, is that conservatives who come from other social media sites to post on twitter, they're....
undocumented immigrants to twitter?
Interesting...
Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
... low numbers on Slashdot are not to be trusted.
I first signed on to Twitter back in 2008 and kept in touch with a group of writers for five years or so. It fell off my radar since then because Real Life(tm) intruded and I stopped writing. This year I looked at Twitter and found a Facebook cesspool. I still post announcements on Twitter but there's no community.
Stop participating in confused people's erroneous perceptions. This one embodies a string of fallacies and rational people have no obligation but to pity their confusion. Amplifying their misperceptions is a disservice to everybody involved.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
What's the problem with liberal bias? According to one dictionary definition: "Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values." That's what you want in a good journalist.
I said everything in the Subject. Thank for your attention.
Being "verified" is only derogatory from the perspective of users who believe in alternative facts. They are far from a majority, even if they are exceptionally loud.
Also, how is this newsworthy? People have unconventional opinions, and for every norm there is a small population that opposes it.
Wake me up if these people ever do anything interesting with this attitude. Something interesting means "more than dismissive or disprespectful attitudes"---those are a dime a dozen on the internet.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
They drank the social justice kool-aid a while back. And that group of "the left" has managed to steal the "liberal" label somehow.
And no, I'm not an alt-right nutter. No, I didn't vote for Trump. No, I don't think Brexit is great. No, I don't think Obama was evil incarnate. My introduction to SJWs was when they destroyed what was a reasonably functioning atheist community with their religion.
Because conservatives are well-known as pragmatic and open-minded people.
Is the criteria for gaining a verified status published somewhere?
You mean "how would they know what stupid thing he is going to do next".
The problem is that so-called "liberals" don't use your one dictionary to select their behaviour.
I know how that goes. I'm a moderate conservative and I get crap from holier-than-thou crowd because I don't meet their definition of conservatism. One of the reasons why I'm no longer a Republican. I bailed out before the 2016 election.
Only if you ignore facts like usual. Who rioted at UC Berkeley? Not the student protestors. The police and everyone who was there say it was outside groups who say an opportunity for mayhem. But you can safely ignore that because it does not fit in your narrative.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Bias is an inclination or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective, often accompanied by a refusal to consider the possible merits of alternative points of view. According to wikipedia,
Have you seen conservative bias? It's an alternative reality filled with alternative facts. When Obama was president, my Tea Party-loving, lily-white relatives in Idaho emailed clippings out of the right-wing echo chamber. I could prove every item was factually wrong in some way.
The alt-right have made up a new insult? STOP THE PRESSES!
I'm still confused as to why both political sides decided "the elites" needed to be thrown out. We knew they weren't great, but they were a known, sane quantity. Corruption charges were fairly boring or obviously nonsense. The "outsider" in office now on the other hand seems to do things without rhyme or reason. "Cut funding for cancer research and build a wall that will be less effective than the great wall of China!" And the accusations of corruption are "He's running the government regulating his own businesses he's still running" are pretty plainly obvious.
Now we've decided that the twitter elites are a problem? Not the anonymous eggs harassing sane people and putting up frog memes that don't make sense?
I enjoy making fun of alt-nazis as much as anyone else, but lets actually make fun of them. Pretending they have valid opinions is dangerous.
It wouldn't be so bad if Trump only tweeted stupid things that had no impact. Sooner or later he is going to tweet something that compromises national security.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Because conservatives are well-known as pragmatic and open-minded people.
They're not the ones on university campuses or society trying to shut down speech, engaging in no-platforming, violently assaulting people for having different opinions, pushing safe spaces, engaging in racism like progressives are. Or have you failed to miss how much identity politics, anti-white bullshit gets pushed out by people who claim to be "moral arbiters" and standing up for minorities?
So yep, conservatives do seem to be the pragmatic and open-minded ones these days.
Om, nomnomnom...
it's the ctrl left.
should i tolerate islamic sexism? if i criticize it will i be called an islamophobe? should i question the 80 cents on a dollar? would i be called sexist if i do? should i ask questions about the statistics of black on black violence? will i be called racist if i do? should i make a distinction between how i feel of legal immigration and illegal immigration? will i be called xenophobe if i do?
they are controlling the 'acceptable' narrative of life in the united states, because asking questions of that narrative will get you physically assaulted.
Funny how the police can reasonably make that determination when they didn't bother to arrest anyone. Apparently putting on a black mask and shirt revokes your status as a student or teacher at Berkeley for the duration you wear it.
tends to have a liberal bias.
Get over it.
I think calling it a "liberal bias" in the first place is very misleading. It is a Democratic Party bias of the big city press. Born of cultivated political and personal relationships made in big cities controlled by the Democratic Party which also happen to be the centers of media markets.
I've personally seen this play out where reporters from the main press outlets are given office space inside city hall and the state government and clearly develop a symbiotic relationship with the political establishment. The only time reporters turn on the powers that be in City Hall is when they see blood in the water and see the prospect of a new patron taking over.
Well I can god damm tell you that Obama ordering the FBI not to ever use the term "radical Muslim" didn't help make terrorism go away.
vi +
Then the liberal protesting students joined in. They may not have thrown the first punch. But after Anifta virtual signaled by hitting people and damaging property, they joined right in.
vi +
I'm not completely sure that this isn't a troll, but I'll answer up as if it isn't. It would have been better if it wasn't an Anonymous Coward posting with no way to establish the context from which the author has spoken...
This illustrates a big part of the problem. A belief that a particular political viewpoint is so correct, and another so wrong, that merely expressing views associated with the latter automatically makes one wrong.
It may be the case that loonies are more likely to identify with a conservative, individualistic political ideology more so than a group-think government-take-care-of-me political philosophy, and since loonies tend to be outspoken and get attention, those loonies might be seen as the face of that political philosophy. But that appearance doesn't make it so.
The current trend of folks wearing a liberal banner shutting down conversations about significant issues simply because the alternate viewpoint from theirs MUST be wrong because it's not their viewpoint is troubling to me. It's the political equivalent of sticking one's fingers in one's ears, closing one's eyes, and vocalizing "nyahh nyah nyah" as loud as one can. Donald Trump won the election because a significant number of people in the US voted for him. Wouldn't it make sense to try and understand WHY people voted for him rather than just shouting "He's not MY president" and suggesting that the political process in the United States has somehow gone off the rails because your candidate didn't get elected? It doesn't seem like very evolved behavior to me.
People believe all sorts of things, and they believe them for all sorts of reasons. Dismissing others beliefs because they don't line up with the beliefs that you hold dear isn't a sign of intelligence; it's a sign of close-mindedness. From my viewpoint, it seems like a lot of liberals are the kind of people who like living in a denser, urban environment, while a lot of conservatives are people who like living in a less-crowded, non-urban environment. Perhaps this acts as a filter for political beliefs. Perhaps it's possible that liberal beliefs work well in an urban environment, while conservative beliefs work well outside of that environment. I currently live in a US state that has a tradition of having individualistic citizens, yet has developed significant urban populations in some parts. The political demographics seem to support the notion that urban-dwellers are more liberal, while non-urban dwellers are more conservative. Does this mean that the future of the human race is to live in dense urban environments with liberal politics? I hope not, because that isn't an environment that I would like to live in, and one that I have specifically chosen NOT to live in. Is my choice invalid? Am I broken or defective because I don't want to live that way, or is it a valid choice of mine to not live that way?
I believe many things and have rejected belief in many others. I've been called a Skeptic before I was aware that it was a thing because I believe in evidence-based reasoning. I was raised in a northeastern US state as a southern baptist, but threw away the religious beliefs I was taught when I went to college and found a better explanation with more evidence. I've spent a lot of my professional career using knowledge and reason to to separate fact from fiction, to understand why things have occurred, and what is most likely to make things work better in the future. In my mind, THAT is a more evolved human. The use of reason, thinking based on evidence, and considering all of the data, not just the data that favors what I would like to be true.
As soon as one starts labeling things, including people, one ceases to be able to truly understand them. Labels are useful abstractions, and its human to use them, but some of the most interesting discoveries come from peering past the labels to truly see.
I would like to see some political dialogs that don't assume right and wrong based on party membership, I would like to see political dialogs that don't reject other's beliefs simply because they are counter to one's own. And for the sake of the FSM, I would really like to see an end to self-appointed moral superiority.
"My ignorance is as valid as your knowledge."
Buzzing the information Superhighway at Warp speed
The alt-Right seeing Twitter verification as derogatory reminds me of the way the 20th century hard-core Communists used to see using a toothbrush or wearing glasses as a evidence that you are an elitist.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Can anyone explain why we should give a shit that there are idiots on twitter who think "verified" is derogatory?
Milo is a troll because of his message, or because of how it's delivered? People on the right finally figured out that no matter how they say things, the progressive left will attack. Milo, and to a large extent President Trump have figured out that being "politically correct" has never worked. The target is constantly moving, and only favors the progressive left. The progressive left is now beginning to eat as much as they dish out, and they don't like it.
We hear the same claims about Ann Coulter, Ben Shaprio, Steven Crowder, Mark Levin, Larry Elder, Dennis Prager, and I could go on and on and on. The progressive left (and it's media monopoly) labels anything people on the right do as racist, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamaphobic, transphobic, misogynistic, anti Hispanic, etc... They constantly cherry pick bits and pieces of content to argue with. They similarly cherry pick for their own narratives and continue to get caught.
The successful answer has been not to "play nice" but to throw things back in a way that displays the hypocrisy and dirty tricks in full view.
So far, Generation Z is turning out to be one of the most conservative generations in a long time. The progressives are in for a rough time.
Back on point, as GP stated the "Verified" has become synonymous with "Insider" or "Elitist". Twitter is losing the war, as is Youtube and Facebook. Censorship is never the answer, yet these massive institutions continue to travel that route.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
And calling them the alt-left is bullshit, because they're the opposite of trying to force people to believe what they believe.
No, I'm pretty sure if I go to UC Berkley and say "men and women have real physical biological differences that result in behavioral differences that are not merely socially constructed, and the same is true of different human haplogroups (broadly grouped into "races" or "ethnicities"). I have documented, reproducible scientific studies to prove these things and would like to peacefully make my case so that others can make up their own minds about these issues" I'm pretty sure they will literally beat me to within an inch of my life.
Not only does the ctrl-left want to force people to believe what they believe, what they want to force people to believe is provably untrue.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
The problem is people who conflate expressing ideas and harassment.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Twitter?
Requiem for the American Dream
... virtual signaled ...
I'm sorry, but righty jargon is evolving so fast I can't keep track any more. What the hell does 'virtual signaled' mean? Typo for 'virtue signaled'? A favourite righty phrase that seems to mean 'nice, so I hate him', or something like that, but that doesn't make any sense in this context. Virtual as in emulated/simulated? What does that even mean? Eh?
I do so love people who think their side's shit doesnt smell
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
No, I'm pretty sure if I go to UC Berkley and say "men and women have real physical biological differences that result in behavioral differences that are not merely socially constructed, and the same is true of different human haplogroups (broadly grouped into "races" or "ethnicities"). I have documented, reproducible scientific studies to prove these things and would like to peacefully make my case so that others can make up their own minds about these issues" I'm pretty sure they will literally beat me to within an inch of my life.
This is a parody of some kind, right? Please tell me it is a parody. Nobody can really believe this, surely?
I pointed out many times conservatives were not allowed to speak because of liberals. I think you are probably not smart enough to follow what was being discussed.
Pointing out that facts were left out of a narrative that changes the circumstances is only my way of pointing out everyone has an agenda.
In fact you helped out my point by showing liberals PAY outside people to riot when conservatives give speeches.
And when did I do that? All I said was an outside group say the protest as a opportunity for mayhem. Factually, the student protestors had nothing to do with the riot. Nowhere did I say anything you claim. What you are saying is basically a lie.
I have yet to hear of a riot preventing a liberal from speaking, unless it was other liberals preventing it.
Your knowledge of history is poor: Kent State, Birmingham, the entire history of the KKK?
Thanks for helping make my point. Censorship is the #2 pillar of liberalism.
KKK? Nazis? Communism? Wow you seem not to know the bulk of history.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Funny how the police can reasonably make that determination when they didn't bother to arrest anyone.
What you are saying is a lie. You can use google to search these things; you simply don't do so.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
It's just another alternative fact you as a liberal wouldn't understand.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
No, I believe they would really beat me with an inch of my life for saying the truth. They do not want to hear it. Do you disagree?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
They're not the ones on university campuses or society trying to shut down speech
I'm pretty sure Trump et al threatening to sue journalists and trying to delegitimize every news source to his left counts as trying to shut down speech.
I do so love people who think their side's shit doesnt smell
You know what I like? Cookies. But you know what I find amusing? People who pretend that something isn't the case and a particular ideology which proclaimed "we're the ones pushing for free speech" are now the ones censoring. I mean, just look at this picture and tell me what's wrong with it.
I'll give you a hint, those are both pictures taken on the same university campus.
Om, nomnomnom...
Uh huh. So they arrested the one guy who after everything else was over refused to leave. Not anyone else, Nobody involved in the destruction or assaults.
That's not sane. I don't need to entertain or hear the ideas of NAMBLA or some white supremacist group. Being able to cut through the noise is pretty much what defines sanity.
love is just extroverted narcissism
... trying to delegitimize every news source to his left counts as trying to shut down speech.
Really? So you're saying that his opinions of something are trying to shut them down. Or that he's right when you can find the media is vastly left-wing, votes democrat, reporters are democrats(around 90%) and 95-97% of them in the beltway donate to democrats or are democrats. Or that 90% of what they report is all negative, even when the subject is positive.
It's not like the MSM haven't spent decades delegitimizing themselves to well...everyone. Which is why the trust of the press in most of the west is between 8% and 15% or anything. No, you want to see what trying to shut down speech looks like? Go pay attention to what's happening to youtube right now, and sites like the WSJ, gizmodo, et.al., directly attacking the source of revenue for people because they don't "conform" to their ideology. That's what an attack on free speech looks like.
Om, nomnomnom...
And the middle ground is something each sane person has to build for themselves. It's not just some obvious half-way point between the arguments and viewpoints from each extreme.
Silicon & Charybdis McLuhan Kildall Papert Kay
DrinkyPoo is my fave /. handle
Young people are scientifically proven to be more liberal than old people. I can almost guarantee you that there aren't tons of old people using twitter. So based on the age range that is using twitter, then twitter should appear to be more liberal than conservative. A quick google shows the biggest average age group at 25 - 34. If you actually limited that to people actually posting on Twitter, I would bet good money that it is the younger end of the spectrum that is actually using Twitter. Yeah, I'm on Twitter and I'm older. It's just installed on my phone and I hardly ever actually use it. "Old" conservatives I know hardly even know what Twitter is, much less how to use it. Kind of like me with Snapchat. I know exactly what it is. I have never used it.
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
Probably does, from the alt-right perspective.
Really? So you're saying that his opinions of something are trying to shut them down.
Yep. Also this. I'm not defending SJWs or whatever other shenanigans some news organizations are getting into, I just don't pretend like it's only people from one political spectrum that are causing issues.
Lost by 2.1 million MORE VOTES
Hey, get some new writers
The old hacks just make you look stupid
your party lives on voter suppression and gerrymanders
Without both, you lose. TWICE in just 16 years!!
Yes they are,
except they keep to their private "Liberty" universities without accreditation, where NO speech is allowed unless it toe the line.
His threats to "Sue people and get lots of money" are indeed efforts to silence critics
Thank you for playing "Stupid". Would you like to try again?
Oddly, more Democrats/Libturds voted for the Voting rights act than Republican'ts. By a lot.
Clinton got rich by beating your sick asses so often his books and speeches became hot demand items.
That old "Marketplace of Ideas" strikes again!
You're both 'tards for defining your world as 2 extremes. Liberalism (e.g.) is a broad idea, and the fact that a very, very small subset of (loud) college "kids" do things in the name of liberalism isn't a reflection on classic liberal values.
Have the guts to call good things good, and bad things bad and not paint yourself all the same color. If you find yourself mysteriously agreeing with ALL or most of the points of your tribe, really take a deep look and see what's motivating you.
Yes, they're not the ones doing shit physically on university campuses. Online, I've never seen "social justice warriors" harass like "men's rights activists." I've never seen any "anti-white bullshit" that stood up as genuinely anti-white after spending 10 seconds reading what was actually going on.
I remember the conservative side also being a lot more angry and violent when we had a democratically elected black man in office. Now that we have an undemocratically elected regressive in office, liberals are evil for being upset?
Jesus...
i have felt butthurt about the verified accounts since day one. know i shouldnt, but i do, as i ponder my existence knowing the service will never even be offered to me to turn down.
Well I can god damm tell you that Obama ordering the FBI not to ever use the term "radical Muslim" didn't help make terrorism go away.
It also didn't hurt. Do you think when it comes to the feet to the ground anti-terror operations, the working name you give the enemy matters?
If I had to guess he's probably trying to avoid alienating moderate Muslims. Whether or you agree with that, it doesn't sound like a crazy left-wing act to me. The fact that you are so bent out of shape about it would lead me to believe you have some other axe to grind.
Regressive can be very accurate. Campaigning against free speech, yep, regressive. Campaigning for segregation, yep, regressive. Campaigning for doubling standards based on things like race, yep, pretty racist and you know regressive. Advocating violence, not in self defense, but to silence, yep, pretty damn regressive there too. Yeah, I think the regressive label is pretty well earned. They will of course try to explain it away in the usual love is hate kind of way, but if you look through that BS defense it is pretty obvious. Honestly I wouldn't say tolerance is their issue as they are only selectively tolerance as is convenient for there activism. They totally flip their tops on other topics regardless of how mundane or minor.
Of course I disagree, it does not make any sense.
TheOutline.com, serving quality journalism since December 2016, and which is totally not a propaganda site.
riiiiiiight.
The wayback machine shows this domain for sale for a long time... and it just started serving articles last December.
DrinkyPoo is my fave /. handle
It reminds me of a friends mother when I was just out of high school, who referred to mixed drinks with that term. Nice lady and a lot of fun.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
oh look more bullshit from mashiki
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
By now they should have learned that mod points are a fixed quantity.
While I can never run out of copy/paste.
The so-called "regressive left" is excessively, stupidly tolerant - but that's still not regressive.
It's not a logical, rational definition, based on arguments or proofs of "regression". It's a code.
Regressive Left
The term was coined by British politician Maajid Nawaz as a label for those on the left who would jump at the chance to attack an idea or person for expressing an idea.
Calling any challenge of Islamic beliefs as "Islamaphobia," in particular, is considered part and parcel with regressive lefties.
Agree with the sentiment or not, Nawaz presented his measured argument for the phrase reasonably and soberly.
Naturally, all nuance has since been divorced from the term, and it is now indiscriminately used against any utterance of the left.
Do note the complete "divorce" of the origin and actual meaning of the term from how it is used in this very thread.
Neither you nor the OP even mentioned religion.
It's a code now. And it means different, generalized, things to different people.
You know... like "states' rights", "cutting taxes", "busing", "birth certificates"...
There... as good as new.
While a pathetic poor little snowflake troll cries over wasted mod-points in mom's basement somewhere.
Sad.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
If you say "states' rights" in 2017, on the other hand, you're a pot grower defending your farm.
Maybe in the alt-universe which conservatives have constructed for themselves you might see that. In the real world nobody says that.
I have two words for you. "Sanctuary" and "City". Yes, they do say that all the damn time, out in the open and in the press/media.
Half truths are lies too. We saw through your political correctness, we see through your half truths too
When caught in a lie, claim your opponent does everything you do. Yeah, I read Rules for Radicals too. Not a good try coward. No ration for you comrade!
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
There are plenty of conservatives that doesn't like the anti-science, far-right pleasing turn of the republican party. Trying to paint everyone as being either "left" (the US version - center for most of the world) or right (the US version, in most of the world those that far right generally jump a bit more to extreme right) is not factual, not helping people realize that most "left" persons share some viewpoints of the right ones and vice versa. It kills debates and foster an unhealthy focus on following the party line - and that is a real danger to the democratic idea.
IMHO of course. Demonize people if that's what you want.
The more things change the more certain phrases remain dog whistles...
But that's not what the post above is about.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
when his opinion is "sue them" and "threaten to jail them" then yes, he is trying to shut them down.
as usual, youre full of shit.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Fair is only fair., even worthless trolls crave legitimacy. Propose: new "Verified Trailer Trash" tag
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
In the long term everybody needs to move to cities
That's one option, another option is for enough people to die and/or not be born.
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
When you will show them empiric proof except for "I feel that way" that there are 60 genders?
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
Care to give me your definition of Nazi first so I know whether I can agree or not?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Expressing an idea is good! Do not get me wrong here, everyone should have the right to speak their mind, no matter how insane I may consider his idea. Yes, that means that the white supremacist should be allowed to give a speech about the superiority of his white race.
Two stipulations, though:
First, he has the right to speak but no right to an audience. Nobody is required to listen to his bullshit. Because that would definitely be harassment.
Second, I reserve the right to the same right, i.e. telling the audience why this bullshit is bullshit. And yes, I'm aware that the white supremacist may feel "harassed" by someone daring to oppose his views, but I expect to have exactly the same rights as he does. If you can't stand the heat the kitchen may not be the place for you.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You're not required to listen, but yes, I want them to be allowed to speak their mind.
I do reserve the right to answer to their bullshit, though. And in no uncertain terms. And with exactly the same reason: I want to be allowed to speak my mind, too.
You have a right to have an opinion and you have the right to express it. You do NOT have the right to not have your opinion challenged, though.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Really getting tired of those supporting right wing causes lying out their asses.
Trust in the press in "most of the west" is not at the levels you suggest. Gallup and other independent agencies run polls regularly and have found the opposite:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/195...
http://www.journalism.org/2016...
https://www.americanpressinsti...
Only members of a single party severely distrust the media and only because they are commanded to distrust the media by their party. That doesn't mean the press is un-trustworthy or a liberal bias, just that the conservatives regularly attack the media for reporting on just about anything that disagrees with what they are saying and their followers agree with the distrust without any effort of critical thought or even benefit of the doubt. When a story that has absolutely no political slant and only presents facts can be labeled as "liberal", as has been the case more than a dozen times in the last two years, it's pretty obvious that the right are not fighting any form of political slant but reality itself.
It's a matter of a significant portion of the population putting their party before fact or country and are willing to lie to support their causes and nothing to do with their opponents conspiring against them.
I should also mention that a particular country in the news a lot as of late has regularly used it's news agencies and intelligence agencies to also spread distrust of the US media.
https://www.rt.com/usa/340124-...
Oh boy. Look the guy who can't dispute anything, stomps his feet and throws a temper tantrum.
Om, nomnomnom...
if i may: what are you referring to? i genuinely have no idea what you're talking about, but if there is something going on, i would like to be aware of it
This should bring you up to speed.
Om, nomnomnom...
You said they didn't arrest anyone. That is factually a lie. You could have done a quick search before you posted a lie. You chose not to do so.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
You should keep looking, you glossed over most of what it's saying. In particular with polling of non-disclosed political affiliation in media trust. Including things like this. While gallup and journalism's numbers are interesting, it also makes my point correct. Perhaps you should also ask why the trust in the media is in decline...everywhere.
Om, nomnomnom...
KKK is a DNC group of leftists that supported segregation like the DNC did/does.
Bahahahahahaha
The KKK endorsed Hillary for president against Trump. The KKK Supreme Cyclopes, Robert Byrd, was a lifelong Democrat.
Bahahahahahaha
Nazis called themselves Socialists, the same thing the DNC calls themselves.
Bahahahahaha
All I see are alternative facts. Please [provide evidence or they are all lies.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
If you want to see what a real press ban looks like, you'd better start here. Because the Obama administration actually *did* ban the press on multiple occasions. In fact it was so bad at one point that multiple press agencies and reporters published a letter over it.
Om, nomnomnom...
Sure: half of it's sideways, it's compressed all to fuck, the aspect ratio on the left half has been mangled and the composition on the right panel sucks. Visually it's a total disaster.
You should probably tell the ones protesting free speech then to figure out how to hold a camera then. That is if they don't beat you, smash your camera, and you spend a day or two in hospital recovering from your "run-in" with them.
Om, nomnomnom...
nd the fact that a very, very small subset of (loud) college "kids" do things in the name of liberalism isn't a reflection on classic liberal values.
Except that those "loud kids" are making these things happen. In fact, it's bad enough that those kids successfully caused such a large drop in new enrollments at several universities(like Mizzou), that those universities had to cut back on programs and had a budget shortfall of $25m+. Hate to break it to you, but if that small group is having that large of an impact? There's something fundamentally wrong. Especially when universities have to come out and state that "they exist to challenge ideas" and then are attacked by the media, members of government, and professors. Because they see that "challenging ideas" is the equivalent of extremism.
You want to see how the end of the road looks? Take a look in the UK. Where universities ban gays, feminists and conservatives from speaking on campus because they don't hold the right opinions these days.
Om, nomnomnom...
You mean where the Obama administration actually did? Or the part where "suing" and "threaten to jail them" for breaking actual laws? Take your pick, because as usual you have no grasp on what you're talking about.
Om, nomnomnom...
As much I disliked what happened in Berkeley with the protests the most annoying part of them for me is now we have idiots like you creating massive generalizations based off a single event.
If the entire Left is now against free speech because of this where does that put the right with all those photos of racist anti Obama banners from tea party rallies? There's photos from hundreds of rallies featuring these things. Is the Right a movement entirely composed of racists because of those?
Since you're a twit I'll answer for you, it puts the Right no where because holding an entire political ideology responsible for the actions of a few is something only stupid people do.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Nazi. National socialist. This is basic stuff here, do you always just "bahaha" in response to facts?
I read through each pretty thoroughly. The only numbers anywhere close to yours are for a single party affiliation, as I said.
Meanwhile, the two links you posted are referencing the same survey that includes a huge number of countries, including China, which has an incredibly amount of censorship so of course no on trusts the media there and India which has an absolute joke of a 4th estate, but also a pretty low sampling rate. That said, neither article presents any numbers for polls of people's trust of the media. The second says "government and media", which in my opinion is an odd thing to lump together when asking people since one would most likely cause distaste of the other.
Sort of like asking someone "Do you like the taste of cat urine and chocolate together?" The person answering would most likely love chocolate but the mere thought of cat urine would make them say no. It's called asking a loaded question. The person asking it phrases the question or qualifies it for what they want the answer to be.
That said, the company those numbers are originating from for both articles is a marketing firm (Edelman) which is not exactly a very trustworthy source either, is it?
"Edelman is a leading global communications marketing firm that partners with many of the world’s largest and emerging businesses and organizations, helping them evolve, promote and protect their brands and reputations. Edelman owns specialty firms Edelman Intelligence (research) and United Entertainment Group (entertainment, sports, experiential), a joint venture with United Talent Agency."
You want to see how the end of the road looks? Take a look in the UK.
I don't even get your point. Because there are "liberal" college students acting like 'tards ... what? We have to vote Trump, call all media fake, embrace alternative facts, and drop our liberal values?
The fact that those kids are idiots doesn't do anything to shake my values. You see, I don't need to be one extreme or the other, and I'm capable of picking my beliefs from all over the spectrum.
I don't know, because we could learn from history, refuse to make the same mistakes over and over and make it better?
I know, who am I kidding?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That's just, like, your alternative facts, man!
That kind of thing has happened in more places than just Berkeley -- for example, at Middlebury College, where leftist thugs sent a liberal professor to the hospital because she helped protect an invited speaker from assault -- even when she knew she disagreed with the speaker.
And in every case, leftist intolerance, calls for violence, and outright violence have been tolerated by staff and faculty who are almost uniformly liberal.
How many riots did conservatives start during Obama's time in office? If they were so much more violent than leftists have been in the first two months of Trump's presidency, surely you can find plenty of examples.
Twitter uses the blue check mark for things beyond a simple chain of responsibility. Those uses are the ones that gave rise to the derogatory use of "verified".
You were molested.
Yours, the Twitter verified SJW communuty.
Dirty mind! Isn't there a porn site where people go to tell those stories?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Hense my reference to the hundreds of tea party rallies.
I guess i should have been clearer as I shouldnt expect critical thinking from the types who want to brand half the population for the actions of a few.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Many of the people carrying those signs were leftists trying to make the tea party look bad, and if you want to point to stupid signs at rallies, the "Chimpy McBushitler" squad from the mid-2000s would like to have a word with you.
Tea Party people have never rioted, never forced invited speakers away from public events, and never suppressed speech that they disagree with as "violence". Leftists have done all of these things in multiple places. It's either ignorant or dishonest to suggest that the riot at Berkeley was an isolated event.
Since you have no interest in what I'm saying and have every interest in turning this into a "my political sports team is duh best!" discussion I shall leave you with...
EVERYTHING YOU SAY IS RIGHT! Your shit not only doesnt smell but it also smells like roses at the same time. Anything the RIght does that's bad is really done by Left wing infiltrators because how could the Right do anything wrong? They're who you vote for! Your demonizing of those with contrary political views is 200 percent constructive and is not in any way, shape, or form reflective of our current dysfunctional political climate.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Interestingly enough, Scott Adams does not indicate that he accepts this explanation as being true.
But he doesn't indicate that he is skeptical about this explanation, either.
Since he didn't say something like "Twitter explained that iit was due to an error, and I believe them." and he easily could have, I'm going to go with the first interpretation.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153905823756/the-new-ceos-first-moves-and-trump
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
And still idiots try and try to moderate out the facts. Like I'm about to run out of copy/paste any time soon.
"'Verified' Is Now a Derogatory Term on Twitter... for rightards."
You know... Like liberal, feminist, socialist, immigrant, Muslim, Jew, black, literate, educated... and all other dog whistling insults that rightard cowards are using cause they don't have the balls to say what they really mean.
Sad.
In 1981, former Republican Party strategist Lee Atwater, when giving an anonymous interview discussing the GOP's Southern Strategy (see also Lee Atwater on the Southern Strategy), said:[19][20]
You start out in 1954 by saying, "Ni99er, ni99er, ni99er."
By 1968, you can't say "ni99er" - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff.
You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that.
But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other.
You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Ni99er, ni99er."
-Lee Atwater, Republican Party strategist in an anonymous interview in 1981
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Because you apparently have no interest in defending either what you said or what your fellow lefties do, I'll just say that you provide support for my hypothesis that if not fit double standards, lefties would have no standards at all.
I never defended stupid signs at tea party rallies, or crimes like the Trump rally-goer who punched a protester being escorted from the venue. I only pointed out that leftist misbehavior is at least bad.
Of course if you get your news from communist propaganda, "media matters", you will have a negative opinion. How about you show some facts other than commie rags...
Coulter: Meticulously backs her statements with facts. If she is missing some or incorrect how about showing which. If her position is factual and you are made uncomfortable, that is your own cognitive dissonance to deal with.
I do have to laugh about your claim that Levin is of the Obama is a "secret" Muslim crowd. Funny that he has helped Muslims far more than any other President in history, including illegal actions such as having the US Department of Education create full plans for schools promoting Muslim beliefs. There is no secret that Obama is pro-Muslim, the only part to question is the motivation for his actions.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
As much I disliked what happened in Berkeley with the protests the most annoying part of them for me is now we have idiots like you creating massive generalizations based off a single event.
Single event? You're either naive or an idiot, I'm not sure which. Multiple cases of this not only in the US, but in Canada, and in EU countries with self-identifying leftists being violent. Violently attacking people for not having the "right kind of opinions" and so on.
If the entire Left is now against free speech because of this where does that put the right with all those photos of racist anti Obama banners from tea party rallies? There's photos from hundreds of rallies featuring these things. Is the Right a movement entirely composed of racists because of those?
No, it means that the right is more tolerant of views that other people express and are unwilling to suppress them because the suppression of speech hurts everyone. That, and the vast majority of people on the right or lean-right, haven't drank the kool-aid of collectivism. Which is what you're expressing right now, by trying to "lump some people, with everyone else."
Since you're a twit I'll answer for you, it puts the Right no where because holding an entire political ideology responsible for the actions of a few is something only stupid people do.
Thanks for showing everyone what a collectivist looks like, and when you're so invested in identity politics that even other people on the left are saying "the left has an extremism problem" that you attack those sane voices, which of course pushes them to the right. You figure out why the DNC is spiraling down the drain right now? No? I'll give you a hint, it's because they just voted another person in who supports that same type of garbage.
Om, nomnomnom...
I don't even get your point. Because there are "liberal" college students acting like 'tards ... what? We have to vote Trump, call all media fake, embrace alternative facts, and drop our liberal values?
And how are you enjoying that moral outrage when it turns around and actually impacts your life? You think it doesn't also hurt companies when they jump into politics too? Ask Kelloggs.
The fact that those kids are idiots doesn't do anything to shake my values.
See that sentence? Now, go look at the latest "insert moral outrage" that just got your favorite thing pulled. Because they are doing things that shake your values, you just aren't paying attention.
Om, nomnomnom...
you just aren't paying attention
Ya I guess not, as indicated by the several posts I've made on the topic. I'm clearly not thinking about it at all. Good thing society has people like you otherwise everyone, including myself, would continue to wander around in a moral haze, oblivious.
Narcissism's a bitch.
Of course I disagree, it does not make any sense.
Let me introduce you to Yvette Felarca, a Berkeley elementary school teacher who is on video inciting violence at protests. She is heavily involved in an organization called "By Any Means Necessary," which advocates that "fascism" must not be allowed to take root in Berkeley and that, well, it is what it says it is -- fascism is to be fought by any means necessary. Amusingly, she is a teacher at Martin Luther King Jr Middle School, named after a role model for non-violent protest, yet she feels it is totally justified in physically assaulting white nationalists while screaming "get the fuck off our streets." After the Milo riots in Berkeley where she did the same thing, she grabbed more of the spotlight. While most of the Black Block is camera shy and hide their identities as much as possible, Felarca was brazen enough to go onto Sean Hannity's program where she said it was totally fine to block, with any means necessary, the free speech rights of people she called "fascists, homophobes, and racists," with herself, of course, being the arbiter of who is racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.
If you don't believe in totally open borders and total amnesty for illegal immigrants, you're a racist.
If you are not in favor of affirmative action, you're a racist.
Nazi. National socialist. This is basic stuff here, do you always just "bahaha" in response to facts?
Republic is an evil word of propaganda as well, indicative of harsh authoritarian and communist regimes.
After all, China has the word in "People's Republic of China." If the Nazis are emblematic of socialism, then China gets to be a republic.