Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Rolls Out Stricter Rules On Abusive Content (apnews.com)
Twitter has begun enforcing stricter policies on violent and abusive content like hateful images or symbols, including those attached to user profiles. From a report: The new guidelines, which were first announced one month ago, were put into place Monday. Monitors at the company will weigh hateful imagery in the same way they do graphic violence and adult content. If a user wants to post symbols or images that might be considered hateful, the post must be marked "sensitive media." Other users would then see a warning that would allow them to decide whether to view the post. Twitter is also prohibiting users from abusing or threatening others through their profiles or usernames. While the new guidelines became official on Monday, the social media company continues to work out internal monitoring tools and it is revamping the appeals process for banned or suspended accounts. But the company will also begin accepting reports from users.
This is how societies die.
Yeah, let the alt-right snowflakes baaaah about their butthurt on Gab. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Just call it what it is: Twitter is starting a purge of conservatives. The SJWs have been working on this for years and Twitter is finally caving.
They're never gonna ban the president though. It's a conundrum.
It's hilarious to see how many of the major discussion or social media platforms raised a huge ruckus about the very recent "net neutrality" policy change in the US.
Yet despite these platforms demanding that "net neutrality" be applied to telecom infrastructure providers, we've seen them act the exact opposite when it comes to the data they control. They're very in favor of showing partiality toward certain political beliefs, for example. They have ever-expanding definitions of "abusive" content that often go far beyond any censorship they're forced to perform by governments or by law. We repeatedly see comments and submissions and users deleted/banned merely for expressing views that aren't far enough to the left.
True net neutrality isn't just at the packet level. True net neutrality applies at all layers, including the highest levels where content and user comments, rather than packets, are the main focus. It means not deleting/hiding comments or submissions, and not banning users, just because they express perfectly legal ideas that hurt somebody's feelings.
Anyone who limits net neutrality to telecom providers alone isn't supporting real net neutrality. They're supporting net partiality, and that's the furthest thing from real net neutrality.
Real net neutrality means that packets aren't judged by their content or source/destination, but net neutrality also means that comments don't get deleted/hidden/censored and users don't get banned just for engaging in perfectly reasonable and legal discussion that some thin-skinned mental weaklings on the political left dislike.
Twitter has begun enforcing stricter policies on violent and abusive content....
Baloney. If this were actually true Trump's account would get suspended immediately. He abuses people routinely and is clearly a bully.
The only real differentiator of Twitter is being able to keep up with the latest "thoughts" of your favorite porn stars. And see how big is the latest thing they were able to shove up their ass. Take that away, and I don't see a purpose for Twitter as such.
Trump has launched a lot of personal hurtful and childish attacks on people, and Twitter, so far, has done: nothing.
I left Twitter because they supported Trump, and maybe you should, too.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Can I use Twitter to start a nuclear war with North Korea and/or Iran? (Asking for a friend.)
Twitter should just prevent users from writing their own comments, and instead let users pick from a predefined list of comments that have been deemed acceptable. Based on what I've seen of Twitter comments lately, they could have approved comments like 'Fuck Drmupf!!;!!#!', and 'Women can have penises, too!' and 'That is racist!'. Those alone would cover about 95% of typical Twitter comments these days. They could even take it a step beyond that, and instead of having a user pick a pre-approved comment, Twitter could just choose one automatically on behalf of the user each day.
Now it's Twitter's job to be a nanny to the snow flakes to keep them from melting?
The only problem is that they have history of enforcing rules against racists, crazies and trolls rather halfheartedly and the few times they've at least tried to enforce those rules properly those normally excluded racists, crazies and trolls have cried fowl.
In all seriousness twitter has never really been a place where any even slightly valuable dialogue takes place. 140 characters and a massive potential audience is great for chanting slogans, both political and advertisement ones, mindless drivel and abuse (there's dozens of people who have regularly do what Milo Yiannopolis got banned for), but not much else. I don't think anything has caused as massive of a regression in public discourse as twitter has so the sooner they finally destroy their platform and run themselves into bankruptcy, which should have long since happened seeing how they've never come close to turning a profit, the better.
"Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
How far can this go before someone steps in and sues for discrimination claiming that their selective filtering has basically nullified any claim to any sort of common carrier protection?
They are just copying Mastodon. But guess what? They can't really copy Mastodon, because it is decentralized. Instead of Twitter's Ministry Of Truth moderating posts, with Mastodon, individual site-owners do the moderation. Each community works differently with different standards that work for them, and yet they all federate together. No one is stuck.
it's what your mommy and all the teachers taught you: you are special and your feelings are more important than the objective reality that you are at best a cog in a machine that doesn't care what your feelings are. At worst, like most millenials, you are completely worthless as a human being, contributing nothing to the society around you. Besides the whining, if we can call that a 'contribution'. Perhaps to misery.
Anyway, you can see why the attempted reversal never works. At least with those with IQs greater than their age.
Just like any other corporate held website.
It's up to 280 characters now, but otherwise, yes.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
A common model of a modern computing network stack consists of 7 distinct layers. This is called the "OSI model". It's something that most Slashdot readers should be very familiar with.
You and others on the political left are pushing for only 3 of those 7 layers to be subjected to "neutrality". You only want neutrality for layers 1 through 3. But for layers 4 through 7 you fully support partiality, which includes things like censorship and filtering based on the data being transmitted. Your type claim to support "net neutrality", but really you don't, because you don't support neutrality for over 50% of the layers involved in a typical network scenario.
Anyone who supports real net neutrality supports neutrality at all levels, from level 1 through to level 7. They want 100% neutrality, or as close as is feasible, at all levels. When it comes to the layer 7 social media platforms, neutrality means avoiding censorship, not deleting/hiding comments, and not banning users.
It's laughable for you and others to say that you support "net neutrality" when you only want it to apply to 43% of the layers of a modern network, rather than 100%.
business-wise
Twitter still has no viable business model. Turning into an echo chamber won't end well for them.
The simple fact is butthurt SJW types are a tiny, whiny minority. Our last election has showed a quarter of the country absolutely despises them, and another half of the country doesn't give a fuck. Throw in probably another 20% on top of that, because the majority of Clinton voters voted not because MUH GENDERS, but because - well, let's face it: Bush-style Republicanism has left a bad taste in everyone's mouth.
Does the American or Israeli flags count as "offensive" content?
There are alternative platforms, so just more elsewhere and let the SJWs have their stupid safe space
Sorry, but the definition of "snowflake" is one of intolerance - the original poster wanted to leave everything open to everyone, you are the one wanting to shut down specific subgroups because they offend you. That makes you the snowflake here.
I have seen a number of times the left's bumbling attempts to use the right's terminology black at them, but every time it ignores the meaning of words and just makes you look like an idiot that proves the original point even further.
BTW, it's funny how the right-wingers are always going on and on about how businesses shouldn't have to serve gay people if it goes against the belief of the business owner,
The VAST difference is; no-one is asking Twitter to PRODUCE offensive content. They are just a conduit, that ideally would let anyone say anything they liked and let anyone read anything they wanted, offensive or not. That would be truly neutral.
A baker is very different; they are in essence an artist you are hiring to produce a certain work. Forcing a person to produce a work they fundamentally do not believe in is not right, I think even you can see that.
Now here's where I think you got lost, no-one is saying twitter should be FORCED to allow anyone to post anything - instead what they were saying was that it is hypocritical to claim you are for a truly content neutral internet, while at the same time using a very large platform to ensure internet content is not neutral, but heavily filtered. If it's OK for Twitter to block specific ideas why is it not OK for Comcast to try different rate plans? What if Comcast charged nazis 2x the normal rate for instance. All the sudden doesn't seem so unappealing to you, now does it?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Research "Heleno Henzo" on twitter and his 90482698571 accounts so far.
Covfefe?
A lot of people voted for Trump BECAUSE of the loud posturing of the authoritarian feminazi shitcunts. Most people are not upper class and the middle class is slowly but consistently lowering towards the lower class. People who are 1-2 months of unemployment away from foreclosure proceedings tend to resent being preached to by privileged snots that have plenty of time to write articles telling other people how to live their lives because they're living off of Daddy's money in one way or another. I mean, have you seen Suey Park's upper middle class kitchen? You know, the one she, the East Asian college-aged female, preaches from about how racism is keeping non-white non-male people down. "Racism hurts people like me! Oh, hang on, my $2,000 microwave I didn't get at Rent-A-Center because Daddy is rich as fuck is beeping."
It's adorable watching the Trump minions with mod points trying desperately to mod down any posts that point out the screamingly obvious fact that the guy is a bully, a liar, and a jerk even towards his ersatz supporters. Heaven forbid anyone criticize Saint Trump or his disciples.
If Trump were you or me there is a non-trivial chance our accounts would get suspended. He's rich and famous so the rules of common decency do not appear to apply to him.
Congratulations on making the dumbest fucking argument yet. You don't sound smart just because you read a wiki article on the OSI model. Clean the cheeto dust off your fingers and go back to thinking you understand anything at all about technology because you can reboot a computer.
This is a fairly clear explanation. Do you think anyone cares though?
For every thoughtful person it seems like there are 20 apes to shit in their hand and throw it at you.
"Troll" is an opinion. Just because you don't like what someone is saying doesn't mean they are a troll and it doesn't mean that they are wrong, it just means that they believe differently from you. You're just a childish, self-centred douchbag who thinks everyone in the world should think like you.
Honestly, now is the time for someone to start up a non-censored competitor if you've got the money to start it and would like to make even more money while burying Twitter.
You don't support net neutrality, and you shouldn't pretend that you do.
You only want neutrality for the bottom 3 of the 7 layers of the OSI model.
True net neutrality involves neutrality for all 7 layers, including the Application layer where social media comments and users are classified in.
100% net neutrality means that legal comments on social media web sites aren't hidden or deleted.
100% net neutrality means that users on social media web sites aren't banned for expressing legal ideas.
But you don't support those things.
You only want neutrality in 43% of cases, instead of 100%.
You don't support net neutrality.
You support net partiality.
People who are 1-2 months of unemployment away from foreclosure proceedings...
...should have enough sense not to vote for people who'll push them into being 0.5-1 month of unemployment away from foreclosure proceedings?
Ezekiel 23:20
If Twitter were serious they would hit Donald Trump with a lifetime ban because he's not just an impulsive liar, his tweets are dangerous and hurtful. And allowing Fox News to amplify their disinformation campaign is a rotten way to do business.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
"have you seen Suey Park's upper middle class kitchen? "
Nope, no idea what you're ranting about whatsoever. I think the most common theme I'm seeing here is that Trump's base (I can't really use the word "conservative") really needs to quit spending so much time consuming media, because it really does seem to drive them insane. That post reminds me of around 10 years ago when one of my Fox Newsie customers was ranting about someone(Maybe barbara streisand or some other antiwar liberal woman) saying that people should use less toilet paper. Dude was super fired up about it was trying to get my opinion about how crazy that was. I was like, I don't watch TV and don't know what (or who) you're talking even about, but I would think using less toilet paper would be a conservative position to take?
Like I get upset when someone with political power starts fucking with shit that affects me, but when some nobody writes about something that doesn't honestly affect me?
Turn off the idiot box, whether it's TV or Twitter.
I'm surprised anyone lets you near leadership of a company considering your complete lack of reasoning and thinking skills.
In all seriousness twitter has never really been a place where any even slightly valuable dialogue takes place.
Tell that to HuffPo. All they ever put out is long lists of random tweets attached to a clickbait headline. Unfortunately twitter probably won't go away until rags like HuffPo stop turning tweets from random people into "news."
Exactly, they even gave BLM an emoji. If twitter were to enforce their rules properly, they'd be deleting their platform!
People who are 1-2 months of unemployment away from foreclosure proceedings tend to resent being preached to by privileged snots that have plenty of time to write articles telling other people how to live their lives because they're living off of Daddy's money in one way or another.
I think you may be confused. The people you're talking about literally for a privileged snot who spends his time telling other people how to live their lives while living off his Daddy's money in one way or another. They clearly don't mind that sort of person since they put him in charge.
>>that might be considered hateful
That phrase scares me. Not only is it vague but it's ripe for misuse. For example, say I were to post a message saying "Gods blessings on everyone". Can that be considered hateful to gays and atheists? What about "Obama is the worst president we've ever had"? Is that hateful to Democrats and Liberals? This is a can of worms that should not be opened IMHO but I suppose it's their technology and they do what they want.
racists, crazies and trolls
You are probably not qualified to call anyone names, much less support the curtailment of their freedoms based on these judgements. You wave your hand and try to dehumanize others. You are missing the most important aspect of life: competition. You are claiming to be better but you refuse to compete. You are basically claiming to be a god on earth and above competition from the "mean things".
cried fowl
AVIAN BEAST! BIRD! BIRD!
In all seriousness twitter has never really been a place where any even slightly valuable dialogue takes place
Says you. Are the thoughts and actions of the hundreds of million people who use it invalid? Do they matter to nothing? Yet they are influenced by what they read on twitter. It's an important platform and it should by right be free for all to use.
The thing about marxist enforcement outlets is that they tend to be propped up regardless of profit. The hidden value is in how they are used to condition the population. They will be propped up as long as people keep going there. They will get endless investments for their contribution to the status quo, for their effort in rendering the human capital in this society to liquid.
My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
It was Cheryl Crow and she was actually making a joke which a lot of idiots took seriously because they cannot comprehend that someone who cares about the environment might not be crazy.
Honestly, now is the time for someone to start up a non-censored competitor if you've got the money to start it and would like to make even more money while burying Twitter.
Someone already created a non-censored Twitter-like platform over a year ago; Gab. It promptly became an alt-right echo chamber that everyone else avoids.
So, yeah... good luck with that fabulous, money-making idea you've got there.
You don't support net neutrality, and you shouldn't pretend that you do.
You only want neutrality for the bottom 3 of the 7 layers of the OSI model.
Incorrect, I support all 7 layers because that is about the network. Neutrality on the part of the web server is NOT part of the OSI model, it's strictly about the network.
100% net neutrality means that users on social media web sites aren't banned for expressing legal ideas.
No, Network Neutrality has nothing to do with the content provider. If you become a content provider and your server (not rented) is removed as a destination then that would be a violation of network neutrality. Seeing as how that doesn't happen, you're being treated just like the rest of us.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
There is precedent that could be used maybe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
From the article:
The town of Chickasaw, Alabama, was a company town near Mobile, Alabama, which was owned and operated by the Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation ("Gulf"). Aside from the fact that it was owned by a private entity, the town exhibited the general characteristics of a more traditional settlement. The town's policeman was a deputy from the Mobile County Sheriff's Department who was paid by Gulf. The town was surrounded by a number of adjacent neighborhoods which were not located on Gulf property. The Court noted that the residents of these non-Gulf neighborhoods were freely allowed to use the company-owned streets and sidewalks to access the town's businesses and facilities.
The appellant, Marsh, a Jehovah's Witness, stood near the post office one day, and began distributing religious literature. Marsh was warned that she needed a permit to do so.and that none would be issued to her. When she was asked to leave, she refused on the grounds that the company rule could not be constitutionally applied to her. The deputy sheriff arrested her and she was charged with the Alabama criminal code's trespassing equivalent.
During her trial, Marsh contended that the statute could not be constitutionally applied to her, as it would necessarily violate her rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. This contention was rejected and Marsh was convicted. The Alabama Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the statute as applied was constitutional because the title to the sidewalk was in the corporation's name and the public use of the sidewalk had not been such as to give rise to a presumption under Alabama law of its irrevocable dedication to the public. The Alabama Supreme Court denied certiorari, and Marsh appealed her case directly to the United States Supreme Court.
In a 5-3 decision, the court ruled in favor of Marsh. The opinion, joined by three justices, was authored by Justice Hugo Black, with Justice Felix Frankfurter authoring a concurrence, and Justice Stanley Forman Reed authoring a dissent.
My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
True net neutrality isn't just at the packet level. True net neutrality applies at all layers, including the highest levels where content and user comments, rather than packets, are the main focus. It means not deleting/hiding comments or submissions, and not banning users, just because they express perfectly legal ideas that hurt somebody's feelings.
That's 100% incorrect. Net neutrality DOES happen at the packet level, with every user on the Internet, whether an individual or a for-profit business, able to do what they want, without an ISP interfering or acting as gatekeeper.
I don't respond to AC's.
You forgot about non-binary gender freedom
The only problem is that they have history of enforcing rules against racists, crazies and trolls rather halfheartedly
The problem isn't that they've enforced their rules halfheartedly. They problem is that they've enforced them unevenly: halfheartedly against those whose political opinions they share, and overzealously against those whose political opinions they dislike. Consider a tweet railing against "those damn [black|white] [Clinton|Trump] voters" - which do you think is more likely to be censored?
When a person kicks a puppy, you don't whine that puppies get away with kicking people all the time, you just beat the kicker to death.
Black people aren't puppies. A puppy has no power and no understanding, and that's why we feel bad for them.
Black people don't lack understanding, they just lack power, so they get half the sympathy of the puppy.
White people have understanding and power, so if they choose to be assholes, fuck 'em.
These are the rules of sympathy. Please stop whining now.
That's a sidewalk. You can't just not use sidewalks. Twitter is a for-profit Internet company. You can easily not use Twitter.
I don't respond to AC's.
To answer your question, alt-right meant Nazi. But it was 2016, and everyone was super polite back then, so nobody wanted to call Nazis Nazis.
Who uses that commi bird brain app anyway!
You can easily not use the private part of town or its sidewalks. You could go to the next town over. The point is everyone was invited in. You are not grasping the significance here.
Retarded dog fucker
And they utterly fail to see the hypocrisy in their actions. Twitter has themselves become like the Nazis. Note how this rule doesn't apply to military or government.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Does this mean all the pro Antifa terrorists cant post anti white and anti orange memes anymore?
If if just meant Nazi, why was it applied to anyone not having a left leaning outlook? The meaning of a word is in how it's used. Alt-right was used indiscriminately as an attack weapon, not any sort of accurate political label.
The Twitter company should be dissolved.
Right, just ostracize the very people that made them popular. Already seen plenty of companies that have tried to do the same only to become relics of the past. Good bye Twitter and good luck to the new next replacement! And all the people blabbing about the "rubbish" on twitter are just going to twirl around in a dead social medium like the others before it, because, guess what? People don't want filtered content despite complaining about the trolls and trash. They want to moderate or be at least able to contain it, but censorship and filtering is not the answer.
And seeing how Youtube is reacting to all this, they're not just filtering bad content, they're just filtering everything they feel like.
When left wing crazies were using Twitter to bully and harass people... that was fine. Free speech.
The same left wing crazies attacked and tried to shutdown 4chan. Result: 8chan and a small percentage of the chans spilled out on to Twitter to have fun. Despite the media profile of Twitter it's a tiny number of actual active users compared to the internet's underbelly.
Naturally, the left wing crazies went mental. Their harassment home base was being swamped.
Then... Trump won, partly due to the social media counteracting the goddawful mainstream media. Supposedly reliable media outlets were being exposed for liars and shills. Trump won and the left went into full-blown panic demanding total censorship.
And this had to be implemented well in advance of the mid-terms. We don't any nasty facts getting out there this time.
You can't just not use sidewalks.
Tell that to all my neighbors who jog on the road.
Already seen plenty of companies that have tried to do the same only to become relics of the past.
Like what ones, exactly? I'm not aware of any companies that collapsed because they kicked out right-wing trolls.
I don't respond to AC's.
No it isn't. You're embracing the "extend and destroy" tactic of meanings MS used(?) to use.
The thing about marxist enforcement outlets is that they tend to be propped up regardless of profit. The hidden value is in how they are used to condition the population. They will be propped up as long as people keep going there. They will get endless investments for their contribution to the status quo, for their effort in rendering the human capital in this society to liquid.
The discussion is about Twitter, not "Fox News". I think you're confused.
I don't respond to AC's.
...should have enough sense not to vote for people who'll push them into being 0.5-1 month of unemployment away from foreclosure proceedings?
8 years under Obama is generally what got those people there in the first place. Their options are: More of the same, or a different path. Looks like the choice of "a different path" is working out much better for most people already.
Most of what the democrats are pulling right now is "more of the same" and people are tired of it. It's the same reason that the democrats are experiencing what's called "party flight" where the core becomes more moderate and looks at 3rd party alternatives, or they simply switch because they want to see them burn. The democrats delegates just finished electing a full-on anti-white race baiter to the leadership of the party, that's not going to help them win either the rustbelt or the heartland. It's also not just happening in the US, but Canada as well. There has been a shift from Liberals to both Green and NDP effectively fracturing the "left-wing vote" into 1/3's. ~20 years ago it was the Conservatives(PC) and Reform Party(smaller government, more resource exports, etc). Canada did very well under the CPC(party that replaced both of them under unification), regardless of what your views on Harper are, Canada was the only G8 and G20 country not to enter recession during the 2008 crash. And was the only country to gain net FT jobs over PT jobs during the recovery period.
Om, nomnomnom...
Except their censorship includes censoring basic support for POTUS. Only someone extremely retarded, devoid of any intellect, would support this behavior and believe your comment has any value whatsoever.
You can easily not use Twitter.
Except where your government has turned around and directly uses it for public discourse, weather alerts/warnings/etc, policy announcements and so on right? Then we get into the area where twitter has moved from a private company with no protections, to a private company that has an influence on public discourse, information and so on.
Om, nomnomnom...
Exactly, they even gave BLM an emoji.
Wow, they created an emoji for Blacks Love McChicken?
How far we've come...
8 years under Obama is generally what got those people there in the first place.
Because someone else would have handled Bush's parting gift better?
Ezekiel 23:20
Because someone else would have handled Bush's parting gift better?
Considering Obama was basically Bush 2.0? It looks like most of the Obama administrations actions were more of the same while not having a clue as to what was going on. It also didn't help that while republicans started driving neocons out of the party(like David Frum), those same neocons were happily welcomed with open arms by the democrats.
Om, nomnomnom...
The links you give do not support the conclusion you state.
The link states "They concluded that police were woefully unprepared, and that leadership was sluggish in its response to escalating violence, and as a result, they failed to protect public safety"-- which has nothing to do with what you stated, that "the antifa thugs attacked them first."
You then link to "the whole report" (https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/c869fb_a573de9ad4f04b0491b927ca9d48252c.pdf) -- but that doesn't support the statement you made either.
so I conclude that you gave these links to create an illusion that you have references to support your statement, on the assumption that the people reading wouldn't fact check you.
I bet they are using the user-marked media to help in training the recognizer for what users don't mark. That would reduce the cost versus only using media marked by their paid army. That makes me wonder whether the better-financed abusers will create bots to flood the system with non-sensitive media marked as sensitive to poison the AI.
Exactly, they even gave BLM an emoji. If twitter were to enforce their rules properly, they'd be deleting their platform!
I hate the Bureau of Land Management too, but I don't think that they use twitter very much
See subject: To whom it may concern - the freak I'm replying to has some dumb scheme in impersonating me folks - ignore him.
* He's just a butthurt fool that tried to "take me on" in tech stuff & lost badly to his public dismay is all - I've seen it before & it makes me LMAO!
(His "kind" brings it on themselves & this is their WEAK effete 'retaliation')
APK
P.S.=> You're a whackjob freak - no questions asked - this has to be the 10th time you've impersonated me this week alone...apk
Twitter has yet to take down those many AntiFa accounts created by the black shirt fascists and contain everything they claim that Conservative accounts contain, but much more.
Just Google "twitter antifa" and click on many of the "AntiFa" accounts that are still up and posting vile stuff.
FTFY
Ah yes you appear to be one of the Slashdot freedom-haters.
What it seems is that you can't stand the idea that people use free speech to say things you don't like or use freedom of association to not associate with you.
You are missing the most important aspect of life: competition.
No, it's cooperation. Everything you see around you is the result of cooperation.
. It's an important platform and it should by right be free for all to use.
You don't have a right to arbitrary free shit. If you want your own platform, host it yourself. If you can't get anyone to listen to you, well, that's your problem now not anyone else's. Perhaps if you lose the massive entitlement complex that would help.
Also you don't have a clue what"Marxism" is. Here's a hint: it's not simply fit you don't like.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Are the thoughts and actions of the hundreds of million people who use it invalid? Do they matter to nothing?
I've never tweeted and only follow one person (2 accounts). Are there other valuable "thoughts and actions" to explore? In my limited exploration I've seen a lot of fluff. I wouldn't describe DJT's tweets as fluff. I'm just on because it's a unique look into the mind of the lunatic at our country's helm.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
"have cried fowl. "
They hate chickens?
And now that a women has been murdered, their healthcare gone, tax cuts given to the rich and their own taxes raised, the president supporting a pedophile, they probably regret voting that way.
If only someone had warned them. Oh wait......
I got suspended once on twitter after I got carried away in a flame war and said something I was honestly ashamed of. I took my punishment meekly because I was very much wrong. What bothers me is that since that day I've reported 15 people for crossing that same line and not one of them was ever considered a problem by twitter. I came to the conclusion that twitter judges strictly on political grounds and I'm more convinced every day.
As someone who is allergic to gluten, I consider all pictures of birthday cakes and other pastries as hateful images posted to mock my inability to eat them. Ban all the food pictures!
I'd love to run into you in person. I would smash your face in for being such a pompous little prick.
I would kill your dog too.
Think about the losers that use it. The kind of people that have bumper-stickers on their vehicle, etc. Why does Slashdot care about this nonsense?
8 years under Obama is generally what got those people there in the first place.
Nah, they put themselves there by their own poor life decisions. Same way women made life choices leading to the wage gap, or non-whites making poor life choices lead to them making up most crime statistics.
Looks like the choice of "a different path" is working out much better for most people already.
Are they really working out much better? The left is now more emboldened to punching nazis. Social media like Twitter in TFS are tightening their controls with the implicit goal of chasing conservatives off public discourse. More and more women are coming out about sexual assault from decades ago, and while it did catch quite a number of liberals (Hollywood especially) conservatives are as usual in the cross hairs as well.
Overall economic numbers look better, but
a) They've been improving since Obama's reelection
b) Overall economic numbers don't necessarily reflect the well being of individual Trump voters who may not be benefiting from it (e.g that Wall Street is hitting record highs doesn't mean much for the laid off coal miners)
Pay attention. 'Nazi' now also means anybody less authoritarian than Stalin.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
A good example of a racist post.
You don't have a right to arbitrary free shit.
Yes I do. I insist that I do and I will fight you or anyone else to the death who denies my right.
I have a right to be part of public discourse, I have a right to be int he same place as the majority and speak freely there. The livelihood, my future, and my freedom depend on this. So no matter what lesser or false law or rule would forbid me from doing so, I will do it anyway and if anyone tries to stop me I will fight back to the point of killing them or being killed myself if need be.
No, it's cooperation. Everything you see around you is the result of cooperation.
And how would we know what to cooperate about if an individual didn't propose a way to do things and assert it's superiority above all others?
Marxism is characterized by inventing a class of oppressors (evil nazi white supremacist hate bigots in this case) and pitting the most easily influenceable part of the population against them (poor people in almost every case).
The whole farce about capital always rotting in the hands of a few oligarchs unless the state steps in and micromanages everything is just a lie to give the controllers of the state the wealth and let it rot the same way they claim they will prevent it from rotting.
It turns out you do not even know what freedom is or what life is about and that you are the one who hates what is right.
My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
> You don't have a right to arbitrary free shit.
Yes I do. I insist that I do and I will fight you or anyone else to the death who denies my right.
lol OK. Go into a jewelery store and start taking arbitrary shit for free. Have fun fighting the cops to death, Mr. Internet tough Guy!
I have a right to be part of public discourse,
You have a right to be a part of public discourse free from government interference. You don't have a right to a twitter acconut.
The livelihood, my future, and my freedom depend on this.
Oh so you're a twitter personality who got b&! That explains a lot! Try gab.
So no matter what lesser or false law or rule would forbid me from doing so, I will do it anyway and if anyone tries to stop me I will fight back to the point of killing them or being killed myself if need be.
So you're going to reregister on twitter under another name and if that fails, you're going to murder twiter employees?
Have you considered, you know, not being so incredibly desperately attached to twitter? I think standing off the I25 in a sandwich board sounds much more your scene anyway.
And how would we know what to cooperate about if an individual didn't propose a way to do things and assert it's superiority above all others?
How? By not being utterly crazy-pants for a start. Then by actually using our brains rather than doing nothing except spewing talking points.
Marxism is characterized by inventing a class of oppressors
Ah, so like the "they're after our guns!!!" thing. I see!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
promptly became an alt-right echo chamber that everyone else avoids
Ah, so exactly what Twitter is becoming for all of the alt-left, bleeding heart, entitled, irresponsible, SJW, racist, crybaby, white knighting, busybody nutjobs. Thanks.
Oh and go get a fucking job, you deadbeat.
You are severely, severely mentally ill.
Everything you stand for is losing and you know it. Turn back now.
My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
You are severely, severely mentally ill.
Well I guess you've reached the limit of ability to rationally rebut my points then!
Everything you stand for is losing
But not this argument! Zing!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You have no points. You are just seeking status in a place where it's impossible to get. You do not care about knowledge, you care about image.
Your mental illness is leading you to savagery. Turn back.
My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
Oh the wit and insight!
You have no points. You are just seeking status in a place where it's impossible to get. You do not care about knowledge, you care about image.
You appear to have your threads crossed, my good fellow, because this has nothing at all to do with the original discussion.
Also, you should dial back the paranoia in your sig. You probably kept getting downmods after you hit -1, so you have no idea how many you got. Same thing happened to me when I suggested Mr. Damore was not correct in many of his points. I'd like to see you blame that on the mythical SJWs! :)
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Twitter is actually being pretty cunning in the order they'll be banning anyone they disagree with ideologically - they're starting with the more reasonable folks who don't get as much attention. Boiling the frogs slowly.
thats why i left the link
i have no -1 rated posts at all
My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
I'll remember to mention your kind thoughts about power to the white homeless guys I see every day.
Oh snap! He said fox news!
Uhh, Fox News is not a Marxist organization... It's literally the opposite, you fucking imbecile.
Black people literally control 1/4th of the Earth... What the fuck are you talking about, you fucking imbecile?
It isn't called Bushcare, dipshit.
300% increase in health care premiums, with half of the benefits, is entirely on the Democrats and Obama. It's the main reason why your team lost. Own it.
Granted that it's their playground, but who defines what "hate speech" is? Is it defined at all? It's not unknown for groups to use the phrase "hate speech" to shout down anything they don't agree with.
Friendly reminder that it was exclusively actual Nazis who created the narrative of "everyone on the right being actual Nazis", not only to discredit the anti-Nazi sentiment, but to embolden themselves. This is extremely well documented, and most people recognize it as true.