They're called white knights. They usually only show up to defend a fair maiden when they attack someone, and get called out on their bullshit. Kinda like this...
Gaming has always been about the journey, the story helps. But that personal experience that gives you those warm feels is what has always made it. Ask any gamer the first time they stepped into the Fortress of Regrets and Deionarra shows up if they didn't feel something. Or their first play through of Mass Effect when you tell the fleet to come through. Even with older games there's going to be stuff you just remember and it's going to make you feel something.
But twitch? Cancer, the only service it provided was occasionally showing off new releases or people playing games before they were released in a review-like state. Now it's just camwhores and jackasses as far as the eye can see, they just put the nail into it when they decided to start arbitrarily banning games because it hurt some regressives feelings.
So next year we'll be seeing the stats that piracy is increasing again since hollywood and so on decided that region locking was a really good idea. I know of quite a few people here in Canada who've simply cancelled their netflix subs, kept the VPN and now pirate everything like they did a few years ago.
I clarified one ridiculous strawman, I didn't ask for you to spam us with even more of them.
No, actually you didn't. You refuted nothing, countered nothing, and believe that my response was a quick and easy attack. If anything, your original comment was a strawman, since you took things that were contextually inaccurate, factually inaccurate, wrapped it into a nice bundle and made it into a statement as a means of attack without refuting the actual substance of the original.
You really seem like the type of person who just needs to calm down, take a deep breath, and look at how crazy you're acting.
Pointing out that there's a group of people that are directly impacting basic freedoms is crazy. Gotcha, that makes plenty of sense. You wanna go hit up the University of Toronto and soap-box that there are two genders for example? Remember we have free medical care here in Canada, with luck you won't be violently assaulted.
Obviously, some left-wing person has annoyed you at some point, or maybe several such persons. But you're conflating the actions of a very small group of people, to include everyone you disagree with.
Well I can agree largely with your last sentence, it's a very small group of people. So how is it that this very small group of people are having such a negative effect on society and culture at large? Or are you saying that said effects aren't negative or are you saying that their actions aren't having an effect on society. Such as their attacks on expression, speech, public and private opinion. That universities for example now aren't shying away from subjects that could "upset students" or outright ban people who have opinions to the contrary because of "security concerns." Or do those count as just minor inconveniences because they haven't effected you yet?
That's some scary, authoritarian, anti-free-speech shit you are advocating.
Where did I advocate something? Oh right, I didn't. What I did was provide you what the face of the modern left is doing these days. That's a group of leftists attacking someone because they dare to have an opinion they don't like. I have to wonder if you're so far ideologically left that you're unable to introspectively look at something and realize that the political side you've attached yourself to has and is authoritarian, anti-free speech. And loves to attack people for daring to have an opinion counter to orthodoxy.
Dictators everywhere agree with you, people shouldn't voice their criticisms if it makes life difficult for them.
Read that link again. I'll wait, all those people attacking the person are ideologically left and fall into that nice "SJW" camp. If you're unable to see that you're so far left that Chinese Marxists are just right-of-centre.
Some day, perhaps somebody will teach you the concept of "molehill and mountain". If you're trying to imply that Trump's people are less violent than his opponents, then we both know you're full of shit.
Gotcha. The shitty side you support isn't doing anything nearly as bad or even worse, and the far left sure isn't full of crazy radical environmentalists that do things like bomb animal testing labs, burn down houses or SUV's or try to blow up pipelines either. The left is by far full of more batshit insane then the right these days, but then again the left has believed in "violent agitation" since the 1960's as a method of public discourse. And you can find courses in universities all over the west that openly support that view. Or did you forget about that?
You think Clinton's campaign is feeling desperate? Vegas is paying out 6-1 on Trump presidency, but you know better, don't you?
Doesn't mean shit. At one point a few weeks before brexit, Vegas was paying 15:1 leave. Hell, they were paying 5:1 leave 48hrs before the vote took place.
The defensive holier than thou-ness of Mashiki, right here folks. Consistent to a fault.
Mocking a person is holier than thou-ness. Nice, I'll have to remember that for the future.
Don't worry, there are plenty of other examples of behavior, for example the reaction to Colin Kapernik, to the Dixie Chicks, the actions of Judge Roy Moore, that clerk in Kentucky, numerous comments and actions by police forces documented in DOJ investigations...
And they were all wrong. Wanna point out where I defended them? I'll wait...
Want to learn about Liberty University? Want to learn about the people who suggested ramming protesters in North Carolina? Want to learn about the one that did happen in Reno, Nevada? Want to learn about the terrorism planned in Kansas?
What about Liberty university? Besides that the students that are trying to shut down speech aren't actually religious conservatives, they're no different then the ones at Oberlin. It's pretty easy to find that out. "NC" would that be the same ones where the blacks were chanting "kill whitey" and "kill the crackers" pretty sure it is. You mean the protest in Reno where protesters swarmed the truck? And caught them without a problem?
That's odd, they're in the news all the time. Right now, for example, they're intervening in a custody dispute between two lesbians. And threatening revolutionary violence, if somehow their candidate doesn't win, because they just know, know, that it is all rigged.
Would that be the two lesbians that beat their child to death, or would that be a different case? Hyperbole isn't threats, but then again leftists have been out there violently attacking. Just like the ones that attacked a HPI oil line.
Your dogma seems to be the blindness of seeing only evil on the left, while refusing to recognize it elsewhere. Whicj is nothing new, your editorials could have been written after Haymarket Square.
Really? Seems like I'm able to sift through most of the BS you posted pretty easily. Want to try again? FYI I'm not american so I actually had to look up Haymarket Square.
Listen to yourself. You expect people to refrain from criticising behaviour they dislike (as you just did). In other words you want them to self censor. Of course this doesn't apply to you; you are free to attack me and anyone else who has contrary opinions.
Hypocrisy in a single sentence.
No, I'm expecting people not to turn around and attack a person to try and force them to lose their job or change their opinion because a whiny mob decides to lose their shit. If you think that this is an attack, then you're far more mentally unstable then you believe.
You want to know what a real attack looks like? Try this.
Oh, so you could basically just have boiled it down to "it's a ridiculous strawman that I and my fellow alt-rightists scumbags have invented, in order to further our hateful agendas".
That would have made it so much clearer.
So self-identified labels are a strawman? FYI "SJW" is a label created by social justice warriors, I know...facts hurt feels. But, nice assumptions there. Do you also believe that the "right" and "conservatives" are dangerous neo-nazi's that are bent on world domination and to dispose of (((them))), while kicking illegals and plotting ways to resurrect Hitler? I think I got all the regressive talking points there. No wait, I missed Pepe and how a cartoon frog is a neo-nazi hate symbol for white supremacy.
Looks like it's safe to assume you haven't seen any of the videos that have emerged from some Trump rallies.
You mean like those people physically attacked by anti-trump protesters in California, or the anti-trump protester macing a couple of little girls. Or the 20+ vehicles that were vandalized?
Funny, you think everyone who isn't like you is an SJW. The difference being that "conservative" describes a political philosophy and is not an insult. Your tactic is to accuse people of labelling you when of course labelling is only a problem when the label is negative. It's a classic silencing tactic.
Making assumptions again? Figure you would have learned by now not to do that. Despite all those regressive liberals that use it as an insult and as something dangerous, whether it be individuals, the media at large right? Which is a really good silencing tactic right? After all, if using SJW which is their self-applied label was a silencing tactic they wouldn't have so much face time in the media.
As I said, you want to silence other people and use every low down trick you can think of to do it. It allows you to be authoritarian while pretending not to be.
Really? I'm sure you can prove that. I'll wait, after all I'm not the one out there turning around and doxing people, sticking their faces on posters, and claiming they're rapists for the dangerous thing of wanting to have a discussion on "mens rights" for example on campus.
And then, as if you anticipated by point and decided to help by proving it, you start ranting about Eich again with the unwritten subtext that being allowed to criticise him is somehow a bad thing because it had negative repercussions for his career. To your credit, your assault on other people's free speech, their right to criticise, is relentless and consistent (in that it only applies to views you don't like).
So wait, I'm authoritarian for making the statement that a persons individual opinions shouldn't be grounds for the harassment they receive at the hands of those who don't like his ideology. How does that work again?
You are everything you claim your worst enemies are.
Sorry, what part of expecting people to be allowed to have contrary opinions and not attacking them for is it makes me "everything I claim my worst enemies are." Besides, the implication that you think they're my enemies. How's that assumption stuff going again?
Well let's look at all the big chans shall we? 4chan does actually make money, despite what Nishimura claims. He has a long history of lying through his teeth especially when he's making a buck selling user metadata. 8chan is profitable, especially since it has multiple external sources for money. 2chan and 2ch both make money hand over fist. Krautchan also makes money. Sorry, you were saying?
Right, in sure that put Google off, I mean can you imagine them implementing some kind of SJW bullshit real name policy on their social media sites?
Sure did, how'd it work for youtube? How's it working for every site that implements the "facebook commenting system." You should know already, very poorly. If anything the actual discourse decreases and personal attacks increase. And on top of it, the number of people deciding to try getting people fired for "wrongthink" increases.
More likely it's because the extreme trolling and Twitter's slow reaction to it has damaged their reputation, devaluing their brand.
Someone has never been to a chan site or usenet in their entire life.
Well this might be scary to believe, but in some places in the world social media is faster for things like weather alerts then even broadcast TV or emergency alert type systems. That's the case here in Canada, unless of course you're saying that people, police, and the media stating a Toronto hitting somewhere before Environment Canada doesn't even have a warning up or is 30-40 minutes late.
What you describe sounds like some conservatives, yourself included. The ones who want to silence criticism (like the Eich debacle) and inflict their dogma on others (like so called "religious freedom" and "bathroom bills").
Uses "you're a conservative" yep. There's that "everyone who isn't like me is a conservative" bit, would have been better if you'd used the usual right-wing, at least you'd have been consistent like your previous claims. Sorry, who was the group that threatened and pushed Eich out and jumped all over him for his own private viewpoint that had zero to do with his job? Which group was it that threatened the head of a advertising agency for having an opinion against the current orthodoxy? FYI it wasn't those "scary conservatives."
Want to name the universities in the western world that are so conservative that they're shutting down debates because the students will be "triggered by people who aren't left-wing" are discussing issues that they don't want discussed. Was it those "conservatives" at the University of Toronto that attacked a reporter? Nope in both cases. The last time I remember a religious conservative in the news, it was an anti-abortion protest, and it was again left-wing students who attacked, and assaulted the person. FYI since you're in the UK, how many times have groups like "antifa" violently attacked people in the last 10 years for not having the right opinion.
By the way, which dogma is it that's mine, the one that doesn't exist or the one that doesn't exist?
Whenever I hear the phrase SJW I think here's a stupid person that lacks the ability to form a coherent argument. I'm sure I'm not the only one...
Don't worry. It's a general label for a very specific group of people it's much easier then saying: They're a group of people who have very pro-authoritarian leanings, anti-free speech, stand against many if not all democratic western traditions, and believe that using physical or psychological intimidation is justified(aka no bad tactics, only bad targets), that the one who can claim to be the most oppressed and virtue signaling the loudest is at the top of the pyramid and actual activism is far too difficult isn't it? Besides, it's their own label. Guess it's too bad for them instead of actually doing something positive, they decided that engaging in negative actions which people associated with it, which is their problem.
I'm sure someone is going to come out with a "good job blahblahblah it's lost all meaning..." or some rot. Never mind that said term has really only been in the general public lexicon for oh maybe a year, two years tops(but then you'd have to admit that things like Gamergate, sad puppies, general anti-authoritarian stances have had a far larger public impact on society then the on-going claim that GG is only 300 people, or sad puppies is full of white males who live in their moms basement). But I'll happily remind the people who are now running for a reply, that you're likely among that same group that has abused English so badly that "sexism, racism, misogyny, etc" has lost all meaning.
Those people were banned specifically to improve their brand. Corporations don't want to be associated with shitty people.
I think you mean "they were banned" because twitter thought it would improve their brand among the wider audience, it turns out that their audience that they appealed to is actually an extremely small and vocal minority that the majority of people would label "batshit insane" and "incredibly politically correct."
Twitter seems to believe that brand that's really the huge thing and has wide support is the same stuff that people like Anitia Sarkeesian, Jessica Valenti, Paul Feig, etc believe in. Identity politics, doxing, harassment, factually insubstantial posturing(all men are rapists, sexism is why xyz thing failed, if you don't believe what we're telling you--you're a sexist/misogynist/etc, everything is the fault of them white men, video games make people especially men into mass-murders, rapists, etc), if you don't support xyz women, you're a sexist/misogynist, stating failures are the cause of the audience, attacking the audience, sex-negative stances, meritocracy is a MRA construct, free speech needs to be limited/revoked, no-platforming is good, no-platforming of people who have contrary opinions is good. Men can't talk about xyz thing because they're men, safe-spaces, trigger warnings over absolute inane bullshit, and the list goes on.
Somehow I don't think blocking a few rightwing nutjobs caused Twitter to lose value
So which part makes them "nut jobs" the part where they post things offensive to regressive leftists, or the parts where they post politically compromising things that hurt their feelings and they should be silenced before you have too much to think for yourself?
FYI twitter has dug this hole on it's own. The second you start censoring content because it hurts feelings or it's politically inconvenient to a group of people, that's when investors start to flee. Their links are just scratching the surface, twitter ever since they put their 1984ish sounding "Trust and Safety council" has been suppressingtrending hashtags and tweets if it shows leftists or democrats in a bad light. Blocking and censoring journalists from showing up in some countries, helping EU countries suppress citizens who are critical of the influx of illegals. And of course censoringcontentif it's "offensive."
Uh-huh. How many warnings in the last 3 years have we had about machine controllers and PLC's being directly connected to the internet and how it's a really stupid thing to do that. Because they control everything from electrical grids to management of the water supply(including chemical treatment control) to sewer maintenance control.
Both times I filed claims with State Farm the work was done within 6 days. One time vandalism on my car, the other when I was involved in a hit and run, and the entire ass end of my car was totaled(sadly it's hard to catch people with no plates). GP would have been better off using something like Green Shield which operates as a non-profit insurance company.
She's probably already working on that. But either her campaign or someone related to the DNC is paying youtubers to endorse her. And sorry no, "omg, I bet that's infowars" retards. It's Phil DeFranco saying he's been offered money to endorse Clinton and so have others.
Slashdot Mirror
They're called white knights. They usually only show up to defend a fair maiden when they attack someone, and get called out on their bullshit. Kinda like this...
Gaming has always been about the journey, the story helps. But that personal experience that gives you those warm feels is what has always made it. Ask any gamer the first time they stepped into the Fortress of Regrets and Deionarra shows up if they didn't feel something. Or their first play through of Mass Effect when you tell the fleet to come through. Even with older games there's going to be stuff you just remember and it's going to make you feel something.
But twitch? Cancer, the only service it provided was occasionally showing off new releases or people playing games before they were released in a review-like state. Now it's just camwhores and jackasses as far as the eye can see, they just put the nail into it when they decided to start arbitrarily banning games because it hurt some regressives feelings.
So next year we'll be seeing the stats that piracy is increasing again since hollywood and so on decided that region locking was a really good idea. I know of quite a few people here in Canada who've simply cancelled their netflix subs, kept the VPN and now pirate everything like they did a few years ago.
You're comparing stereotypes to ideologies FYI.
I clarified one ridiculous strawman, I didn't ask for you to spam us with even more of them.
No, actually you didn't. You refuted nothing, countered nothing, and believe that my response was a quick and easy attack. If anything, your original comment was a strawman, since you took things that were contextually inaccurate, factually inaccurate, wrapped it into a nice bundle and made it into a statement as a means of attack without refuting the actual substance of the original.
You really seem like the type of person who just needs to calm down, take a deep breath, and look at how crazy you're acting.
Pointing out that there's a group of people that are directly impacting basic freedoms is crazy. Gotcha, that makes plenty of sense. You wanna go hit up the University of Toronto and soap-box that there are two genders for example? Remember we have free medical care here in Canada, with luck you won't be violently assaulted.
Obviously, some left-wing person has annoyed you at some point, or maybe several such persons. But you're conflating the actions of a very small group of people, to include everyone you disagree with.
Well I can agree largely with your last sentence, it's a very small group of people. So how is it that this very small group of people are having such a negative effect on society and culture at large? Or are you saying that said effects aren't negative or are you saying that their actions aren't having an effect on society. Such as their attacks on expression, speech, public and private opinion. That universities for example now aren't shying away from subjects that could "upset students" or outright ban people who have opinions to the contrary because of "security concerns." Or do those count as just minor inconveniences because they haven't effected you yet?
That's some scary, authoritarian, anti-free-speech shit you are advocating.
Where did I advocate something? Oh right, I didn't. What I did was provide you what the face of the modern left is doing these days. That's a group of leftists attacking someone because they dare to have an opinion they don't like. I have to wonder if you're so far ideologically left that you're unable to introspectively look at something and realize that the political side you've attached yourself to has and is authoritarian, anti-free speech. And loves to attack people for daring to have an opinion counter to orthodoxy.
Dictators everywhere agree with you, people shouldn't voice their criticisms if it makes life difficult for them.
Read that link again. I'll wait, all those people attacking the person are ideologically left and fall into that nice "SJW" camp. If you're unable to see that you're so far left that Chinese Marxists are just right-of-centre.
Some day, perhaps somebody will teach you the concept of "molehill and mountain". If you're trying to imply that Trump's people are less violent than his opponents, then we both know you're full of shit.
Gotcha. The shitty side you support isn't doing anything nearly as bad or even worse, and the far left sure isn't full of crazy radical environmentalists that do things like bomb animal testing labs, burn down houses or SUV's or try to blow up pipelines either. The left is by far full of more batshit insane then the right these days, but then again the left has believed in "violent agitation" since the 1960's as a method of public discourse. And you can find courses in universities all over the west that openly support that view. Or did you forget about that?
You think Clinton's campaign is feeling desperate? Vegas is paying out 6-1 on Trump presidency, but you know better, don't you?
Doesn't mean shit. At one point a few weeks before brexit, Vegas was paying 15:1 leave. Hell, they were paying 5:1 leave 48hrs before the vote took place.
You know not every discussion involves a dispute?
Right, would you rather try debate? Want to try again and explain how censoring things is a good idea that will draw people in?
Things are not always as they seem...
Yes, sometimes they're near and sometimes far. And sometimes they're out in left field.
The defensive holier than thou-ness of Mashiki, right here folks. Consistent to a fault.
Mocking a person is holier than thou-ness. Nice, I'll have to remember that for the future.
Don't worry, there are plenty of other examples of behavior, for example the reaction to Colin Kapernik, to the Dixie Chicks, the actions of Judge Roy Moore, that clerk in Kentucky, numerous comments and actions by police forces documented in DOJ investigations...
And they were all wrong. Wanna point out where I defended them? I'll wait...
Want to learn about Liberty University? Want to learn about the people who suggested ramming protesters in North Carolina? Want to learn about the one that did happen in Reno, Nevada? Want to learn about the terrorism planned in Kansas?
What about Liberty university? Besides that the students that are trying to shut down speech aren't actually religious conservatives, they're no different then the ones at Oberlin. It's pretty easy to find that out. "NC" would that be the same ones where the blacks were chanting "kill whitey" and "kill the crackers" pretty sure it is. You mean the protest in Reno where protesters swarmed the truck? And caught them without a problem?
That's odd, they're in the news all the time. Right now, for example, they're intervening in a custody dispute between two lesbians. And threatening revolutionary violence, if somehow their candidate doesn't win, because they just know, know, that it is all rigged.
Would that be the two lesbians that beat their child to death, or would that be a different case? Hyperbole isn't threats, but then again leftists have been out there violently attacking. Just like the ones that attacked a HPI oil line.
Your dogma seems to be the blindness of seeing only evil on the left, while refusing to recognize it elsewhere. Whicj is nothing new, your editorials could have been written after Haymarket Square.
Really? Seems like I'm able to sift through most of the BS you posted pretty easily. Want to try again? FYI I'm not american so I actually had to look up Haymarket Square.
Listen to yourself. You expect people to refrain from criticising behaviour they dislike (as you just did). In other words you want them to self censor. Of course this doesn't apply to you; you are free to attack me and anyone else who has contrary opinions.
Hypocrisy in a single sentence.
No, I'm expecting people not to turn around and attack a person to try and force them to lose their job or change their opinion because a whiny mob decides to lose their shit. If you think that this is an attack, then you're far more mentally unstable then you believe.
You want to know what a real attack looks like? Try this.
Oh, so you could basically just have boiled it down to "it's a ridiculous strawman that I and my fellow alt-rightists scumbags have invented, in order to further our hateful agendas".
That would have made it so much clearer.
So self-identified labels are a strawman? FYI "SJW" is a label created by social justice warriors, I know...facts hurt feels. But, nice assumptions there. Do you also believe that the "right" and "conservatives" are dangerous neo-nazi's that are bent on world domination and to dispose of (((them))), while kicking illegals and plotting ways to resurrect Hitler? I think I got all the regressive talking points there. No wait, I missed Pepe and how a cartoon frog is a neo-nazi hate symbol for white supremacy.
After all, I'm sure these regressive leftists who fit all of those points are just harmless. Just like those ones who were protesting at Mizzou, and Yale, Harvard, Oxford, Toronto, etc, etc, etc. Get triggered at human bones claim that halloween costumes are racist, and offer "counseling" for it. Scream that kimono's are cultural appropriation and so on, and on, and on. Very invented....
Looks like it's safe to assume you haven't seen any of the videos that have emerged from some Trump rallies.
You mean like those people physically attacked by anti-trump protesters in California, or the anti-trump protester macing a couple of little girls. Or the 20+ vehicles that were vandalized?
Funny, you think everyone who isn't like you is an SJW. The difference being that "conservative" describes a political philosophy and is not an insult. Your tactic is to accuse people of labelling you when of course labelling is only a problem when the label is negative. It's a classic silencing tactic.
Making assumptions again? Figure you would have learned by now not to do that. Despite all those regressive liberals that use it as an insult and as something dangerous, whether it be individuals, the media at large right? Which is a really good silencing tactic right? After all, if using SJW which is their self-applied label was a silencing tactic they wouldn't have so much face time in the media.
As I said, you want to silence other people and use every low down trick you can think of to do it. It allows you to be authoritarian while pretending not to be.
Really? I'm sure you can prove that. I'll wait, after all I'm not the one out there turning around and doxing people, sticking their faces on posters, and claiming they're rapists for the dangerous thing of wanting to have a discussion on "mens rights" for example on campus.
And then, as if you anticipated by point and decided to help by proving it, you start ranting about Eich again with the unwritten subtext that being allowed to criticise him is somehow a bad thing because it had negative repercussions for his career. To your credit, your assault on other people's free speech, their right to criticise, is relentless and consistent (in that it only applies to views you don't like).
So wait, I'm authoritarian for making the statement that a persons individual opinions shouldn't be grounds for the harassment they receive at the hands of those who don't like his ideology. How does that work again?
You are everything you claim your worst enemies are.
Sorry, what part of expecting people to be allowed to have contrary opinions and not attacking them for is it makes me "everything I claim my worst enemies are." Besides, the implication that you think they're my enemies. How's that assumption stuff going again?
Well let's look at all the big chans shall we? 4chan does actually make money, despite what Nishimura claims. He has a long history of lying through his teeth especially when he's making a buck selling user metadata. 8chan is profitable, especially since it has multiple external sources for money. 2chan and 2ch both make money hand over fist. Krautchan also makes money. Sorry, you were saying?
Right, in sure that put Google off, I mean can you imagine them implementing some kind of SJW bullshit real name policy on their social media sites?
Sure did, how'd it work for youtube? How's it working for every site that implements the "facebook commenting system." You should know already, very poorly. If anything the actual discourse decreases and personal attacks increase. And on top of it, the number of people deciding to try getting people fired for "wrongthink" increases.
More likely it's because the extreme trolling and Twitter's slow reaction to it has damaged their reputation, devaluing their brand.
Someone has never been to a chan site or usenet in their entire life.
Well this might be scary to believe, but in some places in the world social media is faster for things like weather alerts then even broadcast TV or emergency alert type systems. That's the case here in Canada, unless of course you're saying that people, police, and the media stating a Toronto hitting somewhere before Environment Canada doesn't even have a warning up or is 30-40 minutes late.
It's a rather sad state of affairs isn't it?
What you describe sounds like some conservatives, yourself included. The ones who want to silence criticism (like the Eich debacle) and inflict their dogma on others (like so called "religious freedom" and "bathroom bills").
Uses "you're a conservative" yep. There's that "everyone who isn't like me is a conservative" bit, would have been better if you'd used the usual right-wing, at least you'd have been consistent like your previous claims. Sorry, who was the group that threatened and pushed Eich out and jumped all over him for his own private viewpoint that had zero to do with his job? Which group was it that threatened the head of a advertising agency for having an opinion against the current orthodoxy? FYI it wasn't those "scary conservatives."
Want to name the universities in the western world that are so conservative that they're shutting down debates because the students will be "triggered by people who aren't left-wing" are discussing issues that they don't want discussed. Was it those "conservatives" at the University of Toronto that attacked a reporter? Nope in both cases. The last time I remember a religious conservative in the news, it was an anti-abortion protest, and it was again left-wing students who attacked, and assaulted the person. FYI since you're in the UK, how many times have groups like "antifa" violently attacked people in the last 10 years for not having the right opinion.
By the way, which dogma is it that's mine, the one that doesn't exist or the one that doesn't exist?
Whenever I hear the phrase SJW I think here's a stupid person that lacks the ability to form a coherent argument.
I'm sure I'm not the only one...
Don't worry. It's a general label for a very specific group of people it's much easier then saying: They're a group of people who have very pro-authoritarian leanings, anti-free speech, stand against many if not all democratic western traditions, and believe that using physical or psychological intimidation is justified(aka no bad tactics, only bad targets), that the one who can claim to be the most oppressed and virtue signaling the loudest is at the top of the pyramid and actual activism is far too difficult isn't it? Besides, it's their own label. Guess it's too bad for them instead of actually doing something positive, they decided that engaging in negative actions which people associated with it, which is their problem.
I'm sure someone is going to come out with a "good job blahblahblah it's lost all meaning..." or some rot. Never mind that said term has really only been in the general public lexicon for oh maybe a year, two years tops(but then you'd have to admit that things like Gamergate, sad puppies, general anti-authoritarian stances have had a far larger public impact on society then the on-going claim that GG is only 300 people, or sad puppies is full of white males who live in their moms basement). But I'll happily remind the people who are now running for a reply, that you're likely among that same group that has abused English so badly that "sexism, racism, misogyny, etc" has lost all meaning.
Those people were banned specifically to improve their brand. Corporations don't want to be associated with shitty people.
I think you mean "they were banned" because twitter thought it would improve their brand among the wider audience, it turns out that their audience that they appealed to is actually an extremely small and vocal minority that the majority of people would label "batshit insane" and "incredibly politically correct."
Twitter seems to believe that brand that's really the huge thing and has wide support is the same stuff that people like Anitia Sarkeesian, Jessica Valenti, Paul Feig, etc believe in. Identity politics, doxing, harassment, factually insubstantial posturing(all men are rapists, sexism is why xyz thing failed, if you don't believe what we're telling you--you're a sexist/misogynist/etc, everything is the fault of them white men, video games make people especially men into mass-murders, rapists, etc), if you don't support xyz women, you're a sexist/misogynist, stating failures are the cause of the audience, attacking the audience, sex-negative stances, meritocracy is a MRA construct, free speech needs to be limited/revoked, no-platforming is good, no-platforming of people who have contrary opinions is good. Men can't talk about xyz thing because they're men, safe-spaces, trigger warnings over absolute inane bullshit, and the list goes on.
If you want to think for yourself, then I'd suggest try something other than social media to source your information.
So which part of that disputes twitter censoring things that they disagree with? Oh right...
The point was about 3.2m above your head apparently.
Somehow I don't think blocking a few rightwing nutjobs caused Twitter to lose value
So which part makes them "nut jobs" the part where they post things offensive to regressive leftists, or the parts where they post politically compromising things that hurt their feelings and they should be silenced before you have too much to think for yourself?
FYI twitter has dug this hole on it's own. The second you start censoring content because it hurts feelings or it's politically inconvenient to a group of people, that's when investors start to flee. Their links are just scratching the surface, twitter ever since they put their 1984ish sounding "Trust and Safety council" has been suppressing trending hashtags and tweets if it shows leftists or democrats in a bad light. Blocking and censoring journalists from showing up in some countries, helping EU countries suppress citizens who are critical of the influx of illegals. And of course censoring content if it's "offensive."
Uh-huh. How many warnings in the last 3 years have we had about machine controllers and PLC's being directly connected to the internet and how it's a really stupid thing to do that. Because they control everything from electrical grids to management of the water supply(including chemical treatment control) to sewer maintenance control.
Both times I filed claims with State Farm the work was done within 6 days. One time vandalism on my car, the other when I was involved in a hit and run, and the entire ass end of my car was totaled(sadly it's hard to catch people with no plates). GP would have been better off using something like Green Shield which operates as a non-profit insurance company.
She's probably already working on that. But either her campaign or someone related to the DNC is paying youtubers to endorse her. And sorry no, "omg, I bet that's infowars" retards. It's Phil DeFranco saying he's been offered money to endorse Clinton and so have others.