I live in the UK and I regularly read the Guardian. I'm not sure what that has to do with twitter, save that they are both private organisations and can impose their own rules on their own space. Why do you care? If you have a blog, you can do this yourself. Or not. It's up to whoever owns the space isn't it?
I don't see the relevance of the UK police's behaviour. This story is about twitter and how they are trying to control their own space. They are allowed to do that, regardless of what you think. Why you think the UK police are connected to twitter is a mystery to me.
If Twitter decides that any threatening or harmful tweet is to be erased, half of Twitter could end up being thrown out. It's too bad their new CEO is on the warpath about this.
This is an obvious straw man.
People who received threatening tweets or whatever, could always just log off and stop seeing them.
This gets to the heart of the matter. Of course people who are threatened could just go away. But I think that the overwhelming majority of people want the people doing the threatening to go away. I guess Twitter, a commercial organisation, has made a calculation that they would prefer the people who threaten others to leave. It's their site and it's entirely up to them how they manage it, what sort of behaviour they want to allow and what they should do about people who won't behave.
What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that your ability to express your views depends on twitter allowing you to do so? If twitter won't let you, try facebook. If they're not keen, just set up your own webpage and put what you like there. If you can't do that, take an ad in the paper or stand on a street corner shouting whatever you like. That's free speech.
Your comment is idiotic. If people are threatening to rape and murder other users of twitter, it is entirely rational for twitter to attempt to put a stop to that. That is not "censorship". You can still say whatever you want. Twitter does not have to host what you want to say.
The scary ones are the real SJWs who go cruising through tags looking for people breaking their own special set of playground rules and begin the harassment, usually pulling in their own white knights to send many simultaneous violation requests that the blogger is unceremoniously punted from the service or just annoy somebody into the dirt.
No doubt you can give examples of this behaviour? Just saying it doesn't make it true.
This argument holds no water when gamergaters are so desperate to get the gg autoblocker banned.
Making threats is often done when one's back is against the wall.
This sounds very noble, but a huge number of these threats are threats to rape people. That doesn't sound like something that someone with their back against the wall would threaten.
The best fix is to be able to conduct discourse only with people who don't threaten to rape or murder other people. I use the gg autoblocker, but I can understand why some people don't want to do that and I can also understand why Twitter would want to suspend/remove people like that from their service.
Are you really suggesting that the three women who have mostly been targeted by gamergate actually made up the threats against them?
Your "argument from authority" point means nothing, as I have no skin in the game. I'm simply pointing out that there is no benefit to someone screeching here that '"SJWs" are the worst people in the world', when gamergate and similar groups have comprehensively failed to have their case accepted anywhere. That's an argument from reality.
Nice try. "Thanks to gamergate", three women have been forced from their homes from threats that law enforcement officers found credible enough to suggest that. Trying to pretend that gamergate has done anything but abuse people defines you as - at best - an imbecile. It's not just one branch of the media - there is not a credible news organisation in the world that agrees with your POV. If you want to think that it's all one big conspiracy aimed at gamergaters, feel free. In the meantime, every social media outlet will spend copious resources in trying to weed you out.
Society as a whole defines that. Everyone knows what is and is not hate speech, and at the margins there are very passionate debates. It doesn't take a single person - everyone in society already agrees about where the line is.
There is nothing bizarre about it. Not all voices are equally desirable. To give an example, there are a number of women working in the games space who are targeted every time they express any sort of view. Some of these threats are simply extraordinarily disgusting. It is surely no surprise that Twitter wants to target ("silence" if you will) people who threaten other users?
If you want to believe that the FBI is investigating "fake threats", feel free to go on doing so. However, it's pointless trying to convince other people of this, as it's clearly preposterous and it makes you look like an imbecile.
At least one person was doxxed and threatened. She reported this to the SF police and they passed it on to the FBI. I don't know whether this is the FBI's open case, but it's not a "bunch of twits throwing virtual cow patties at each other".
If your view is anything other than "it's a shirt" then you're the one with the problem, not me.
This is grown-up stuff. The thoughts you had as a fifteen year-old don't cut it when you're discussing with grown ups.
If SJWs were only expressing their ideas, that would be one thing. They're actively harassing the scientist to the point where he had to issue a public apology to try and get them to back off.
You can read my views on the shirt. Just don't misrepresent them, child.
And you're going to solve this by destroying a man's career over his SHIRT?!! And I'm the childish one?!!!
Nice strawman. You can read my views on the shirt. No offence but trying to argue like this makes you look like an imbecile.
Freedom of expression is objectively right
And yet you argue by pretending that one person's expression of their ideas does not exist and attempting impose something else so that you can attack it.
But the SJW mindset IS damaging. It IS destroying things. It's dangerous and it needs to be stopped.
I'm sure you understand that I am not wrong. I have an opinion. So do you. My opinion is different from yours. Neither of us is "wrong" or "right". We might gauge whether one of us is more in line with social mores at a particular point in time. At the moment, my observations are correct. That is why he came under so much pressure. You never know; people like you might be able to convert sufficient other people so that your view becomes the majority. We will still neither of us be "right" or "wrong". We'll just be more or less in line with social mores at a particular point in time.
Crap like this demonstrates exactly how the world is being destroyed by SJWs. Their whining is potentially going to be career ruining to a guy who's only crime is wearing a shirt that was given to him as a gift. A shirt. All because it hurt some SJW's feelings, because they can't stand the thought of people looking at pretty women.
You can be a child if you want to, but society has a view of itself, just as it always has. At the moment, one of the big issues for society is the imbalance in career choices between girls and boys. Remember, there's no "right" or "wrong" about this; it's just one of the many issues that (our Western) society is debating at the moment. That is why this guy is taking heat for his shirt. This is grown-up stuff, and it takes thinking about. You and the other piss-baby can join the debate like a grown up and take your chance at convincing society that your POV is correct. Saying that "the world is being destroyed by SJWs" can be your opening argument in this debate, if you like, but I don't think it is going to convince anyone. There's no organisation called "SJWs". There's people like you and then there's lots of grown-ups in our societies who are trying to think hard about this stuff. These issues are important. Either think about them and join the debate like an adult, or fuck off.
Most people can think about more than one thing at a time. So in my head at the moment we have: It's an amazing achievement for the ESA and the team and for humanity at large. AND putting on that shirt was a bit thoughtless if he knew he was going to be on TV. AND if he didn't know he'd be asked to talk on TV and his bosses made him do it, that was a bit stupid on their part. AND if the TV people picked him to be on TV because of his shirt, that was pretty dickish of them.
See? You can think of more than one thing at a time and none of the other thing detract from the defining achievement of the mission. Unless you're a piss-baby who thinks your world is being ruined by SJWs. Then you can only keep one thing in your head at a time I guess.
Your original post stated that nobody is going to boycott Intel. I will boycott Intel. I'm not sure why, after my post immediately proved yours to be wrong, you felt the need to call me, "feminazi".
Slashdot Mirror
I live in the UK and I regularly read the Guardian. I'm not sure what that has to do with twitter, save that they are both private organisations and can impose their own rules on their own space. Why do you care? If you have a blog, you can do this yourself. Or not. It's up to whoever owns the space isn't it?
I don't see the relevance of the UK police's behaviour. This story is about twitter and how they are trying to control their own space. They are allowed to do that, regardless of what you think. Why you think the UK police are connected to twitter is a mystery to me.
This is an obvious straw man.
This gets to the heart of the matter. Of course people who are threatened could just go away. But I think that the overwhelming majority of people want the people doing the threatening to go away. I guess Twitter, a commercial organisation, has made a calculation that they would prefer the people who threaten others to leave. It's their site and it's entirely up to them how they manage it, what sort of behaviour they want to allow and what they should do about people who won't behave.
What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that your ability to express your views depends on twitter allowing you to do so? If twitter won't let you, try facebook. If they're not keen, just set up your own webpage and put what you like there. If you can't do that, take an ad in the paper or stand on a street corner shouting whatever you like. That's free speech.
Your comment is idiotic. If people are threatening to rape and murder other users of twitter, it is entirely rational for twitter to attempt to put a stop to that. That is not "censorship". You can still say whatever you want. Twitter does not have to host what you want to say.
Are you just making this shit up?
No doubt you can give examples of this behaviour? Just saying it doesn't make it true.
This argument holds no water when gamergaters are so desperate to get the gg autoblocker banned.
This sounds very noble, but a huge number of these threats are threats to rape people. That doesn't sound like something that someone with their back against the wall would threaten.
The best fix is to be able to conduct discourse only with people who don't threaten to rape or murder other people. I use the gg autoblocker, but I can understand why some people don't want to do that and I can also understand why Twitter would want to suspend/remove people like that from their service.
Are you really suggesting that the three women who have mostly been targeted by gamergate actually made up the threats against them?
Your "argument from authority" point means nothing, as I have no skin in the game. I'm simply pointing out that there is no benefit to someone screeching here that '"SJWs" are the worst people in the world', when gamergate and similar groups have comprehensively failed to have their case accepted anywhere. That's an argument from reality.
I doubt if anyone will get banned and be surprised about it. It's clear they have the "rape and murder" crowd in mind.
Nice try. "Thanks to gamergate", three women have been forced from their homes from threats that law enforcement officers found credible enough to suggest that. Trying to pretend that gamergate has done anything but abuse people defines you as - at best - an imbecile. It's not just one branch of the media - there is not a credible news organisation in the world that agrees with your POV. If you want to think that it's all one big conspiracy aimed at gamergaters, feel free. In the meantime, every social media outlet will spend copious resources in trying to weed you out.
Society as a whole defines that. Everyone knows what is and is not hate speech, and at the margins there are very passionate debates. It doesn't take a single person - everyone in society already agrees about where the line is.
There is nothing bizarre about it. Not all voices are equally desirable. To give an example, there are a number of women working in the games space who are targeted every time they express any sort of view. Some of these threats are simply extraordinarily disgusting. It is surely no surprise that Twitter wants to target ("silence" if you will) people who threaten other users?
What makes you say that? Can you give examples or some reason for you to hold this view?
You can't just state that as a bald fact, because the whole of the media is reporting the exact opposite. All you need to do is to cite some examples.
How's the weather on your planet?
If you want to believe that the FBI is investigating "fake threats", feel free to go on doing so. However, it's pointless trying to convince other people of this, as it's clearly preposterous and it makes you look like an imbecile.
At least one person was doxxed and threatened. She reported this to the SF police and they passed it on to the FBI. I don't know whether this is the FBI's open case, but it's not a "bunch of twits throwing virtual cow patties at each other".
This is grown-up stuff. The thoughts you had as a fifteen year-old don't cut it when you're discussing with grown ups.
You can read my views on the shirt. Just don't misrepresent them, child.
Nice strawman. You can read my views on the shirt. No offence but trying to argue like this makes you look like an imbecile.
And yet you argue by pretending that one person's expression of their ideas does not exist and attempting impose something else so that you can attack it.
This is just hyperbole. Grow up.
I'm sure you understand that I am not wrong. I have an opinion. So do you. My opinion is different from yours. Neither of us is "wrong" or "right". We might gauge whether one of us is more in line with social mores at a particular point in time. At the moment, my observations are correct. That is why he came under so much pressure. You never know; people like you might be able to convert sufficient other people so that your view becomes the majority. We will still neither of us be "right" or "wrong". We'll just be more or less in line with social mores at a particular point in time.
You can be a child if you want to, but society has a view of itself, just as it always has. At the moment, one of the big issues for society is the imbalance in career choices between girls and boys. Remember, there's no "right" or "wrong" about this; it's just one of the many issues that (our Western) society is debating at the moment. That is why this guy is taking heat for his shirt. This is grown-up stuff, and it takes thinking about. You and the other piss-baby can join the debate like a grown up and take your chance at convincing society that your POV is correct. Saying that "the world is being destroyed by SJWs" can be your opening argument in this debate, if you like, but I don't think it is going to convince anyone. There's no organisation called "SJWs". There's people like you and then there's lots of grown-ups in our societies who are trying to think hard about this stuff. These issues are important. Either think about them and join the debate like an adult, or fuck off.
Most people can think about more than one thing at a time. So in my head at the moment we have: It's an amazing achievement for the ESA and the team and for humanity at large. AND putting on that shirt was a bit thoughtless if he knew he was going to be on TV. AND if he didn't know he'd be asked to talk on TV and his bosses made him do it, that was a bit stupid on their part. AND if the TV people picked him to be on TV because of his shirt, that was pretty dickish of them.
See? You can think of more than one thing at a time and none of the other thing detract from the defining achievement of the mission. Unless you're a piss-baby who thinks your world is being ruined by SJWs. Then you can only keep one thing in your head at a time I guess.
Your original post stated that nobody is going to boycott Intel. I will boycott Intel. I'm not sure why, after my post immediately proved yours to be wrong, you felt the need to call me, "feminazi".
Unfortunately it is untrue. An AC has posted a very accurate description of the incident in response to your post, so I'll not repeat that.
Sarkesian reported harassment to SF police and they passed the report on to the FBI. This has been established for some time now.
Wherever possible, I will certainly boycott Intel's products.
This is untrue.