Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

... man, some of y'all must have an incredibly poor opinion of toady. Twitter gave that critter a hell of a lot more leeway for a hell of a lot longer than he would have got around here...

Justice for Mainiac!  White flamewarriors matter!

He just doesn't put up with bullshit, period.

That's really not true.  Hell I will confess to having personally gotten away with bullshit when Toady was in a more forgiving mood.

Fair bit of circumstantial evidence in their policy decisions

If circumstantial evidence was enough to convict people, can I ask you to look in the mirror?  You are falling over yourself to find excuses to exonerate the white male dickhead who has a history of association with groups that engaged in online harassment.  And you are falling over yourself to stress that the woman invited this trouble upon herself.  What do the circumstances of this strongly imply about you, vis-a-vis your opinions on how groups will be treated?

Because this is the exact logic you are using on twitter.  You are saying that the circumstances to you look like they are targetting political groups.  And you are doing it with a picture that is just as incomplete as the ridiculous caricature of you I just put in the preceding paragraph.

Circumstantial evidence the way you are using it is a hell of a drug.  You really want to damn people on these grounds?

[TheBiggerFish]

Bay12 is not Twitter, Twitter is not Bay12.

[Rolepgeek]

This isn't a court of law, Mainiac. We don't need proof beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Also, you're forgetting the systemic patterns at work here. Corporatism is also about institutions. Orange Wizard is but one person, calling out a large company for discriminatory behavior.

You know, if you want to go for the double-down on bullshit category. If there's further evidence that this isn't bullshit, and that Milo was guilty of targeted harassment, please, reveal it to us. I am perfectly willing to use evidence as hard as Twitter is willing to.

[mainiac]

ry behavior.
You know, if you want to go for the double-down on bullshit category. If there's further evidence that this isn't bullshit, and that Milo was guilty of targeted harassment, please, reveal it to us. I am perfectly willing to use evidence as hard as Twitter is willing to.

You know, if you want to go for the double-down on bullshit category. If there's further evidence that this isn't bullshit, and that Twitter was guilty of targeted free speech suppression, please, reveal it to us.

I mean really man, what did you expect?  You just swap the names and the argument applies exactly the fucking same.  You are entirely reliant on a double standard here.

[Loud Whispers]

Eh. I don't think it's unreasonable to complain about hatemail. Obviously it's really dumb to if you want to avoid more hatemail, so -10 points to Leslidoor.
Milo does get tons of shit, and AFAIK he's pretty mature about it. Props to him for not being dumb. At the same time I do think his comments here were pretty rude. Leslie didn't deserve the hate she got and it's not fair to belittle that, even if her reaction was basically retarded.

She's obviously justified to complain, and everyone is free to point out the obvious, you can:

• Ignore trolls
• Block trolls
• Turn off your computer

Milo gets tons of shit and handles it maturely, thus he's more than qualified as a target of much online hate to tell someone the obvious - ignore hatemail. I can't really reconcile the notion that if you don't make a big deal out of hatemail, you can get banned for commercial interests, whilst if you make a big deal out of hatemail you can lead targeted abuse and emerge unscathed? That's ridiculous

That's really not true.  Hell I will confess to having personally gotten away with bullshit when Toady was in a more forgiving mood.

I must say Mainiac, though you garner much flack for being abrasive (as if there's anyone been in a politics general not accused of that), I've never actually seen you break forum rules - you seem all right in my books

You are falling over yourself to find excuses to exonerate the white male dickhead who has a history of association with groups that engaged in online harassment.  And you are falling over yourself to stress that the woman invited this trouble upon herself.  What do the circumstances of this strongly imply about you, vis-a-vis your opinions on how groups will be treated?

*White male dickhead
Attaching negative racial and sexual tags to the accused, already presumed a dickhead without evidence. Forgets to include homosexual, because that would make him look sympathetic.
*History of association with groups that engaged in online harassment.
No evidence provided for this, and Milo is guilty based off of the actions of other, uncited people. You were livid when others tried this on Hillary.
*Accusations that Orange Wizard is falling over theirself to stress that the woman invited this trouble upon herself
No evidence provided of this being the case, attack on Orange Wizard's character.
*"What do the circumstances of this strongly imply about you, vis-a-vis your opinions on how groups will be treated?"
That Orange Wizard looks at evidence to assess guilt instead of judging by race?

[Rolepgeek]

ry behavior.
You know, if you want to go for the double-down on bullshit category. If there's further evidence that this isn't bullshit, and that Milo was guilty of targeted harassment, please, reveal it to us. I am perfectly willing to use evidence as hard as Twitter is willing to.

You know, if you want to go for the double-down on bullshit category. If there's further evidence that this isn't bullshit, and that Twitter was guilty of targeted free speech suppression, please, reveal it to us.

I mean really man, what did you expect?  You just swap the names and the argument applies exactly the fucking same.  You are entirely reliant on a double standard here.

How so?

I mean, for one thing, I'm defending a person. Not a corporation. The argument can be exactly the same as long as one side has evidence.

There's circumstantial evidence from multiple occasions of Twitter doing this, from what I'm seeing here.

Would you like to do your name-switch thing again now? Any other passive aggressive tactics you got lying around? And yeah me saying this is a bit passive aggressive but I'm just so frustrated with you doing that in response to any criticism of anything that you want to defend.

[Frumple]

... what does this guy not being a corporation have to do with anything?

[mainiac]

How so?

I mean, for one thing, I'm defending a person. Not a corporation. The argument can be exactly the same as long as one side has evidence.

"Corporations" didn't do jack shit.  Somewhere some person did this.  Some person you are assuming was doing it for political reason and not because it was at the top of their que.

And that person is anonymous for the simple reason that a giant target would be on their back.

You judge the anonymous employee by one standard and the dickhead by another.

There's circumstantial evidence from multiple occasions of Twitter doing this, from what I'm seeing here.

There is circumstantial evidence from multiple occasions of him violating the TOS.  Past hate speech, past inflamatory comments on people to make their lives miserable.

Would you like to do your name-switch thing again now? Any other passive aggressive tactics you got lying around? And yeah me saying this is a bit passive aggressive but I'm just so frustrated with you doing that in response to any criticism of anything that you want to defend.

The only good passive aggressive techniques are where you hold someone to their own standard.

... what does this guy not being a corporation have to do with anything?

Because some people equate antiestablishmentism with truth.

[misko27]

In other news, I hear Clinton picked a super bland but safe VP, probably to court more middle-ground votes, is that a sound explanation?

I am boring. But boring is the fastest-growing demographic in this country

I read that Clinton's highest qualification for her VP, beyond safety, the base, or personal chemistry, was "fit to be President": so, in essence, the opposite of McCain's thinking in '08.

[Rolepgeek]

I'm talking about defending Orange Wizard, first off, because the way the caricature came off seemed much more aggressive at first than it was probably meant to be.

And it has to do with the fact that corporations don't need defending. Individuals do. Twitter doesn't need mainiac's help to defend itself from accusations, particularly if it's done nothing wrong as he claims. A single person does not have the same power. So mainiac's method of trying to defend them, which seems to me like a particularly aggressive one, is unnecessary.

And I never once said they did it for political reasons. I'm fairly certain they did it because it had been reported and they just said 'alright sure whatever'. It's the bit where they didn't think of Leslie as doing anything wrong when she literally said "Get her!!"

Like what the fuck sort of evidence is needed there? If you want to say that they just haven't had time to hit Leslie with a ban for violating their TOS in such a blatant way, I'll accept that. But that's not what it looks like to me from where I'm standing.

[mainiac]

In other news, I hear Clinton picked a super bland but safe VP, probably to court more middle-ground votes, is that a sound explanation?

I am boring. But boring is the fastest-growing demographic in this country

I read that Clinton's highest qualification for her VP, beyond safety, the base, or personal chemistry, was "fit to be President": so, in essence, the opposite of McCain's thinking in '08.

To be fair to McCain, he thought Palin was qualified when he picked her.

And I never once said they did it for political reasons. I'm fairly certain they did it because it had been reported and they just said 'alright sure whatever'. It's the bit where they didn't think of Leslie as doing anything wrong when she literally said "Get her!!"

That's the difference between someone in their first flamewar and someone with a history of hate speech...

[birdy51]

I like him. The pair seem to jive well.

Also, on the grounds of Twitter, I say Twitter has the right to kick out whoever the hell they want whenever the hell they want. Freedom of Speech be damned, it's the internet.

[Frumple]

It's... not even a freedom of speech thing, though? Not being allowed to speak on a privately owned medium isn't exactly a 2nd amendment violation... pretty much at all, really. Not how the thing works.

Twitter has a right to kick out whoever the hell they want whenever the hell they want because it's right there in the contract you agree to when you use their service and completely legal besides. Not because it's the internet or... whatever. Disagree with their reasons or consistency or whatever, but not their right.

[Rolepgeek]

I like him. The pair seem to jive well.

Also, on the grounds of Twitter, I say Twitter has the right to kick out whoever the hell they want whenever the hell they want. Freedom of Speech be damned, it's the internet.

Sure, but they can't very well claim impartiality at the same time.

[mainiac]

isn't exactly a 2nd amendment violation... pretty much at all, really

I really, really hope not but with the Trump presidency coming... who knows?