Free speech.

[Katman]

Really thats not what your original post was now was it.

Dude, it's a screenshot of the post that you fucked up the editing of.

Total utter moron indeed.

[husaberg]

Dude, it's a screenshot of the post that you fucked up the editing of.
.
No ones denying that it was edited as i was busy actually working but you never replied to the full quote in the first place which is why you are a total egg.
thus proving the point that you only wish to select what suits your agenda.
I have lost track of the times you edit your replies or my own.

But you get real wound up when someone does it to yours.
I use the WYSIWYG Editing function which does some odd stuff if you hit the wrong key.

Going back through the autosaved history here is the original text that was lost

:killingme
Thats how adults work they dont need to read and watch every thing they ever said and wrote. they watch and observe enough information to form a balanced view. then they make a judgement based on all the data they have viewed.
I can see how this confuses you being a conspiracy theorist where they seek out a single piece of data that the seek to manipulate and use out of context. While ignoring the rest of the data completely.

[Katman]

No ones denying that it was edited

Except you were trying to suggest that it was me who edited it.

[TheDemonLord]

You attempt to say you know better than vast numbers of other people not just journalists when it comes to pigeon holing kooks.
They are guilty by association, thats why they get grouped together they share ideals and so much common ground and supporters

Okay - So is Sam Harris Alt-Right? Either he is and therefore I'm wrong and you can provide evidence he is.
or
He isn't and therefore I'm right.

This is a simple challenge, to test the veracity of the opinion held "Vast numbers of other people" (again, that's a fallacy, but we'll ignore it for now).


As above especially sconsidering why the term was coined an attempt in itself to make out they were different from the other kooks when they were not.

Doesn't mean it's automatically right if lots of people believe it though.


Here you go tring to turn a comment about AKA's and make it more palatable.
there is nothing in the culture or religion that makes this okay. just as there is nothing in the culture or religion of Catholicism to do the same and commit sexual abuse.
The individuals are accountable for their actions not the religion. You seem to be not able to separate that.

Cool - so why does it keep happening from one particular segment of society? If you want to compare - then I'd say that the Catholic practice of abstinence is absolutely a factor in their history of Sexual Abuse.


Id wager you sure have i only read and watched enough that it took to form a balanced opinion on him.

If we could have a totally unbiased arbitrator - I'd take that Wager and end up a rather richer man.


I need to remind you that aka's focus was solely on rapes carried out by people of the Indian subcontinent, he not interested in anything unless its a platform to increase racial tension.

Could it be, because they worked in a particularly detestable, organized manner and that the Police were not forthcoming in properly investigating it? That seems like something to focus on.

But again, it's not because of their Race, it's because of their ideas that their behavior is acceptable.


I also need to remind you most sexual abuse is not carried out by people from the Indian subcontinent at all. its carried out by people like AKA.

Except you aren't being precise here - your lumping all types of Sexual Abuse under one umbrella to avoid conceding the point that almost ALL of the organized pedophilia gangs in the UK are from the Indian subcontinent.

And lets fuck off with the false insinuation. I've defended you when other members have accused you of impropriety towards young ladies.


How long has it taken for the clergy to be held accountable for that.

Due more to the actions of the Catholic Church than inactions by the police - different scenario - especially because the Vatican is a sovereign country.


Coool so you will be able to back that up with evidence as i have asked you to multiple times, you will also need t counter who actually owns most of the media and who they are aligned with left or right.

Okay - Evidence that there is a Malevolent Left-wing - open your History book - look up the page that talks about "Communism" - there's your evidence.

As for the ownership - its more about the editorial and journalistic direction so lets start here:

http://archive.news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/2014/05/2013-american-journalist-key-findings.pdf

2 Data points I want to draw your attention to:

1: Increase in Journalists being University graduates (Universities have a Left-wing bias as a general rule)
2: The Party affiliation of Journalists - in the 1970s - there's a fairly even spread (32/35/25) whereas compared to today, those who identify as a Conservative make up the smallest segment of Journalists.


He was open about his views hes also one person one swallow does not make a spring

She was indeed - however, would the claim "I'm literally a Nazi" have been treated in the same manner? We both know it would not have been. As I said, it is one datapoint, but one of many.

[husaberg]

Except you were trying to suggest that it was me who edited it.

Its clear you did and you edited out portions of it in an attempt to only reply to what suits you.

[husaberg]

Okay - So is Sam Harris Alt-Right? Either he is and therefore I'm wrong and you can provide evidence he is.
or
He isn't and therefore I'm right.

This is a simple challenge, to test the veracity of the opinion held "Vast numbers of other people" (again, that's a fallacy, but we'll ignore it for now).



Doesn't mean it's automatically right if lots of people believe it though.
Vast numbers of people haven't accused sam harris of being alt right. he holds some rather biased and odd views in relation to some religions which he does not apply to all.
As i said one swallow doesn't make a spring.



Cool - so why does it keep happening from one particular segment of society? If you want to compare - then I'd say that the Catholic practice of abstinence is absolutely a factor in their history of Sexual Abuse.
Only its not only catholic priests nor does it account for the cover ups.
Nor does it account for the lack of condemnation for the church rather than the individuals



If we could have a totally unbiased arbitrator - I'd take that Wager and end up a rather richer man.

I disagree Tommys intersts dont lie in the crime they are only in feeding the fired which go with it as evidenced by his lack of comments on other crimes not involving people from the indian sub continent
Lack of balance


Could it be, because they worked in a particularly detestable, organized manner and that the Police were not forthcoming in properly investigating it? That seems like something to focus on.

But again, it's not because of their Race, it's because of their ideas that their behavior is acceptable.
No we already had that one out and i provided ample evidence that this was not the case
PS you could say the same out the sexual abuse by the church and under the state care. So your point lacks balance



Except you aren't being precise here - your lumping all types of Sexual Abuse under one umbrella to avoid conceding the point that almost ALL of the organized pedophilia gangs in the UK are from the Indian subcontinent.
And lets fuck off with the false insinuation. I've defended you when other members have accused you of impropriety towards young ladies.
Sexual abuse is sexual abuse you are trying to limit it now as it doesn't suit your agenda.
Ps what false insinuation have i made, people like aka refer to white and middle class.


Due more to the actions of the Catholic Church than inaction by the police - different scenario - especially because the Vatican is a sovereign country.
Due to both including the reticence of the victims to come forward exactly the same of the child grooming issues
its not a different scenario at all its exactly the same only the perpetrators are a little closer to home.



As for the ownership - its more about the editorial and journalistic direction so lets start here:
I think that you will find its the owners that decide the editorial style and leaning of the paper or media.
As they are the ones that own and control the organisation.
You might want to see how Packer, Murdoch, etc and co operate/d if you dont think that's the case


Okay - Evidence that there is a Malevolent Left-wing - open your History book - look up the page that talks about "Communism" - there's your evidence.

http://archive.news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/2014/05/2013-american-journalist-key-findings.pdf

2 Data points I want to draw your attention to:

1: Increase in Journalists being University graduates (Universities have a Left-wing bias as a general rule)
2: The Party affiliation of Journalists - in the 1970s - there's a fairly even spread (32/35/25) whereas compared to today, those who identify as a Conservative make up the smallest segment of Journalists.


She was indeed - however, would the claim "I'm literally a Nazi" have been treated in the same manner? We both know it would not have been. As I said, it is one datapoint, but one of many.

I will get back to you on the last point when i have read it.

Okay finding of the report

slightly more likely to be college graduates,
more likely to call themselves Independents politically, and less likely to identify
with both the Republican and Democratic political parties

Job autonomy goes against your bias theory as well. it actually suggests that they have less choice in the stories they cover and seeing as the ppaers are owned by people that are more likely right wing.......

While a majority (60 percent)of journalists said that they had “almost complete freedom” in selecting their stories in 1971 and 1982, only a third (33.6 percent) saids o in 2013.

Then you have a smaller mass audience so less influence. Not only that its only the audience that the organisation targets ie left right and middle.

[Katman]

Its clear you did and you edited out portions of it in an attempt to only reply to what suits you.

I quoted it exactly as it appears in the screen shot.

[husaberg]

I quoted it exactly as it appears in the screen shot.
Odd becuase even your your screenshot contains many many more words than what you quoted me.
did you miss that bit?

[Katman]

Odd becuase even your your screenshot contains many many more words than what you quoted me.
did you miss that bit?

Total utter moron indeed.

Repeatedly.

[TheDemonLord]

Vast numbers of people haven't accused sam harris of being alt right. he holds some rather biased and odd views in relation to some religions which he does not apply to all.
As i said one swallow doesn't make a spring.

Stop shifting the Goalposts. He's been accused (multiple times) by the same sources you cite as proof of others allegance with the Alt-right.

My retort is that those sources are at best ill-informed and at worst flat out lying.

So to prove this out - I've submitted a Test Case: Sam Harris. If you are right, then you should be able to find something, if not - then I'm right and using the media/popular opinion (which is guided by the Media) isn't a valid test.

So - is he or isn't he? But let's cut to the chase - we both know he's not, so your Media/Popular opinion yardstick is useless.


Only its not only catholic priests nor does it account for the cover ups.
Nor does it account for the lack of condemnation for the church rather than the individuals

The Cover ups are quite easy to account for - If you are trying to push yourself as paragons of virtue and morality, it's rather inconvenient if people know about Pedophilia - therefore a coverup. And I can assure you - there's been plenty of condemnation for the Catholic Church...

But let's not get side tracked - the specific type of offending that we are talking about happened almost exclusively from members from the Indian sub-continent who were adherents to a specific religion.


I disagree Tommys intersts dont lie in the crime they are only in feeding the fired which go with it as evidenced by his lack of comments on other crimes not involving people from the indian sub continent
Lack of balance

Then perhaps you should listen to the Man speak... Most other crimes in the UK are dealt with appropriately by the UK police force - we accept there will always be a degree of offending. However - as you will be aware - most western Pedophiles act alone. This type of offending was totally unheard of in the UK before it was imported.


No we already had that one out and i provided ample evidence that this was not the case
PS you could say the same out the sexual abuse by the church and under the state care. SO your point lacks balance

You provided an interpretation that is not shared by either myself nor most of the UK. You have to understand that to get the Working classes to take a day off work to protest something - they must be really really fucked off - they can't afford that luxury.

As for Church and State care - both of which have received wide condemnation and discussion.


Sexual abuse is sexual abuse you are trying to limit it now as i doesn't suit your agenda.

Actually no - it's not. And this is where your attempts to over-generalize is not going to fly - This type of systematic, group based offending was unknown in the UK prior to it's importation from overseas. Yes, the UK had Rapists and Pedophiles but none that acted in this manner.


Ps what false insinuation have i made

You know exactly.


Due to both including the recistence of the victims to come forward exactly the same of the child grooming issues
its not a different senario its exactly the same only the perpetrators are a little closer to home.

Simply not true - since offending Priests were frequently 'relocated' by the Catholic Church. But again - it's not the same scenario. With the Catholic Church - the Police attempted to investigate, but were thwarted by the efforts of the Catholic Church. Whereas with Rotherham (and others) the Police efforts were non-existent, despite social workers, local council members and other groups repeatedly raising the alarm.

That happens to be a BIG difference.


I think that you will find its the owners that decide the editorial style and leaning of the paper or media.
As they are the ones that own and control the organisation.
You might want to see how Packer, Murdoch, etc and co operate/d if you dont think that's the case

Or, we can look at what is actually published - that's a bit of a better test.


I will get back to you on the last point when i have read it.

Okay finding of the report


Job autonomy goes against your bias theory as well. it actually suggests that they have less choice in the stories they cover and seeing as the ppaers are owned by people that are more likely right wing.......

Except - there are virtually no Conservative Journalists. You can see that right? Even if we take the self-reporting of "Independent" as accurate - you still have to contend with the fact it shows that there is a bias.


Then you have a smaller mass audience so less influence. Not only that its only the audience that the organisation targets ie left right and middle.

I disagree, Good News Media should be as centrist as possible - but in recent years some of the biggest names (The BBC springs to mind) have taken a definitive left wing bias. When you look at the stats around trust in the Media is failing, it's as a direct consequence of News outlets having a Bias.

[Graystone]

So you agree then, It is not the case that "ToS means ToS" - And therefore the CEOs (and the wider companies) biases (self-confessed as you agree) have relevance.



The context was contradictory - You've yet to explain how you can monitor behavior on a platform like Twitter without monitoring Content. If you can do that, then I might be inclined to put the additional statements in.

But you can't, because you know it's impossible. Therefore, I left it out.



No, because I knew you'd play word games once you were trapped in a corner.



So you are denying it's validity, based on what exactly? You know (as do I) that the concept of "White Male Privilege" was born out of the concept of "Male Privilege" and so using the definition of the latter is entirely appropriate. You've claimed it's not a scholarly work, and yet it's written by a PHD holder in the field in question and has received awards from Academia (despite your attempt to downplay them)

You know that in Academia there are specific words (or phrases) that have very clearly defined meanings that are different from the common usage of those words and phrases. For example - the word Theory.



See below - as to how well you've interpreted that "Important context" - Maybe you are need of some ESOL lessons, it seems basic English is too taxing for you.



Wrong, on multiple accounts - since it wasn't Peggy that wrote the book...

it was referencing her work. Which would be her 1988 (not 2000s) essay "White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences Through Work in Women’s Studies" which is where the 2 concepts "White Privilege" and "Male Privilege" were discussed together as being analogous - It's the start of the idea of "White Male Privilege" and since Peggy was first to create the concept, her definition applies.

However, the material is clear - although not all Males benefit to the same degree, it explicitly states (twice) that "Male Privilege" applies to "All Males" - which fits your criteria for being Sexist.

You are quite correct on one count - you DO need to believe in Male Supremacy to believe such nonsense - which is why I don't believe it, however I challenge you to find anyone within the Gender/Womens studies part of Academia that also doesn't believe in that (or a variant - such as Patriarchy or the Wage Gap) and is still accepted by their peers.

ToS does mean ToS, stop ignoring the bit where they reserve the right to apply it however they see fit.

The context showed how he meant those words to be interpreted, you left it out so they could be interpreted a different way, that is very dishonest.

Word games like knowing what they mean? :laugh:

It is not from a scholarly definition, again you sought to take the words out of context, and play them to suit your agenda. This is not one of those cases where the term has a clearly defined meaning which supersedes the normal use of the words like you claim; one reason for this, is the term you refer to, is not even in the article, when a term has a meaning which supercedes common use in english, it only does so for that term, it doesn't change how words work. It should also be obvious that the 'definition' you posted does not count as such, it is whatshername describing her interpretation of it.

Why don't you reference Peggy's original definition of the term then? What you have posted is not a definition of the term. It'd also be interesting to see how she managed to create the term 20 years after it started being widely used :killingme

[husaberg]

Stop shifting the Goalposts. He's been accused (multiple times) by the same sources you cite as proof of others allegance with the Alt-right.

My retort is that those sources are at best ill-informed and at worst flat out lying.
So to prove this out - I've submitted a Test Case: Sam Harris. If you are right, then you should be able to find something, if not - then I'm right and using the media/popular opinion (which is guided by the Media) isn't a valid test.
So - is he or isn't he? But let's cut to the chase - we both know he's not, so your Media/Popular opinion yardstick is useless.
Only you are not proving your point you are taking on person and attempting to create an impression that as someone pigeonholed him all the rest that were put in that same boat must be wrong.
Its something you are doing very often now as for shifting goalposts they have never been moved by me. I am unmoved by your argument though

The Cover ups are quite easy to account for - If you are trying to push yourself as paragons of virtue and morality, it's rather inconvenient if people know about Pedophilia - therefore a coverup. And I can assure you - there's been plenty of condemnation for the Catholic Church...
Really the cover ups is something you said was only racially motivated and a result of the religion when it came to rotheram.

But let's not get side tracked - the specific type of offending that we are talking about happened almost exclusively from members from the Indian sub-continent who were adherents to a specific religion.
Side tracked you mean lets avoid it as it doesn't suit your agenda in painting a whole part of a community to be solely responsible for the deeds of a few when it turns out their is a parallel that you wish to avoid because it doesn't involve the part of the community that Tommy wishes to cause and escalate tensions about.
lets look a bit deer into the figures
the sites left wing but the story is rather interesting
https://medium.com/@Reg_Left_Media/grooming-gangs-quilliam-the-myth-of-the-84-percent-cc834b57fcf3
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/12/03/tommy-robinson-claims-quilliam-paid-him-to-leave-edl_n_8710834.html


Then perhaps you should listen to the Man speak... Most other crimes in the UK are dealt with appropriately by the UK police force - we accept there will always be a degree of offending. However - as you will be aware - most western Pedophiles act alone. This type of offending was totally unheard of in the UK before it was imported.
Bullshit

A 2011 report from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection unit found people convicted of grooming offences were 38% white, 26% Asian and 32% ethnicity unknown.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42108748/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/massive-online-pedophile-ring-busted-cops/#.W6t3eWgzaUk
https://www.news.com.au/national/crime/how-paedophile-rings-operate-in-australia/news-story/35a755a4a6bdb0d07c73203d4d74b934
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/norway-paedophile-ring-police-arrest-51-men-a7432441.html
https://www.mirror.co.uk/features/how-paedo-ring-dripping-hate-11212245
https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/entertainment/kiwi-actor-says-he-was-used-by-a-paedophile-ring-as-a-child/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/paedophile-gets-life-for-killing-boy-7-at-orgy-homosexual-ring-abducted-children-and-drugged-them-1559081.html
https://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Man-accused-of-leading-Danbury-sex-ring-pleads-13180964.php
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/michael-avenatti-identifies-kavanaugh-accuser-as-julie-swetnick.html
Most but not all, the police are not the issue as i have pointed out to you umpteen times, the reticence of people coming forward the lack of communication between authorities where the social worker councilors never passed information on the general lack of evidence was the issue. not the difference in how its carried out its equally abhorrent. I Note you continually try and make out its different only because most sexual assaults are carried out by your own ethnicity in the UK
Sexual assault is sexual assault stop trying to make out one type is different than another.

You provided an interpretation that is not shared by either myself nor most of the UK. You have to understand that to get the Working classes to take a day off work to protest something - they must be really really fucked off - they can't afford that luxury
As for Church and State care - both of which have received wide condemnation and discussion.
SO where they radicalised by how speeches as these and attempts to make out it was a police and political cover up.

“every single Muslim” in the UK had “got away with” the 7/7 bombings and when, in January 2016, he tweeted: “I’d personally send every adult male Muslim that has come into the EU over the past 12 months back tomorrow if I could. Fake refugees.” Tommy Robinson 2011

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1PmbCDn2dE


Every single Muslim watching this... on 7/7 you got away with killing and maiming British citizens... you had better understand that we have built a network from one end of the country to the other end... and the Islamic community will feel the full force of the English Defense League if we see any of our British citizens killed, maimed, or hurt on British soil ever again.



Tommy Robinson, 2011.




Islam is not a religion of peace. Islam is fascist and it's violent and we've had enough! They're chopping our soldiers' heads off. This is Islam. That's what we've seen today. They've cut off one of our army's heads off on the streets of London. Our next generation are being taught through schools that Islam is a religion of peace. It's not. It never has been. What you saw today is Islam. Everyone's had enough. There has to be a reaction, for the government to listen, for the police to listen, to understand how angry this British public are.

Actually no - it's not. And this is where your attempts to over-generalize is not going to fly - This type of systematic, group based offending was unknown in the UK prior to it's importation from overseas. Yes, the UK had Rapists and Pedophiles but none that acted in this manner. which is a bit inconvenient for your claims.
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/child-sexual-abuse-top-5-countries-highest-rates-1436162
Unknown or not reported and prosecuted, No one manner worse than another is sexual assault not sexual assault, these sort of rings have happened in NZ in the USA,Australia in india none carried out by those you claim to say are the only possible perpetrators in the UK.

You know exactly.
No i don't you clearly misunderstood what was said. hes white and middle class the most common sexual offender in the UK is just that.
On the subject of AKA he recently taunted a victim who said they had been sexually assaulted, basically saying she was a stupid bint and she had clearly made it up.
his reasoning for doing so?
She said they had only been sexually assaulted by white males.
Does that sound like a guy that doesnt have an agenda?

A 2011 report from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection unit found people convicted of grooming offences were 38% white, 26% Asian and 32% ethnicity unknown.

Experts reckon about 0.5% to 1% of everyone, of every colour, is a paedophile - someone who responds sexually to children more than adults.
By that token there should be about 641,000 of them in the UK. As of 2007 the Prison Service had just 8,865 sex offenders under lock and key.
If they were in proportion to the racial diversity outlined in the 2011 census, they'd be 87% white, 7% Asian and 3% black British.
But according to the Ministry of Justice, in 2010 those convicted of any sort of sex offence were 76% white, 7% black and 8% Asian.
So then we're back to asking whether a black rapist might be twice as likely as one of a different colour to get banged up, and if some of the white men are getting away with it.
Not only that due to the recent rings that have been prosecuted the stats are bound to be a bit lop sided.

research reinforces the evidence that girls and women are most at risk of being sexually exploited by men from their own backgrounds. We already know that the majority of victims and offenders are White. In the study, the vast majority of perpetrators were men of the same ethnicity and faith as the victims. Two thirds of the victims were of Pakistani background and in most of these cases the offenders were also Pakistani. When victims were Bangladeshi, the offenders tended to also be Bangladeshi. Other offenders included Afghani, Indian (Sikh and Hindu) and White men (including mixed heritage). In the few exceptions where the sub ethnic group varied, there was a shared heritage between victim and offender such as being ‘Asian’ or having the same faith. Paedophiles are therefore not only targeting the most vulnerable but also the most accessible girls.
If an investigation were conducted of the sexual exploitation of girls from different backgrounds e.g. Black Afro Caribbean, Chinese, Eastern European etc., most perpetrators are therefore likely to be from their own backgrounds. However, there is a tendency to talk about one type of offender / victim model, that of Pakistani men grooming White girls. Those who portray sexual exploitation as a ‘Pakistani only’ problem can only be interested in furthering their own agendas. They don’t really care about the sexual abuse of girls. If they did, then they would criticize all offenders with equal vigor regardless of background. If they really cared they would speak out against all forms of sexual abuse whether carried out by individuals, online, within families, in religious institutions or by groups – not just focus on sexual exploitation by gangs and groups by one ethnic group.
Claiming the moral high ground is not only unhelpful but also dangerous: it is resulting in both victims and offenders being missed. Some sections of the media, some politicians and right wing groups such as the EDL and BNP portray sexual exploitation as an ‘Asian or Muslim only’ problem. Meanwhile the Indian Sikh and Hindu communities challenge the Asian label and claim it’s a Muslim problem
But if we want to focus on AKA he has a history of violent crime and assaults.

Simply not true - since offending Priests were frequently 'relocated' by the Catholic Church. But again - it's not the same scenario. With the Catholic Church - the Police attempted to investigate, but were thwarted by the efforts of the Catholic Church. Whereas with Rotherham (and others) the Police efforts were non-existent, despite social workers, local council members and other groups repeatedly raising the alarm.
That happens to be a BIG difference.
Incorrect there was a veil of silence a lot of it was not reported to the police. police need evidence to bring people to justice.
You seem hell bent on saying there was a cover up in rotherham when nothing is further from the truth.
None of what you are attempting to imply has an actual factual basis there have been a number of investigations into the response carried out and that is not the conclusion. You know this but you still claim it over and over again.

Or, we can look at what is actually published - that's a bit of a better test.
Except - there are virtually no Conservative Journalists. You can see that right? Even if we take the self-reporting of "Independent" as accurate - you still have to contend with the fact it shows that there is a bias.
I disagree, Good News Media should be as centrist as possible - but in recent years some of the biggest names (The BBC springs to mind) have taken a definitive left wing bias. When you look at the stats around trust in the Media is failing, it's as a direct consequence of News outlets having a Bias.
No that does not indicate a bias it indicates what they said was their affiliation.
As you notice political votes people make change over time which is why different parties are elected.
You indicated the whole world had a bias and it was a fact but even though i have given you days to support it the best you can do is produce one paper from one state that docent support you view at all.
Here is a natty lil overview clearly not 100% scientific but pretty neat
https://static.makeuseof.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/media-site-political-bias-chart.png
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/

[TheDemonLord]

ToS does mean ToS, stop ignoring the bit where they reserve the right to apply it however they see fit.

So you agree, it's not an absolute standard and therefore the bias of the company is a factor. You cannot have it both ways.


The context showed how he meant those words to be interpreted, you left it out so they could be interpreted a different way, that is very dishonest.

Except it was a contradiction: How can you monitor behavior without monitoring Content? If you can answer that question, then perhaps you can quibble about interpretation.


It is not from a scholarly definition, again you sought to take the words out of context, and play them to suit your agenda.

Oh? How do you claim it's not a Scholarly definition? Considering all the attributes about it. Sounds like you are trying to weasel out of reality.


This is not one of those cases where the term has a clearly defined meaning which supersedes the normal use of the words like you claim; one reason for this, is the term you refer to, is not even in the article, when a term has a meaning which supercedes common use in english, it only does so for that term, it doesn't change how words work. It should also be obvious that the 'definition' you posted does not count as such, it is whatshername describing her interpretation of it.

So, a PHD holder, in the field, compiles an Encyclopedia of terms for the field she works in, publishes it via a well known Academic Publisher, It receives awards, from academia for it's work and yet...

Graystone knows best...

Just the sort of denial from a closet Racist and sexist I expected.


Why don't you reference Peggy's original definition of the term then? What you have posted is not a definition of the term. It'd also be interesting to see how she managed to create the term 20 years after it started being widely used :killingme

People had talked about "White privilege" and "Male Privilege" separately - but Peggy McIntosh is widely regards as the first to combine the 2. Thus, people referencing her Work is entirely valid.

But again - you just don't like that you've been caught in your Bullshit.

[Graystone]

So you agree, it's not an absolute standard and therefore the bias of the company is a factor. You cannot have it both ways.



Except it was a contradiction: How can you monitor behavior without monitoring Content? If you can answer that question, then perhaps you can quibble about interpretation.



Oh? How do you claim it's not a Scholarly definition? Considering all the attributes about it. Sounds like you are trying to weasel out of reality.



So, a PHD holder, in the field, compiles an Encyclopedia of terms for the field she works in, publishes it via a well known Academic Publisher, It receives awards, from academia for it's work and yet...

Graystone knows best...

Just the sort of denial from a closet Racist and sexist I expected.



People had talked about "White privilege" and "Male Privilege" separately - but Peggy McIntosh is widely regards as the first to combine the 2. Thus, people referencing her Work is entirely valid.

But again - you just don't like that you've been caught in your Bullshit.

As I spelled out quite a number of posts ago, the company has discretion in its application; so the bias of the company could be a factor if they did not take any steps to remove it. You have not provided any evidence to show that bias is a factor.

I'm not referring to your interpretation of the full quote, I'm referring to his obvious intent for the part you quoted to take out of context and change the meaning, I'm reffering to your clear dishonesty in this matter.

It's not a definition. Nor has it been published through peer reviewed methods.

Did it receive awards for that specific paragraph? for the specific interpretation you placed on it? I think not.

So she first combined the two, but failed to combine them into the "White Male Privilege" term? Fuck you're grasping at straws now. Common use of all the defined terms also predates her work. And how are you going at finding her actual definition of the term from her original work? Not keen to share because it doesn't show what you want it to I presume :laugh:

[TheDemonLord]

As I spelled out quite a number of posts ago, the company has discretion in its application; so the bias of the company could be a factor if they did not take any steps to remove it. You have not provided any evidence to show that bias is a factor.

I've shown multiple instances where the rules have not been equally applied - the best example being Candace Owens vs Sarah Jeong.

You've also not shown how they have taken steps to remove it. You know there is a difference between saying and doing, right?


I'm not referring to your interpretation of the full quote, I'm referring to his obvious intent for the part you quoted to take out of context and change the meaning, I'm reffering to your clear dishonesty in this matter.

Which is a rather round-a-bout way of saying that you can't describe how you can monitor behavior without monitoring content - because you know it can't be done. Which means the "Full context" you are harping on about is BS. It's a series of statements designed to placate the audience, but when analyzed are actually impossible.


It's not a definition. Nor has it been published through peer reviewed methods.

More attempts to downplay the obvious. Even funnier because you've not posted up anything as a competing definition...


Did it receive awards for that specific paragraph? for the specific interpretation you placed on it? I think not.

Doesn't need to, what the awards show is that it isn't some fringe lunatic work, but something well respected in the field. All these character assassinations on the part of the work is really showing how desperate you are to avoid reality.


So she first combined the two, but failed to combine them into the "White Male Privilege" term? Fuck you're grasping at straws now. Common use of all the defined terms also predates her work. And how are you going at finding her actual definition of the term from her original work? Not keen to share because it doesn't show what you want it to I presume :laugh:

Not at all, by her peers (IE Feminists, Gender studies professors etc.) She is regarded as the first person to associate the two and as the instigator of the concept. As for her "actual definition" - it's irrelevant, since I've posted a definition from a scholarly work (which you keep attempting to downplay) and her work is an extension of that, in case you've forgotten:

"Male Privilege" is clearly defined as being applicable to "All Males", "White Male Privilege" is born out of the concept of "Male Privilege" therefore (by transitive relations) "White Male Privilege" applies to "All White Males" - which would make it wholly Racist and Sexist.

[Graystone]

I've shown multiple instances where the rules have not been equally applied - the best example being Candace Owens vs Sarah Jeong.

You've also not shown how they have taken steps to remove it. You know there is a difference between saying and doing, right?



Which is a rather round-a-bout way of saying that you can't describe how you can monitor behavior without monitoring content - because you know it can't be done. Which means the "Full context" you are harping on about is BS. It's a series of statements designed to placate the audience, but when analyzed are actually impossible.



More attempts to downplay the obvious. Even funnier because you've not posted up anything as a competing definition...



Doesn't need to, what the awards show is that it isn't some fringe lunatic work, but something well respected in the field. All these character assassinations on the part of the work is really showing how desperate you are to avoid reality.



Not at all, by her peers (IE Feminists, Gender studies professors etc.) She is regarded as the first person to associate the two and as the instigator of the concept. As for her "actual definition" - it's irrelevant, since I've posted a definition from a scholarly work (which you keep attempting to downplay) and her work is an extension of that, in case you've forgotten:

"Male Privilege" is clearly defined as being applicable to "All Males", "White Male Privilege" is born out of the concept of "Male Privilege" therefore (by transitive relations) "White Male Privilege" applies to "All White Males" - which would make it wholly Racist and Sexist.

None of which showed that political bias to be a factor.

I figure give them the benefit of the doubt.

Are you capable of decoupling your interpretation, from the writer/speaker's intent? The context shows their intent, your interpretation is irrelevant, removing the context is still very dishonest.

Here's one then "Male privilege is a concept within sociology for examining social, economic, and political advantages or rights that are available to men solely on the basis of their sex. A man's access to these benefits may vary depending on how closely they match their society's ideal masculine norm." notice how it is worded as a definition? Not a metaphor, not a description, but a definition.

I think you're playing up just how representative ALA is in such fields. Pointing out the obvious, that not everything in a large work is necessarily correct is hardly a character assassination. For example, two paragraphs after the description you picked, she seeks to show Male Privilege is a thing based on pay scale nomenclature; we know you disagree with that, but by your own logic you cannot since it has been published in such a well respected work :killingme

And just whose character are you attributing the 'all males' comments to?

Hang on a second, did you just say her actual definition was irrelevant? Your whole point hinges on what she defines it as, but since you've found a description you like, you tell us the actual definition she uses is irrelevant? I know you get quite illogical when your sexism is made clear, but that statement is quite unhinged!

Male privilege is not defined as being applicable to all males, she even explains that in the definition just above the description you picked, where it clearly only applies to some males in some societies. And is it not equally born out of White Privilege?

[avgas]

Male privilege is not defined as being applicable to all males, she even explains that in the definition just above the description you picked, where it clearly only applies to some males in some societies. And is it not equally born out of White Privilege?

Using your and her definition then. Would you not argue it is in fact wrong.
It is a statement "Male Privileged" therefore it must encompass the entire demographic of the definition. It's not "Some Male" Privilege.

You see a sub-category is not identified in her definition. So it has to applicable to all or not (and it incorrect and needs better definition).

Or did everyone fail statistics?

If I made a published statement like that, got called out, found I was wrong, I would amend my statement not double down on it. She should to - if this is what she stated.

Edit: Found her paper https://www.nationalseedproject.org/images/documents/White_Privilege_and_Male_Privilege_Personal_Accoun t-Peggy_McIntosh.pdf
No definition is actually defined. Only a statement. She is predicating that because she observes a norm it must therefore be an advantage or in her case privilege. Please note there is nothing outside her observations to justify this within the paper. She does site various racial bias publications as a proof of racial privileged, once again coupled with her own observations. But basically using her analogy is because everyone drives cars, and not everyone rides motorbikes - the world is not accepting of motorbikes so there is in fact a Car Privilege. Never mind the intersections in Thailand......which she has never observed.

[TheDemonLord]

None of which showed that political bias to be a factor.

I figure give them the benefit of the doubt.

Oh really? So tell me: Sarah Jeong made a series of tweets, containing racist remarks - She is on the left wing, editor at NYT. Candace Owens in protest took those tweets, changes only the race that they were directed to and posted them. Candace owens is a well known conservative. Only Candace Owens received any form of censuring from Twitter.

All other factors being equal (Content of the tweets, both by Women, both of who would be considered a minority) - the only changes were the race in question (and all race is a protected characteristic) and the authors Political viewpoint.

So - Care to explain how that doesn't show Political Bias?


Are you capable of decoupling your interpretation, from the writer/speaker's intent? The context shows their intent, your interpretation is irrelevant, removing the context is still very dishonest.

Interesting comment, since you are so obsessed with interpretation... But the question remains - lets assume the Speakers Intent - does it match reality? Can you filter based on Behavior on a platform like twitter without monitoring the content? You simply cannot, because without knowing the content, you cannot tell what the behavior is. Thus it's an irrelevant statement designed to placate the audience.


Here's one then "Male privilege is a concept within sociology for examining social, economic, and political advantages or rights that are available to men solely on the basis of their sex. A man's access to these benefits may vary depending on how closely they match their society's ideal masculine norm." notice how it is worded as a definition? Not a metaphor, not a description, but a definition.

Can you point me to the part where it explicitly states it's not applicable to all men? Especially in the line where it states that access scales with matching an ideal - there is an implication there that there is no zero point.


I think you're playing up just how representative ALA is in such fields. Pointing out the obvious, that not everything in a large work is necessarily correct is hardly a character assassination.

It is when it has no base to support it. You're simply doing the inverse of what you are accusing me of doing - you don't like the description of the concept, so you seek to dismiss it out of hand. First you tried to claim that it was just an encyclopedia, then you claimed I was trying a Gish Gallop (hilarious when it was in response to 4 sentances and all I asked was a few sentance response), Then it was an obscure source, then it was disputing it's scholarly status, then it was trying to differentiate between a sub-concept and it's parent concept and to argue that since they aren't the same, they must be totally different (despite being related), then there was some bonus points where your famed English interpretation skills couldn't even determine the difference between being written by Peggy McIntosh and someone else writing in reference to her work.

I could go on, but I think that's enough to demonstrate your repeated attempts to assassinate the character of a work that you don't like.


For example, two paragraphs after the description you picked, she seeks to show Male Privilege is a thing based on pay scale nomenclature; we know you disagree with that, but by your own logic you cannot since it has been published in such a well respected work :killingme

What a load of stupidity - It's like saying that an atheist can't point out an inconsistency in the Bible... I don't believe in ANY of the concepts in that work, but I'm not the one that holds to that set of beliefs - I'm just assessing the internal consistency of the concepts and then judging them by an objective scale.


And just whose character are you attributing the 'all males' comments to?

You're capable of reading (as you are always so proud of boasting) so you should be able to figure it out...


Hang on a second, did you just say her actual definition was irrelevant? Your whole point hinges on what she defines it as, but since you've found a description you like, you tell us the actual definition she uses is irrelevant? I know you get quite illogical when your sexism is made clear, but that statement is quite unhinged!

Did you miss the part where in the work I posted, it references Peggy's work - perhaps I should have been clearer:

You quibbling over a lack of definition in her original essay does not trump a later work that references her and her body of work and does provide a clarification


Male privilege is not defined as being applicable to all males, she even explains that in the definition just above the description you picked, where it clearly only applies to some males in some societies. And is it not equally born out of White Privilege?

Nope - that's not what she explains - she says that the benefits are not equally distributed but that all males have some benefit - it's the all Males part that you seem to be having trouble with.

That All Males part invalidates your original defence against being a Racist, Sexist.

[Graystone]

Oh really? So tell me: Sarah Jeong made a series of tweets, containing racist remarks - She is on the left wing, editor at NYT. Candace Owens in protest took those tweets, changes only the race that they were directed to and posted them. Candace owens is a well known conservative. Only Candace Owens received any form of censuring from Twitter.

All other factors being equal (Content of the tweets, both by Women, both of who would be considered a minority) - the only changes were the race in question (and all race is a protected characteristic) and the authors Political viewpoint.

So - Care to explain how that doesn't show Political Bias?



Interesting comment, since you are so obsessed with interpretation... But the question remains - lets assume the Speakers Intent - does it match reality? Can you filter based on Behavior on a platform like twitter without monitoring the content? You simply cannot, because without knowing the content, you cannot tell what the behavior is. Thus it's an irrelevant statement designed to placate the audience.



Can you point me to the part where it explicitly states it's not applicable to all men? Especially in the line where it states that access scales with matching an ideal - there is an implication there that there is no zero point.



It is when it has no base to support it. You're simply doing the inverse of what you are accusing me of doing - you don't like the description of the concept, so you seek to dismiss it out of hand. First you tried to claim that it was just an encyclopedia, then you claimed I was trying a Gish Gallop (hilarious when it was in response to 4 sentances and all I asked was a few sentance response), Then it was an obscure source, then it was disputing it's scholarly status, then it was trying to differentiate between a sub-concept and it's parent concept and to argue that since they aren't the same, they must be totally different (despite being related), then there was some bonus points where your famed English interpretation skills couldn't even determine the difference between being written by Peggy McIntosh and someone else writing in reference to her work.

I could go on, but I think that's enough to demonstrate your repeated attempts to assassinate the character of a work that you don't like.



What a load of stupidity - It's like saying that an atheist can't point out an inconsistency in the Bible... I don't believe in ANY of the concepts in that work, but I'm not the one that holds to that set of beliefs - I'm just assessing the internal consistency of the concepts and then judging them by an objective scale.



You're capable of reading (as you are always so proud of boasting) so you should be able to figure it out...



Did you miss the part where in the work I posted, it references Peggy's work - perhaps I should have been clearer:

You quibbling over a lack of definition in her original essay does not trump a later work that references her and her body of work and does provide a clarification



Nope - that's not what she explains - she says that the benefits are not equally distributed but that all males have some benefit - it's the all Males part that you seem to be having trouble with.

That All Males part invalidates your original defence against being a Racist, Sexist.

So Candace's sole focus was on the race aspect? And you wonder why there was censorship...

Speakers intent is the reason to provide context. They can be wrong, but it does not change their intent.

The word 'available'.

No, as character assassination is defaming the person, rather than discussing their work. You continue to attempt the whole argument from authority thing again, but with no concept of how it works, I have to point out why such 'authority' is not applicable, which you claim is character assassination? Don't be absurd.

So her description is 100% accurate since it is in a well regarded work, but all her concepts are wrong since you disagree with them? Double standard much?? Aethiesm and beleif have nothing to do with this, as you've supplied ALA as an objective validation, not a subjective one.

I have figured it out, and it looks like you're mixing up the 'All Males' term Jodi wrote, with saying just how much we have to believe Peggy's definition since she was first. You have not supplied Peggy's definition, or even a description that refers to 'all males', which leaves the internal consistency of your own arguments in tatters.

You can't get clarification from work that is not her own then ascribe that to her, that's fucking moronic.

No it quite clearly states that it is applicable in 'societys where male supremacy is the central social organising feature'. That's in the definition part btw, the description part is where the 'all males' metaphor resides.

[Graystone]

Using your and her definition then. Would you not argue it is in fact wrong.
It is a statement "Male Privileged" therefore it must encompass the entire demographic of the definition. It's not "Some Male" Privilege.

You see a sub-category is not identified in her definition. So it has to applicable to all or not (and it incorrect and needs better definition).

Or did everyone fail statistics?

If I made a published statement like that, got called out, found I was wrong, I would amend my statement not double down on it. She should to - if this is what she stated.

Edit: Found her paper https://www.nationalseedproject.org/images/documents/White_Privilege_and_Male_Privilege_Personal_Accoun t-Peggy_McIntosh.pdf
No definition is actually defined. Only a statement. She is predicating that because she observes a norm it must therefore be an advantage or in her case privilege. Please note there is nothing outside her observations to justify this within the paper. She does site various racial bias publications as a proof of racial privileged, once again coupled with her own observations. But basically using her analogy is because everyone drives cars, and not everyone rides motorbikes - the world is not accepting of motorbikes so there is in fact a Car Privilege. Never mind the intersections in Thailand......which she has never observed.

I disagree, in the same way that 'maori crime' does not mean all maori commit crimes, and 'african penis' does not mean all africans have a penis, 'male privilege' does not mean all males have privilege. A sub-category does not need to be defined since there is no use of the word 'are' or similar between them to give global application.

It's a english thing, not stats.

Exactly, she doesn't define it, while she does seem to insist it is universal, we can also justifiably believe she is wrong in that assertion. So when someone uses the term 'white male privilege' it does not necessarily refer to all white males (as it is never defined as such, through specialist definition, or common word meanings), and with context or intent, can either mean 'some white males are privileged' or 'all white males are privileged'. Obviously I use it to mean the former.

[TheDemonLord]

So Candace's sole focus was on the race aspect? And you wonder why there was censorship...

I think you'll find that it was the other way around... Funny why you'd want to misrepresent what happened... It's almost like you are desperate to avoid conceding that Political Bias might be a factor


Speakers intent is the reason to provide context. They can be wrong, but it does not change their intent.

In order to persuade me of it being an innocent error, You'd have to persuade me that Jack Dorsey was stupid and didn't understand technology. Both of which are patently not true. Which leaves me with one alternative - deliberate deception.

I'll ask again: Can you determine behavior on Twitter without analyzing Content?


The word 'available'.

Which simply means "Able to be used" - it does not state or imply that a Male can choose not to have privilege (which is what you are trying to insinuate). In fact, the surrounding literature on this is quite clear that although you can "Check your privilege" you cannot divest yourself of it. Try again.


No, as character assassination is defaming the person, rather than discussing their work. You continue to attempt the whole argument from authority thing again, but with no concept of how it works, I have to point out why such 'authority' is not applicable, which you claim is character assassination? Don't be absurd.

You're trying to assassinate the character of the work by either downplaying it, claiming it to be obscure, as opposed to actually arguing on the content of the work. The only reason for doing so is because you refuse to argue the point that you know you cannot refute: The concept is Racist and Sexist by your own definition.


So her description is 100% accurate since it is in a well regarded work, but all her concepts are wrong since you disagree with them? Double standard much?? Aethiesm and beleif have nothing to do with this, as you've supplied ALA as an objective validation, not a subjective one.

You've clearly done one too many mental backflips:

I don't agree with any of the Marxist inspired presuppositions. They are founded on widely debunked theories (such as the Wage Gap). I can still, however, assess a works internal logical consistency. As such, I'm completely within my rights to point to a text that is from within and well regarded by the field and judge it on it's merits.

Think of it like discussing a concept in Star Trek - we all know it's not real (Just like the Wage gap and the concept of Privilege), but we can discuss the internal inconsistencies all the same.

And based on that - applying a negative attribute to "All Males" is wholly Sexist.


I have figured it out, and it looks like you're mixing up the 'All Males' term Jodi wrote, with saying just how much we have to believe Peggy's definition since she was first. You have not supplied Peggy's definition, or even a description that refers to 'all males', which leaves the internal consistency of your own arguments in tatters.

Thank god you aren't Sherlock Holmes then if you think you've figured it out... Professor Moriarty would still be at large..

Jodi used the phrase "All Males" twice - once was her words to articulate how the concept applied to "All Males" although with varying degrees, the other was in reference to Peggys work.

Now, there is an assumption you could critique me on - which is it doesn't contain a specific citation, however - given that this is not contradicted anywhere in any definition or description (even the one you posted) - unless you can find me one that explicitly states that "Male Privilege" does not apply to all Men or that some Men do not have ANY "Male Privilege", then it's a fair assumption to make, given the circumstances around it.


You can't get clarification from work that is not her own then ascribe that to her, that's fucking moronic.

Good job that neither me or Jodi is doing that then aye - but keep clutching at those straws...


No it quite clearly states that it is applicable in 'societys where male supremacy is the central social organising feature'. That's in the definition part btw, the description part is where the 'all males' metaphor resides.

Feminists believe all societies are Patriarchies... which is why it's a moot point.

[Graystone]

I think you'll find that it was the other way around... Funny why you'd want to misrepresent what happened... It's almost like you are desperate to avoid conceding that Political Bias might be a factor



In order to persuade me of it being an innocent error, You'd have to persuade me that Jack Dorsey was stupid and didn't understand technology. Both of which are patently not true. Which leaves me with one alternative - deliberate deception.

I'll ask again: Can you determine behavior on Twitter without analyzing Content?



Which simply means "Able to be used" - it does not state or imply that a Male can choose not to have privilege (which is what you are trying to insinuate). In fact, the surrounding literature on this is quite clear that although you can "Check your privilege" you cannot divest yourself of it. Try again.



You're trying to assassinate the character of the work by either downplaying it, claiming it to be obscure, as opposed to actually arguing on the content of the work. The only reason for doing so is because you refuse to argue the point that you know you cannot refute: The concept is Racist and Sexist by your own definition.



You've clearly done one too many mental backflips:

I don't agree with any of the Marxist inspired presuppositions. They are founded on widely debunked theories (such as the Wage Gap). I can still, however, assess a works internal logical consistency. As such, I'm completely within my rights to point to a text that is from within and well regarded by the field and judge it on it's merits.

Think of it like discussing a concept in Star Trek - we all know it's not real (Just like the Wage gap and the concept of Privilege), but we can discuss the internal inconsistencies all the same.

And based on that - applying a negative attribute to "All Males" is wholly Sexist.



Thank god you aren't Sherlock Holmes then if you think you've figured it out... Professor Moriarty would still be at large..

Jodi used the phrase "All Males" twice - once was her words to articulate how the concept applied to "All Males" although with varying degrees, the other was in reference to Peggys work.

Now, there is an assumption you could critique me on - which is it doesn't contain a specific citation, however - given that this is not contradicted anywhere in any definition or description (even the one you posted) - unless you can find me one that explicitly states that "Male Privilege" does not apply to all Men or that some Men do not have ANY "Male Privilege", then it's a fair assumption to make, given the circumstances around it.



Good job that neither me or Jodi is doing that then aye - but keep clutching at those straws...



Feminists believe all societies are Patriarchies... which is why it's a moot point.

If her only changes were race related, then that was her focus. Sarah on the other hand, had posted a message of which race was only a part. I think your major malfucntion is assuming your opinion is anything more than just a subjective interpretation, you don't have to agree with their viewpoint, but their right to have it justifies their actions.

No, this is just your major malfunction again. His meaning was made clear by the context, you dishonestly removed the context to twist the meaning.

Able to be used, also means it does not have to be used.

Character of the work? That's not a thing, stop grasping at straws to try and support your argument from authority fallacy.

You pick and choose which parts you judge on their merits, and do not allow me the same courtesy, that's the double standard. The 'all males' thing is without merit, yet you persist in the argument from authority fallacy, while disputing that a mere two paragraphs below.

It is not a fair assumption to attribute the words of person A who merely refers to person B, to the works of person B. This is basic, basic shit dude. You are doing that, as you say the originator of the term was Peggy, and that term's definition contains the words 'all males', and that is what we should refer to. Since Peggy's definition does not contain those words, your internal logic is in tatters.

Feminists do not believe all societies are patriarchies, nor does her definition even refer to patriarchies. Try grabbing a different straw...

[TheDemonLord]

If her only changes were race related, then that was her focus. Sarah on the other hand, had posted a message of which race was only a part. I think your major malfucntion is assuming your opinion is anything more than just a subjective interpretation, you don't have to agree with their viewpoint, but their right to have it justifies their actions.

Fuck me you are being dishonest, Candace Owens was not focused on Race, she was focused on the HYPOCRISY (and was subsequently proven right) - and furthermore, Let's assume you scenario for a fraction - are you trying to make the claim that by changing a single a word, an automated filter can differentiate meaning and intent? Not even Humans have that good an insight.

For example (this is what you are trying to argue - FYI):

"The Ball is blue" - Completely fine
"The Ball is red" - THEY ARE FOCUSED ON RACE! RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACIST!


No, this is just your major malfunction again. His meaning was made clear by the context, you dishonestly removed the context to twist the meaning.

Okay then - Describe how you can monitor behavior on Twitter without Monitoring Content - that's all you need to do to prove me wrong here. It should be a really simple thing to do, if you are correct.


Able to be used, also means it does not have to be used.

Actually, no - they never specify the negative in any of the definitions or descriptions - there isn't a text on the subject of Privilege that states this - there is plenty that affirms it's a universal though.

And we can apply a real world test to this - if I simply stand up and state "I don't have Male Privilege" - does that remove my supposed "Male Privilege"? Afterall, I've declared to society that I don't want it and as per your definition it's a societal attribute (supposedly).


Character of the work? That's not a thing, stop grasping at straws to try and support your argument from authority fallacy.

Of course it is - which is why you repeatedly attempted to downplay it - "It's not scholarly", "It's obscure", "Argument from Authority" etc. etc. you deliberately tried to attack it's credibility, as opposed to attacking it's substance.


You pick and choose which parts you judge on their merits, and do not allow me the same courtesy, that's the double standard. The 'all males' thing is without merit, yet you persist in the argument from authority fallacy, while disputing that a mere two paragraphs below.

Not at all, I'm holding you to a standard, and you don't like it -it's why you are throwing fallacies, character assassinations out left, right and centre - because you cannot argue the point: "All Males" does in fact mean "All Males" and you can't weasel out of that. Which proves the initial point that it's a Sexist and Racist concept, propagated by Racists and Sexists.


It is not a fair assumption to attribute the words of person A who merely refers to person B, to the works of person B. This is basic, basic shit dude. You are doing that, as you say the originator of the term was Peggy, and that term's definition contains the words 'all males', and that is what we should refer to. Since Peggy's definition does not contain those words, your internal logic is in tatters.

And you couldn't even argue honestly the one critique I gave you... It's simple - Peggy's definition use a universal term "Men" and no where does it explicitly state the qualifier that you've put up as a defence, in fact, even in your own definition it's curiously absent - Now, if the attribution is fundamentally incorrect - then we would expect there to be a conflict between what Peggy said and what was attributed to her and her work.

For example - the statement "Katman loves Israel" - is in conflict with other statements made by Katman.
However if I attributed to Katman: "Katman does not love Israel" - that is not in conflict with other statements made by Katman.

So even if I have not attributed an exact quote or citation, because I am familiar with the body of work by Katman, I can ascribe a statement to him that is in line with his views.

Back to my definition and yours - they do not conflict, they are aligned, the only difference is that in one it makes it clear that the concept applies to "All Males" - and that's a problem for you.


Feminists do not believe all societies are patriarchies, nor does her definition even refer to patriarchies. Try grabbing a different straw...

Sure - show me a Society that Feminists don't think is Patriarchal.

and "male supremacy is the central social organising feature" - that would be a Patriarchal society....

See: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a1a1/956fe39a514e5128ec48b29fab7f45b1848e.pdf

[Graystone]

Fuck me you are being dishonest, Candace Owens was not focused on Race, she was focused on the HYPOCRISY (and was subsequently proven right) - and furthermore, Let's assume you scenario for a fraction - are you trying to make the claim that by changing a single a word, an automated filter can differentiate meaning and intent? Not even Humans have that good an insight.

For example (this is what you are trying to argue - FYI):

"The Ball is blue" - Completely fine
"The Ball is red" - THEY ARE FOCUSED ON RACE! RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACIST!



Okay then - Describe how you can monitor behavior on Twitter without Monitoring Content - that's all you need to do to prove me wrong here. It should be a really simple thing to do, if you are correct.



Actually, no - they never specify the negative in any of the definitions or descriptions - there isn't a text on the subject of Privilege that states this - there is plenty that affirms it's a universal though.

And we can apply a real world test to this - if I simply stand up and state "I don't have Male Privilege" - does that remove my supposed "Male Privilege"? Afterall, I've declared to society that I don't want it and as per your definition it's a societal attribute (supposedly).



Of course it is - which is why you repeatedly attempted to downplay it - "It's not scholarly", "It's obscure", "Argument from Authority" etc. etc. you deliberately tried to attack it's credibility, as opposed to attacking it's substance.



Not at all, I'm holding you to a standard, and you don't like it -it's why you are throwing fallacies, character assassinations out left, right and centre - because you cannot argue the point: "All Males" does in fact mean "All Males" and you can't weasel out of that. Which proves the initial point that it's a Sexist and Racist concept, propagated by Racists and Sexists.



And you couldn't even argue honestly the one critique I gave you... It's simple - Peggy's definition use a universal term "Men" and no where does it explicitly state the qualifier that you've put up as a defence, in fact, even in your own definition it's curiously absent - Now, if the attribution is fundamentally incorrect - then we would expect there to be a conflict between what Peggy said and what was attributed to her and her work.

For example - the statement "Katman loves Israel" - is in conflict with other statements made by Katman.
However if I attributed to Katman: "Katman does not love Israel" - that is not in conflict with other statements made by Katman.

So even if I have not attributed an exact quote or citation, because I am familiar with the body of work by Katman, I can ascribe a statement to him that is in line with his views.

Back to my definition and yours - they do not conflict, they are aligned, the only difference is that in one it makes it clear that the concept applies to "All Males" - and that's a problem for you.



Sure - show me a Society that Feminists don't think is Patriarchal.

and "male supremacy is the central social organising feature" - that would be a Patriarchal society....

See: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a1a1/956fe39a514e5128ec48b29fab7f45b1848e.pdf

Her focus was on rascist hypocrisy though.

His meaning is made clear by his context, which clearly show they are aware of their left bias and make efforts to mitigate any affects. You removed the context to make it seem like he was admitting they were left biased to back up your point that their censure-ship was also left biased, which is contrary to what he clearly meant. Whether he is right or wrong does not change what he meant.

I was explaining what able/available means. No need to assert your major malfunction.

I'm correcting your misuse of it (through the argument from authority fallacy). There is still no such thing as character of work.

You're attempting to hold me to your double standard.

Again, your major malfunction is that you apply your subjective interpretation as objective. It is simply dishonest to attribute words from a different source, to the one you seek to hold as an authority.

I'm a feminist, and I don't think NZ is Patriarchal; but let me guess, there's a special exemption just for you where you can tell who is a feminist based on what you want it to mean :laugh: Patriarchy also means male dominated, which is different to "male supremacy is the central social organising feature" as obviously a society can be male dominated but not have their supremacy as the central social organising feature (like US for example).

[TheDemonLord]

Her focus was on rascist hypocrisy though.

No, just hypocrisy... Which was spectacularly proved correct. I'll again spell it out for you:

Sarah Jeong: Fuck red balls - no action, censure or consequences
Candace Owens: Fuck pink balls - Banned. (although she was later re-instated)

You're trying to claim that the substitution of one race for another drastically alters the context/Meaning/whatever - making one bannable, but the other not. The only way you can claim that, is if you hold the radical lefts definition of Racism to be Power+Privilege, which means you can't be racist to white people. Then, and ONLY then can you explain the situation above. And that, is 100% a case of Political Bias in Twitters' application of the Terms of Service.


His meaning is made clear by his context, which clearly show they are aware of their left bias and make efforts to mitigate any affects. You removed the context to make it seem like he was admitting they were left biased to back up your point that their censure-ship was also left biased, which is contrary to what he clearly meant. Whether he is right or wrong does not change what he meant.

That's a very longwinded way of not answering the question. Let me help you - you can't answer it because you know it's unanswerable. Which means all the context and intent that you are banking on is all 100% bullshit - which is why I left it out.


I was explaining what able/available means. No need to assert your major malfunction.

No, you are asserting what you need it to mean. Big difference. I asked for a simple bit of proof: Find me a definition that explicitly states that it does not apply to all Men. I'll help you out here - you can't find it because it doesn't exist. It should look something like this:

"Male Privilege is a Marxist Myth that we made up to hide our man-hating, Privilege does not apply to all men"

And no attempts at playing word games and substituting your preferred inferences will help you.


I'm correcting your misuse of it (through the argument from authority fallacy). There is still no such thing as character of work.

If you are claiming that I'm committing an argument from Authority, how are you doing any different when referring to your definition? Afterall, we are both pointing at definitions....

And yes, a work can have character. Afterall, you referred to it as Obscure - which was an attempt at Character assassination. And seeing as you need things spelt out - that's because it's an attempt by you to go after the reputation of the work, rather than address it's content.


You're attempting to hold me to your double standard.

No, just a standard, which is why you are trying to weasel out of it.


Again, your major malfunction is that you apply your subjective interpretation as objective. It is simply dishonest to attribute words from a different source, to the one you seek to hold as an authority.

There is no subjective interpretation on my part - I'm just reading what's written (It's pretty clear) - you're the one trying to attack the reputation of the work, because you know you cannot argue against the content.

The only thing that comes close to subjective is my series of inferences about whether the attribution is accurate or not. This is presented as a Binary:

Either it's not inline with known statements made previously by the person- in which case it is most likely false
or
it's inline with known statements made previously by the person - in which case it is most likely true.


I'm a feminist, and I don't think NZ is Patriarchal; but let me guess, there's a special exemption just for you where you can tell who is a feminist based on what you want it to mean :laugh: Patriarchy also means male dominated, which is different to "male supremacy is the central social organising feature" as obviously a society can be male dominated but not have their supremacy as the central social organising feature (like US for example).

Of course you are, and I never doubted you weren't...

However, if you don't think NZ is Patriarchal - why are you a Feminist? Surely (since Feminism is an action-based movement) there is some grievance that you think requires redress, I'm pretty sure that any grievance you list, I will find on espoused on a list of things that prove or constitute "Patriarchy"

I further feel you're about to commit a no-true-scotsman here - especially since Patriarchy means multiple things to multiple Feminists - however, since a picture is worth a thousand words, I'll let it speak:

339100

It seems that your attempts to play word games have been thwarted (again) by reality.

[Graystone]

No, just hypocrisy... Which was spectacularly proved correct. I'll again spell it out for you:

Sarah Jeong: Fuck red balls - no action, censure or consequences
Candace Owens: Fuck pink balls - Banned. (although she was later re-instated)

You're trying to claim that the substitution of one race for another drastically alters the context/Meaning/whatever - making one bannable, but the other not. The only way you can claim that, is if you hold the radical lefts definition of Racism to be Power+Privilege, which means you can't be racist to white people. Then, and ONLY then can you explain the situation above. And that, is 100% a case of Political Bias in Twitters' application of the Terms of Service.



That's a very longwinded way of not answering the question. Let me help you - you can't answer it because you know it's unanswerable. Which means all the context and intent that you are banking on is all 100% bullshit - which is why I left it out.



No, you are asserting what you need it to mean. Big difference. I asked for a simple bit of proof: Find me a definition that explicitly states that it does not apply to all Men. I'll help you out here - you can't find it because it doesn't exist. It should look something like this:

"Male Privilege is a Marxist Myth that we made up to hide our man-hating, Privilege does not apply to all men"

And no attempts at playing word games and substituting your preferred inferences will help you.



If you are claiming that I'm committing an argument from Authority, how are you doing any different when referring to your definition? Afterall, we are both pointing at definitions....

And yes, a work can have character. Afterall, you referred to it as Obscure - which was an attempt at Character assassination. And seeing as you need things spelt out - that's because it's an attempt by you to go after the reputation of the work, rather than address it's content.



No, just a standard, which is why you are trying to weasel out of it.



There is no subjective interpretation on my part - I'm just reading what's written (It's pretty clear) - you're the one trying to attack the reputation of the work, because you know you cannot argue against the content.

The only thing that comes close to subjective is my series of inferences about whether the attribution is accurate or not. This is presented as a Binary:

Either it's not inline with known statements made previously by the person- in which case it is most likely false
or
it's inline with known statements made previously by the person - in which case it is most likely true.



Of course you are, and I never doubted you weren't...

However, if you don't think NZ is Patriarchal - why are you a Feminist? Surely (since Feminism is an action-based movement) there is some grievance that you think requires redress, I'm pretty sure that any grievance you list, I will find on espoused on a list of things that prove or constitute "Patriarchy"

I further feel you're about to commit a no-true-scotsman here - especially since Patriarchy means multiple things to multiple Feminists - however, since a picture is worth a thousand words, I'll let it speak:

339100

It seems that your attempts to play word games have been thwarted (again) by reality.

Nice try at a strawman but no. The hypocrisy she was trying to show was of the racist variety, as those offended only when one race is mentioned and not another do show racist hypocrisy, I'm not sure how you think that is not the case. So while the original posts may be just some bullshit which mentioned race, hers were focused on the racist aspect. Obviously this is not something that is agreed on as a valid reason for censure by myself/twitter/etc, but it is subjectively a plausible reason, and that's all it takes for a temp ban. It's also an isolated, and overturned incident, so the initial call on it does not reflect twitter's policy as a whole.

It simply isn't worth answering, it's an absurd tangent to go off on to attempt to justify your blatant dishonesty.

Right, it's the double standard again eh? You have yet to find a definition which explicitly states it applies to all males, yet I have to find one that says it doesn't? Add to that it is generally more difficult to prove a negative and it's just more special exemptions for your self-validation :laugh:

Because I am not saying this one definition is the correct one since whatsername said so. I'm showing there are conflicting ones, to show that your argument from authority is inadequate. this is the same reason I point out the fallibility of the source for the definition.

:laugh: You can't attribute people to have said things based on them 'most likely' (in your opinion) agreeing with the sentiment, just how unscientific are you determined to become?

So when you said "Feminists believe all societies are Patriarchies.." did you mean all feminists? or some feminists? I mean, the interpretation of a missing word is very deja-vu. :whistle:

I never denied they were closely related, just not the same, so I'm pointing out you can have one without the other. It should be clear societies like US are male dominated but do not have male supremacy as the central social organising feature, seems a lot more like wealth...

[TheDemonLord]

Nice try at a strawman but no. The hypocrisy she was trying to show was of the racist variety, as those offended only when one race is mentioned and not another do show racist hypocrisy, I'm not sure how you think that is not the case. So while the original posts may be just some bullshit which mentioned race, hers were focused on the racist aspect. Obviously this is not something that is agreed on as a valid reason for censure by myself/twitter/etc, but it is subjectively a plausible reason, and that's all it takes for a temp ban. It's also an isolated, and overturned incident, so the initial call on it does not reflect twitter's policy as a whole.

That is one of the most impressive Mental Backflips I've seen in a while. Pretty much your are stating that "White people are Bullshit" isn't racist, but "Jewish people are bullshit" is - based on some claimed context which you've invented (ironic given how pissy you get about context below).

Let me be clear - the Hypocrisy is not about Race per se, it's about the standard applied to those on the left vs those on the right - which I'll remind you, Twitter validated the critique, by censuring Candace and not Sarah.

"as those offended only when one race is mentioned and not another do show racist hypocrisy" - You mean like Twitter and the left? They care when it's Jews mentioned, but not White people? Thanks for clearly articulating Twitters Political bias.


It simply isn't worth answering, it's an absurd tangent to go off on to attempt to justify your blatant dishonesty.

Which is confirmation that you can't answer it, and therefore all the bullshit about context is just that: Bullshit.


Right, it's the double standard again eh? You have yet to find a definition which explicitly states it applies to all males, yet I have to find one that says it doesn't? Add to that it is generally more difficult to prove a negative and it's just more special exemptions for your self-validation :laugh:

I see you're ignoring the description of the concept, from a scholarly work that states "All Males" Multiple times then. But let's be clear - your definition is not in conflict with my Description - read together, they don't rebut each other. That's the problem - you're having play some word games to ignore the fact that the words used were universals, as opposed to limited subset (Men vs Some Men). I'm not asking you to prove a Negative, I'm asking you to show a definition or description that explicitly states it is not applicable to all Men.


Because I am not saying this one definition is the correct one since whatsername said so. I'm showing there are conflicting ones, to show that your argument from authority is inadequate. this is the same reason I point out the fallibility of the source for the definition.

Have I said it's correct because of the Author? I haven't? Oh dear... Best you put that fallacy down then. I'll simply point out - your definition does not conflict with mine - since there is no limiting qualifier anywhere in it. That's a problem for your defence, it's also a problem that you are trying every linguistic deception to work around - and all I'm doing is simply stopping you from evading it (which is why you are complaining about a double standard, whereas you're just upset that you are being held to A standard).


:laugh: You can't attribute people to have said things based on them 'most likely' (in your opinion) agreeing with the sentiment, just how unscientific are you determined to become?

I'm being as scientific as any good Gender Studies professor is.... However, you're ignoring the point the attribution is not contradicted by any of her Published work, therefore on the balance of probability, it's more likely to be true than not.


So when you said "Feminists believe all societies are Patriarchies.." did you mean all feminists? or some feminists? I mean, the interpretation of a missing word is very deja-vu. :whistle:

Getting ever closer to that no-true-scotsman. Let me address it this way - the vast majority of both mainstream and radical feminist theory that is accepted by adherents in both Academia and general life believe that all societies are Patriarchies. As evidenced by the fact they refer to all western countries (even the Scandinavian ones) as such.

I've not seen any work by any Feminist that is given any credence within feminist circles that advocates that maybe not all societies are Patriarchal.


I never denied they were closely related, just not the same, so I'm pointing out you can have one without the other. It should be clear societies like US are male dominated but do not have male supremacy as the central social organising feature, seems a lot more like wealth...

And as the Feminists would point out: Who has all the wealth...

And besides, I simply don't believe you, and neither does Google - what you've described would pass as a definition of Patriarchy in just about any Gender studies classroom.

[avgas]

I disagree, in the same way that 'maori crime' does not mean all maori commit crimes, and 'african penis' does not mean all africans have a penis, 'male privilege' does not mean all males have privilege. A sub-category does not need to be defined since there is no use of the word 'are' or similar between them to give global application.

It's a english thing, not stats.

Exactly, she doesn't define it, while she does seem to insist it is universal, we can also justifiably believe she is wrong in that assertion. So when someone uses the term 'white male privilege' it does not necessarily refer to all white males (as it is never defined as such, through specialist definition, or common word meanings), and with context or intent, can either mean 'some white males are privileged' or 'all white males are privileged'. Obviously I use it to mean the former.
Privilege - attribute (so everyone gets it)
Crime - an act (actors get it)
Penis - Object (can get or not get - not compulsory)

Like you said - its an english thing.....

[Graystone]

That is one of the most impressive Mental Backflips I've seen in a while. Pretty much your are stating that "White people are Bullshit" isn't racist, but "Jewish people are bullshit" is - based on some claimed context which you've invented (ironic given how pissy you get about context below).

Let me be clear - the Hypocrisy is not about Race per se, it's about the standard applied to those on the left vs those on the right - which I'll remind you, Twitter validated the critique, by censuring Candace and not Sarah.

"as those offended only when one race is mentioned and not another do show racist hypocrisy" - You mean like Twitter and the left? They care when it's Jews mentioned, but not White people? Thanks for clearly articulating Twitters Political bias.



Which is confirmation that you can't answer it, and therefore all the bullshit about context is just that: Bullshit.



I see you're ignoring the description of the concept, from a scholarly work that states "All Males" Multiple times then. But let's be clear - your definition is not in conflict with my Description - read together, they don't rebut each other. That's the problem - you're having play some word games to ignore the fact that the words used were universals, as opposed to limited subset (Men vs Some Men). I'm not asking you to prove a Negative, I'm asking you to show a definition or description that explicitly states it is not applicable to all Men.



Have I said it's correct because of the Author? I haven't? Oh dear... Best you put that fallacy down then. I'll simply point out - your definition does not conflict with mine - since there is no limiting qualifier anywhere in it. That's a problem for your defence, it's also a problem that you are trying every linguistic deception to work around - and all I'm doing is simply stopping you from evading it (which is why you are complaining about a double standard, whereas you're just upset that you are being held to A standard).



I'm being as scientific as any good Gender Studies professor is.... However, you're ignoring the point the attribution is not contradicted by any of her Published work, therefore on the balance of probability, it's more likely to be true than not.



Getting ever closer to that no-true-scotsman. Let me address it this way - the vast majority of both mainstream and radical feminist theory that is accepted by adherents in both Academia and general life believe that all societies are Patriarchies. As evidenced by the fact they refer to all western countries (even the Scandinavian ones) as such.

I've not seen any work by any Feminist that is given any credence within feminist circles that advocates that maybe not all societies are Patriarchal.



And as the Feminists would point out: Who has all the wealth...

And besides, I simply don't believe you, and neither does Google - what you've described would pass as a definition of Patriarchy in just about any Gender studies classroom.

No, those statement were certainly racist as well. The difference is that was not her sole focus, you could also argue her focus was a direct attack on the other chick I guess, another unbiased reason for the initial ban. The left/right bias is not what is being examined though, it is the racist hypocrisy in the content. If it were about left vs right, do you think Candace would have been the one censured if the other one said racist things about blacks and she said them about whites?

Piss poor attempt at gish galloping. Just learn not to remove context to change the intent of the words in future eh!

Good to see you have acknowledged it is only a description, not a definition. Description is subjective, so is inadmissible as proof for the meaning of the term.

Actually you did, by saying "It's the start of the idea of "White Male Privilege" and since Peggy was first to create the concept, her definition applies." I guess you could try and weasel out by saying what applies is not necessarily correct though :laugh:

Pretty sure you can't reference based on 'balance of probability', ask those esteemed fellows at ALA, they may know a bit about APA...

Right, so sometimes, when a term is used without a qualifying prefix, it doesn't mean 'all', handy to know, thanks for clearing that up :laugh:

It doesn't matter who has the wealth, if wealth is the central social organising feature it does not fit the definition supplied. Of course what I have described counts as patriachy, but patriachy doesn't necessarily count as what I have described; do I need to draw you a fucking Venn diagram or some shit?

[Graystone]

Privilege - attribute (so everyone gets it)
Crime - an act (actors get it)
Penis - Object (can get or not get - not compulsory)

Like you said - its an english thing.....

Interesting approach, but privilege is a noun, not an adjective like attributes are; the position in the term is a giveaway as attributes come before the noun.

Privileged White Males would be the correct form for it to be an attribute.

[TheDemonLord]

No, those statement were certainly racist as well. The difference is that was not her sole focus, you could also argue her focus was a direct attack on the other chick I guess, another unbiased reason for the initial ban. The left/right bias is not what is being examined though, it is the racist hypocrisy in the content. If it were about left vs right, do you think Candace would have been the one censured if the other one said racist things about blacks and she said them about whites?

So, if statements that are certainly racist were made, and Racist statements are against the ToS - why was Sarah Jeong not banned or censured?

As for your last statement - it's only the radical left that thinks you can't be racist towards white people so... you're just proving my point...


Piss poor attempt at gish galloping. Just learn not to remove context to change the intent of the words in future eh!

Not even a Gish Gallop... It's simple, I removed a series of statements that are contradictory: You can't monitor behavior on Twitter without monitoring content. If you want to make the claim you are trying (that the context was valid and excluding those statements changes things) - then it's a simple challenge - Describe how you can monitor behavior without monitoring content.


Good to see you have acknowledged it is only a description, not a definition. Description is subjective, so is inadmissible as proof for the meaning of the term.

What an interesting comment...

http://pediaa.com/difference-between-define-and-describe/


defining would give a general meaning whereas describing would give a detailed account.

A general Meaning, supplemented by a more detailed account - that makes it clear it applies to "All Males".


Actually you did, by saying "It's the start of the idea of "White Male Privilege" and since Peggy was first to create the concept, her definition applies." I guess you could try and weasel out by saying what applies is not necessarily correct though :laugh:

Except she effectively created the Idea. That's not an appeal to Authority. I'm not saying she's right because of her Academic credentials, I'm saying she's right because she came up with the idea - bit of a difference.


Pretty sure you can't reference based on 'balance of probability', ask those esteemed fellows at ALA, they may know a bit about APA...

Oh but you can - in fact, a very famous Feminist statistic that has been pyramid referenced was a comment made on the Balance of Probability.

As I said I'm being as scientific as any good Gender Studies professor is.


Right, so sometimes, when a term is used without a qualifying prefix, it doesn't mean 'all', handy to know, thanks for clearing that up :laugh:

Except when the description of it explicitly states it does apply to "All"... Nice try - and I should point out, that of "All" The feminists I've met and talked to - even the ones I happen to quite like and agree with on some things - they all shared that viewpoint.


It doesn't matter who has the wealth, if wealth is the central social organising feature it does not fit the definition supplied. Of course what I have described counts as patriachy, but patriachy doesn't necessarily count as what I have described; do I need to draw you a fucking Venn diagram or some shit?

I'll help you out:

() Societies referred to by Feminists as Patriarchies

() Some shit Graystone is making up to avoid conceeding the point

As you can see - they do not intersect. So whilst there may be some mythical thing, based on your definition that you consider isn't a patriarchy, it's not based on any real society.

[Graystone]

So, if statements that are certainly racist were made, and Racist statements are against the ToS - why was Sarah Jeong not banned or censured?

As for your last statement - it's only the radical left that thinks you can't be racist towards white people so... you're just proving my point...



Not even a Gish Gallop... It's simple, I removed a series of statements that are contradictory: You can't monitor behavior on Twitter without monitoring content. If you want to make the claim you are trying (that the context was valid and excluding those statements changes things) - then it's a simple challenge - Describe how you can monitor behavior without monitoring content.



What an interesting comment...

http://pediaa.com/difference-between-define-and-describe/



A general Meaning, supplemented by a more detailed account - that makes it clear it applies to "All Males".



Except she effectively created the Idea. That's not an appeal to Authority. I'm not saying she's right because of her Academic credentials, I'm saying she's right because she came up with the idea - bit of a difference.



Oh but you can - in fact, a very famous Feminist statistic that has been pyramid referenced was a comment made on the Balance of Probability.

As I said I'm being as scientific as any good Gender Studies professor is.



Except when the description of it explicitly states it does apply to "All"... Nice try - and I should point out, that of "All" The feminists I've met and talked to - even the ones I happen to quite like and agree with on some things - they all shared that viewpoint.



I'll help you out:

() Societies referred to by Feminists as Patriarchies

() Some shit Graystone is making up to avoid conceeding the point

As you can see - they do not intersect. So whilst there may be some mythical thing, based on your definition that you consider isn't a patriarchy, it's not based on any real society.

We've been over this, it's because Twitter has reserved the right to remove or leave such post up as they see fit. Putting the cart before the horse then, you classify whether a person is left/right based on their racial hypocrisy, but keep saying it is not their racial hypocrisy, but the political bias that they are being judged for, I believe your preferred term is mental backflip?

Simpler than that, you removed context to distort the message.

:laugh: guess your panties will again be bunched when I point out the obscurity of that source...

Which is still you saying it is correct because of the author.

I don't give a fuck how unscientific you think feminists are, I'm pointing out that your bullshit is unscientific, and inadmissible. It's illogical and dishonest to attribute words to somebody who has never said them just because you think they would agree. Seriously, how are you still trying to debate this point?

Description is inadmissible, I could equally find a description that doesn't say it applies to all of them.

It's actually quite clear, not all patriachys have Male supremacy as their central social organising feature, just as clearly as it is that some of the biggest societies in the world are not organised by such. There's no need to go off on all those tangents to 'avoid' conceding that point.

[TheDemonLord]

We've been over this, it's because Twitter has reserved the right to remove or leave such post up as they see fit. Putting the cart before the horse then, you classify whether a person is left/right based on their racial hypocrisy, but keep saying it is not their racial hypocrisy, but the political bias that they are being judged for, I believe your preferred term is mental backflip?

And how does the reserved right get applied? What is the Metric used? How is it judged? We know it's not strictly racism - as you've agreed, a "certainly racist" remark did not get censured - what is the only other Metric that was different in this case? That would be the political affiliation.

Which is the foundation of my point: They hold a left-wing bias and act/apply their ToS in a manner consistent with that bias.


Simpler than that, you removed context to distort the message.

If it's a distortion (as you claim) all you need to do is describe how it can be true - that behavior can be determined without analysing content.


:laugh: guess your panties will again be bunched when I point out the obscurity of that source...

Nah, I'll just point out that by refusing to argue the merits of what is written, instead trying to dismiss it's validity is proof enough that what is said is correct, otherwise you'd point to an error or "misinterpretation" therein.


Which is still you saying it is correct because of the author.

*Inventor - see the difference?


I don't give a fuck how unscientific you think feminists are, I'm pointing out that your bullshit is unscientific, and inadmissible. It's illogical and dishonest to attribute words to somebody who has never said them just because you think they would agree. Seriously, how are you still trying to debate this point?

Oooooo that hit a nerve - What's the matter? Finding it difficult to dismiss my points when I play by the same rules used by the ideological movement you support? Well, either you stick to the scientific method (which means throwing out concepts such as the Wage gap, "White Male Privilege" and all the other twaddle) or you accept the point I'm making and concede the debate. Pick one.


Description is inadmissible, I could equally find a description that doesn't say it applies to all of them.

Go on then, from a scholarly source if you please. I do believe I've already asked you for this, and you complained you couldn't prove a negative and such description wasn't forthcoming.


It's actually quite clear, not all patriachys have Male supremacy as their central social organising feature, just as clearly as it is that some of the biggest societies in the world are not organised by such. There's no need to go off on all those tangents to 'avoid' conceding that point.

I, Google and most Feminists disagree with you, so does the Greek Etymology of the word. You cite America as where the supremacy of wealth is the organizing feature - If I put on my Feminist hat - I'd counter with not only is wealth afforded to those as byproduct of Male Supremacy, but a quick review of who has amassed all the wealth shows it's overwhelmingly Men and so... Wealth is a Manifestation of Male supremacy and therefore....

Which is why I pointed out that you're making shit up to avoid conceding the point.

[Graystone]

And how does the reserved right get applied? What is the Metric used? How is it judged? We know it's not strictly racism - as you've agreed, a "certainly racist" remark did not get censured - what is the only other Metric that was different in this case? That would be the political affiliation.

Which is the foundation of my point: They hold a left-wing bias and act/apply their ToS in a manner consistent with that bias.



If it's a distortion (as you claim) all you need to do is describe how it can be true - that behavior can be determined without analysing content.



Nah, I'll just point out that by refusing to argue the merits of what is written, instead trying to dismiss it's validity is proof enough that what is said is correct, otherwise you'd point to an error or "misinterpretation" therein.



*Inventor - see the difference?



Oooooo that hit a nerve - What's the matter? Finding it difficult to dismiss my points when I play by the same rules used by the ideological movement you support? Well, either you stick to the scientific method (which means throwing out concepts such as the Wage gap, "White Male Privilege" and all the other twaddle) or you accept the point I'm making and concede the debate. Pick one.



Go on then, from a scholarly source if you please. I do believe I've already asked you for this, and you complained you couldn't prove a negative and such description wasn't forthcoming.



I, Google and most Feminists disagree with you, so does the Greek Etymology of the word. You cite America as where the supremacy of wealth is the organizing feature - If I put on my Feminist hat - I'd counter with not only is wealth afforded to those as byproduct of Male Supremacy, but a quick review of who has amassed all the wealth shows it's overwhelmingly Men and so... Wealth is a Manifestation of Male supremacy and therefore....

Which is why I pointed out that you're making shit up to avoid conceding the point.

The right is reserved, we don't know their metric. But there were plenty of other factors, such as personal attacks, racial focus, prior post history, number of people who reported it. To say political bias is the only one shows some rather spectacular bias on your part.

No, his intent was clear, and you distorted that. Do you dispute my interpretation of what he meant by it?

Nah, it's just some gish gallop you want to go misinterpret. Find the intelligence to make your own point.

Arguably she is the original author (a rather weak argument since she never used the term, but hey, those straws won't grasp themselves right?), but inventor certainly does not apply is this circumstance. She also never said 'all males', that was the author of the other work, to which you did point at credentials.

Not really, I just tire of those who are determined to get in a race to the bottom. I'll stick to the scientific method as per normal, let me know if you figure out how to do the same...

Words are important, try reading them better next time. It is much harder to find definitions which are exclusive rather than inclusive, which is why it is illogical for you to ask for me to find one.

You're still trying to work backwards I see, one contains the other, but it does not mean the other contains the one. Whichever hat you wear, you can't show that male supremacy is the central social organising feature in US, can you? And if it isn't in US, it sure as shit isn't here either.

[Katman]

I'll stick to the scientific method as per normal, let me know if you figure out how to do the same....

You should repost that YouTube video that you shared with us during your last incarnation.

You know the one - 'Can we trust Science?'

That was hilarious.

[husaberg]

You should repost that YouTube video that you shared with us during your last incarnation.

You know the one - 'Can we trust Science?'

That was hilarious.
Just as well you shun science and all the things it as brought us.
I suggest you continue to shun all modern science and stuff like vaccinations antibiotics from now on as well.
Just stick to the weed stevie
Despite what the science says, it clearly doesnt make you paranoid.
but it doesnt explain why you are posting on the internet and not living in a mudhut though.:2thumbsup

[Graystone]

You should repost that YouTube video that you shared with us during your last incarnation.

You know the one - 'Can we trust Science?'

That was hilarious.

You feeling a bit left out there matey... Need a hug or just some strong anti-psychotics?

We should question science, rather than blindly trust it.

[pritch]

I see a report that Yaxley-Lennon has sacked his lawyers because he thought they were working for the opposition.

Just lock the silly fucker up and let's all enjoy the peace and quiet.

[TheDemonLord]

The right is reserved, we don't know their metric. But there were plenty of other factors, such as personal attacks, racial focus, prior post history, number of people who reported it. To say political bias is the only one shows some rather spectacular bias on your part.

Not at all, It's Occams Razor - in order to discount Political Bias as a factor - You've had to invent 4 different "Maybes" - which you have ZERO evidence for. Not to mention we have a self-decleration that such a political Bias does exist in the company....


No, his intent was clear, and you distorted that. Do you dispute my interpretation of what he meant by it?

I'm asking you to validate his point: Can you monitor Behavior without monitoring Content on Twitter - It's a simple question - that you've refused to answer. You can interpret it however you like, I'm just asking you to demonstrate that it's a true statement.


Nah, it's just some gish gallop you want to go misinterpret. Find the intelligence to make your own point.

Ah, more dismissals - it's almost like you are avoiding arguing the point because you know you can't argue against it.


Arguably she is the original author (a rather weak argument since she never used the term, but hey, those straws won't grasp themselves right?), but inventor certainly does not apply is this circumstance. She also never said 'all males', that was the author of the other work, to which you did point at credentials.

I've simply used the consensus of the field - she is acknowledged as being the first to combine the two concepts into one Essay, that's not Straw Grasping. You'd have a point if she wasn't the one credited by the field with the invention and I was pointing to some obscure person and work that hadn't been cited thousands of times.

And again with this attempt to claim fallacies where there are none. I've not claimed it's because of her credentials that she's right, no more so than you did when you posted your definition.


Not really, I just tire of those who are determined to get in a race to the bottom. I'll stick to the scientific method as per normal, let me know if you figure out how to do the same...

What's the matter? Don't like how your shit smells when it's wafted back in your direction? If you wish to stick to the Scientific Method, then you should reject absolutely any concept of Privilege - but you don't and you won't - What was that you were saying about Double Standards?


Words are important, try reading them better next time. It is much harder to find definitions which are exclusive rather than inclusive, which is why it is illogical for you to ask for me to find one.

I know words are important - like "All Males" - those are some pretty important words. Here's your problem: you claimed you could find a definition that contradicts what I said - so I called your bluff - and then what did you do? You pussied out, whining about how much harder it is.

That you backed out of the challenge speaks more than any sentences of yours could.


You're still trying to work backwards I see, one contains the other, but it does not mean the other contains the one. Whichever hat you wear, you can't show that male supremacy is the central social organising feature in US, can you? And if it isn't in US, it sure as shit isn't here either.

Nope, I'm just applying the same methodology that is used to justify the existence of Privilege - to highlight how unscientific it is. And when it's used against you - you get all pissy and claim you want to stick to a "scientific Methodology" - So what is it going to be? Are you going to stick to the Scientific Method and renounce your claims about Privilege, or are you going to cling to that concept and accept that I can then use the same method to critique you?

[avgas]

Interesting approach, but privilege is a noun, not an adjective like attributes are; the position in the term is a giveaway as attributes come before the noun.
Privileged White Males would be the correct form for it to be an attribute.
Attribute is both an noun and an adjective......as you showed in your second statement (by adding the d on the end). You see it both is a thing, that describes (when you change it slighly)...... because ya know.... English again......

But when it is in statement form, it also encloses the audience / target. Sadly Privileged is not well defined by many who use it. So the definition encompass all until proven otherwise.

Feminists/Racists claim a privileged person in a game of Russian roulette is that ones that don't get shot. Because they are seen to win while others seem to lose.
Realist claim a privileged person in a game of Russian roulette would be the one who loaded the gun and started the game. (provided they didn't spin the chambers!?)

So yay - definition.

What is you definition of privilege? What is male privileged? What is white privileged?
(keep in mind now that in your words one of those questions is about a Noun......and the others are adjectives......)

[avgas]

We should question science, rather than blindly trust it.

That actually is the definition of Science......the word you are looking for is Faith / Religion.......So yes lets not confuse trust and question again......

[Graystone]

Not at all, It's Occams Razor - in order to discount Political Bias as a factor - You've had to invent 4 different "Maybes" - which you have ZERO evidence for. Not to mention we have a self-decleration that such a political Bias does exist in the company....



I'm asking you to validate his point: Can you monitor Behavior without monitoring Content on Twitter - It's a simple question - that you've refused to answer. You can interpret it however you like, I'm just asking you to demonstrate that it's a true statement.



Ah, more dismissals - it's almost like you are avoiding arguing the point because you know you can't argue against it.



I've simply used the consensus of the field - she is acknowledged as being the first to combine the two concepts into one Essay, that's not Straw Grasping. You'd have a point if she wasn't the one credited by the field with the invention and I was pointing to some obscure person and work that hadn't been cited thousands of times.

And again with this attempt to claim fallacies where there are none. I've not claimed it's because of her credentials that she's right, no more so than you did when you posted your definition.



What's the matter? Don't like how your shit smells when it's wafted back in your direction? If you wish to stick to the Scientific Method, then you should reject absolutely any concept of Privilege - but you don't and you won't - What was that you were saying about Double Standards?



I know words are important - like "All Males" - those are some pretty important words. Here's your problem: you claimed you could find a definition that contradicts what I said - so I called your bluff - and then what did you do? You pussied out, whining about how much harder it is.

That you backed out of the challenge speaks more than any sentences of yours could.



Nope, I'm just applying the same methodology that is used to justify the existence of Privilege - to highlight how unscientific it is. And when it's used against you - you get all pissy and claim you want to stick to a "scientific Methodology" - So what is it going to be? Are you going to stick to the Scientific Method and renounce your claims about Privilege, or are you going to cling to that concept and accept that I can then use the same method to critique you?

Just as you have zero evidence for the conjecture you invented.

Do you dispute my interpretation of it though?

What exactly am I dismissing? I'm not going to argue against it since it is just some link online you posted. Find the intelligence to make your own point.

Consensus of the field? sounds like you think that gives her point some authority :laugh:

I've been consistently rational, it is illogical for you to judge me by the actions of other feminists. The scientific method shows that privilege exists, but it is not applicable to all white males. This is consistent with the points I have been making all along.

No you moron, read the words, "I could equally find a description that doesn't say it applies to all of them", yet somehow you seem to have read that as 'says it doesn't apply'. Feel free to offer an apology for your misinterpretation...

You're not using the same method at all though. If you were, you would show that male supremacy is the central social organising feature in US.

[Graystone]

Attribute is both an noun and an adjective......as you showed in your second statement (by adding the d on the end). You see it both is a thing, that describes (when you change it slighly)...... because ya know.... English again......

But when it is in statement form, it also encloses the audience / target. Sadly Privileged is not well defined by many who use it. So the definition encompass all until proven otherwise.

Feminists/Racists claim a privileged person in a game of Russian roulette is that ones that don't get shot. Because they are seen to win while others seem to lose.
Realist claim a privileged person in a game of Russian roulette would be the one who loaded the gun and started the game. (provided they didn't spin the chambers!?)

So yay - definition.

What is you definition of privilege? What is male privileged? What is white privileged?
(keep in mind now that in your words one of those questions is about a Noun......and the others are adjectives......)

Privileged is an adjective, privilege is a noun. These are different words. Words are important. As for it being an attributive noun, they can only occur before the word they apply to, as privilege is the last word in the term, it is not an attributive noun.

Privilege is an unearned benefit, only available to so people. Male privilege is an unearned benefit, only available to some males.

[Graystone]

That actually is the definition of Science......the word you are looking for is Faith / Religion.......So yes lets not confuse trust and question again......

That was in response to katman suggesting a video of why we can trust science; it's irrelevant because blindly trusting science would be unscientific!

[husaberg]

That was in response to katman suggesting a video of why we can trust science; it's irrelevant because blindly trusting science would be unscientific!
The only science he trust is stuff that has been discredited by science. Or the courts or logic.

[TheDemonLord]

Just as you have zero evidence for the conjecture you invented.

Except the two bits of evidence that you repeatedly dismiss - namely:

1: What actually happened
2: What was actually said.

Which is more than what you have for your conjecture.


Do you dispute my interpretation of it though?

Your interpretation hinges on it being a true statement - so I'm asking you to demonstrate that it's true.

Unless of course, you want to concede that you are willfully believing something untrue in order to avoid conceding a point...


What exactly am I dismissing? I'm not going to argue against it since it is just some link online you posted. Find the intelligence to make your own point.

Read what you just wrote - that's you dismissing it, again. Obscure, not scholarly "Just some link online" - more of the same refusal to argue the point, more the of the same implicit concession that you can't argue against the point.


Consensus of the field? sounds like you think that gives her point some authority :laugh:

Except it's not me now is it?


I've been consistently rational, it is illogical for you to judge me by the actions of other feminists. The scientific method shows that privilege exists, but it is not applicable to all white males. This is consistent with the points I have been making all along.

Yet, you're a self-declared Feminist, so it is ENTIRELY logical to critique you on the tenants and philosophers of the world view you claim to adhere to.

And what scientific method shows that Privilege exists - I'll bet it's:

a: full of Marxist presuppositions that have not been proven.
b: full of woeful abuse of statistics.
c: peer reviewed by people who possess the same ideological bent with a vested interest in validating their beliefs.

Cases in point: The Wage Gap, 2% false accusation, 1 in 4 women on College Campus etc.


No you moron, read the words, "I could equally find a description that doesn't say it applies to all of them", yet somehow you seem to have read that as 'says it doesn't apply'. Feel free to offer an apology for your misinterpretation...

Except you have to take the context in which you made the statement - which was a rebuttal to the description that explicitly stated "All Males" - if it fails to specify a limited subset then it doesn't actually rebut the point.

If you make a statement that "I have all the oranges" and I make a statement "You have oranges" - These two statements do not contradict each other - however, if I make the statement "You have some oranges" - that does contradict that statement.

So, In order for your challenge to actually rebut what I've said - you have to post a definition that explicitly states it doesn't apply to all them.

Which is where you started pissing and moaning. As for Apologies - when you've graduated English 101 and can understand this, I'll accept yours to me in writing, along with a donation to the "Centre for Advanced Sarcasm and Hilarity"


You're not using the same method at all though. If you were, you would show that male supremacy is the central social organising feature in US.

Oh but I am - you see, I'm stating a conclusion and throwing out a whole load of BS post hoc justifications to prove it.

[Graystone]

Except the two bits of evidence that you repeatedly dismiss - namely:

1: What actually happened
2: What was actually said.

Which is more than what you have for your conjecture.



Your interpretation hinges on it being a true statement - so I'm asking you to demonstrate that it's true.

Unless of course, you want to concede that you are willfully believing something untrue in order to avoid conceding a point...



Read what you just wrote - that's you dismissing it, again. Obscure, not scholarly "Just some link online" - more of the same refusal to argue the point, more the of the same implicit concession that you can't argue against the point.



Except it's not me now is it?



Yet, you're a self-declared Feminist, so it is ENTIRELY logical to critique you on the tenants and philosophers of the world view you claim to adhere to.

And what scientific method shows that Privilege exists - I'll bet it's:

a: full of Marxist presuppositions that have not been proven.
b: full of woeful abuse of statistics.
c: peer reviewed by people who possess the same ideological bent with a vested interest in validating their beliefs.

Cases in point: The Wage Gap, 2% false accusation, 1 in 4 women on College Campus etc.



Except you have to take the context in which you made the statement - which was a rebuttal to the description that explicitly stated "All Males" - if it fails to specify a limited subset then it doesn't actually rebut the point.

If you make a statement that "I have all the oranges" and I make a statement "You have oranges" - These two statements do not contradict each other - however, if I make the statement "You have some oranges" - that does contradict that statement.

So, In order for your challenge to actually rebut what I've said - you have to post a definition that explicitly states it doesn't apply to all them.

Which is where you started pissing and moaning. As for Apologies - when you've graduated English 101 and can understand this, I'll accept yours to me in writing, along with a donation to the "Centre for Advanced Sarcasm and Hilarity"



Oh but I am - you see, I'm stating a conclusion and throwing out a whole load of BS post hoc justifications to prove it.

Those two things apply equally to my conjecture as they do yours.

No, my interpretation is just of what he meant by the words. He doesn't have to be right, to have an interpretable meaning.

You are really determined to go full katman here aren't you? Pointing at sites/videos and going, "look, that means I'm right" is up to fuck all. Reference other things to support your point, not to make it...

Thats absurd, desist with this race to the bottom bullshit. Stop trying to justify your blatant strawmanning.

Oh fuck off, you clearly misinterpretted the words, now you're trying to cover your arse with some bullshit. You even said "you claimed you could find a definition that contradicts what I said", which I never did.

If you were using the same method, you'd either show that male supremacy is the central social organising feature in US, or you'd point out why it didn't have to be for the earlier definition to apply. Instead you've gone off on some strawman tangent about patriarchy...

[avgas]

That was in response to katman suggesting a video of why we can trust science; it's irrelevant because blindly trusting science would be unscientific!
But think of the explosions dammit! Think of the explosions.

I was going to respond to the rest of this thread. It seems you like to talk (or rebut), but not others to.

Would that be a fair consensus? It certainly would save me a lot of reading.

(Actually don't really care about the Privileged white man stuff......and I think in the modern society if any woman did and really wanted to prove a point she would become a he and then show us how privileged she was).
Likewise the white thing, which a lovely Indian chap proved us wrong about 5 years ago. He just graduated with full scholarships as a black man.
My sons are half Chinese and half white, and male. So they don't really stand a chance at getting college admission here - so going to have to rename them Maori names and say they are Pacific Islanders.

[Graystone]

But think of the explosions dammit! Think of the explosions.

I was going to respond to the rest of this thread. It seems you like to talk (or rebut), but not others to.

Would that be a fair consensus? It certainly would save me a lot of reading.

(Actually don't really care about the Privileged white man stuff......and I think in the modern society if any woman did and really wanted to prove a point she would become a he and then show us how privileged she was).
Likewise the white thing, which a lovely Indian chap proved us wrong about 5 years ago. He just graduated with full scholarships as a black man.
My sons are half Chinese and half white, and male. So they don't really stand a chance at getting college admission here - so going to have to rename them Maori names and say they are Pacific Islanders.

I'm fine with others talking and rebutting, as long as their rebuttal is done in a rational fashion. Do you have an issue with the way I rebutted your points about the meaning of the term?

I think you'll find transgender people have their own set of societal disadvantages...

[TheDemonLord]

Those two things apply equally to my conjecture as they do yours.

Care to Demonstrate that? You've simply asserted some "Maybes" to avoid conceding the point.


No, my interpretation is just of what he meant by the words. He doesn't have to be right, to have an interpretable meaning.

So it's willfully believing a lie then - glad to know that's the limit of your ideological rigour.


You are really determined to go full katman here aren't you? Pointing at sites/videos and going, "look, that means I'm right" is up to fuck all. Reference other things to support your point, not to make it...

More avoidance, born out of your inability to argue against the very clear wording of "All Males" - I'll simply restate - all you have to do here is post a definition that explicitly limits the group membership (like you claimed) - I've outlined the criteria - you've had several pages to do so, and yet nothing is forthcoming.


Thats absurd, desist with this race to the bottom bullshit. Stop trying to justify your blatant strawmanning.

You brought Racism and Sexism into this, now you are complaining about a Race to the Bottom. Something Something Double Standard Something.

And I also note the lack of scientific evidence of Privilege posted. Funny that, that's the second time I've called your bluff and you've tucked tail.


Oh fuck off, you clearly misinterpretted the words, now you're trying to cover your arse with some bullshit. You even said "you claimed you could find a definition that contradicts what I said", which I never did.

There's that Nerve again. It's not Bullshit - it's English and Context. In order to rebut the explicit description of "All Males", you'll need to post a description/definition that explicitly limits the group membership. Let's skip all your posturing and whining - you can't post it, because it doesn't exist. It doesn't exist because the concept clearly applies to "All Males" - and because of that, your defence against it being a Racist, Sexist concept does not fly.


If you were using the same method, you'd either show that male supremacy is the central social organising feature in US, or you'd point out why it didn't have to be for the earlier definition to apply. Instead you've gone off on some strawman tangent about patriarchy...

Psssst Some Tangent about Patriarchy is showing Male Supremacy.... (using the Feminist methodology).

[TheDemonLord]

I'm fine with others talking and rebutting, as long as their rebuttal is done in a rational fashion.

Thus spake every tyrannical Authoritarian ever.




Tell me Graystone - exactly who get to decide what is "Rational Fashion"

[Ocean1]

exactly who get to decide what is "Rational Fashion"

Please allow me to introduce myself.....

[Graystone]

Care to Demonstrate that? You've simply asserted some "Maybes" to avoid conceding the point.



So it's willfully believing a lie then - glad to know that's the limit of your ideological rigour.



More avoidance, born out of your inability to argue against the very clear wording of "All Males" - I'll simply restate - all you have to do here is post a definition that explicitly limits the group membership (like you claimed) - I've outlined the criteria - you've had several pages to do so, and yet nothing is forthcoming.



You brought Racism and Sexism into this, now you are complaining about a Race to the Bottom. Something Something Double Standard Something.

And I also note the lack of scientific evidence of Privilege posted. Funny that, that's the second time I've called your bluff and you've tucked tail.



There's that Nerve again. It's not Bullshit - it's English and Context. In order to rebut the explicit description of "All Males", you'll need to post a description/definition that explicitly limits the group membership. Let's skip all your posturing and whining - you can't post it, because it doesn't exist. It doesn't exist because the concept clearly applies to "All Males" - and because of that, your defence against it being a Racist, Sexist concept does not fly.



Psssst Some Tangent about Patriarchy is showing Male Supremacy.... (using the Feminist methodology).

A 'maybe' is all I need to refute your point that it couldn't be.

Where has belief come from? I pulled you up for removing context which changed the meaning. That you call his words a lie shows you do understand what he meant, but decided to take the quote out of context to change that meaning anyway.

I did not claim anything of the sort. Please show me where I did so.

Racism/sexism is obviously a sketchy topic, but it is by no means the start of a race to the bottom. Please calm down and post rational things!

The definition of the term is never clearly defined. I use it in the sense conveyed by the words, where it is not a racist/sexist concept.

Try using some rational methodology instead, you never know, you might like it...


Thus spake every tyrannical Authoritarian ever.

Tell me Graystone - exactly who get to decide what is "Rational Fashion"

The readers, the participants in the discussion, it's clearly a subjective measure. I'll tell you who shouldn't get to decide though, people who deliberately quote things without their proper context to change the meaning or perceived intent. Fuckwits who do that, only show that they believe they have the right to decide what is rational, and what isn't.

[TheDemonLord]

A 'maybe' is all I need to refute your point that it couldn't be.

U Wot m8? This is coming from the person who has been extolling the scientific method? So, you're saying that all that's needed to refute a point is someone to suggest an alternative with no facts to back it up? Maybe Gravity is caused by invisible fairies pulling everything down - Take that Sir Isaac Newton.

You need something to back your 'maybe' up.


Where has belief come from? I pulled you up for removing context which changed the meaning. That you call his words a lie shows you do understand what he meant, but decided to take the quote out of context to change that meaning anyway.

Well, either his statement was true - and you can demonstrate how it can be so, or it's a lie and you can't demonstrate it.

If it's true, then leaving it out would be deliberately deceptive. If it's a lie, then leaving it out avoids confusion.

Your statement "He doesn't have to be right, to have an interpretable meaning." given how you've held this meaning to be valid so as to be able to claim deception on my part means that you are willfully believing something that cannot be true, in order to avoid conceding the point.


I did not claim anything of the sort. Please show me where I did so.

Yes, more reversals, u-turns and withdrawals - see the part where I pointed out that given the context of

a: What I said
b: What you said in rebuttal

That the level required was something to explicitly contradict what I had said - namely a definition or description that states it does not apply to everyone. That you've failed to provide it, is proof in of itself.


Racism/sexism is obviously a sketchy topic, but it is by no means the start of a race to the bottom. Please calm down and post rational things!

Uh Huh. If only there was a series of common English phrases about when people bring up prejudicial subjects in order to avoid a discussion on a point they are loosing - if only...


The definition of the term is never clearly defined. I use it in the sense conveyed by the words, where it is not a racist/sexist concept.

Bullshit. It's clearly enough defined for anyone who is not a raving Marxist to know it's Racist and Sexist. And furthermore, simply redefining words and concepts as to "how I use it" is no defence.

Those words, phrases and terms have a Meaning - problem is that meaning clearly meets the standard for what is a Racist, Sexist statement. So now you've resorted to trying to redefine things in order to avoid being tarred with that brush.

If I use the word "Nigger" - but I claim I'm not using it in a racist manner - how far will that defence get me? I'll give you a hint - it's as far as I'm letting your defence take you. Which is no where.


Try using some rational methodology instead, you never know, you might like it...

You missed the point where I'm imitating the fields and studies that you hold to, the same ones that generated these bogus concepts. It's funny how when it's turned back on you it's all "Irrational" and "Not the Scientific Method" - That's a whole lot of double standard right there.

I'm deliberately demonstrating a post-hoc justification - and suddenly I'm the irrational one...


The readers, the participants in the discussion, it's clearly a subjective measure. I'll tell you who shouldn't get to decide though, people who deliberately quote things without their proper context to change the meaning or perceived intent. Fuckwits who do that, only show that they believe they have the right to decide what is rational, and what isn't.

You clearly don't get it.

What you are describing is in effect the Hecklers Veto. The point is: No one (myself included in that universal group) should get to decide. And that's the difference.

You're happy with Censorship when it suits your agenda, I'm not happy with Censorship even when it would help my agenda.

[pritch]

Please allow me to introduce myself.....

I'm a man of wealth and taste

[Graystone]

U Wot m8? This is coming from the person who has been extolling the scientific method? So, you're saying that all that's needed to refute a point is someone to suggest an alternative with no facts to back it up? Maybe Gravity is caused by invisible fairies pulling everything down - Take that Sir Isaac Newton.

You need something to back your 'maybe' up.



Well, either his statement was true - and you can demonstrate how it can be so, or it's a lie and you can't demonstrate it.

If it's true, then leaving it out would be deliberately deceptive. If it's a lie, then leaving it out avoids confusion.

Your statement "He doesn't have to be right, to have an interpretable meaning." given how you've held this meaning to be valid so as to be able to claim deception on my part means that you are willfully believing something that cannot be true, in order to avoid conceding the point.



Yes, more reversals, u-turns and withdrawals - see the part where I pointed out that given the context of

a: What I said
b: What you said in rebuttal

That the level required was something to explicitly contradict what I had said - namely a definition or description that states it does not apply to everyone. That you've failed to provide it, is proof in of itself.



Uh Huh. If only there was a series of common English phrases about when people bring up prejudicial subjects in order to avoid a discussion on a point they are loosing - if only...



Bullshit. It's clearly enough defined for anyone who is not a raving Marxist to know it's Racist and Sexist. And furthermore, simply redefining words and concepts as to "how I use it" is no defence.

Those words, phrases and terms have a Meaning - problem is that meaning clearly meets the standard for what is a Racist, Sexist statement. So now you've resorted to trying to redefine things in order to avoid being tarred with that brush.

If I use the word "Nigger" - but I claim I'm not using it in a racist manner - how far will that defence get me? I'll give you a hint - it's as far as I'm letting your defence take you. Which is no where.



You missed the point where I'm imitating the fields and studies that you hold to, the same ones that generated these bogus concepts. It's funny how when it's turned back on you it's all "Irrational" and "Not the Scientific Method" - That's a whole lot of double standard right there.

I'm deliberately demonstrating a post-hoc justification - and suddenly I'm the irrational one...



You clearly don't get it.

What you are describing is in effect the Hecklers Veto. The point is: No one (myself included in that universal group) should get to decide. And that's the difference.

You're happy with Censorship when it suits your agenda, I'm not happy with Censorship even when it would help my agenda.

A plausible alternative, sure. The theory of gravity may not have been your best choice of example :laugh:

Changing the meaning of what he meant, is the deception.

I have never claimed I could "post a definition that explicitly limits the group membership", stop making shit up.

It was never posted in an attempt to avoid discussion though.

Nigger has a definition which includes a usage alert for being one of the most offensive words. You don't even have a definition for the term "White Male Privilege", they are clearly on different levels.

It isn't a double standard, as I do not practice or agree with the irrational methodology used by other feminists. Please stop trying to judge me based on their actions.

Yet you changed the meaning of another persons quote to help your agenda, at least censorship is honest.

[Ocean1]

I'm a man of wealth and taste

Been around for a long long year :laugh:

[Graystone]

Been around for a long long year :laugh:

tried to hug the wrong wrong bear...

[TheDemonLord]

A plausible alternative, sure. The theory of gravity may not have been your best choice of example :laugh:

And how is plausibility determined? Why, that would be some form of supporting evidence... Now, I'll grant you that the difference between plausible and verified is the strength of that evidence - but you are still left with the conclusion:

In order to avoid conceding the point (for which there is evidence) - you've had to make some shit up (for which there isn't).


Changing the meaning of what he meant, is the deception.

Cool - so all we need to do now is validate that what he meant was true: So if you could explain how one can monitor behavior on twitter without monitoring content - we can clear this accusation up.


I have never claimed I could "post a definition that explicitly limits the group membership", stop making shit up.

I know you didn't say that, but in the context of what was said, that IS what you would need to do. You haven't done it, because you can't do it. So I'm both mocking you for your failed challenge and pointing out at because you can't do it, your defence has no basis ergo the concept is Racist and Sexist.


It was never posted in an attempt to avoid discussion though.

It was posted to divert the discussion... Otherwise why post it?


Nigger has a definition which includes a usage alert for being one of the most offensive words. You don't even have a definition for the term "White Male Privilege", they are clearly on different levels.

Let's see - it's Racially based, and has a negative connotation. Which word/phrase am I referring to?

Maybe that will help you see why they are on the same level.


It isn't a double standard, as I do not practice or agree with the irrational methodology used by other feminists. Please stop trying to judge me based on their actions.

You adhere to the concept of "White Male Privilege" - so yes, you do practice and agree with Irrational Methodology used by Feminists. Which is why I'm judging you as such.

Of course - you are free to renounce your belief in this racist, sexist concept - but I doubt you'll be going that anytime soon.


Yet you changed the meaning of another persons quote to help your agenda, at least censorship is honest.

No, I left out the statement that was a complete contradiction.

However - here is the thing: you STILL don't get it - statements like "Censorship is honest" - No. It is not. Look at the conversation we are having now: I did omit something and I've outlined my reasons for doing so and I've outlined an objective measure for you to prove me wrong (which you can't satisfy because the statement was impossible - hence the omission) and you are objecting to it (as is your right).

For a minute consider the possibility, that the censors pen was not writ in your favor. Consider that everything you dislike that I say went unchallenged. Consider the possibility that your supposed moral superiority wasn't the mainstream view. Consider that in every single instance of history when the rights of others have been trampled upon by Zealots in a quest for the greater good, it was the zealots themselves who always found themselves second against the wall - because you can never be as pure as an ideal.

It's funny, because this is such an old concept that people keep failing to learn.

Have you read 1984 or Animal Farm? Have you read any number of books about propaganda and censorship? Have you listened to Megadeth?:


A cockroach in the concrete, courthouse tan and beady eyes.
A slouch with fallen arches, purging truths into great lies.
A little man with a big eraser, changing history
Procedures that he's programmed to, all he hears and sees.

Altering the facts and figures, events and every issue.
Make a person disappear, and no one will ever miss you.

Rewrites every story, every poem that ever was.
Eliminates incompetence, and those who break the laws.
Follow the instructions of the New Ways' Evil Book of Rules.
Replacing rights with wrongs, the files and records in the schools.

[husaberg]

Spoken like a true prodigy

[Graystone]

And how is plausibility determined? Why, that would be some form of supporting evidence... Now, I'll grant you that the difference between plausible and verified is the strength of that evidence - but you are still left with the conclusion:

In order to avoid conceding the point (for which there is evidence) - you've had to make some shit up (for which there isn't).



Cool - so all we need to do now is validate that what he meant was true: So if you could explain how one can monitor behavior on twitter without monitoring content - we can clear this accusation up.



I know you didn't say that, but in the context of what was said, that IS what you would need to do. You haven't done it, because you can't do it. So I'm both mocking you for your failed challenge and pointing out at because you can't do it, your defence has no basis ergo the concept is Racist and Sexist.



It was posted to divert the discussion... Otherwise why post it?



Let's see - it's Racially based, and has a negative connotation. Which word/phrase am I referring to?

Maybe that will help you see why they are on the same level.



You adhere to the concept of "White Male Privilege" - so yes, you do practice and agree with Irrational Methodology used by Feminists. Which is why I'm judging you as such.

Of course - you are free to renounce your belief in this racist, sexist concept - but I doubt you'll be going that anytime soon.



No, I left out the statement that was a complete contradiction.

However - here is the thing: you STILL don't get it - statements like "Censorship is honest" - No. It is not. Look at the conversation we are having now: I did omit something and I've outlined my reasons for doing so and I've outlined an objective measure for you to prove me wrong (which you can't satisfy because the statement was impossible - hence the omission) and you are objecting to it (as is your right).

For a minute consider the possibility, that the censors pen was not writ in your favor. Consider that everything you dislike that I say went unchallenged. Consider the possibility that your supposed moral superiority wasn't the mainstream view. Consider that in every single instance of history when the rights of others have been trampled upon by Zealots in a quest for the greater good, it was the zealots themselves who always found themselves second against the wall - because you can never be as pure as an ideal.

It's funny, because this is such an old concept that people keep failing to learn.

Have you read 1984 or Animal Farm? Have you read any number of books about propaganda and censorship? Have you listened to Megadeth?:

I have provided at least three plausible theories which are consistent with the evidence you have provided, for reasons why the first person/group banned whatshername. This ban was overturned, which shows that twitter did not agree with the initial ban. So what we have, is you cannot prove that even one person/group has allowed their political bias to influence censorship, let along the whole company.

The accusation has been cleared up, you created deception by changing the meaning of what he meant.

Exactly, once again you are applying your own interpretation to try and twist what was said. You clearly said that I had claimed I would provide that, which I clearly haven't. If you want to have a rational discussion, you would need to desist with such lies and deception.

Because it was evidence for a plausible theory :laugh:

Nope, still not the same level.

You do not understand the concept of white male privilege that I adhere to, and are attempting to use it as evidence that I practice irrational methodology, and then use that as evidence that my version of the concept of white male privilege is irrational. This is classic circular logic.

And in leaving that out, you showed us that you think your definition of what is rational is the one that matters.

[pritch]

tried to hug the wrong wrong bear...

Or

Stole many a man's soul and faith

[TheDemonLord]

I have provided at least three plausible theories which are consistent with the evidence you have provided, for reasons why the first person/group banned whatshername. This ban was overturned, which shows that twitter did not agree with the initial ban. So what we have, is you cannot prove that even one person/group has allowed their political bias to influence censorship, let along the whole company.

Those theories are not supported by the evidence I provided. You've just asserted that are possibilities, with nothing to support them. As for the reversal of the ban - two issues:

1: That the ban was implemented in the first place
2: Public pressure happens to be a thing.


The accusation has been cleared up, you created deception by changing the meaning of what he meant.

So you are going to believe a lie rather than concede a point to me - I'm glad we have cleared it up.


Exactly, once again you are applying your own interpretation to try and twist what was said. You clearly said that I had claimed I would provide that, which I clearly haven't. If you want to have a rational discussion, you would need to desist with such lies and deception.

Again, this is English - if you want to rebut what I've said, you need to provide a contradictory statement, not one that aligns with what I've said.

All this avoidance is due to the simple fact that you can't provide a definition or description from anywhere of any relevance that explicitly limits the usage of the term. And because of that -the accusation stands - it's a Racist and Sexist concept, adhered to by Racists and Sexists.


Because it was evidence for a plausible theory :laugh:

"White Male Privilege" is never a Plausible theory. Unless you are a raving Marxist.


Nope, still not the same level.

So, which term or word was I referring to?

If I was to be generous - I would accept that one has fair amount of Historical baggage, however - that does not alter the principle - both are terms, targeted at a Race, with a negative connotation. And as such, both are equally abhorrent.


You do not understand the concept of white male privilege that I adhere to, and are attempting to use it as evidence that I practice irrational methodology, and then use that as evidence that my version of the concept of white male privilege is irrational. This is classic circular logic.

No, I understand the concept of "White Male Privilege" in general, The fact that you are doing your level best to avoid the point that you can't rebut the description as explicitly applying to "All Males" is why you've now got to redefine the concept to be your own, personal definition.

Sorry Son, that shit doesn't fly.


And in leaving that out, you showed us that you think your definition of what is rational is the one that matters.

It matters not whether I think my definition is rational or not, all the matters is I don't attempt to silence those I consider irrational, whereas you'd be only too happy allow the Censorship of things you didn't like - right up until they came for you like they always have.

[Graystone]

Those theories are not supported by the evidence I provided. You've just asserted that are possibilities, with nothing to support them. As for the reversal of the ban - two issues:

1: That the ban was implemented in the first place
2: Public pressure happens to be a thing.



So you are going to believe a lie rather than concede a point to me - I'm glad we have cleared it up.



Again, this is English - if you want to rebut what I've said, you need to provide a contradictory statement, not one that aligns with what I've said.

All this avoidance is due to the simple fact that you can't provide a definition or description from anywhere of any relevance that explicitly limits the usage of the term. And because of that -the accusation stands - it's a Racist and Sexist concept, adhered to by Racists and Sexists.



"White Male Privilege" is never a Plausible theory. Unless you are a raving Marxist.



So, which term or word was I referring to?

If I was to be generous - I would accept that one has fair amount of Historical baggage, however - that does not alter the principle - both are terms, targeted at a Race, with a negative connotation. And as such, both are equally abhorrent.



No, I understand the concept of "White Male Privilege" in general, The fact that you are doing your level best to avoid the point that you can't rebut the description as explicitly applying to "All Males" is why you've now got to redefine the concept to be your own, personal definition.

Sorry Son, that shit doesn't fly.



It matters not whether I think my definition is rational or not, all the matters is I don't attempt to silence those I consider irrational, whereas you'd be only too happy allow the Censorship of things you didn't like - right up until they came for you like they always have.

That's just your double standard of evidence though. The ban was overturned, this is a clear indication the ban was not consistent with twitters policy.

What I believe has nothing to do with the way you misrepresented his words.

No, you need to show you are capable of rational though by taking back your statement "you have to do here is post a definition that explicitly limits the group membership (like you claimed)" I never claimed that, either explicitly or implicitly.

So many labels, so little thought...

We've been over this, that is not what makes a term sexist, as per Maori Crime not being a sexist term.

You have not provided any definition that is does apply to all males, the english construction of the term certainly means it does not. So to overturn that as a special case you need to provide a definition which does, all you have provided is a subjective description. Which is inadequate.

But you did attempt to silence the intended message, by changing it. How can you not understand this?

[husaberg]

She had a dream about the King of Sweden

[TheDemonLord]

That's just your double standard of evidence though. The ban was overturned, this is a clear indication the ban was not consistent with twitters policy.

It's not a double standard - you've not explained/demonstrated/articulated how the evidence supports your conjectures. Which means we are left with the reality that you are throwing shit at the wall, hoping something sticks, to avoid conceding the point.

As for the overturn - you are forgetting one key detail: after a public backlash... It was not an internal mechanism that forced the change, but external. And that happens to be relevant.


What I believe has nothing to do with the way you misrepresented his words.

In order for it to be a misrepresentation, you have to believe it is a true and accurate statement.

You've repeatedly declined to demonstrate it's a true and accurate statement because you know that you cannot.

Therefore we are left with you willfully believing a lie, rather than concede a point to me - and that shows a great deal about you and your beliefs.


No, you need to show you are capable of rational though by taking back your statement "you have to do here is post a definition that explicitly limits the group membership (like you claimed)" I never claimed that, either explicitly or implicitly.

In order for it to fulfill what you wrote, it needs to fulfill what I wrote - that's how language works. You're just butt-hurt because you tried to bluff, got called on it and now have NOTHING to back it up.

I'll repeat - in order to be a rebuttal against what I've posted, it needs to be contradictory to what I've posted - so anything you post that does not explicitly limit the group membership does not rebut what I've posted and therefore does not fulfill the intent of what you posted.


So many labels, so little thought...

Quite - remind me again - which sector keeps coming up with new labels and new definitions for things, especially when they get nailed on one?

"the concept of white male privilege that I adhere to"

So little thought indeed.


We've been over this, that is not what makes a term sexist, as per Maori Crime not being a sexist term.

I think you're starting to get confused... Not surprising given how much you are having to lie to yourself.


You have not provided any definition that is does apply to all males, the english construction of the term certainly means it does not. So to overturn that as a special case you need to provide a definition which does, all you have provided is a subjective description. Which is inadequate.

Except that description of the concept - you know - the one that states, twice, that it applies to "All Males" - and again with your attempts to assassinate the character of the work, because you don't like it and you can't argue against it...


But you did attempt to silence the intended message, by changing it. How can you not understand this?

Except that's not censorship - since I've not invoked a higher power to artificially limit what is and isn't said.

[husaberg]

He gave her things that she was needin'

[pritch]

He gave her things that she was needin'

I can't recall ever listening to Cab Calloway, although Spike Milligan refers to him in his book "Adolf Hitler And My Part In His Downfall".

[husaberg]

I can't recall ever listening to Cab Calloway, although Spike Milligan refers to him in his book "Adolf Hitler And My Part In His Downfall".
Blues Brothers


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ5gCGJorKk

We do sincerely hope that you all enjoy the show and please remember people, that no matter who you are and what you do to live, thrive and survive

[Graystone]

It's not a double standard - you've not explained/demonstrated/articulated how the evidence supports your conjectures. Which means we are left with the reality that you are throwing shit at the wall, hoping something sticks, to avoid conceding the point.

As for the overturn - you are forgetting one key detail: after a public backlash... It was not an internal mechanism that forced the change, but external. And that happens to be relevant.



In order for it to be a misrepresentation, you have to believe it is a true and accurate statement.

You've repeatedly declined to demonstrate it's a true and accurate statement because you know that you cannot.

Therefore we are left with you willfully believing a lie, rather than concede a point to me - and that shows a great deal about you and your beliefs.



In order for it to fulfill what you wrote, it needs to fulfill what I wrote - that's how language works. You're just butt-hurt because you tried to bluff, got called on it and now have NOTHING to back it up.

I'll repeat - in order to be a rebuttal against what I've posted, it needs to be contradictory to what I've posted - so anything you post that does not explicitly limit the group membership does not rebut what I've posted and therefore does not fulfill the intent of what you posted.



Quite - remind me again - which sector keeps coming up with new labels and new definitions for things, especially when they get nailed on one?

"the concept of white male privilege that I adhere to"

So little thought indeed.



I think you're starting to get confused... Not surprising given how much you are having to lie to yourself.



Except that description of the concept - you know - the one that states, twice, that it applies to "All Males" - and again with your attempts to assassinate the character of the work, because you don't like it and you can't argue against it...



Except that's not censorship - since I've not invoked a higher power to artificially limit what is and isn't said.

I explained how the posts show a focus on race only (since that was all that was changed), I explained how it was a personal attack, since it was clearly referring to someone else's work with a slight twist.
So they listen to the public? Is that the worst thing in the world? Do you think all their bans get reviewed to the nth degree to ensure they are objectively consistent across a spectrum of posts with twitters policy? Or would you allow the odd one to fall through the cracks?

No, we both know what he meant by the statement, bu you misrepresented his intent. I have not discussed if it is true or not because it does not matter. Just as you would cry foul if the words of flat earther's were changed or censored as this limits free speech, how can you be so blind to ignore that you are doing the same thing?

Wrong, you claimed I had posted something I never did, yet continue to evade acknowledging that. What you continually fail to accept, is your opinion means fuck all, it does not give you the right to misrepresent what other people are saying or have said; doing so, just gos to show how little you value free speech.

Invoking a higher power or not is irrelevant, you should learn to accept other's rights to have ideas, and stop trying to limit people's right to free speech via misrepresentation and deception simply because you feel your opinion is the correct one.

[TheDemonLord]

I explained how the posts show a focus on race only (since that was all that was changed), I explained how it was a personal attack, since it was clearly referring to someone else's work with a slight twist.
So they listen to the public? Is that the worst thing in the world? Do you think all their bans get reviewed to the nth degree to ensure they are objectively consistent across a spectrum of posts with twitters policy? Or would you allow the odd one to fall through the cracks?

And I pointed out the critique was based around Hypocrisy, of which Race was a component. As for Personal Attack - at best (If I am being super generous) is incidental otherwise it is non-existent (refer to previous points about you making shit up).

I've not said listening to the public is bad - put the strawman down. That is not the issue:

Either what was said was racist - in which case both Sarah and Candace should receive some form of rebuke/action.
Or it wasn't - in which case neither Sarah or Candace should receive any form of rebuke/action.

Selectively banning one and not the other and only reversing it due to public backlash is the problem. It is that Twitter thoughts it's actions were just in the first instance


No, we both know what he meant by the statement, bu you misrepresented his intent. I have not discussed if it is true or not because it does not matter. Just as you would cry foul if the words of flat earther's were changed or censored as this limits free speech, how can you be so blind to ignore that you are doing the same thing?

Do we? Cause here is what I know of the statement - he said something that sounds good, to make it sound like they aren't censoring on what people write. The problem is, that the only way to gauge behavior is to know what has been written. Therefore, what he has said isn't true and more importantly - it cannot be true.

So - we now have 2 schools of thought - Either you side with me (and reality) that it's an impossible statement, designed to placate the populace, but when analyzed cannot be true and as such is worth only to be dismissed

Or - you side with yourself - in that you believe something you know to be false. Which is hilarious given your claims of "Rationality" and "Rational Methodology".


Wrong, you claimed I had posted something I never did, yet continue to evade acknowledging that. What you continually fail to accept, is your opinion means fuck all, it does not give you the right to misrepresent what other people are saying or have said; doing so, just gos to show how little you value free speech.

And you are free in your speech to piss and moan about it, I've not limited that - that shows how much I value free speech. In fact, if the Mods tomorrow were to Ban you, I'd write them a PM asking why and requesting your reinstatement (as I have done on other occasions)

But anyways - to the point - since you have harped on about "English" - let's have a lesson:

Person A: "All Motorcyclists are wankers"
Person B: "That is not true, I can find a definition that says 'Motorcyclists are Wankers'"
Person A: "That does not rebut or disprove my point since it does not limit the category of Motorcyclist that are Wankers, You need a definition that limits it"

So, whilst you may not have said it explicitly, in order to rebut or disprove my point, which given the context of the series of statements is what is required, you need to provide a definition or description that provides limit to the group membership.

You know this, you also know that you can't provide such a description or definition which is why you have resorted to haggling over semantics.

Of course, if you actually had that which you needed, you'd have posted it up. But you don't. And so, the charge stands - "White Male Privilege" is a Racist, Sexist concept, created to by Racists and Sexists and adhered to by Racists and Sexists.

And there you are!


Invoking a higher power or not is irrelevant, you should learn to accept other's rights to have ideas, and stop trying to limit people's right to free speech via misrepresentation and deception simply because you feel your opinion is the correct one.

A Right can only be revoked by a higher power, thus the appeal is entirely relevant.

A Government can revoke a right, a person cannot. So it's both false at a technical level and an application level.

And I've not limited anyone's Free Speech - even if your claim of selective quoting is valid (which I of course reject) - it is still not limiting what they or anyone else can say.

The fact you would try and make this argument (and most of this post in fact) is testament to the fact of how badly you are getting spanked so you are trying to reframe the discussion into something else.

Problem is - you've already shot yourself in the foot when you claimed "Censorship is honest" - so all that faux moral high ground you are trying to perch yourself atop is just smoke and mirrors.

And I'm having none of it.

[Graystone]

And I pointed out the critique was based around Hypocrisy, of which Race was a component. As for Personal Attack - at best (If I am being super generous) is incidental otherwise it is non-existent (refer to previous points about you making shit up).

I've not said listening to the public is bad - put the strawman down. That is not the issue:

Either what was said was racist - in which case both Sarah and Candace should receive some form of rebuke/action.
Or it wasn't - in which case neither Sarah or Candace should receive any form of rebuke/action.

Selectively banning one and not the other and only reversing it due to public backlash is the problem. It is that Twitter thoughts it's actions were just in the first instance



Do we? Cause here is what I know of the statement - he said something that sounds good, to make it sound like they aren't censoring on what people write. The problem is, that the only way to gauge behavior is to know what has been written. Therefore, what he has said isn't true and more importantly - it cannot be true.

So - we now have 2 schools of thought - Either you side with me (and reality) that it's an impossible statement, designed to placate the populace, but when analyzed cannot be true and as such is worth only to be dismissed

Or - you side with yourself - in that you believe something you know to be false. Which is hilarious given your claims of "Rationality" and "Rational Methodology".



And you are free in your speech to piss and moan about it, I've not limited that - that shows how much I value free speech. In fact, if the Mods tomorrow were to Ban you, I'd write them a PM asking why and requesting your reinstatement (as I have done on other occasions)

But anyways - to the point - since you have harped on about "English" - let's have a lesson:

Person A: "All Motorcyclists are wankers"
Person B: "That is not true, I can find a definition that says 'Motorcyclists are Wankers'"
Person A: "That does not rebut or disprove my point since it does not limit the category of Motorcyclist that are Wankers, You need a definition that limits it"

So, whilst you may not have said it explicitly, in order to rebut or disprove my point, which given the context of the series of statements is what is required, you need to provide a definition or description that provides limit to the group membership.

You know this, you also know that you can't provide such a description or definition which is why you have resorted to haggling over semantics.

Of course, if you actually had that which you needed, you'd have posted it up. But you don't. And so, the charge stands - "White Male Privilege" is a Racist, Sexist concept, created to by Racists and Sexists and adhered to by Racists and Sexists.

And there you are!



A Right can only be revoked by a higher power, thus the appeal is entirely relevant.

A Government can revoke a right, a person cannot. So it's both false at a technical level and an application level.

And I've not limited anyone's Free Speech - even if your claim of selective quoting is valid (which I of course reject) - it is still not limiting what they or anyone else can say.

The fact you would try and make this argument (and most of this post in fact) is testament to the fact of how badly you are getting spanked so you are trying to reframe the discussion into something else.

Problem is - you've already shot yourself in the foot when you claimed "Censorship is honest" - so all that faux moral high ground you are trying to perch yourself atop is just smoke and mirrors.

And I'm having none of it.

I didn't say the evidence was enough to convince you, just that it backed up my points.

Yes, his intent was to explain why they aren't censoring based on political content. So we both know that. But your quote flipped that around to imply the opposite. Hence why I pulled you up on that deception. If you are determined to discuss the validity of what he meant to say, how about starting with a quote of it; let's see if you are capable of keeping all the context in this time :laugh:

"So, whilst you may not have said it explicitly" C'mon, you can do better than that, grow a pair and admit you were mistaken to say that I did.

So, by that logic, your hated hecklers veto doesn't impinge upon the right to free speech either? By changing what they say, you are limiting their right to free speech; otherwise censorship is all good to, as it just changes what they say to nothing. At least censorship does it without the slander and deception; and it is honest in the sense that people know what is going on, and there is no misrepresentation.

[TheDemonLord]

I didn't say the evidence was enough to convince you, just that it backed up my points.

If that's the case, you should be able to explain why they back up your points without completely re-working what happened to fit your a priori position. You've asserted a whole load of stuff, which when compared to what actually happened is shown to be patently false.


Yes, his intent was to explain why they aren't censoring based on political content. So we both know that. But your quote flipped that around to imply the opposite. Hence why I pulled you up on that deception. If you are determined to discuss the validity of what he meant to say, how about starting with a quote of it; let's see if you are capable of keeping all the context in this time :laugh:

Cool, if that's the case - could you just explain how it is possible to filter on behavior, without monitoring content?

But let's skip that since we both know you can't do it (because we both know it's impossible)

We are left with knowing the only way to determine behavior is via Content - how then is the filter programmed?

Most likely it's either some form of Bayesian or Machine Learning type setup (or a combination of both) - both of which are susceptible to variations of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_poisoning. In this case the poisoning isn't to let Spam through, it's to prioritise words and phrases as being likely in breach of the ToS or not.

And so the companies Political stance happens to be entirely relevant. Take an issue with a clear left/right divide and a moral component - Abortion rights is a fantastic example:

Assume a right wing bias - the people who program the filter initially (ie marking tweets as good/bad) are more likely to mark a pro-abortion tweet as bad if it contains fiery rhetoric, whereas they are less likely to mark a pro-life tweet as bad if it also contains fiery rhetoric.

Assume a left wing bias and the issue is inverted.

Or perhaps an even clearer example:

"Fuck white people" isn't flagged as racist
"Fuck jew people" is flagged as racist

And the above is only possible if there is a left wing bias.

Over time, the filters develop a political bias via association - which again, means his words are BS. Unless of course, you can find me something from Twitter that shows that they deliberately hire conservative people for their filtering team(s) so as to maintain an approximate balance between viewpoints....


"So, whilst you may not have said it explicitly" C'mon, you can do better than that, grow a pair and admit you were mistaken to say that I did.

Sure, if you can grow a pair and admit that any definition you can find does not rebut the description I provided, only reinforces it, making it clear it applies to "All Males" and therefore the accusation that it's a Racist, Sexist concept stands.

But of course - you can't and you won't.


So, by that logic, your hated hecklers veto doesn't impinge upon the right to free speech either? By changing what they say, you are limiting their right to free speech; otherwise censorship is all good to, as it just changes what they say to nothing. At least censorship does it without the slander and deception; and it is honest in the sense that people know what is going on, and there is no misrepresentation.

When the Government is not defending the rights of those to assemble and letting the hecklers Veto - then yes, it IS a Free Speech rights issue.

It may not be the Government silencing speech, but it is the Government failing to protect Free Speech.

And I'd like to point out again - how ready you are to slather love and praise upon Censorship, I'm sure you'd continue that, right up until it was your back against the wall.

[Banditbandit]

“People demand freedom of speech as compensation for the freedom of thought they seldom use.”

Soren Kierkegaard

[Graystone]

If that's the case, you should be able to explain why they back up your points without completely re-working what happened to fit your a priori position. You've asserted a whole load of stuff, which when compared to what actually happened is shown to be patently false.



Cool, if that's the case - could you just explain how it is possible to filter on behavior, without monitoring content?

But let's skip that since we both know you can't do it (because we both know it's impossible)

We are left with knowing the only way to determine behavior is via Content - how then is the filter programmed?

Most likely it's either some form of Bayesian or Machine Learning type setup (or a combination of both) - both of which are susceptible to variations of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_poisoning. In this case the poisoning isn't to let Spam through, it's to prioritise words and phrases as being likely in breach of the ToS or not.

And so the companies Political stance happens to be entirely relevant. Take an issue with a clear left/right divide and a moral component - Abortion rights is a fantastic example:

Assume a right wing bias - the people who program the filter initially (ie marking tweets as good/bad) are more likely to mark a pro-abortion tweet as bad if it contains fiery rhetoric, whereas they are less likely to mark a pro-life tweet as bad if it also contains fiery rhetoric.

Assume a left wing bias and the issue is inverted.

Or perhaps an even clearer example:

"Fuck white people" isn't flagged as racist
"Fuck jew people" is flagged as racist

And the above is only possible if there is a left wing bias.

Over time, the filters develop a political bias via association - which again, means his words are BS. Unless of course, you can find me something from Twitter that shows that they deliberately hire conservative people for their filtering team(s) so as to maintain an approximate balance between viewpoints....



Sure, if you can grow a pair and admit that any definition you can find does not rebut the description I provided, only reinforces it, making it clear it applies to "All Males" and therefore the accusation that it's a Racist, Sexist concept stands.

But of course - you can't and you won't.



When the Government is not defending the rights of those to assemble and letting the hecklers Veto - then yes, it IS a Free Speech rights issue.

It may not be the Government silencing speech, but it is the Government failing to protect Free Speech.

And I'd like to point out again - how ready you are to slather love and praise upon Censorship, I'm sure you'd continue that, right up until it was your back against the wall.

While I recognise you do not agree with them, I have shown you those things, and they most certainly have not been proven to be patently false.

I expect you have taken his quote out of context (again) to come to the conclusions you are trying to argue against. How about you post what he said, with relevant context, and we go from there...

Why does one need to follow the other? The definition I have constructed from understanding how the words work, does not apply to all males. You claimed I said something I never did. One of these is very clear cut, the other, still a point of contention.

Right, so the govt failing to prevent you from changing the meaning of other peoples words and reposting them (a form of slander), also counts. You can't keep making these double standards mate. I do not love and praise censorship, desist with this silly strawman please.

[TheDemonLord]

While I recognise you do not agree with them, I have shown you those things, and they most certainly have not been proven to be patently false.

Only if you completely re-invent what happened, substituting in your preferred narrative. Which is the only thing you've shown.


I expect you have taken his quote out of context (again) to come to the conclusions you are trying to argue against. How about you post what he said, with relevant context, and we go from there...

Except Husa already posted the full quote, you know the quote, I know the quote - you're just trying to divert from the obvious - that you'd willfully believe something false, than concede the point to me.


Why does one need to follow the other? The definition I have constructed from understanding how the words work, does not apply to all males. You claimed I said something I never did. One of these is very clear cut, the other, still a point of contention.

It's to do with how words work... Apparently you don't understand.

If you have a description that explicitly states all, then any subsequent vagueness is to be interpreted as all.
If you have a description that explicitly states not all, then any subsequent vagueness is to be interpreted as not all.

If you wish to challenge a description that explicitly states all, then using a vague statement does not suffice to rebut it. Only an explicit statement to the contrary will suffice of which, you cannot produce.


Right, so the govt failing to prevent you from changing the meaning of other peoples words and reposting them (a form of slander), also counts. You can't keep making these double standards mate. I do not love and praise censorship, desist with this silly strawman please.

Let's presuppose that this was a slander case - them for a start almost all of news media would be guilty of slander (such as interview editing) - the question also would be whether I've defamed his reputation - on which I could hang an entire defense that my words will have zero impact upon his reputation - therefore the threshold for Slander is not met.

However, the question is whether or not it drastically changes the meaning - in which my defence would be that when the additional statements are analyzed they cannot be true. Is it Slander if you fail to include a false statement?

Again, this is not a double standard.

You've made multiple statements in implicit support of Censorship - so it's not a strawman.

[Graystone]

Only if you completely re-invent what happened, substituting in your preferred narrative. Which is the only thing you've shown.



Except Husa already posted the full quote, you know the quote, I know the quote - you're just trying to divert from the obvious - that you'd willfully believe something false, than concede the point to me.



It's to do with how words work... Apparently you don't understand.

If you have a description that explicitly states all, then any subsequent vagueness is to be interpreted as all.
If you have a description that explicitly states not all, then any subsequent vagueness is to be interpreted as not all.

If you wish to challenge a description that explicitly states all, then using a vague statement does not suffice to rebut it. Only an explicit statement to the contrary will suffice of which, you cannot produce.



Let's presuppose that this was a slander case - them for a start almost all of news media would be guilty of slander (such as interview editing) - the question also would be whether I've defamed his reputation - on which I could hang an entire defense that my words will have zero impact upon his reputation - therefore the threshold for Slander is not met.

However, the question is whether or not it drastically changes the meaning - in which my defence would be that when the additional statements are analyzed they cannot be true. Is it Slander if you fail to include a false statement?

Again, this is not a double standard.

You've made multiple statements in implicit support of Censorship - so it's not a strawman.

Please point out which bits required a complete reinvention of the narrative, hypocrisy/rascism clearly is not that.

Try getting the quote from a more reputable source, husaberg is an idiot.

Anyone can re-describe shit to change the meaning without invalidating the initial one, I could do it to back up my interpretation. You still claimed I said something I never did, it's black and white, why do you fail to own up to this?

It isn't a slander case, I was pointing out the similarities, that changing what a person says and means is slander. I've also made many statements in explicit opposition of censorship; funny how you ignore those.

[TheDemonLord]

Please point out which bits required a complete reinvention of the narrative, hypocrisy/rascism clearly is not that.

You might notice - that Hypocrisy and Racism are two different concepts - that might give you a clue as to the re-invention part.


Try getting the quote from a more reputable source, husaberg is an idiot.

Firstly - I don't think he is, even if we do disagree politically
Secondly - it doesn't matter if he was the biggest idiot on the face of the earth - he still posted the correct quote and in full - unless you want to dispute this? But as I said - this is just more diversionary tactics.


Anyone can re-describe shit to change the meaning without invalidating the initial one, I could do it to back up my interpretation. You still claimed I said something I never did, it's black and white, why do you fail to own up to this?

Except, you know - when they make explicit statements. That's the bit you are still having trouble with:

I've presented an Explicit statement, you've only presented vague statements, you can't present an explicit statement contradicting what I've presented. And it's that last bit that's key - since that was your defence against it being a Racist, Sexist concept - and since you can't do it, you've resorted to all sorts of semantics, haggling over words etc.

As I said - I'll own up to it, when you own up to the fact you adhere to a Racist, Sexist concept and therefore that makes you a Racist and a Sexist.


It isn't a slander case, I was pointing out the similarities, that changing what a person says and means is slander. I've also made many statements in explicit opposition of censorship; funny how you ignore those.

And I was pointing out why comparing it to slander was laughable.

Okay - do you retract your statement that Censorship is honest? We can start there.

[Graystone]

You might notice - that Hypocrisy and Racism are two different concepts - that might give you a clue as to the re-invention part.



Firstly - I don't think he is, even if we do disagree politically
Secondly - it doesn't matter if he was the biggest idiot on the face of the earth - he still posted the correct quote and in full - unless you want to dispute this? But as I said - this is just more diversionary tactics.



Except, you know - when they make explicit statements. That's the bit you are still having trouble with:

I've presented an Explicit statement, you've only presented vague statements, you can't present an explicit statement contradicting what I've presented. And it's that last bit that's key - since that was your defence against it being a Racist, Sexist concept - and since you can't do it, you've resorted to all sorts of semantics, haggling over words etc.

As I said - I'll own up to it, when you own up to the fact you adhere to a Racist, Sexist concept and therefore that makes you a Racist and a Sexist.



And I was pointing out why comparing it to slander was laughable.

Okay - do you retract your statement that Censorship is honest? We can start there.

Splitting hairs, only the race was changed between the posts, so there is clearly a racist aspect. The hypocrisy is that they claim to deplore rascism, but in practice they only deplore racism against minorities. It's the same shit mate; try another one...

I do not believe he did post the correct quote in full, what makes you think that he did? Moreover, why have you gone down such a rabbit hole, without verifying what he posted was true and correct?

Why do I need to present a statement contradicting yours? You're trying to use one person's description to change a definition, what justification do you have that it should count as anything more than an opinion? Again, I've proven you wrong by calling you out out your claims of what I said, that's the only basis you would need to own up to it if you were trying to debate with any sort of genuineness.

Nah, since you tried to point it out on a subjective technicallity, it doesn't fly.

Once again you remove all context to suit your agenda... Censorship is honest in that is does not change the message of what people say, only its reach.

[TheDemonLord]

Splitting hairs, only the race was changed between the posts, so there is clearly a racist aspect. The hypocrisy is that they claim to deplore rascism, but in practice they only deplore racism against minorities. It's the same shit mate; try another one...

Now for the bonus round: What is the political affiliation of the various philosophical view points that claim that one can only be racist against Minorities.

I'll give you a hint - it's not the Right wing. And so you've rather neatly proved my point - Twitter has a left wing bias in how it applies it's ToS.

So that hair splitting is actually rather relevant.


I do not believe he did post the correct quote in full, what makes you think that he did? Moreover, why have you gone down such a rabbit hole, without verifying what he posted was true and correct?

If you've got a dispute, then post up to the contrary - however, it still will not change the fact that the statement about not monitoring content is objectively false - this is a technical limitation.


Why do I need to present a statement contradicting yours?

Cause you are trying to claim something (without evidence) that contradicts what I'm claiming (with evidence)?


You're trying to use one person's description to change a definition, what justification do you have that it should count as anything more than an opinion? Again, I've proven you wrong by calling you out out your claims of what I said, that's the only basis you would need to own up to it if you were trying to debate with any sort of genuineness.

Look, if you want to dismiss the entirety of the activist disciplines as mere opinion - I'm more than happy to make that concession. However, I don't think you want to do that... therefore trying to dismiss a piece of scholarly work from within those disciplines as mere opinion isn't going to work.

I'll simply restate - a description is more in-depth than a definition. I've provided something that clearly indicates "All Males" and you've provided NOTHING to contradict this.

First you tried to poison the well, when that didn't work you tried to claim a fallacy and when that didn't work, you tried an argument from semantics and when that didn't work you tried a red herring.

All your attempts to claim that the vagueness of the use of "Males" in any definition you present is to be interpreted as "Some Males" is therefore not accurate, absent any other description or definition, the vague wording is to be interpreted as per the description. Doing so means the concept fulfills your own definition of Sexist.

From there, since the usage of "Males" is to mean "All Males" (absent anything contradicting this from yourself), we can reasonably infer that "White" means "All White" - which fulfills your definition of Racism.

Leaving us with the conclusion - "White Male Privilege" is to be applied to "All White Males" - which makes it Racist and Sexist. Anyone who adheres to the concept is therefor a Racist and a Sexist.

All your "But thats not what I said" whining is simply a diversion from the fact that you can't disprove this point.


Nah, since you tried to point it out on a subjective technicallity, it doesn't fly.

But a technicality making it none-the-less laughable.


Once again you remove all context to suit your agenda... Censorship is honest in that is does not change the message of what people say, only its reach.

You should read up on Censorship, primarily in the Communist countries. Then you'd realise how monumentally stupid that statement is. Or you could read 1984 or Animal Farm.

After that, with any luck, you'd realise why the statement "Censorship is honest" is an implicit endorsement of Censorship.

[Graystone]

Now for the bonus round: What is the political affiliation of the various philosophical view points that claim that one can only be racist against Minorities.

I'll give you a hint - it's not the Right wing. And so you've rather neatly proved my point - Twitter has a left wing bias in how it applies it's ToS.

So that hair splitting is actually rather relevant.



If you've got a dispute, then post up to the contrary - however, it still will not change the fact that the statement about not monitoring content is objectively false - this is a technical limitation.



Cause you are trying to claim something (without evidence) that contradicts what I'm claiming (with evidence)?



Look, if you want to dismiss the entirety of the activist disciplines as mere opinion - I'm more than happy to make that concession. However, I don't think you want to do that... therefore trying to dismiss a piece of scholarly work from within those disciplines as mere opinion isn't going to work.

I'll simply restate - a description is more in-depth than a definition. I've provided something that clearly indicates "All Males" and you've provided NOTHING to contradict this.

First you tried to poison the well, when that didn't work you tried to claim a fallacy and when that didn't work, you tried an argument from semantics and when that didn't work you tried a red herring.

All your attempts to claim that the vagueness of the use of "Males" in any definition you present is to be interpreted as "Some Males" is therefore not accurate, absent any other description or definition, the vague wording is to be interpreted as per the description. Doing so means the concept fulfills your own definition of Sexist.

From there, since the usage of "Males" is to mean "All Males" (absent anything contradicting this from yourself), we can reasonably infer that "White" means "All White" - which fulfills your definition of Racism.

Leaving us with the conclusion - "White Male Privilege" is to be applied to "All White Males" - which makes it Racist and Sexist. Anyone who adheres to the concept is therefor a Racist and a Sexist.

All your "But thats not what I said" whining is simply a diversion from the fact that you can't disprove this point.



But a technicality making it none-the-less laughable.



You should read up on Censorship, primarily in the Communist countries. Then you'd realise how monumentally stupid that statement is. Or you could read 1984 or Animal Farm.

After that, with any luck, you'd realise why the statement "Censorship is honest" is an implicit endorsement of Censorship.

We get that you have a different interpretation, but I've supported mine.

That's not how quoting works, the onus is on you to get it right. What is the statement about not monitoring content you speak of?

My claim has evidence, you vastly overstate yours. To refute the term's definition based on how the english use of the words in that order, you would need to provide a definition from another source, which you have not. All you have is a derivation from a description.

What I actually said, is consistent with my point that I do not need to refute what you have found, it is not a valid piece of evidence in the way you are trying to use it. It's not a definition. It's not from who you claim was the originator of the term, it's not from peer reviewed journals. That's why I take object to you resorting to deception of what I had claimed to bolster your own piss weak arguments; you have nothing, and your lies and deception show this, as does your unwillingness to own up to them.

Disagree, changing what a person says and means is slander.

And not a statement I made, please learn how context works.

[Katman]

Who will win? Autism or Anxiety? Anxiety or Autism?

Place bet now!

[carbonhed]

Who will win? Autism or Anxiety? Anxiety or Autism?

Place bet now!

Return to thread after fifty page absence... same shit :thud:

Somebody should introduce these guys to porn and masturbation........... waaaaaaay more productive.

[Katman]

Somebody should introduce these guys to porn and masturbation........... waaaaaaay more productive.

I suspect Graystone's sweaty palms would give him a distinct advantage there.

[TheDemonLord]

We get that you have a different interpretation, but I've supported mine.

Not really, you've asserted a different interpretation, which is not borne out of the facts - you've had to add an entire layer of conjecture. And then from your own conjecture, you've come up with possible scenarios.

Effectively you've introduced a compound error in your reasoning.


That's not how quoting works, the onus is on you to get it right. What is the statement about not monitoring content you speak of?

Funny how you've not objected until now - it's almost like you realise you lost that point.


My claim has evidence, you vastly overstate yours. To refute the term's definition based on how the english use of the words in that order, you would need to provide a definition from another source, which you have not. All you have is a derivation from a description.

Your evidence is vague. And furthermore - no, you can use a description to refute a definition - Ever heard of the Appeal to Dictionary Fallacy (hint, it's what you are committing at the moment)?


What I actually said, is consistent with my point that I do not need to refute what you have found, it is not a valid piece of evidence in the way you are trying to use it. It's not a definition. It's not from who you claim was the originator of the term, it's not from peer reviewed journals. That's why I take object to you resorting to deception of what I had claimed to bolster your own piss weak arguments; you have nothing, and your lies and deception show this, as does your unwillingness to own up to them.

So you're going for the dismissal approach - you get to dismiss something you don't like from within the field that you put forward as valid... Cherry Picking much? And then you claim it's me being irrational...

Of course that leads us to summise that the only reason for doing so is because you are unable to argue against it.


Disagree, changing what a person says and means is slander.

Only if it damages their reputation (it's that last bit that is important)


And not a statement I made, please learn how context works.

You mean like the context of you trying to rebut a statement by using a definition that isn't contrary to that statement? Which is it? Is Context important or not? Or is it only important when Graystone needs it to be important to try and win a point?

It looks to be more and more like the last one.

[TheDemonLord]

Return to thread after fifty page absence... same shit :thud:

Somebody should introduce these guys to porn and masturbation........... waaaaaaay more productive.

It's either arguing with Graystone or trying to debug why my SQL script isn't doing what I want it to do.

I'm a master of procrastination.

[Graystone]

Not really, you've asserted a different interpretation, which is not borne out of the facts - you've had to add an entire layer of conjecture. And then from your own conjecture, you've come up with possible scenarios.

Effectively you've introduced a compound error in your reasoning.



Funny how you've not objected until now - it's almost like you realise you lost that point.



Your evidence is vague. And furthermore - no, you can use a description to refute a definition - Ever heard of the Appeal to Dictionary Fallacy (hint, it's what you are committing at the moment)?



So you're going for the dismissal approach - you get to dismiss something you don't like from within the field that you put forward as valid... Cherry Picking much? And then you claim it's me being irrational...

Of course that leads us to summise that the only reason for doing so is because you are unable to argue against it.



Only if it damages their reputation (it's that last bit that is important)



You mean like the context of you trying to rebut a statement by using a definition that isn't contrary to that statement? Which is it? Is Context important or not? Or is it only important when Graystone needs it to be important to try and win a point?

It looks to be more and more like the last one.

The posts were clearly racist, the change was race only, how is it patently false to say it was racism related?

My objections have arisen as I've won the point that you dishonestly removed context to change his meaning, so I'm moving on to see if you have learnt from that, and are willing to back up your claims about what he said in addition to that. Given your evasion it seems like you have seen you own errors, but refuse to face them. Or simply put, he never said that they monitor behavior without monitoring content, nor any words to that effect; we both know that now (otherwise you would have posted a quote), yet you've been claiming for pages that he did; again, grow a pair and admit when you are wrong.

I'm not using a dictionary definition, perhaps that needs to be added to pile of fallacies you don't know how to use...

That is an irrational summation, the evidence you have put forward is simply not compelling, for the reasons I have listed.

Which is subjective, and a technicality; you could argue in this case no, but as a habit, or when done by people who are relevant, it would be slander eventually. That's the parallel I was drawing.

That's not context at all, that's just your narrative after the fact, you really do need to learn how context works.

[TheDemonLord]

The posts were clearly racist, the change was race only, how is it patently false to say it was racism related?

Let's for a moment take that as fact (which isn't entirely true - you've omitted a fair amount of nuance, but it'll do for now) - If both posts are racist, you have to point to what the difference between the two which caused one to be censured and one not. At that point you present a secondary series of conjecture for which you have no evidence.

Now, I simply point that if you hold to a certain left-wing philosophy namely that Racism is only applicable to minorities - then this without any additional conjecture required - see Occams Razor explains precisely what happened.

At which point - the claim that Twitter has political bias in it's application of the ToS is proven.


My objections have arisen as I've won the point that you dishonestly removed context to change his meaning, so I'm moving on to see if you have learnt from that, and are willing to back up your claims about what he said in addition to that. Given your evasion it seems like you have seen you own errors, but refuse to face them. Or simply put, he never said that they monitor behavior without monitoring content, nor any words to that effect; we both know that now (otherwise you would have posted a quote), yet you've been claiming for pages that he did; again, grow a pair and admit when you are wrong.

And I've pointed out that the statements when analyzed cannot be factually true, which is why I ommitted them.

You're upset at a context that is demonstrably false - which is where I'm laughing that you would rather willfully believe a lie, than concede the point.


I'm not using a dictionary definition, perhaps that needs to be added to pile of fallacies you don't know how to use...

I never said you were... The fallacy is when someone points to a definition (not necessarily from a dictionary) and refuses any other evidence that modifies, expands or conflicts with it.

Which is what you are doing.


That is an irrational summation, the evidence you have put forward is simply not compelling, for the reasons I have listed.

Cherry Picking.


Which is subjective, and a technicality; you could argue in this case no, but as a habit, or when done by people who are relevant, it would be slander eventually. That's the parallel I was drawing.

And entirely relevant for the hilariously bad parrallel you are drawing.


That's not context at all, that's just your narrative after the fact, you really do need to learn how context works.

Right - Context only matters when Graystone says it matters, when it's supposedly in your favor.

Again with the Cherry picking.

[Graystone]

Let's for a moment take that as fact (which isn't entirely true - you've omitted a fair amount of nuance, but it'll do for now) - If both posts are racist, you have to point to what the difference between the two which caused one to be censured and one not. At that point you present a secondary series of conjecture for which you have no evidence.

Now, I simply point that if you hold to a certain left-wing philosophy namely that Racism is only applicable to minorities - then this without any additional conjecture required - see Occams Razor explains precisely what happened.

At which point - the claim that Twitter has political bias in it's application of the ToS is proven.



And I've pointed out that the statements when analyzed cannot be factually true, which is why I ommitted them.

You're upset at a context that is demonstrably false - which is where I'm laughing that you would rather willfully believe a lie, than concede the point.



I never said you were... The fallacy is when someone points to a definition (not necessarily from a dictionary) and refuses any other evidence that modifies, expands or conflicts with it.

Which is what you are doing.



Cherry Picking.



And entirely relevant for the hilariously bad parrallel you are drawing.



Right - Context only matters when Graystone says it matters, when it's supposedly in your favor.

Again with the Cherry picking.

Racism would be one, where twitter bloke is racist, so sees no problem with posts racist against whites, but does with posts racist against other minorities. It may be a left wing philosphy as well, but it is still racist. Twitter bloke may also have seen a post which only changed the race aspect, as being one designed to incite attacks on the original poster, or racist discussion.

Which changed the intended meaning. And also relied on you understanding the ommitted statements, which you clearly do not, as you cannot even quote them. I'll reiterate; he never said that they monitor behavior without monitoring content, nor any words to that effect.

That's sargons law though, you are asserting that the term cannot have another meaning other than the one you have found in your description. My assertion is that there is another meaning which is applicable; do you see the difference? Do you understand the fallacy? I'll give you a hint, it is to ensure a term is not overly constrained by definition so as to be used to narrowly define said term, especially when there can be multiple interpretations, or the actual usage has changed over time. But, history has shown you are incapable of understanding basic fallacies and work to create exceptions in your own favour, so I really can't be arsed starting a detailed discussion on this one until you finish the last one...

No, context matters when its removal changes the intended meaning. Context is not a subjective narrative. This is simple shit dude...

[husaberg]

Captain America's been torn apart
Now he's a court jester with a broken heart

[TheDemonLord]

Racism would be one, where twitter bloke is racist, so sees no problem with posts racist against whites, but does with posts racist against other minorities. It may be a left wing philosphy as well, but it is still racist.

And who is it, that finds racism against white people acceptable, but is absolutely intolerant to racism to Minorities? I'll give you another hint - It's adherents to that Left Wing Philosophy...


Twitter bloke may also have seen a post which only changed the race aspect, as being one designed to incite attacks on the original poster, or racist discussion.

For which you'd need to provide something to back that up - critique/parody =/= incitement to attack. That's where your conjecture falls down.


Which changed the intended meaning. And also relied on you understanding the ommitted statements, which you clearly do not, as you cannot even quote them. I'll reiterate; he never said that they monitor behavior without monitoring content, nor any words to that effect.

Uh Huh. He did make statements similar to that and when analyzed they form an impossibility. Which is why I omitted them - that you don't like it, is just proof of your ideological blindness - you'd rather believe a lie than concede a point.


That's sargons law though, you are asserting that the term cannot have another meaning other than the one you have found in your description. My assertion is that there is another meaning which is applicable; do you see the difference? Do you understand the fallacy? I'll give you a hint, it is to ensure a term is not overly constrained by definition so as to be used to narrowly define said term, especially when there can be multiple interpretations, or the actual usage has changed over time. But, history has shown you are incapable of understanding basic fallacies and work to create exceptions in your own favour, so I really can't be arsed starting a detailed discussion on this one until you finish the last one...

Except for one teeensy tiny detail:

Nothing you've posted contradicts what I've posted. You've only referenced your own personal interpretation of the word "Males" to be read as "Some Males" - you've provided nothing from anything approaching an academic source that backs this up. You've tried a linguistic and a semantic argument, but both of these have required you to dismiss what I've posted.

Whereas when you take what I've posted and what you posted in tandem - it's clear that "Males" is to be read as "All Males".

Now, if you can find something from an Academic source that explicitly places a limit on the application....


No, context matters when its removal changes the intended meaning. Context is not a subjective narrative. This is simple shit dude...

So you mean that in the context of a debate, a rebuttal must take the form of a contradictory statement...

See what I mean by picking and choosing when context is/isn't important. Since I'm generous - I'll let you pick:

either Context is important and therefore you failed miserably in your rebuttal and your subsequent whining was just whining.
or
Context isn't important and you can retract all of these accusations (despite me pointing out a valid reason for omitting that you simply don't like).

Pick one.

[Graystone]

Uh Huh. He did make statements similar to that and when analyzed they form an impossibility. Which is why I omitted them - that you don't like it, is just proof of your ideological blindness - you'd rather believe a lie than concede a point.

Let's cut all your other bullshit and see just what lies beneath your major malfunction. Here we have you, once again putting your interpretation so far ahead of all others you remove evidence and context that dispute it. Now I've called you out on it, you still assert he made the statements you continually refuse to quote. Although now you've added the 'similar' caveat, which one can only assume is the start of more backpedaling... He didn't say what you claim he did, and your approach of ignoring this fact is utterly contemptible. There is simply no point discussing the rest of your drivel now that you have shown your true colors.

[TheDemonLord]

Let's cut all your other bullshit and see just what lies beneath your major malfunction. Here we have you, once again putting your interpretation so far ahead of all others you remove evidence and context that dispute it. Now I've called you out on it, you still assert he made the statements you continually refuse to quote. Although now you've added the 'similar' caveat, which one can only assume is the start of more backpedaling... He didn't say what you claim he did, and your approach of ignoring this fact is utterly contemptible. There is simply no point discussing the rest of your drivel now that you have shown your true colors.

Let's see - you've only had an issue with the quote until a few posts ago. and suddenly you only want to discuss a singular issue...

It looks strikingly like you got owned on that point and the others and so want to divert attention away from that.

Here's the issue - I know the full quote, you know the full quote - you're trying to go for some moral high ground, whilst remaining deliberately evasive. One would conjecture that if the full quotation was as iron-clad as you claim, you'd post it up (much like Husa did) - except you haven't.

What he said was an impossible statement, I omitted the impossible part. If you want to make the case (as you claim) that by removing it I've been horribly deceptive - then all you need to do is explain how it can be true.

That's not a particularly high burden of proof - yet you've continually declined to do so.

This leaves us with but one conclusion: You know it's an impossible statement, you can't make the case as to why it's true - which is why you don't post it in full, but so as to give the air of victory (and to avoid conceding the point) you remain as evasive as you accuse me of being so.

[Graystone]

Let's see - you've only had an issue with the quote until a few posts ago. and suddenly you only want to discuss a singular issue...

It looks strikingly like you got owned on that point and the others and so want to divert attention away from that.

Here's the issue - I know the full quote, you know the full quote - you're trying to go for some moral high ground, whilst remaining deliberately evasive. One would conjecture that if the full quotation was as iron-clad as you claim, you'd post it up (much like Husa did) - except you haven't.

What he said was an impossible statement, I omitted the impossible part. If you want to make the case (as you claim) that by removing it I've been horribly deceptive - then all you need to do is explain how it can be true.

That's not a particularly high burden of proof - yet you've continually declined to do so.

This leaves us with but one conclusion: You know it's an impossible statement, you can't make the case as to why it's true - which is why you don't post it in full, but so as to give the air of victory (and to avoid conceding the point) you remain as evasive as you accuse me of being so.

You stacked one omission on another until you thought you point made sense. Dishonest in the extreme.

The actual quote is “The real question behind the question is, ‘Are we doing something according to political ideology or viewpoints?’ And we are not. Period,” Dorsey said. “We do not look at content with regards to political viewpoint or ideology. We look at behavior.” from here (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/08/19/twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-admits-left-leaning-bias-says-it-doesnt-influence-company-policy/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9d0a7e8c2a58)

See in bold for the context that you ignored, to justify removing additional context around your other quote. You have been horribly deceptive, because you can monitor behavior, without monitoring the political viewpoint or ideology of the poster.

Guess that leaves your conclusion in the shit :laugh: It was a test for you, if you were rational and honest you would check quotes like that when they are questioned, so I gave you the opportunity to correct yourself; you have failed miserably.

[TheDemonLord]

You stacked one omission on another until you thought you point made sense. Dishonest in the extreme.

The actual quote is “The real question behind the question is, ‘Are we doing something according to political ideology or viewpoints?’ And we are not. Period,” Dorsey said. “We do not look at content with regards to political viewpoint or ideology. We look at behavior.” from here (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/08/19/twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-admits-left-leaning-bias-says-it-doesnt-influence-company-policy/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9d0a7e8c2a58)

See in bold for the context that you ignored, to justify removing additional context around your other quote. You have been horribly deceptive, because you can monitor behavior, without monitoring the political viewpoint or ideology of the poster.

Guess that leaves your conclusion in the shit :laugh: It was a test for you, if you were rational and honest you would check quotes like that when they are questioned, so I gave you the opportunity to correct yourself; you have failed miserably.

You remember when I made the point earlier about certain political viewpoints having a self-declared moral component? Thank you for so kindly blundering into my trap...

Lets take Trans issues as an example:

"Trans Women are not real Women" - is a perfectly factual statement. In right wing circles, this would be an acceptable statement.
But! If you have a left-leaning bias, this statement would constitute Transphobia and be in breach of Twitters rules (namely the "Abuse and hateful conduct" guidelines)

The behavior is intrinsically linked to a political viewpoint/ideology.

Same with Gun Control debate, Same with the Abortion Debate, Immigration debate, Gender Debate etc. etc. ad nauseum ad infinitum.

As I said - it's an impossible statement, because of the implied moral 'superiority' of certain viewpoints.

[Katman]

It was a test for you....


Thank you for so kindly blundering into my trap...

Are you guys sure you're not one and the same person?

[oldrider]

Google briefing says tech companies should abandon “American tradition” of free speech:- https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/10/google-briefing-says-tech-companies-should-abandon-american-tradition-of-free-speech :shutup:

[Graystone]

You remember when I made the point earlier about certain political viewpoints having a self-declared moral component? Thank you for so kindly blundering into my trap...

Lets take Trans issues as an example:

"Trans Women are not real Women" - is a perfectly factual statement. In right wing circles, this would be an acceptable statement.
But! If you have a left-leaning bias, this statement would constitute Transphobia and be in breach of Twitters rules (namely the "Abuse and hateful conduct" guidelines)

The behavior is intrinsically linked to a political viewpoint/ideology.

Same with Gun Control debate, Same with the Abortion Debate, Immigration debate, Gender Debate etc. etc. ad nauseum ad infinitum.

As I said - it's an impossible statement, because of the implied moral 'superiority' of certain viewpoints.

Fuck that's weak.

Your 'one conclusion' is clearly in error, no comment on that? I pointed out that the quote you had been referring to was wrong, no comment on that what you removed was not what he actually said? I pointed out that the actual quote means there is no impossibility, you make no reference to what was actually said and go off on some rant about transphobia, the fuck are you on about? Do try and tie this stuff back to reality eh!

[TheDemonLord]

Fuck that's weak.

Your 'one conclusion' is clearly in error, no comment on that? I pointed out that the quote you had been referring to was wrong, no comment on that what you removed was not what he actually said? I pointed out that the actual quote means there is no impossibility, you make no reference to what was actually said and go off on some rant about transphobia, the fuck are you on about? Do try and tie this stuff back to reality eh!

And with that - I think you've just about thrown in the towel.

You only posted it after I goaded you into it, and I did so specifically so you'd make the error you did. I'd already explained earlier about issues that have a political element in relation to Jack's comment.

It's not a rant about Transphobia per se - try reading it again.

It's about certain issues that have a strong political element where depending on whether you are right leaning or left leaning determines if certain statements or phrases are valid critique or abuse/harrassment.

And to highlight this - I provided an example where a perfectly valid right-wing statement, that is scientifically accurate, is regarded as harassment/abuse/transphobic by the Left Wing. Then pointing out in the Twitter ToS this is regarded as a breach of said ToS.

Abortion is another issue with a Clear Left/Right divide and a claimed moral component - so too with Gun Control, Immigration/refugees etc. etc.

Perhaps another way to put it is this:

The only way to know if saying "Trans Women aren't real Women" is harassment or not is entirely dependent on the political viewpoint and ideology you hold.

[Graystone]

And with that - I think you've just about thrown in the towel.

You only posted it after I goaded you into it, and I did so specifically so you'd make the error you did. I'd already explained earlier about issues that have a political element in relation to Jack's comment.

It's not a rant about Transphobia per se - try reading it again.

It's about certain issues that have a strong political element where depending on whether you are right leaning or left leaning determines if certain statements or phrases are valid critique or abuse/harrassment.

And to highlight this - I provided an example where a perfectly valid right-wing statement, that is scientifically accurate, is regarded as harassment/abuse/transphobic by the Left Wing. Then pointing out in the Twitter ToS this is regarded as a breach of said ToS.

Abortion is another issue with a Clear Left/Right divide and a claimed moral component - so too with Gun Control, Immigration/refugees etc. etc.

Perhaps another way to put it is this:

The only way to know if saying "Trans Women aren't real Women" is harassment or not is entirely dependent on the political viewpoint and ideology you hold.

Don't be stupid, it's obvious you didn't goad me into that, and had no idea what was actually said until I posted it. It's why you have not referred to it directly at all since I posted it. It's also clear that faced with your own errors, you're now looking for any excuse to throw in the towel.

You're trying to put the cart before the horse, yes some issues have strong correlation with political viewpoint, but the issue can be evaluated on its own merits, in absence of political content of the post. There are also many, many issues which have no significant political correlation, so even if one accepts your mentally back-flipped interpretation, it is not global, so you cannot claim a thing is impossible. And we can also note, that your much repeated claim of "it being impossible to analyze behavior without analyzing content" has been overturned, and absent from your piss weak attempts at justification since I posted the real quote...

[Banditbandit]

Good grief - I think that 57 pages of argument about Free Speech proves there is such a thing.

[TheDemonLord]

Don't be stupid, it's obvious you didn't goad me into that, and had no idea what was actually said until I posted it. It's why you have not referred to it directly at all since I posted it. It's also clear that faced with your own errors, you're now looking for any excuse to throw in the towel.

Then how come you didn't post it until I specifically goaded you... - Cause, Effect/

As for the "no idea" - I'd like to refer you to post https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/185771-Free-speech?p=1131112884#post1131112884

Were I described the mechanism for why Political bias is a factor in content analysis and how a companies own bias would manifest itself in the filter rules.

It's there, in black and white - well before you started to complain about the accuracy of the Quotation.


You're trying to put the cart before the horse, yes some issues have strong correlation with political viewpoint, but the issue can be evaluated on its own merits, in absence of political content of the post.

Okay - try this - let's stick with Trans issues: I'd like you to outline without reference to any political or ideological theories the point at which a medical discussion becomes Transphobic.

The simple answer is you can't - you need a context to make that determination, the context is a socio-political one, which means again, his statement is false


There are also many, many issues which have no significant political correlation, so even if one accepts your mentally back-flipped interpretation, it is not global, so you cannot claim a thing is impossible. And we can also note, that your much repeated claim of "it being impossible to analyze behavior without analyzing content" has been overturned, and absent from your piss weak attempts at justification since I posted the real quote...

Sure, there are issues that have no significant Political correlation - but you cannot interpret words without a context. That Context is a socio-political one. Moreover, this doesn't make up the contentious filtering issue that Jack was talking in reference to that statement.

I'll give you an example:

Without a socio-political context, you can't distinguish between the following phrases:

"I fucking hate cheese"
"I fucking hate jews"

You need to know what cheese is, who Jews are, you need to understand what Hate means, you need to understand how profanity modifies language. And that's before we get into the historical contexts.

[Graystone]

Then how come you didn't post it until I specifically goaded you... - Cause, Effect/

As for the "no idea" - I'd like to refer you to post https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/185771-Free-speech?p=1131112884#post1131112884

Were I described the mechanism for why Political bias is a factor in content analysis and how a companies own bias would manifest itself in the filter rules.

It's there, in black and white - well before you started to complain about the accuracy of the Quotation.



Okay - try this - let's stick with Trans issues: I'd like you to outline without reference to any political or ideological theories the point at which a medical discussion becomes Transphobic.

The simple answer is you can't - you need a context to make that determination, the context is a socio-political one, which means again, his statement is false



Sure, there are issues that have no significant Political correlation - but you cannot interpret words without a context. That Context is a socio-political one. Moreover, this doesn't make up the contentious filtering issue that Jack was talking in reference to that statement.

I'll give you an example:

Without a socio-political context, you can't distinguish between the following phrases:

"I fucking hate cheese"
"I fucking hate jews"

You need to know what cheese is, who Jews are, you need to understand what Hate means, you need to understand how profanity modifies language. And that's before we get into the historical contexts.

I posted it because it is logical to check quotes validity, and you clearly had not done so. I guess being wrong is a type of goading if you are determined to see it that way...

The post that said this "could you just explain how it is possible to filter on behavior, without monitoring content?" ? If you knew what was posted, you would have specified political content, just as the guy you 'quoted' did.

No, lets not stick with the issue you chose, you've claimed an impossibility (that means global application), so you can't cherry pick examples. Explain to me how violently threatening behavior cannot be judged without examining post's political content.

[FJRider]

Without a socio-political context, you can't distinguish between the following phrases:

"I fucking hate cheese"
"I fucking hate jews"

You need to know what cheese is, who Jews are, you need to understand what Hate means, you need to understand how profanity modifies language. And that's before we get into the historical contexts.

Bullshit. There are some that only know about the cheese's that are commonly advertised on TV (and can recite the adds by heart). And the only jew they know lives three doors down their street and wears funny clothes some days of the week.

What's the difference between these two ... ?? Is it down to context ... poor choice of words ... or an indication of a poor sex life ... :laugh:

"I hate fucking cheese"
"I hate fucking Jews

[Laava]

Good grief - I think that 57 pages of argument about Free Speech proves there is such a thing.

Lol, good one.

[FJRider]

Good grief - I think that 57 pages of argument about Free Speech proves there is such a thing.

I think 57 pages on KB does not make the free world any more free ... and apart from an odd dash of red rep .... not much in the way of retribution for any unfavorable comments.

There are rules about speaking in public though ...

[TheDemonLord]

I posted it because it is logical to check quotes validity, and you clearly had not done so. I guess being wrong is a type of goading if you are determined to see it that way...

Then why didn't you post it the first time you wanted to take issue with the quotation? Why only after I'd challenged you...


The post that said this "could you just explain how it is possible to filter on behavior, without monitoring content?" ? If you knew what was posted, you would have specified political content, just as the guy you 'quoted' did.

Did you ignore the part where I talked about the political aspect as being integral?


No, lets not stick with the issue you chose, you've claimed an impossibility (that means global application), so you can't cherry pick examples. Explain to me how violently threatening behavior cannot be judged without examining post's political content.

"Kill all the Terrorists"

[TheDemonLord]

Bullshit. There are some that only know about the cheese's that are commonly advertised on TV (and can recite the adds by heart). And the only jew they know lives three doors down their street and wears funny clothes some days of the week.

What's the difference between these two ... ?? Is it down to context ... poor choice of words ... or an indication of a poor sex life ... :laugh:

"I hate fucking cheese"
"I hate fucking Jews

I'm not sure if you are trolling or not - but the problem of context is something that has hindered the progress of AI. Same with Spam Filters and other automated detection systems. What happens is we provide the systems of examples of good and bad content, and then via various methods, the Filter will build up a ruleset of what is "good" and what is "bad", but these are only an approximation. They can be fooled by several methods, methods which don't work on us Humans - which comes back to context.

[Graystone]

Then why didn't you post it the first time you wanted to take issue with the quotation? Why only after I'd challenged you...



Did you ignore the part where I talked about the political aspect as being integral?



"Kill all the Terrorists"

As per my rebuttal of you 'one conclusion' it was to give you an opportunity to correct your own interpretation. The facade that you knew all along is not fooling anyone, least of all yourself; you referred to husaberg's erroneous quote multiple times as the correct one.

Some coincidental BS doesn't overturn the 20+ times you made the same statement with no mention of it being political content.

That's not even close to an explanation, it's as attempt to again find an example which fits your narrative. Violently threatening behavior can be made in complete absence of any political content, as can many other type of behavior that violate twitters ToS.

[TheDemonLord]

As per my rebuttal of you 'one conclusion' it was to give you an opportunity to correct your own interpretation. The facade that you knew all along is not fooling anyone, least of all yourself; you referred to husaberg's erroneous quote multiple times as the correct one.

Not at all, virtually none of my posts have been edited... I knew what the right quote was, goaded you into posting it, knowing that you would have forgotten about my previous post. It's even funnier when the only reason you changed tack to dispute what the quote was, was when you had been owned on the other point.


Some coincidental BS doesn't overturn the 20+ times you made the same statement with no mention of it being political content.

Right, so now it's coincidental...

If you believe that, then I've got a great offer from a Nigerian prince for you....


That's not even close to an explanation, it's as attempt to again find an example which fits your narrative. Violently threatening behavior can be made in complete absence of any political content, as can many other type of behavior that violate twitters ToS.

What's the matter? Don't like that when challenged I was able to provide a very succinct example to prove my counter-position?

So rather than argue against it, you simply seek to dismiss it like you do with everything you don't like, yet can't argue against

Edit: Remembering of course, that I rather charitably rose to your challenge, instead of referring back to the point I made that you ignored.

[FJRider]

I'm not sure if you are trolling or not - but the problem of context is something that has hindered the progress of AI. Same with Spam Filters and other automated detection systems. What happens is we provide the systems of examples of good and bad content, and then via various methods, the Filter will build up a ruleset of what is "good" and what is "bad", but these are only an approximation. They can be fooled by several methods, methods which don't work on us Humans - which comes back to context.

It always comes back to context ... the (re)actions made when statements are taken out of context ... can cause no end of bother ... <_<

A common issue on any of the internet forums ... :doh:

[Graystone]

Not at all, virtually none of my posts have been edited... I knew what the right quote was, goaded you into posting it, knowing that you would have forgotten about my previous post. It's even funnier when the only reason you changed tack to dispute what the quote was, was when you had been owned on the other point.



Right, so now it's coincidental...

If you believe that, then I've got a great offer from a Nigerian prince for you....



What's the matter? Don't like that when challenged I was able to provide a very succinct example to prove my counter-position?

So rather than argue against it, you simply seek to dismiss it like you do with everything you don't like, yet can't argue against

Edit: Remembering of course, that I rather charitably rose to your challenge, instead of referring back to the point I made that you ignored.

You said "Except Husa already posted the full quote" Just how is that consistent with your new narrative that you knew husaberg's quote was not correct?

Of course it is coincidental, you didn't refer to the political content of the post at all.

It doesn't prove you counter-position at all.

[TheDemonLord]

You said "Except Husa already posted the full quote" Just how is that consistent with your new narrative that you knew husaberg's quote was not correct?

The only new narrative here is you stopping on one point when you've been owned and trying something new. Again, if I was as deluded as you claim - how could I make a post specifically referencing the politics of a post before you 'enlightened us'.

Either I have the luck of the devil or I clearly knew what the quote was.


Of course it is coincidental, you didn't refer to the political content of the post at all.

Except the parts where I talked about posts (which would be the content of said posts) specifically in relation to political topics...


It doesn't prove you counter-position at all.

right right - which is why you are so keen to dismiss it... As I said - take note - You Challenge me, I respond to the Challenge with something you refuse to argue against. I challenge you - and you run away with your tail between your legs.

[Graystone]

The only new narrative here is you stopping on one point when you've been owned and trying something new. Again, if I was as deluded as you claim - how could I make a post specifically referencing the politics of a post before you 'enlightened us'.

Either I have the luck of the devil or I clearly knew what the quote was.



Except the parts where I talked about posts (which would be the content of said posts) specifically in relation to political topics...



right right - which is why you are so keen to dismiss it... As I said - take note - You Challenge me, I respond to the Challenge with something you refuse to argue against. I challenge you - and you run away with your tail between your legs.

So, how do you wave away what you said about husaberg's quote then? "Except Husa already posted the full quote" Was it a different 'full quote' to the one we were discussing :laugh:

It's clearly a coincidence. Of course your examples are going to use political content, in a discussion about political leaning.

Who is running away? I'm pointing out that your claim that Dorsey's statement was an impossible one is wrong, by showing an example in which it does hold true. I only need to show one example to invalidate your claims, that is why I'm not going to let you cherry pick ones that 'work' for you.

[TheDemonLord]

So, how do you wave away what you said about husaberg's quote then? "Except Husa already posted the full quote" Was it a different 'full quote' to the one we were discussing :laugh:

You do realise how goading works right?


It's clearly a coincidence. Of course your examples are going to use political content, in a discussion about political leaning.

More Delusions to avoid conceding the point.


Who is running away? I'm pointing out that your claim that Dorsey's statement was an impossible one is wrong, by showing an example in which it does hold true. I only need to show one example to invalidate your claims, that is why I'm not going to let you cherry pick ones that 'work' for you.

What example did you provide? You only provided a challenge - which I fulfilled, now you're trying to back track and back flip.

[Graystone]

You do realise how goading works right?



More Delusions to avoid conceding the point.



What example did you provide? You only provided a challenge - which I fulfilled, now you're trying to back track and back flip.

So you post things you know are wrong, to 'goad' me into posting things that are right? To what end? Occams razor says you were just wrong, but can't handle it. At 'best' it is a very dishonest method, which only validates the characterization I was making of you with the original issue I took when you removed context from the quotes. You're in a 'no-win' situation here, why are you persisting with what we both know is just post-hoc bullshit to avoid admitting you were wrong?

How is it delusional to expect political examples in a discussion about political bias?

The example was 'violently threatening behavior', I didn't think I needed to spell it out. Posts like "I'll find out where you live and beat you up" would be an example of violently threatening online behavior, now how would you claim it is impossible to judge that behavior without examining the political content?

[TheDemonLord]

So you post things you know are wrong, to 'goad' me into posting things that are right? To what end? Occams razor says you were just wrong, but can't handle it. At 'best' it is a very dishonest method, which only validates the characterization I was making of you with the original issue I took when you removed context from the quotes. You're in a 'no-win' situation here, why are you persisting with what we both know is just post-hoc bullshit to avoid admitting you were wrong?

Interesting use of Occams Razor considering:


How is it delusional to expect political examples in a discussion about political bias?

How quickly you throw it out the window...


The example was 'violently threatening behavior', I didn't think I needed to spell it out. Posts like "I'll find out where you live and beat you up" would be an example of violently threatening online behavior, now how would you claim it is impossible to judge that behavior without examining the political content?

So, you ask me for my reply, then dismiss it and substitute your own when you don't like it...

[avgas]

Good grief - I think that 57 pages of argument about Free Speech proves there is such a thing.
Lots of things exist in KB that don't exist in the real.

[avgas]

“People demand freedom of speech as compensation for the freedom of thought they seldom use.”
Soren Kierkegaard
Censoring is both in the long run. It just takes a few generations. History is pretty good evidence of that.

[avgas]

I'm fine with others talking and rebutting, as long as their rebuttal is done in a rational fashion. Do you have an issue with the way I rebutted your points about the meaning of the term?

I think you'll find transgender people have their own set of societal disadvantages...
I missed a lot - looks what I was saying was covered. So no point flogging....well you get it.

As for transgender, disadvantages are in the eye of the beholder. Norms are overrated in general, as so proven by everything we have today vs 50 years ago. I suspect the next richest person in the world is currently pursuing a career of figuring out how to sell avocado's......much like his/her/xie/xer predecessor was selling books. We can make a great story about how hard peoples lives are, except it turns out that for a majority of folks - pain is inevitable. The key thing is where they end, not how they got there.

I need to dig up the survey - but there was a transgender survey performed recently that stated 98% of them wanted to be defined as one of the binaries. I imagine the other 2% rode honda's and didn't want to make it public knowledge. But say we are empathetic to their cause. Should we change everything to suit them? If so where should we stop? Are 50+ pronouns the best way forward? Or have we created a unique problem and instead look at the context that a pronoun is irrelevant..... leading to my point earlier. Does having a fluid gender mean that you are disadvantaged by the current world - or at an advantage because you no longer need to conform to it?

[Graystone]

Interesting use of Occams Razor considering:



How quickly you throw it out the window...



So, you ask me for my reply, then dismiss it and substitute your own when you don't like it...

Occams razor is that the obvious thing seems likely, you posted stuff that was wrong, because you were wrong. Adding speculation to that voids the philosophy...

On the one hand, you made a claim that was clearly in error, while you're saying a circumstantial correlation proves you weren't wrong? Or that you were wrong on purpose for reasons you've been unable to elaborate on?

I gave perfectly adequate reasons, you made a claim for global application, then proceed to cheery pick examples that work, and evade any that don't; this shows your claim to be in error.

[TheDemonLord]

Occams razor is that the obvious thing seems likely, you posted stuff that was wrong, because you were wrong. Adding speculation to that voids the philosophy...

On the one hand, you made a claim that was clearly in error, while you're saying a circumstantial correlation proves you weren't wrong? Or that you were wrong on purpose for reasons you've been unable to elaborate on?

I gave perfectly adequate reasons, you made a claim for global application, then proceed to cheery pick examples that work, and evade any that don't; this shows your claim to be in error.

Which is all an exercise in it's okay for Graystone to apply Occams Razor and to cherry pick examples, but if I'm merely said to be doing it, I'm somehow wrong.

I believe you were saying something about Double Standards?

[Graystone]

Which is all an exercise in it's okay for Graystone to apply Occams Razor and to cherry pick examples, but if I'm merely said to be doing it, I'm somehow wrong.

I believe you were saying something about Double Standards?

So justify why I shouldn't like I do when you use them wrongly.

What is your explanation for why you posted things that were wrong?

Why should you be able to evade examples that do not work when you make a claim that your explanation is applicable to everything?

[husaberg]

At least the posts are getting smaller:innocent:

[TheDemonLord]

So justify why I shouldn't like I do when you use them wrongly.

Try that again, in English.


What is your explanation for why you posted things that were wrong?

It's funny how you are only complaining about the supposed wrongness of it, after you got owned on the point.

Whether you want to nitpick on the addition of the Political element or not - the point is (and remains) that in order to Filter things that breach the ToS, they need to look at content. How it is determined what content is good or bad is subject to the same biases which Twitter has. They claim they take steps to account for that Bias, I've seen nothing (and you've presented nothing) as to how that is done.

You could even make a reasonable case that some of the rules in their ToS themselves are an expression of Left-wing politics (Anti-Gun advertising rules, explicit protections for the Trans community etc. etc.)


Why should you be able to evade examples that do not work when you make a claim that your explanation is applicable to everything?

Maybe because you've changed the context entirely from what the discussion was about?

I provided an example, you didn't like it and so made a challenge to me - I then (in good faith) provided a clear and concise example that fulfills all of your requirements. You didn't like that either, so rather than critique it, you just dismissed it and substituted your own with an entirely different context.

[Graystone]

Try that again, in English.



It's funny how you are only complaining about the supposed wrongness of it, after you got owned on the point.

Whether you want to nitpick on the addition of the Political element or not - the point is (and remains) that in order to Filter things that breach the ToS, they need to look at content. How it is determined what content is good or bad is subject to the same biases which Twitter has. They claim they take steps to account for that Bias, I've seen nothing (and you've presented nothing) as to how that is done.

You could even make a reasonable case that some of the rules in their ToS themselves are an expression of Left-wing politics (Anti-Gun advertising rules, explicit protections for the Trans community etc. etc.)



Maybe because you've changed the context entirely from what the discussion was about?

I provided an example, you didn't like it and so made a challenge to me - I then (in good faith) provided a clear and concise example that fulfills all of your requirements. You didn't like that either, so rather than critique it, you just dismissed it and substituted your own with an entirely different context.

I think you are getting confused, the only one who got 'owned' on a point was you, when you said you knew what Dorsey's quote was, but also said husaberg had posted the correct one; you remain awfully silent on how this is justified... The word 'political' was not an addition, it was always in there; so any point you make about needing to evaluate the content (without specifying it must be political in nature) a disingenuous argument.

Not at all, the context was that you make the claim you can remove part of a persons quote if you believe it to be impossible, I disagree with this on an ethical standpoint overall (I think this ethical disagreement may be the point you think you 'owned' me on?), and a factual one in this specific case. Even taking you ethical view, you cannot demonstrate impossibility without showing that every instance is impossible; that is why it is entirely logical to move on from one example, to the next one.

[pritch]

This is the case that Yaxley Lennon nearly fucked up. Some of these arseholes got 18 years. Good job.
Yaxley Lennon goes back to court next week and then back to jail. (Said he hopefully.) Be nice if it was the same jail though. :whistle:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/19/yorkshire-grooming-gang-jailed-rape-abuse


Update: Some of the reporting of this has been diabolical. One headine read that the guilty had been sentenced to 200 years, the article then divided that number by the twenty defendants and said that they had been sentenced to ten years each, so would be out in five.

The ringleader has been sentenced to life with a MINIMUM 18 years which means, barring a successful appeal, he will do the whole 18 years. Several of the others are sentenced to eighteen years and four are yet to be sentenced. Experienced lawyers say these are not "wet bus ticket" sentences, in British terms they are serious.

Incidentally, while Islamic names are well represented the ringleader is not a muslim. His country of origin is India and to my unqualified eye he appears to be a Sikh.

[pritch]

And in a not entirely unrelated matter: the English Defence League, which Stephen Yaxley Lennon was instumental in founding, had a national rally in Manchester overnight our time.

Here they are with their police escort. What pathetic twats.

[Katman]

This is the case that Yaxley Lennon nearly fucked up. Some of these arseholes got 18 years. Good job.

Can you at least begin to understand the rage that the likes of Tommy Robinson must feel regarding these cases?

[pritch]

Can you at least begin to understand the rage that the likes of Tommy Robinson must feel regarding these cases?

We can all feel contempt for the perpetrators now that they are proven guilty. We can equally feel contempt for Yaxley Lennon who is a racist twat who jeopardised the trials of some of them.

Afterthought: There have been some particulary nasty crimes committed against kids by white guys while all this has been dragging on. "Robinson's" absence was noted. He doesn't give a shit about the kids, he just hates brown guys. He probably quite enjoys taking money of gullible idiots though.

[pritch]

It would seem that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon aka Tommy Robinson aka half a dozen other names has given a speech in London.

He claimed that he is a journalist but that he has been deprived of his right to freedom of speech by the establishment. He claimed this to a crowd of journalists, supporters, and opponents, from the top of a specially erected stage in the middle of London while utilising a speaker system. Not big on irony our Stephen.

He also said "journalists are the enemy of the people" quoting Hitler and more recently Trump. Presumably it had slipped his tiny mind that he had just claimed to be a journalist.

Meanwhile the judge referred his case to the Attorney General so the whole silly saga will drag on. The more gullible gammon will likely keep giving him money which will add to the two million quid reportedly already in his account. Ah well, "a fool and his money..."

[Indiana_Jones]

https://i.redd.it/u8r4uf0x2qmz.png

[Viking01]

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201811091069673366-humanities-hijacked-by-ideologues/

[TheDemonLord]

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201811091069673366-humanities-hijacked-by-ideologues/

That was a great interview - JBP was spitting some serious fire in that one.

[TheDemonLord]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DxfDetUUcAEXydW.jpg

Still Verified, Still on Twitter.

Calling for Kids to be put into Woodchippers - that's fine - no breach of any ToS here, they can stay on Twitter....

[carbonhed]

That was a great interview - JBP was spitting some serious fire in that one.

Have you seen his latest one? A heavy duty couple.


https://youtu.be/_v-NfZ1j918

[TheDemonLord]

Have you seen his latest one? A heavy duty couple.

Yep - I really enjoyed the Generals take - it reminds me somewhat of "Service Guarantees Citizenship" from Starship Troopers, but without the negative implications. I have often wondered about some form of mandatory community service - especially if we look at the Nordic countries - with compulsory Military Service - they don't do too bad. I think the most interesting thing, however, was when he talked about redefining what service to your community means, and that it should be expanded from the current Military/Law Enforcement/Fire service etc. definitions. He made mention of several 'Green' initiatives, as well as initiatives that would be the traditional domain of the Left - so that everyone, regardless of their leaning can do something that they believe in, for the community.

Basically, you get young adults to contribute something to Society, which then means they are invested in the wellbeing of that society as they have made an active contribution.

[carbonhed]

Yep - I really enjoyed the Generals take - it reminds me somewhat of "Service Guarantees Citizenship" from Starship Troopers, but without the negative implications. I have often wondered about some form of mandatory community service - especially if we look at the Nordic countries - with compulsory Military Service - they don't do too bad. I think the most interesting thing, however, was when he talked about redefining what service to your community means, and that it should be expanded from the current Military/Law Enforcement/Fire service etc. definitions. He made mention of several 'Green' initiatives, as well as initiatives that would be the traditional domain of the Left - so that everyone, regardless of their leaning can do something that they believe in, for the community.

Basically, you get young adults to contribute something to Society, which then means they are invested in the wellbeing of that society as they have made an active contribution.

Wasn't Starship Troopers considered a homage to fascism? Not sure we need comparisons like that :laugh:

I think the idea has great merit but you just know some snowflakes going to get a splinter and burst into tears... then there will be inquiries... then their Mummies won't let them outside. :facepalm:

[TheDemonLord]

Wasn't Starship Troopers considered a homage to fascism? Not sure we need comparisons like that :laugh:

I think the idea has great merit but you just know some snowflakes going to get a splinter and burst into tears... then there will be inquiries... then their Mummies won't let them outside. :facepalm:

Sargon did a brilliant video on it - where he compares the movie Starship Troopers to the writtings of the Fascist philosophers:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVpYvV0O7uI

The TL;DR version of it - it's not as Fascist as it appears.

[Banditbandit]

Sargon did a brilliant video on it - where he compares the movie Starship Troopers to the writtings of the Fascist philosophers:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVpYvV0O7uI

The TL;DR version of it - it's not as Fascist as it appears.

That's not hard to do - the original Heinlein book can appear to support hard right and fascist Governments.

[TheDemonLord]

That's not hard to do - the original Heinlein book can appear to support hard right and fascist Governments.

I think the clear differentiation was that in both the Heinlein book and the Movie - the State isn't a Moral agent - which is a key component of the Fascist ideology.

But to be fair - I can't remember if I've read the book or not (or have read derived works from it).

[Ocean1]

I think the clear differentiation was that in both the Heinlein book and the Movie - the State isn't a Moral agent - which is a key component of the Fascist ideology.

Never seen the movie, but it's a mater of record that Heinlein was a life long, card carrying libertarian.

One of his more famous quotes relates that an honest politician is one that stays bought.

[Ocean1]

...

"Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors. And miss."

Robert A Heinlein

[oldrider]

Christianity is now a "hate crime" in Scotland!!!


https://twitter.com/DeepStateExpose/status/1100120512565571584

[pritch]

I see that Facebook and Instagram have permentently banned Steven Yaxley - Lennon alias Tommy Robinson alias...
Twitter have already banned him for hate speech, promoting violence etc.

Another banning that brought me joy today was that of Jacob Wohl, now banned by Twitter. He was a young Trump supporter, completely full of shit. He once put out notice of a big media event. He had a woman who was to charge Bob Mueller, the Special Counsel investigating Trump for conspiracy, with sexual assault. Some press went, but surprise! There was no woman.

He posted many tweets that started out, "I overheard a conversation in a hipster coffee shop..." These conversations were always favourable to Trump. Wohl had a security company with a web site, the photos of the staff were apparently all taken from a stock photo site or similar. IIRC if you rang the after hours phone number it went to his mum's answer phone.

Apparently he went on a TV show recently and boasted about creating a botnet. Twitter checked and found he had multiple accounts which breaches their rules. Jacob was gone.

Actually Jacob hadn't bothered me much of late. He had blocked me so I was spared seeing his nonsense.

But, of course, all of this has very little to do with free speech or silencing conservatives, although I'm sure such matters will be raised.

[husaberg]

I see that Facebook and Instagram have permentently banned Steven Yaxley - Lennon alias Tommy Robinson alias...
Twitter have already banned him for hate speech, promoting violence etc.

Another banning that brought me joy today was that of Jacob Wohl, now banned by Twitter. He was a young Trump supporter, completely full of shit. He once put out notice of a big media event. He had a woman who was to charge Bob Mueller, the Special Counsel investigating Trump for conspiracy, with sexual assault. Some press went, but surprise! There was no woman.

He posted many tweets that started out, "I overheard a conversation in a hipster coffee shop..." These conversations were always favourable to Trump. Wohl had a security company with a web site, the photos of the staff were apparently all taken from a stock photo site or similar. IIRC if you rang the after hours phone number it went to his mum's answer phone.

Apparently he went on a TV show recently and boasted about creating a botnet. Twitter checked and found he had multiple accounts which breaches their rules. Jacob was gone.

Actually Jacob hadn't bothered me much of late. He had blocked me so I was spared seeing his nonsense.

But, of course, all of this has very little to do with free speech or silencing conservatives, although I'm sure such matters will be raised.
The way i see it Free speech doesn't include the right to profit of making up shit and passing it off as being truthful.
Far to many on the net are doing just that,feeding of the stupid people who are taken in much like the Church's and evangelists like Brian Tamaiki.
Or the dickheads who watched yanxley or Alex Jones or Peterson.

[TheDemonLord]

I've got $10 that says if I was to go onto Facebook, I'd find any number of radical, Communist groups.

I see Peace Action Wellington still exist on Facebook.

I guess Bomb Threats don't count...

[Ocean1]

The rabid left is rapidly developing the habit of taking offence to any facts they find don't fit their ever narrowing world view...

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/111600623/jordan-petersons-book-returns-to-whitcoulls-shelves

Only to have to walk it back when the facts remain stubbornly uneditable. :laugh:

[onearmedbandit]

The rabid left is rapidly developing the habit of taking offence to any facts they find don't fit their ever narrowing world view...

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/111600623/jordan-petersons-book-returns-to-whitcoulls-shelves

Only to have to walk it back when the facts remain stubbornly uneditable. :laugh:

Don't worry, they're fighting back...

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/111534436/do-read-the-comments-announcing-a-new-approach-to-stuffs-comment-moderation

[husaberg]

The rabid left is rapidly developing the habit of taking offence to any facts they find don't fit their ever narrowing world view...

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/111600623/jordan-petersons-book-returns-to-whitcoulls-shelves

Only to have to walk it back when the facts remain stubbornly uneditable. :laugh:

So now you are sunken to the the level of posting non stories.
Someone tried to suggest it wasnt on sale in NZ last week a quick check showed it was.
I guess you have an issue with this as well
https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/worldtoday/social-media-face-charges-if-violent-content-isnt-removed/10939994

Brought about by that rabid left wing commie from the er Australian Liberal party (ie their more successful version of a right party)

[carbonhed]

Newshub reports on the rapid reversal of a point of "principle" :laugh:

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2019/03/jordan-peterson-claims-victory-over-whitcoulls-after-book-reinstated.html

"Unfortunately 12 Rules for Life is currently unavailable, which is a decision that Whitcoulls has made in light of some extremely disturbing material being circulated prior, during and after the Christchurch attacks," Whitcoulls said in an email.

"As a business which takes our responsibilities to our communities very seriously, we believe it would be wrong to support the author at this time. Apologies that we're not able to sell it to you, but we appreciate your understanding."

[Ocean1]

Newshub reports on the rapid reversal of a point of "principle" :laugh:

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2019/03/jordan-peterson-claims-victory-over-whitcoulls-after-book-reinstated.html

"Unfortunately 12 Rules for Life is currently unavailable, which is a decision that Whitcoulls has made in light of some extremely disturbing material being circulated prior, during and after the Christchurch attacks," Whitcoulls said in an email.

"As a business which takes our responsibilities to our communities very seriously, we believe it would be wrong to support the author at this time. Apologies that we're not able to sell it to you, but we appreciate your understanding."

Any JP reference, for me usually recalls Bill Jamieson's review quote: "verbal waterboarding for supporters of big government". :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Not difficult to understand why:

1/ Stand up straight with your shoulders back
2/ Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping
3/ Make friends with people who want the best for you
4/ Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today
5/ Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them
6/ Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world
7/ Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)
8/ Tell the truth – or, at least, don't lie
9/ Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don't
10/ Be precise in your speech
11/ Do not bother children when they are skateboarding
12/ Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street

The resident socialists would all struggle mightily with almost all of them.

[carbonhed]

Any JP reference, for me usually recalls Bill Jamieson's review quote: "verbal waterboarding for supporters of big government". :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Not difficult to understand why:

1/ Stand up straight with your shoulders back
2/ Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping
3/ Make friends with people who want the best for you
4/ Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today
5/ Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them
6/ Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world
7/ Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)
8/ Tell the truth – or, at least, don't lie
9/ Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don't
10/ Be precise in your speech
11/ Do not bother children when they are skateboarding
12/ Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street

The resident socialists would all struggle mightily with almost all of them.

Well if JP knew husaberg he'd change rule 9 fo sho.

[husaberg]

Well if JP knew husaberg he'd change rule 9 fo sho.

Really why is it Cambridge university rescinded a fellowship offer to kermit the money hungry tell them it not their fault they are losers frog.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-47694921
341432
Also not surprising given his own belief in another sky pixie. That what he was going their for was he planned to collaborate with the faculty on a lecture series on the Biblical book of Exodus.
How can it be all these right wing stars are religious nuts.
You and ocean don't know 2/3d of f all, as proven by you continued inability to back up the statements you make, when challenged.
Peterson is only interested in helping idiots give him money to tell them what they want to hear.

[carbonhed]

Really why is it Cambridge university rescinded a fellowship offer to kermit the money hungry tell them it not their fault they are losers frog.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-47694921
341432
also not surprising given his own belief in another sky pixie that what he was going their for was he planned to collaborate with the faculty on a lecture series on the Biblical book of Exodus.
How can it be all these right wing stars are religious nuts.

You and ocean don't know 2/3d of f all as proven by you continued inability to back up the statements you make when challenged.

Peterson is only interestied in helping idiots give him money to tell them what they want to hear.

When u not copypaste u rite like 5 yer old.

[husaberg]

When u not copypaste u rite like 5 yer old.

It was in reply to you.
I note you don't attempt to refute what i said.
Tell me again about how great you think you are.

[pete376403]

Any JP reference, for me usually recalls Bill Jamieson's review quote: "verbal waterboarding for supporters of big government". :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Not difficult to understand why:

1/ Stand up straight with your shoulders back
2/ Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping
3/ Make friends with people who want the best for you
4/ Compare yourself to who you were yesterday, not to who someone else is today
5/ Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them
6/ Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world
7/ Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)
8/ Tell the truth – or, at least, don't lie
9/ Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don't
10/ Be precise in your speech
11/ Do not bother children when they are skateboarding
12/ Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street

The resident socialists would all struggle mightily with almost all of them.

Why would people want the best from you (item 3) unless it was gain advantage for themselves? Human nature is like that. The others 1-10 are ok, 11 and 12, not so much

[carbonhed]

It was in reply to you.
I note you don't attempt to refute what i said.
Tell me again about how great you think you are.

You know your Flirty Friday thread that you removed all the incriminting pics of taut teen pussy from.... because you were so fucking proud of it presumably... I actually posted on that thread once... I said Creepy... you shòuld have listened. Thats how fucking great I am :lol:

[husaberg]

You know your Flirty Friday thread that you removed all the incriminting pics of taut teen pussy from.... because you were so fucking proud of it presumably... I actually posted on that thread once... I said Creepy... you shòuld have listened. Thats how fucking great I am :lol:

Sorry that more about me and nothing about what i posted in reply to you again..

ps the only pussy pics i have posted belong to cats.I have posted 14,573 pics not once as far as i m aware have i posted female genitalia
pps do you need me to spell incriminating and should for you?

[Ocean1]

Why would people want the best from you (item 3) unless it was gain advantage for themselves? Human nature is like that. The others 1-10 are ok, 11 and 12, not so much

The best for you.

Yes, the last 2 are less internally coherent, but they're all just titles for chapters in his book discussing more comprehensive behavioral observations.

[carbonhed]

ps the only pussy pics i have posted belong to cats.I have posted 14,573 pics not once as far as i m aware have i posted female genitalia
pps do you need me to spell incriminating and should for you?

Well that's what you claim now... after you've deleted them... damn suspicious. Bordering on creepy... which brings me back to my original point.

[husaberg]

Well that's what you claim now... after you've deleted them... damn suspicious. Bordering on creepy... which brings me back to my original point.
So what we have here is more of your unsubstantiated claims.
You cant delete post from 5 years ago dude. pretty sure editing privileges go after a week.
Also even when you delete posts the pics stay in your posted pics
Go knock yourself out i have nothing to hide.
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/imgbrowser.php?

[carbonhed]

So what we have here is more of your unsubstantiated claims.
You cant delete post from 5 years ago dude. pretty sure editing privileges go after a week.
Also even when you delete posts the pics stay in your posted pics
Go knock yourself out i have nothing to hide.
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/imgbrowser.php?

Yeah right... so it's a conspiracy now :laugh:

[husaberg]

Yeah right... so it's a conspiracy now :laugh:

No just you talking bollocks as normal so it must must a day of the week with an A in it.
You make claims and then when someone challenges you to produce the evidence you try and change the subject.
So go on show the evidence that backs up your claim. Go on.
Show the pics i have posted of Teenage girls vaginas in the 14,750 pics i have posted on KB

[carbonhed]

Well that's just the problem with deleting the offending pictures when you're called out on your hypocrisy... could have been anything. Why would you need to edit your historic posts if it wasn't something you weren't now ashamed of?

[husaberg]

Well that's just the problem with deleting the offending pictures when you're called out on your hypocrisy... could have been anything. Why would you need to edit your historic posts if it wasn't something you weren't now ashamed of?

As i have said you cant edit historic posts so what you are saying is crap.
Hint you are making shit up.

[carbonhed]

As i have said you cant edit historic posts so what you are saying is crap.
Hint you are making shit up.

Well the pictures were there when i first called you out on it and then they disappeared... I don't believe that you weren't involved with their removal for a fucking second. Cui Bono.

[TheDemonLord]

Why would people want the best from you (item 3) unless it was gain advantage for themselves? Human nature is like that. The others 1-10 are ok, 11 and 12, not so much

11 is about not interrupting children when they are trying to attain a level of competence in an area that both requires skill and has a degree of danger in it.

Skateboarding is something that has a risk of injury, but also has an element of Skill (Tony Hawk) - You want your children to be brave enough to face situations that have an element of Danger and have developed the necessary skillsets to be successful.

12 is something in the vein of 'remember to sniff the roses' - namely that life is difficult and hard, and if you don't take the time to enjoy the things that are good about life, then the difficulty and hardship might overwhelm you.

[husaberg]

Well the pictures were there when i first called you out on it and then they disappeared... I don't believe that you weren't involved with their removal for a fucking second. Cui Bono.

You are talking out of a hole in your posterior
Fact is you cant edit posts that were made years ago unless you are a mod or administrator, even if you are a mod, i am not sure if you can edit posts that old either.
This is the fact that makes a lie of what you are saying.

Here you go edit this post then
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/183438-The-2017-Election-Thread?p=1131119781#post1131119781

I thought Winston was going to be first in there? Maybe they're arm wrestling for the honour?
change it to say Donald duck says so. and add the video and add a picture then.
Go on if you are telling the truth it will be easy if you are not simply making it up.

[carbonhed]

You are talking out of a hole in your posterior
Fact is you cant edit posts that were made years ago unless you are a mod or administrator, even if you are a mod, i am not sure if you can edit posts that old either.
This is the fact that makes a lie of what you are saying.

Yeah Yeah. It's a fucking strange thread without all the shit you deleted. Completely insane.

Call your buddy to get me banned.

[husaberg]

Yeah Yeah. It's a fucking strange thread without all the shit you deleted. Completely insane.
Call your buddy to get me banned.

Go on edit the post i gave you, you have the same user rights as i do.
I cant edit posts that are over whatever the rule is 1 week 10 days or a month, whatever the rule is, no more than you can.
thus what you are saying is total crap.
You seem to be flat out avoiding this fact.

edit this post then
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/183438-The-2017-Election-Thread?p=1131119781#post1131119781

I thought Winston was going to be first in there? Maybe they're arm wrestling for the honour?
change it to say Donald duck says so. and add the video and add a picture as well then.
Go on if you are telling the truth it will be easy....... if you are not simply making it up.


You know your Flirty Friday thread that you removed all the incriminting pics of taut teen pussy from.... because you were so fucking proud of it presumably... I actually posted on that thread once... I said Creepy... you shòuld have listened. Thats how fucking great I am :lol:

Well that's what you claim now... after you've deleted them... damn suspicious. Bordering on creepy... which brings me back to my original point.

Well that's just the problem with deleting the offending pictures when you're called out on your hypocrisy... could have been anything. Why would you need to edit your historic posts if it wasn't something you weren't now ashamed of?

Well the pictures were there when i first called you out on it and then they disappeared... I don't believe that you weren't involved with their removal for a fucking second. Cui Bono.

[FJRider]

Go on edit the post i gave you, you have the same user rights as i do.


I cant edit posts that are over whatever the rule is 1 week 10 days or a month, whatever the rule is, no more than you can.

I can edit the posts I made in 2008. Perhaps then you should not tell others what their abilities are ... judging theirs ... by your own inabilities.

[husaberg]

I can edit the posts I made in 2008. Perhaps then you should not tell others what their abilities are ... judging theirs ... by your own inabilities.

Go on then edit this post then
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/185821-Waterproof-neck-warmer-for-god-s-sake?p=1131107041#post1131107041

Fur lined is not politically correct ... go for that ... :shifty:

Change it to say, I are a lying egg

[Katman]

Call your buddy to get me banned.

Get in line.

[speedpro]

I just had a look at my own #6 thread. i only have the option to edit posts that are from March 2019. Older posts do not have the edit option.

[R650R]

https://joannenova.com.au/2024/01/wef-say-worlds-greatest-threat-is-misinformation-the-biggest-threat-to-experts-and-billionaires-is-free-speech/

Finally, they admit that Free Speech is more scary than climate change
The WEF, being the billionaire’s ski club — are of course, talking about the worlds greatest threat to them, not to you.

In the WEF Global Risks Report they asked 1,490 experts and leaders and their the list of biggest risks in the next two years was misinformation and disinformation. Forget bioweapons, nuclear bombs, wars, corruption, asteroids, inflation and global boiling — the thing that keeps the favored “experts” awake at night is whether people will point out their flaws and expose the rorts* that put them at the top of the pile.

The “Misinformation and Disinformation” line is dressed up as a concern that AI generated or false information is the problem, but note the giveaway — those in authority are most worried about public opinion shifting to distrust those in authority — as if “authority” could never be wrong.

Blind trust is how you build nations right?

Persistent false information (deliberate or otherwise) widely spread through media networks, shifting public opinion in a significant way towards distrust in facts and authority. Includes, but is not limited to: false, imposter, manipulated and fabricated content.

Fake news has been around since the StoneAge, and the only way to deal with it is to correct it with better information, not with gatekeepers of truth or government rules. Free speech works because anyone caught spreading lies got a bad reputation, and everyone else was free to repeat that.

How is it that those who control the research grants, the media licenses, and one third of the whole economy could be unable to defend themselves? Do they lack a thousand paid agents with supercomputers, guns and security passes to find out the truth? Nay, these are the poor poppets who only have whole institutions, ministries, and public broadcasters with budgets of billions to tell their side of the story. The problem is they have everything on their side except the truth.

Their greatest fear is that you might hear the other side
Imagine the billionaires have puppets and allies among politics and bureaucrats, and have set up a system of grift and graft where they creamed off nice profits for fixing the weather, say, while they flew on their jets and cruised on their yachts. Imagine the plumbers and truckies found out that the medicines they were forced to take were contaminated, the climate was controlled by sun, not their car, and their children were being taught to hate the country the plumbers and truckies had built.

The WEF want to stop the workers getting angry, not by fixing the problem but by keeping the workers in the dark:

[husaberg]

https://joannenova.com.au/2024/01/wef-say-worlds-greatest-threat-is-misinformation-the-biggest-threat-to-experts-and-billionaires-is-free-speech/

Finally, they admit that Free Speech is more scary than climate change
The WEF, being the billionaire’s ski club — are of course, talking about the worlds greatest threat to them, not to you.

In the WEF Global Risks Report they asked 1,490 experts and leaders and their the list of biggest risks in the next two years was misinformation and disinformation. Forget bioweapons, nuclear bombs, wars, corruption, asteroids, inflation and global boiling — the thing that keeps the favored “experts” awake at night is whether people will point out their flaws and expose the rorts* that put them at the top of the pile.

The “Misinformation and Disinformation” line is dressed up as a concern that AI generated or false information is the problem, but note the giveaway — those in authority are most worried about public opinion shifting to distrust those in authority — as if “authority” could never be wrong.

Blind trust is how you build nations right?

Persistent false information (deliberate or otherwise) widely spread through media networks, shifting public opinion in a significant way towards distrust in facts and authority. Includes, but is not limited to: false, imposter, manipulated and fabricated content.

Fake news has been around since the StoneAge, and the only way to deal with it is to correct it with better information, not with gatekeepers of truth or government rules. Free speech works because anyone caught spreading lies got a bad reputation, and everyone else was free to repeat that.

How is it that those who control the research grants, the media licenses, and one third of the whole economy could be unable to defend themselves? Do they lack a thousand paid agents with supercomputers, guns and security passes to find out the truth? Nay, these are the poor poppets who only have whole institutions, ministries, and public broadcasters with budgets of billions to tell their side of the story. The problem is they have everything on their side except the truth.

Their greatest fear is that you might hear the other side
Imagine the billionaires have puppets and allies among politics and bureaucrats, and have set up a system of grift and graft where they creamed off nice profits for fixing the weather, say, while they flew on their jets and cruised on their yachts. Imagine the plumbers and truckies found out that the medicines they were forced to take were contaminated, the climate was controlled by sun, not their car, and their children were being taught to hate the country the plumbers and truckies had built.

The WEF want to stop the workers getting angry, not by fixing the problem but by keeping the workers in the dark:
2/15 troll...

[george formby]

2/15 troll...

If you only inhabit a bit of the internet which consistently feeds a narrative, not facts, and consequently you have faith in the conjecture which you then share, much like JW's, are you still a troll, or guided by a (supposed) greater good?

A bit of original, considered and realistic thought would be refreshing to see.

[husaberg]

If you only inhabit a bit of the internet which consistently feeds a narrative, not facts, and consequently you have faith in the conjecture which you then share, much like JW's, are you still a troll, or guided by a (supposed) greater good?

A bit of original, considered and realistic thought would be refreshing to see.

i am not sure i get your point ,but considering the post i replied to what about the danger of misinformation being spread. it was rather surprising to see it was posted by one of the most prolific posters of misinformation on this forum. I suggest he knows he's posting misinformation as quite frankly its not possible to be as stupid to believe what he posts.
A relgious nutter is esentusally the same as a conspiracy theorist to me

https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/188175-The-journey-that-COVID-19-will-take-us-on?p=1131192736#post1131192736




The media are tripping over themselves trying to solve the mystery of why Africans aren't dying from covid as badly as the west.
Africans routinely take a cheap safe anti malaria drug invented in n 1960's called hydroxychloroquine....
Scooby Doo would solve that puzzle faster

Your odds of dying from Covid in NZ is about the same as winning Powerball....
People dream of winning powerball, actively visit known powerball superspreader hot zones twice a week in hope of winning...

Meanwhile about 6 times as many people die in drink drive car crashes.
We even have mass random surveillance testing for that too, typically about 1.5-2% are ‘ infected’ with the influence of alcohol.....
Would we tolerate say a 24hr lockdown every time you bought a beer at bar?
Or after your night at the bar you don’t leave through the front door, a govt agent escorts you to a ‘quarantine ‘ facility which you can’t leave for 24 hrs.
Just imagine that, we would ABSOLUTELY save 150 lives a year
The govt will NEVER do that so why all this crap with the virus where the potential victim has a 93% chance of not even needing hospital treatment...

An interesting angle on why the west is so reluctant to properly step up to the mark with real assistance, articulated on another website....

Apparentky with Russia’s new superior air defence weapons they are petrified of their flagship f35 “ stealth” fighters being shot down among other technical issues.
It seems a lot of the modern gear mightn’t do what’s says on the sides of the pretty packaging box.....
This kind of meshes well with words of the Tornado pilot whose book I mentioned elsewhere. When they went to gulf war they knew Saddam had heaps of half decent gear but whete horrified at just how much of a fight the air defence systems put up...,

Also it’s kinda ironic that modern nations are in effect virtue signalling by listing the specific amounts of what they are sending. Do politicians realise it’s a war and not just a Facebook status update for nation

Well well well, our journey into communist hell continues.

There has only been 1650 alleged cases (out of 700,000 tests!!!!) of the virus, but what has spread faster has been submission to communist control.
Nearly 2 million have downloaded the Covid app so you can be sent to a govt “ health” camp to catch the virus if you didnt already have it.

But yay 3 million kiwis have said no to turning their phone into govt spy device.

Tommorow is D-day, public transport will be the barometer of how many of us have rolled belly up to mask wearing.
Hopefully most will say screw this shit and drive their cars to work.

You don’t have to wear a mask if it affects your physical or mental health and you do NOT need to present documents to prove this.

Out and about it’s refreshing to see nearly No one scanning the qr code thingy.

It’s quite clear now as the mountain of contradictions grow that it’s not about stopping the “virus”..


Masks are for destroying social interaction and communication with strangers. You know those moments in life when some shitbag is bashing his missus and enough of you make visual contact to know you’ve got each other back and intervene.
But with masks there will never be any Flight 93 “lets roll” moments of bravery, you’ll never know if your fellow citizen is a Karen or Stasi as you reluctantly board the blacked out train carriage...
A cop will never see your friendly smile, never know you like them and not let you off that minor stop sign indescretion...

There’s two ways this pans out... the virus magically mostly disappears and we return to some form of normal rampant consumerism after being tattooed/implanted with bill gates digital ID2020 social/vaccine passport
Certificate
Of
Vaccination
I
D

Covid

Or this virus turns out to be as nasty as they say it is. Then we have at least three years living under full blown communism to control spread til it naturally mutates itself out of existence as all virus strains do. This will be a major worldwide depression and everyone will be off to workcamps in exchange for food as all western economies will be crippled by the early welfare dolled out to “keep the economy going”

One thing Is for sure either way, given the chance of a crisis govt will pass new laws and taxes to “save us”.... next election will be very interesting

The Covid tracer app stops the spread of the virus just as effectively as mandatory carrying of drivers licence stops unlicensed drivers from driving cars.

It’s kinda pointless though really, Jacinda has just demonstrated how willing the govt is to plunge the country into draconian lockdowns again for a few cases...
Now if EVERYONE in the current outbreak had scanned the SAME amount of people would be infected, the virus doesn’t care if your Bluetooth is on or not.
The resulting lockdown would prob be worse as with two deg of separation in modern society it would prob show even more people at risk of infection spreading...

But I guess we’ll all find that out soon enough when they decree it mandatory to scan everywhere

Too many scientists are coming out now and saying this virus is not natural. Its a bio warfare weapon and probably a race specific one too.
China was set to become the worlds new super power by 2050 as per there goal, an economic and military powerhouse that wouldnt be threatened by sanctions anymore.
USA knows they cant win a hot war so resorted to this. But they stuffed up by outsourcing the final component to a chinese lab to provide plausible deniability if they got caught. They got bit in the arse by poor chinese quality control and ended up witha weak version of what they wanted.
It was released at the world military games in wuhan just like a similar story on tom clancy novel about "terrorists". One of their own bought it home accidently and caused a mini outbreak in USA which was the vaping deaths which didnt stay in news long....
The Chinese are smart and know they getting done over so they playing 4D chess and milking it to murder political dissidents and havea good sweep out of their society. They know by playing it up they could cripple us economically with lockdowns as they knew our leaders would panic.
Thats why Trump was so quick in closing borders because he knew what was at play.
The virus is a minor nuisance though, its a acheived their goal though, a world wide communist police state lockdown that they never got with 911 as that wasnt scary enough for the masses to give away freedom.
As per usual with an "unprecedented " event they held an exercise simulating the same months earlier called Event 201...


But he did visit the Wuhan lab several years ago with Obama and gave them 1.5$M of taxpayer money....Too many scientists are coming out now and saying this virus is not natural. Its a bio warfare weapon and probably a race specific one too.
China was set to become the worlds new super power by 2050 as per there goal, an economic and military powerhouse that wouldnt be threatened by sanctions anymore.
USA knows they cant win a hot war so resorted to this. But they stuffed up by outsourcing the final component to a chinese lab to provide plausible deniability if they got caught. They got bit in the arse by poor chinese quality control and ended up witha weak version of what they wanted.
It was released at the world military games in wuhan just like a similar story on tom clancy novel about "terrorists". One of their own bought it home accidently and caused a mini outbreak in USA which was the vaping deaths which didnt stay in news long....
The Chinese are smart and know they getting done over so they playing 4D chess and milking it to murder political dissidents and havea good sweep out of their society. They know by playing it up they could cripple us economically with lockdowns as they knew our leaders would panic.
Thats why Trump was so quick in closing borders because he knew what was at play.
The virus is a minor nuisance though, its a acheived their goal though, a world wide communist police state lockdown that they never got with 911 as that wasnt scary enough for the masses to give away freedom.
As per usual with an "unprecedented " event they held an exercise simulating the same months earlier called Event 201...