Free speech.

[husaberg]

If you remove all context from them, and interpret them in the most spastic way possible.

The only reason for doing so would be because the actual point being made isn't refutable.

It's like we have a coin toss - I'm saying that regardless of whether it's a Head or a Tail, there's a ~50% chance of it being Heads or Tails - you are arguing that because I don't know whether it happens to be a Head or a Tail, I can't make that statement.

And then demanding that I answer if it's a Head or a Tail as proof of some form of Victory.

You are the one arguing here i am asking a simple series of questions.

Were they Twitter FB Ytube etc within their legal rights to ban Jones based on his conduct and content yes or no?
Has jones posted material that was in breach of the site rules yes or no?

Its nothing like a coin toss The thing is you do know the answer you just dont want to answer the question.
Your motives for your avoidance of the question point towards that you know that if you admit this is the case you wont be able to infer it because of other reasons which you are quite willing to do despite not having any evidence.

[pritch]

however I'll again point to Trump's twitter account, it's now considered a Public Space and bound by the protections of the 1st Amendment.

True, because Trump uses it to disseminate policy, and has said he does so. So far though he may be unique. If for instance the Vice President only posted cat pictures and local church news, 1A protections would not apply.

[TheDemonLord]

You are the one arguing here i am asking a simple series of questions

You mean trying to Strawman my argument by asking irrelevant questions.

Its nothing like a coin toss The thing is you do know the answer you just dont want to answer the question.
Your motives for your avoidance of the question point towards that you know that if you admit this is the case you wont be able to infer it because of other reasons which you are quite willing to do despite not having any evidence.

The answer is irrelevant to the point I'm making. Any attempt to make it relevant is simply a display of intellectual cowardice on your part.

The inference I make is relevant regardless of what your opinion on whether or not he breached the ToS is, therefore any questioning along the lines of whether or not he breached them is....

IRRELEVANT!

[husaberg]

You mean trying to Strawman my argument by asking irrelevant questions.

!

only problem it was you yourself that acknowledged it was relevant.
Your unwillingness to answer it even if it wasn't relevant points to your knowledge it is highly relevant.

Whatever Alex did that was supposedly in breach of the ToS (and if this were a legal case - a lawyer would have a field day with the vagueness of the ToS) warranted a ban,

There's my point.
If they are banning him on his behaviour

The only claim I've made is that if his alleged breach of the ToS warranted a Ban.

If he is not guilty, his ban was not due to a ToS breach..

I'll clarify the distinction - No one would complain about them removing illegal content.

And then they came after him, in a manner that suggests a degree of Collusion.

Were they Twitter FB Ytube etc within their legal rights to ban Jones based on his conduct and content yes or no?
Has jones posted material that was in breach of the site rules yes or no?

The answer is irrelevant to the point I'm making. Any attempt to make it relevant is simply a display of intellectual cowardice on your part.

There is only one coward here and that is you. Too scared to answer a simple question but very quick to accuse others of being guilty of the same issue.
IF you are going to bring forward conspiracy theories from now on at least show some degree of intestinal fortitude in answering simple questions about the conspiracy you are trying to put forward.
Unless you are just trying to be Katspam

[Ocean1]

You mean trying to Strawman my argument by asking irrelevant questions.



The answer is irrelevant to the point I'm making. Any attempt to make it relevant is simply a display of intellectual cowardice on your part.

The inference I make is relevant regardless of what your opinion on whether or not he breached the ToS is, therefore any questioning along the lines of whether or not he breached them is....

IRRELEVANT!

FFS, dude, just ask a question!

Any question!

That's all it takes!... Apparently.

Well OK, you have to ask it 43 times.

But then you win!

Ah, looks like it helps to multi-quote shit you're pretending to question, too...

And THEN you're the winner!

At least, inside your own head.

[Voltaire]

you

need

more

quotes

SOME CAPITALS

a non MSM link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAnZ9Txv8XQ

and an air of being more informed

[FJRider]

Not only that, when you think about it hes the one claimed he got off his last ticket and that all cops are corrupt......

At least he wouldn't get an "Over-width" charge ... possibly "wasting police time" though ...

[FJRider]

If you are handing out qualifications, then I'll take it...

Swollen head syndrome already ...

On the contrary, I think it'd be more interesting if you did manage to offend.

I must try harder ...

If you treat a group different based solely on Race, then yes - that's Racism. It doesn't matter if it's positive or negative.

Do you disagree with that statement? If not, can you tell me how a policy of letting people off for a particular crime based solely on their race isn't racist?

Even if the intent was benevolent?

Surprisingly ... a lot of it is because it's simply the only card most can play. Especially if it is ONLY to attract attention to a perceived issue. Usually based more on their ignorance than on intent to offend. Although intent to offend is a common issue.

Nah, I've just tried to be more careful with spelling... and besides - surely it would be a Thesaurus you are thinking of, if one is seeking to expand their vocabulary...

Your spelling is usually ok ... but you would be correct in having your Thesaurus (rather than your dictionary) handy ... people might think English is your second language.

What country ARE you originally from ...

[Graystone]

"If he is guilty, then so are others (who have not been banned) based solely on their actions (not Alex Jones) and the ToS - therefore his ban was not just due to a ToS breach.
If he is not guilty, his ban was not due to a ToS breach."

See how there is no requirement to do with anything in relation to what Alex Jones actually said/did.



What statistical backing?

Here's the original paper that coined the phrase: http://www.collegeart.org/pdf/divers...-privilege.pdf

Would you care to show me the Statistical analysis? The hint is in the full title of the piece:



Every Statistic you will present is merely an attempt at a post hoc justification.



I love how hard you are tying yourself in knots here, to justify the unjustifiable.

"White Male" is a group.

So to answer your question - is everyone who uses the word Women sexist? Well that depends on the context doesn't it... I'm sure you'd agree the statement "Women can't drive" is Sexist, It's implying a negative attribute applied to an entire group of People.

Just like "White Male Privilege" also implies a negative attribute to an entire group of people.

ToS bans are not binary, for broken or unbroken, they're based on degree, and discretion. To show unfairness you do need to look at the reason for the ban.

And what is wrong with posthoc justification in this case? The condition already existed, it just lacked a name with a nice ring to it.

How is privilege applying a negative attribute to an entire group of people?

[Ocean1]

How is privilege applying a negative attribute to an entire group of people?

Because it infers that the group didn't earn whatever "advantages" they're "privileged" to receive.

Which is more or less THE philosophical calling card for all of socialism.

[Drew]

Because it infers that the group didn't earn whatever "advantages" they're "privileged" to receive.

Implies.

But what I take it to imply is that other groups are not being afforded the same RIGHTS as I am. Simply because they weren't born a white Male.

Same coin, different stamp.

[TheDemonLord]

Swollen head syndrome already ...

Funny that, I checked my Helmet size, it's still a Medium - so can't be that bad :P

Surprisingly ... a lot of it is because it's simply the only card most can play. Especially if it is ONLY to attract attention to a perceived issue. Usually based more on their ignorance than on intent to offend. Although intent to offend is a common issue.

I agree to a point. If you keep lazily playing the Race card, eventually it will loose it's impact - like the Boy who cried Wolf.

Your spelling is usually ok ... but you would be correct in having your Thesaurus (rather than your dictionary) handy ... people might think English is your second language.

What country ARE you originally from ...

Well, I speak British first, English second :P

[TheDemonLord]

ToS bans are not binary, for broken or unbroken, they're based on degree, and discretion. To show unfairness you do need to look at the reason for the ban.

Aren't they? Because all of the big companies at multiple occasions have declared that Hate Speech has no place on their platforms. That's an absolute statement. Not one that is based on Degree or Discretion.

The terms of Service are quite vague and they've been keen to avoid outright stating it's discretionary - because that would mean they hold editorial/publishing power, which nullifies their defence of not being liable for the content posted on their site.

So given the ToS don't state there are degrees of infraction (only that which is allowed and that which is not) and the companies multiple statements about the Binary nature (This has no place on our platform)

Just how do you support that statement?

So no, I don't need to look at the reason for Alex Jones Ban - despite your and Husa's desperation (which happens to be rather telling...)

And what is wrong with posthoc justification in this case? The condition already existed, it just lacked a name with a nice ring to it.

Simple: They have no academic standards or statistical discipline to ensure that the subsequent studies aren't biased. All of the research in this field is based off of proving an Ideal, as opposed to doing actual research. They equate causation with correlation, based on a presupposition that is never questioned.

And no, the Condition didn't already exist, it's never been proven to exist and remains solely in the domain of the Activist left.

How is privilege applying a negative attribute to an entire group of people?

Ocean summed it up nicely.

[Ocean1]

Implies.

But what I take it to imply is that other groups are not being afforded the same RIGHTS as I am. Simply because they weren't born a white Male.

Same coin, different stamp.

Probably.

The original meaning was "having special rights or advantages". Which, you could make a compelling argument applies to pretty much any group EXCEPT white males.


But the interesting bit is Dictionary.com's more recent: "belonging to a class that enjoys special privileges" Which goes to show that if you misuse definitions long enough and lobby hard enough you CAN make definitions conform to your world view. But the problem with that is still: the evel white male bogeyman actually enjoys fewer priveliges, (or rights, or advantages) than pretty much any other group you can name.

The observation that white males appear better off than other groups isn't the problem, the problem is the assumption that they're only better off because they enjoyed special rights and privileges, (TM). The disappointing thing is that pointing out that the opposite is true is seen as "punching down", socially untenable.

[husaberg]

So no, I don't need to look at the reason for Alex Jones Ban - despite your and Husa's desperation (which happens to be rather telling...)

Really the only deperation displayed is your total avoidence of the reason and justification as to why he was banned.
Your attempts to say its not relevent, is just amusing and points to you trying to your total deseperation to by any means justify your illogical thought process and subsequent conpiracy theory.
You offer up all these alternative conspiracy theory's, while you fail to aknowlege that the sites were well within their rights to ban him for breaching their rules.