Free speech.

[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...-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

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

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...-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.

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.

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.

[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

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.