Free speech.

[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 ...

"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 ...

[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

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

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?