Free speech.

[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

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

"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



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

"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

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.