Free speech.

[TheDemonLord]

What point is that that, that somehow in TDL land and in kindergartens another’s guilt or not somehow hinges on the actions of others who might have perpetrated a similar action without being caught.
That was ruled out ages ago.
You see the guilt of an individual in the rel world is decided on his own actions or non actions

Except I've never made that point.

I've not contested Alex Jones guilt or otherwise. Your repeated attempts to set this strawman up are both pitiful and revealing.

[husaberg]

Except I've never made that point.

I've not contested Alex Jones guilt or otherwise. Your repeated attempts to set this strawman up are both pitiful and revealing.

Its you that is offering the stawman.
I refuted your argument.
You are the one offering up multiple associated things when the real crux of the discussion was Alex Jones conduct and subsequent banishment from various forms of social media.
You seek to continually turn it into a political motivated conspiracy theory situation where as all the evidence points to the the far more likely scenario that it is simply a cause and effect situation.
That is why every time Jones apparent guilt is pointed out you claim it to be "irrelevant to the situation",
When in fact it is to anyone who is not trying to promote a conspiracy theory as to why he was ejected from the social media platforms

[Graystone]

What a post-modern answer... Problem is, we have definitions, which are agreed upon by the majority of People. We know the definition of Hate Speech, except for the left-wing radicals who are now realizing that it encompasses their rhetoric.

Just like they are trying to redefine Racism.



Given that it is contradicting to both statements made by the CEOs, the Companies PR department AND the actual ToS themselves - then yeah, you do need to prove it.

Unless you want to concede the point I'm making - that the discretion you are claiming exists will be influenced by the self-declared biases of the companies



It's supported by a large volume of circumstantial data. I'll again refer to Sarah Jeong vs Candace Owen - Candace was banned, Sarah was not. For the same tweet, with just the group changed.

The difference between the 2 ladies - Candace is an outspoken Conservative, Sarah is on the Left.



The Social sciences have some pretty rabid post-modern influences.



Privilege (in the way you are using) is a negative attribute.

I'll make it really simple:

"Racism/sexism is characterized by the judgment of someone based on their group membership"

Like saying "White Men have Privilege".

Seems awfully evasive for something you claim is well known...

Given it isn't contradicting reality though... Perhaps you could show how it is contradicting the CEO's etc...

Circumstantial data is just that, not even up to the standard of confirmation studies which you do not allow, you how can you justify using such circumstantial rubbish to support your point?

Irrelevant, I'm asking you to explain why confirmation studies are not allowed in this field, and why the field you have defined for this is so unreasonably narrow.

Saying white men have privilege is not describing someone based on their group membership though; it's a description of the group. Please try to understand simple english.

[TheDemonLord]

Seems awfully evasive for something you claim is well known...

Yeah, except that I've previously posted the definition of Hate Speech...

Given it isn't contradicting reality though... Perhaps you could show how it is contradicting the CEO's etc...

"Hate speech has no place on our platform" - that's an absolute statement, not one that implies a degree of Discretion (which you are claiming).

Circumstantial data is just that, not even up to the standard of confirmation studies which you do not allow, you how can you justify using such circumstantial rubbish to support your point?

More bait and switch.

Irrelevant, I'm asking you to explain why confirmation studies are not allowed in this field, and why the field you have defined for this is so unreasonably narrow.

The safeguards against bias are not present on those fields. The Methodologies aren't robust and the statistical analysis are laughable.

That's why.

As for the narrowness, it's almost like there a common reason that links them together.

Saying white men have privilege is not describing someone based on their group membership though; it's a description of the group. Please try to understand simple english.

Except some people are White Men, so yes, it's EXACTLY describing someone based on their group Membership.

Stop trying to justify your Racism and Sexism.

[Graystone]

Yeah, except that I've previously posted the definition of Hate Speech...



"Hate speech has no place on our platform" - that's an absolute statement, not one that implies a degree of Discretion (which you are claiming).



More bait and switch.



The safeguards against bias are not present on those fields. The Methodologies aren't robust and the statistical analysis are laughable.

That's why.

As for the narrowness, it's almost like there a common reason that links them together.



Except some people are White Men, so yes, it's EXACTLY describing someone based on their group Membership.

Stop trying to justify your Racism and Sexism.

Shouldn't be too hard to pull out again then... (like your father should have)

is that it? seriously?

In what sense is that bait and switch? You've clearly shown a double standard again, where reasoning behind your opinion has a much lower bar for acceptance than those in opposition to it.

Safeguards against bias? Are they not peer reviewed then? Is this the whole of social science that lacks safeguards? Or is this a special exception where we just discount evidence because you don't like it for specific topic within that field?

You've really lost the plot here haven't you? A groups attributes do NOT automatically describe the attributes of any/all members within that group, this is basic shit. Interesting to note just how sensitive to being called sexist/racist you are, struck a little to close to the bone I guess.

[TheDemonLord]

Shouldn't be too hard to pull out again then... (like your father should have)

Or you could have some honesty here...

is that it? seriously?

It's more than you've got.

In what sense is that bait and switch? You've clearly shown a double standard again, where reasoning behind your opinion has a much lower bar for acceptance than those in opposition to it.

Am I making a peer reviewed scientific claim?

Safeguards against bias? Are they not peer reviewed then? Is this the whole of social science that lacks safeguards? Or is this a special exception where we just discount evidence because you don't like it for specific topic within that field?

Peer reviewed by people who hold the same a priori assumptions and underlying presuppositions. Which is no real Peer Review at all.

It's not that I don't like the evidence, it's because it's deliberately manipulated to prove a point.

You've really lost the plot here haven't you? A groups attributes do NOT automatically describe the attributes of any/all members within that group, this is basic shit. Interesting to note just how sensitive to being called sexist/racist you are, struck a little to close to the bone I guess.

Okay - let's try this experiment:

"Maori are Criminals"

Is that Racist?

Afterall, according to you - "A groups attributes do NOT automatically describe the attributes of any/all members within that group"

[Graystone]

Or you could have some honesty here...



It's more than you've got.



Am I making a peer reviewed scientific claim?



Peer reviewed by people who hold the same a priori assumptions and underlying presuppositions. Which is no real Peer Review at all.

It's not that I don't like the evidence, it's because it's deliberately manipulated to prove a point.



Okay - let's try this experiment:

"Maori are Criminals"

Is that Racist?

Afterall, according to you - "A groups attributes do NOT automatically describe the attributes of any/all members within that group"

Thanks for conceding the first two points.

No but you are putting your claims up against the others, thus the bar should be the same.

What an utter crock of shit. As no evidence is forthcoming to back up your points, it is clear you seek to throw out all the scientific findings on one topic simply because you do not agree with them.

Dude, learn some fucking english. The equivalent would be 'maori crime', the "are" you inserted completely changes the meaning from an attribute to a description.

[TheDemonLord]

Thanks for conceding the first two points.

I think you are mistaking a dismissive reply to pathetic 'questions' as some form of victory.

You've started a point, I've made a counterpoint backed by statements from the group(s) and people in question. You've merely asserted that your interpretation of events is correct with ZERO supporting evidence. But even worse than that:

My Claim is that based on their actions there is a clear political bias.
Your claim is that based on their actions there is clearly some discretion (acknowledging my point) but you eschew any possibility of political leaning having any influence completely out of hand.

You've already conceded the point, but then arbitrarily state that Politics could not have anything to do with it.

No but you are putting your claims up against the others, thus the bar should be the same.

In what universe? You are dead set on setting up this false equivalence.

What an utter crock of shit. As no evidence is forthcoming to back up your points, it is clear you seek to throw out all the scientific findings on one topic simply because you do not agree with them.

Except, you know, the 4 separate mantras I cited where the "scientific findings" were all ideologically driven horseshit that would have any serious statistician laughing their ass off.

Dude, learn some fucking english. The equivalent would be 'maori crime', the "are" you inserted completely changes the meaning from an attribute to a description.

Glad you agree - so what is the implication of "White Male Privilege" - it's the Idea that "White Men" *cue drumroll* ARE "Privileged".

Which is why it's Racist and Sexist. It's why anyone who spouts the "White Male Privilege" crap is ALSO a racist and a sexist, which finally is why the left is currently trying to redefine Racism and Sexism so they don't fall afoul of the standards they implemented.

[Graystone]

I think you are mistaking a dismissive reply to pathetic 'questions' as some form of victory.

You've started a point, I've made a counterpoint backed by statements from the group(s) and people in question. You've merely asserted that your interpretation of events is correct with ZERO supporting evidence. But even worse than that:

My Claim is that based on their actions there is a clear political bias.
Your claim is that based on their actions there is clearly some discretion (acknowledging my point) but you eschew any possibility of political leaning having any influence completely out of hand.

You've already conceded the point, but then arbitrarily state that Politics could not have anything to do with it.



In what universe? You are dead set on setting up this false equivalence.



Except, you know, the 4 separate mantras I cited where the "scientific findings" were all ideologically driven horseshit that would have any serious statistician laughing their ass off.



Glad you agree - so what is the implication of "White Male Privilege" - it's the Idea that "White Men" *cue drumroll* ARE "Privileged".

Which is why it's Racist and Sexist. It's why anyone who spouts the "White Male Privilege" crap is ALSO a racist and a sexist, which finally is why the left is currently trying to redefine Racism and Sexism so they don't fall afoul of the standards they implemented.

Given you pedantry on anything you think you are right on, I'm not sure you're capable of genuine dismissal...

The discretion is in regard to how far the ToS have been breached. You have provided no evidence that it is politically motivated at all. A piss poor attempt at correlation is utterly laughable.

You've said their conclusions are wrong, in what universe is that not a claim against theirs?

Cited? Where? I recall you blithering on about some shit you disagreed with, but citations to the peer reviewed articles in question has not been provided.

But there is no 'are' in the term I used, but you had to put one in the term you used. That's the difference, in simple english. I know you're not very well educated, but even you should be able to understand that.

[husaberg]

Not exactly a conspiracy...

The closest thing I've come to a "Conspiracy" is by pointing to a fair degree of circumstantial evidence...

........................

My Claim is that based on their actions there is a clear political bias..

well it was your opinion...... then it was circumstantial evidence ......now its there was clear bias
Are you convincing yourself there was a conspiracy.........

[TheDemonLord]

Given you pedantry on anything you think you are right on, I'm not sure you're capable of genuine dismissal...

Sargons Law.

The discretion is in regard to how far the ToS have been breached. You have provided no evidence that it is politically motivated at all. A piss poor attempt at correlation is utterly laughable.

Right - except Discretion is not mentioned or specified anywhere in the ToS or statements by the Company.

You are happy to concede a point that by the standards you are setting for the political point 'has no evidence', yet when it comes to a point you disagree suddenly its "There's no Evidence"

So which is it? Either there is no evidence - and therefore there is no discretion that you can prove or you have to concede that the levels of Evidence are inferred and so you cannot dismiss out of hand the notion that politics is a factor in the Discretion.

You've said their conclusions are wrong, in what universe is that not a claim against theirs?

Okay. The claims I make against Post-Modern infected "disciplines" are separate from the claims I'm making about Twitter.

Trying to conflate the 2 is a Bait and Switch.

Cited? Where? I recall you blithering on about some shit you disagreed with, but citations to the peer reviewed articles in question has not been provided.

I've referred to several well-known examples of flawed studies that were used to further reinforce a narrative driven conclusion.

You're just being dishonest here. Probably because you don't want to go down that road.

But there is no 'are' in the term I used, but you had to put one in the term you used. That's the difference, in simple english. I know you're not very well educated, but even you should be able to understand that.

If no White Men ARE privileged, There can be no such phenomena as "White Male Privilege"

And since you've acknowledged that the form "Group of people based on Protected Characteristic ARE Negative Attribute" is a form of Prejudice, then so to it must follow that "White Male Privilege" as a concept is wholly Racist and Sexist.

I despair that we even have to argue this.

You should try moving past Simple English, it's stunting your ability to reason.

[TheDemonLord]

........................

well it was your opinion...... then it was circumstantial evidence ......now its there was clear bias
Are you convincing yourself there was a conspiracy.........

Yes, Opinion, based on Circumstantial evidence, that shows Clear bias.

I've not said there is a Conspiracy.

[Graystone]

Sargons Law.



Right - except Discretion is not mentioned or specified anywhere in the ToS or statements by the Company.

You are happy to concede a point that by the standards you are setting for the political point 'has no evidence', yet when it comes to a point you disagree suddenly its "There's no Evidence"

So which is it? Either there is no evidence - and therefore there is no discretion that you can prove or you have to concede that the levels of Evidence are inferred and so you cannot dismiss out of hand the notion that politics is a factor in the Discretion.



Okay. The claims I make against Post-Modern infected "disciplines" are separate from the claims I'm making about Twitter.

Trying to conflate the 2 is a Bait and Switch.



I've referred to several well-known examples of flawed studies that were used to further reinforce a narrative driven conclusion.

You're just being dishonest here. Probably because you don't want to go down that road.



If no White Men ARE privileged, There can be no such phenomena as "White Male Privilege"

And since you've acknowledged that the form "Group of people based on Protected Characteristic ARE Negative Attribute" is a form of Prejudice, then so to it must follow that "White Male Privilege" as a concept is wholly Racist and Sexist.

I despair that we even have to argue this.

You should try moving past Simple English, it's stunting your ability to reason.

Argument from Authority.

It's in the ToS that they reserve the right to remove content. Reserving the right, means by discretion. Seems like pretty good evidence to me Now if only you had some to support your political bias notion...

I have not conflated the two at all. That point was always about peer reviewed science and nothing to do with twitter.

Referring to examples is not citing though is it? The key difference is you're hiding behind that bullshit instead of pointing me to the source as you know I'll just show why your interpretation is wrong, again.

For fucks sake, learn some english, Christ it isn't that hard. Just because some members in a group have an attribute doesn't mean all members do; I know you're sexist and racist, but even so, that should not be a difficult concept to grasp.

[husaberg]

Yes, Opinion, based on Circumstantial evidence, that shows Clear bias.

I've not said there is a Conspiracy.

No you said there was a clear political bias.... thats not written as being your opinion (which it is) but you wrote it as if it was a fact.

there is a clear political bias.

As for not stating there was a conspiracy you constantly infer there was one.

Or they were colluding behind the scenes. And given the physical proximity of those companies and other factors - that's well within the realms of possibility.

[TheDemonLord]

Argument from Authority.

It's not an Argument... It's an observation...

It's in the ToS that they reserve the right to remove content. Reserving the right, means by discretion. Seems like pretty good evidence to me Now if only you had some to support your political bias notion...

They also say that Hate Speech has no place on their platform - that's an absolute...

However, in your "where's your evidence for Political bias" - when the CEO says they have a left leaningl Bias, that's some pretty good evidence...

Referring to examples is not citing though is it? The key difference is you're hiding behind that bullshit instead of pointing me to the source as you know I'll just show why your interpretation is wrong, again.

Not at all, you know the Studies, I know the studies and the examples I've posted have all been widely criticized

For fucks sake, learn some english, Christ it isn't that hard. Just because some members in a group have an attribute doesn't mean all members do; I know you're sexist and racist, but even so, that should not be a difficult concept to grasp.

So, "Maori are Criminals" isn't Racist because: Just because some members in a group have an attribute doesn't mean all members do

Except you've confirmed that the above IS a racist Statement.

This is the problem with Post-Modernism derived theories - they lack any form of consistency.

And as for calling me Sexist and Racist - It's funny how you've only had to resort to that once I've shown your linguistic hi jinks to be empty.

Face the simple fact: "White Male Privilege" IS a Racist, Sexist notion. Put forward by Racists and Sexists, and championed by Racists and Sexists.