Free speech.

[TheDemonLord]

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.



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

"Our Bias, which I fully admit is Left Leaning"

Jack Dorsey - Twitter CEO.

That's a verbatime quote.

So....

[husaberg]

"Our Bias, which I fully admit is Left Leaning"

Jack Dorsey - Twitter CEO.

That's a verbatime quote.

So....

Well interesting they pretty much banned him last then isn't it, if they are the leftest you point out bias that was the reason to ban him why was it them that banned him practically lastout of all the groups.
far latter than the other platforms did then........
Far less logical than the flood of complaints about infoewars continued widely acknowledged breaches of tos finally coming to a head.

PS the rest of the verbatim comments from the twitter CEO.

Dorsey said his "Twitter has a responsibility to be open about its political viewpoints, but to operate without bias when applying content policies to users."
"We need to constantly show that we are not adding our own bias, which I fully admit is ... is more left-leaning," Dorsey says.
"But the real question behind the question is, are we doing something according to political ideology or viewpoints? And we are not. Period," he added.
Dorsey went on to insist that "Twitter only polices behavior on the platform, not content."

https://www.wired.com/story/twitter-...ones-infowars/
Professional tragedy troll Alex Jones went to Washington Wednesday to claw back the attention he's lost since Facebook, Apple, YouTube, Spotify, and other tech giants booted him from their services last month. He stalked behind Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey as they testified to the Senate, accosted senator Marco Rubio during a post-hearing interview, berated a CNN reporter as he stood in the hallways, and broadcast it all on Twitter, the last platform that would have him.

And it backfired.
On Thursday, just a day after Jones brought his circus to Capitol Hill, Twitter announced it was finally banning Jones and his conspiracy site InfoWars, citing "new reports of Tweets and videos posted yesterday that violate our abusive behavior policy." That policy prohibits "excessively aggressive insults that target an individual, including content that contains slurs or similar language." Dorsey had previously defended Twitter's decision to allow Jones to continue operating on the platform, saying Jones hadn't violated Twitter's policies.
But in early August, CNN reporter Oliver Darcy publicly pointed out a number of instances in which Jones had, in fact, violated those policies, leading Jones—or someone on his team—to delete the tweets in question. Days later, Twitter forced Jones to delete another offending tweet and put his account in read-only mode for a week. The time-out lifted, and Jones' account lived on.


Ironically, it was the initial CNN story—or rather, Jones' unhinged response to it—that proved his eventual undoing. On Wednesday, just before Dorsey was set to testify at his second congressional hearing of the day, Jones approached Darcy as he waited in line with media colleagues to be let into the hearing room. Jones, flanked by his entourage, cornered Darcy, jabbed a phone in his face, and harassed the reporter for more than 10 minutes about his work, his employer, and his looks, saying he has the "eyes of a rat." The entire ordeal streamed on Periscope, which is owned by Twitter
That this particular broadside was the last straw for Twitter seems curious. Yes, Twitter had plenty of reason to suspend Jones on Thursday. But it had just as many reasons a week ago and the week before that, and in early August when all of its contemporaries jumped ship. Compared to Jones' long trail of misdeeds on Twitter—claiming that no one was killed in the Sandy Hook shooting, and comparing Parkland shooting survivors to Nazis, to name a few—his rant against Darcy seems tame. Certainly a CNN reporter who covers Jones for a living is better equipped to handle his ravings than a mass shooting victim would be, and insulting a person's looks hardly compares to claiming a parent's dead child never really existed.
But ultimately, the tirade against Darcy was too public for Twitter to ignore. Standing there, in the halls of Congress, outside the room where Twitter's CEO sat, and in front of nearly every tech reporter in the industry, Jones tested the limits of what he could get away with until suddenly he couldn't get away with it anymore.
As for Twitter, taking this action was likely only a matter of time. Ever since the company broke with its peers to stand beside Jones, all eyes have been on the @realalexjones account, waiting for even the slightest infraction. And it was a relatively slight infraction, for Jones at least, that did it.

[Drew]

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

Rubbish.

White males are the bench mark for social and economic hierarchy. Anyone not a white Male has to work harder for the same opportunity. We are the privileged.

[Grumph]

Well, you're privleged enough to have an overflowing in box. Clear the damm thing please.

[pete376403]

Would be hard to claim Twitter is biased against right wing conservatives when Trump seems to run him entire policy by tweet

[Graystone]

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



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...



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



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.

I was drawing parallels between your lack of understanding of both the Argument from Authority, and the Sargon's Law buzz terms you use in an effort to seem intelligent.

But what constitutes hate speech is not an absolute.

Taken out of context, and not supplied with the source. Tsk, tsk.

I don't know the studies, citations are a thing, use them.

That is racist due to the implication that all maori are criminals. You could instead use "Some Maori are criminals" or "Maori criminals", words mean things dude, you should learn this. That you have to insert words to completely change the meaning of the term, and try to establish a false equivalence shows you to be an uneducated moron driven by racist and sexist ideals. I've resorted to rational discussion as I always do, not my problem you can't keep up!

[Drew]

Well, you're privleged enough to have an overflowing in box. Clear the damm thing please.

Ok. Done that.

[TheDemonLord]

Well interesting they pretty much banned him last then isn't it, if they are the leftest you point out bias that was the reason to ban him why was it them that banned him practically lastout of all the groups.
far latter than the other platforms did then........
Far less logical than the flood of complaints about infoewars continued widely acknowledged breaches of tos finally coming to a head.

PS the rest of the verbatim comments from the twitter CEO.

They are (by their own admission) biased to the Left...

The problem is you look at the comments "Not content, but behavior" - by what metric do they judge behavior (and let's put aside for the moment that on Twitter, your behavior can only be monitored by Content...), well, it's a Left leaning bias. And when we look at high profile accounts, we see that those who say things, that are a breach of the ToS, but in line with Left-wing ideals aren't censured, whereas if someone on the right *cough* Candace Owens *cough* posts the exact same thing, they do get Censured.

[TheDemonLord]

Rubbish.

White males are the bench mark for social and economic hierarchy. Anyone not a white Male has to work harder for the same opportunity. We are the privileged.

Can you prove that?

Are you sure you've accounted for every variable that could account for success and found that it was solely the Colour of Skin and the Gender that was the difference?

What about in the USA - the highest average earners aren't even White, so if there is some form of Privilege, it's clearly not working too well...

Let me put it to you another way:

Those who have had the fortune to grow up with a stable family unit and have had a good work ethic instilled in them by their parents tend to get the best opportunities.

Edit: And you know this - if someone demonstrates that they are hard working, competent and reliable, Doors open to them that would otherwise remain shut.

That has nothing to do with Race or Gender, however, there is a large overlap between people who have that, and the group "White Males" - and so if you were dishonest with statistics and hell-bent on justifying some underlying ideologically driven jealousy, you could make it seem like they were the bench mark...

[TheDemonLord]

I was drawing parallels between your lack of understanding of both the Argument from Authority, and the Sargon's Law buzz terms you use in an effort to seem intelligent.

No, I think you were confused and talking shit.

But what constitutes hate speech is not an absolute.

It's got a legal definition, that would seem to be fairly absolute. However, I want to again draw a distinction between those who do not think the concept exists (which is not an argument against the definition per se), those who think it should not be criminalised (which is not an argument against the definition, but an argument against it's application), and those who think it should be criminalised.

None of those groups are really arguing about the Definition, so where exactly is this debate? It seems like you are trying to bolster your argument with some imaginary disagreement...

Taken out of context, and not supplied with the source. Tsk, tsk.

I don't know the studies, citations are a thing, use them.

Then how can you assert my statements on them are wrong...

That is racist due to the implication that all maori are criminals. You could instead use "Some Maori are criminals" or "Maori criminals", words mean things dude, you should learn this. That you have to insert words to completely change the meaning of the term, and try to establish a false equivalence shows you to be an uneducated moron driven by racist and sexist ideals. I've resorted to rational discussion as I always do, not my problem you can't keep up!

I know words mean things, which is why you are trying to manipulate them to hide away your racism and sexism.

But lets not take your word for it - Let's refer to "Encyclopedia of Gender and Society" And I doth quote:

Another helpful metaphor for the ubiquitous nature of male privilege is the imperceptible "wind at the back" of all males

Now, since I'm clearly "an uneducated moron" - I'd like you to explain how "Ubiquitous" doesn't mean "found everywhere" and how "All Males" doesn't mean "All Males" (cause that would be sexist, right?).

Oh and for bonus points in that chapter - the "proof" they use to justify the existence of Privilege is.....

The wage Gap! (that would be the same wage gap that is wholly dishonest statistically and has been debunked by anyone with even a cursory glance at Economics)

[Graystone]

No, I think you were confused and talking shit.



It's got a legal definition, that would seem to be fairly absolute. However, I want to again draw a distinction between those who do not think the concept exists (which is not an argument against the definition per se), those who think it should not be criminalised (which is not an argument against the definition, but an argument against it's application), and those who think it should be criminalised.

None of those groups are really arguing about the Definition, so where exactly is this debate? It seems like you are trying to bolster your argument with some imaginary disagreement...



Then how can you assert my statements on them are wrong...



I know words mean things, which is why you are trying to manipulate them to hide away your racism and sexism.

But lets not take your word for it - Let's refer to "Encyclopedia of Gender and Society" And I doth quote:



Now, since I'm clearly "an uneducated moron" - I'd like you to explain how "Ubiquitous" doesn't mean "found everywhere" and how "All Males" doesn't mean "All Males" (cause that would be sexist, right?).

Oh and for bonus points in that chapter - the "proof" they use to justify the existence of Privilege is.....

The wage Gap! (that would be the same wage gap that is wholly dishonest statistically and has been debunked by anyone with even a cursory glance at Economics)

Anything you need to believe to fit your narrative eh

Seems open to interpretation, and certainly open to discretion; and a media soundbyte doesn't supercede the ToS by the way, where discretion is there, despite you claiming otherwise.

For the first, you removal of the context around "lefty bias' "quote" completely changes the meaning of what was said, so you are most certainly wrong there.

For the studies, you historical precedent of being wrong (see above), and absence of evidence. You cannot claim to be right, while withholding/hiding the evidence such a conclusion relies on; your attempts to do so show your transition to Katman is going well though.

Why do we refer to the encyclopedia? The simple fact you had to create a false equivalence by inserting the word 'are' to change the definitions, shows you are wrong in your assertions. I'd also wonder why you referred to it, instead of citing it, is it another quote taken out of context perhaps?

[TheDemonLord]

Seems open to interpretation, and certainly open to discretion; and a media soundbyte doesn't supercede the ToS by the way, where discretion is there, despite you claiming otherwise.

Exactly how is the Definition (not the application) open to interpretation...

It's not a Media Sound byte, it's the word of the CEO, you know, the person that is on record as actually signing off the banning...

For the first, you removal of the context around "lefty bias' "quote" completely changes the meaning of what was said, so you are most certainly wrong there.

Not at all, The context was contradicted by his statements. Twitter is a written platform, the only way to gauge behavior is via viewing and interpreting the Content. Furthermore, the interpretation of Behavior is subject to political bias, which the CEO has openly conceded.

For the studies, you historical precedent of being wrong (see above), and absence of evidence. You cannot claim to be right, while withholding/hiding the evidence such a conclusion relies on; your attempts to do so show your transition to Katman is going well though.

So, that's just your misguided prejudice then? Right. Glad we cleared that up. Now, if you'd like to put down the ad hominems and try some honesty in the discussion, that would be a refreshing change.

Why do we refer to the encyclopedia? The simple fact you had to create a false equivalence by inserting the word 'are' to change the definitions, shows you are wrong in your assertions. I'd also wonder why you referred to it, instead of citing it, is it another quote taken out of context perhaps?

Or, I actually understood the concept of "White Male Privilege" better than you did.

Interestingly enough - where's the explanation of why "All Males" doesn't mean "All Males" - it seems to be curiously lacking....

Now, I'm sure one of such esteemed intelligence as yours would EASILY be able to explain the difference to us mere mortals unless, of course, you were wrong all this time and it's a racist and sexist concept (as proved by your definition of Racism and the definition pulled from a scholarly encyclopedia providing a definition for it).

[jasonu]

What about in the USA - the highest average earners aren't even White

.

If that is true then who are they?

[Voltaire]

I've been working for a US multi national who contracts to another US Multinational they are both going thru major changes with upper management, agile, diversity and so on.
I'm finding being the only male at some meetings interesting..... #dodo.

We might not be seeing AI taking over any time soon but millennials are disrupting things.

[oldrider]

If that is true then who are they?

Akzle? - Akzle? - paging Mr Akzle please take the stand! - Where is Akzle this is your moment in the sun. - - Wot no Akzle!