Free speech.

[Graystone]

Interesting use of Occams Razor considering:



How quickly you throw it out the window...



So, you ask me for my reply, then dismiss it and substitute your own when you don't like it...

Occams razor is that the obvious thing seems likely, you posted stuff that was wrong, because you were wrong. Adding speculation to that voids the philosophy...

On the one hand, you made a claim that was clearly in error, while you're saying a circumstantial correlation proves you weren't wrong? Or that you were wrong on purpose for reasons you've been unable to elaborate on?

I gave perfectly adequate reasons, you made a claim for global application, then proceed to cheery pick examples that work, and evade any that don't; this shows your claim to be in error.

[TheDemonLord]

Occams razor is that the obvious thing seems likely, you posted stuff that was wrong, because you were wrong. Adding speculation to that voids the philosophy...

On the one hand, you made a claim that was clearly in error, while you're saying a circumstantial correlation proves you weren't wrong? Or that you were wrong on purpose for reasons you've been unable to elaborate on?

I gave perfectly adequate reasons, you made a claim for global application, then proceed to cheery pick examples that work, and evade any that don't; this shows your claim to be in error.

Which is all an exercise in it's okay for Graystone to apply Occams Razor and to cherry pick examples, but if I'm merely said to be doing it, I'm somehow wrong.

I believe you were saying something about Double Standards?

[Graystone]

Which is all an exercise in it's okay for Graystone to apply Occams Razor and to cherry pick examples, but if I'm merely said to be doing it, I'm somehow wrong.

I believe you were saying something about Double Standards?

So justify why I shouldn't like I do when you use them wrongly.

What is your explanation for why you posted things that were wrong?

Why should you be able to evade examples that do not work when you make a claim that your explanation is applicable to everything?

[husaberg]

At least the posts are getting smaller

[TheDemonLord]

So justify why I shouldn't like I do when you use them wrongly.

Try that again, in English.

What is your explanation for why you posted things that were wrong?

It's funny how you are only complaining about the supposed wrongness of it, after you got owned on the point.

Whether you want to nitpick on the addition of the Political element or not - the point is (and remains) that in order to Filter things that breach the ToS, they need to look at content. How it is determined what content is good or bad is subject to the same biases which Twitter has. They claim they take steps to account for that Bias, I've seen nothing (and you've presented nothing) as to how that is done.

You could even make a reasonable case that some of the rules in their ToS themselves are an expression of Left-wing politics (Anti-Gun advertising rules, explicit protections for the Trans community etc. etc.)

Why should you be able to evade examples that do not work when you make a claim that your explanation is applicable to everything?

Maybe because you've changed the context entirely from what the discussion was about?

I provided an example, you didn't like it and so made a challenge to me - I then (in good faith) provided a clear and concise example that fulfills all of your requirements. You didn't like that either, so rather than critique it, you just dismissed it and substituted your own with an entirely different context.

[Graystone]

Try that again, in English.



It's funny how you are only complaining about the supposed wrongness of it, after you got owned on the point.

Whether you want to nitpick on the addition of the Political element or not - the point is (and remains) that in order to Filter things that breach the ToS, they need to look at content. How it is determined what content is good or bad is subject to the same biases which Twitter has. They claim they take steps to account for that Bias, I've seen nothing (and you've presented nothing) as to how that is done.

You could even make a reasonable case that some of the rules in their ToS themselves are an expression of Left-wing politics (Anti-Gun advertising rules, explicit protections for the Trans community etc. etc.)



Maybe because you've changed the context entirely from what the discussion was about?

I provided an example, you didn't like it and so made a challenge to me - I then (in good faith) provided a clear and concise example that fulfills all of your requirements. You didn't like that either, so rather than critique it, you just dismissed it and substituted your own with an entirely different context.

I think you are getting confused, the only one who got 'owned' on a point was you, when you said you knew what Dorsey's quote was, but also said husaberg had posted the correct one; you remain awfully silent on how this is justified... The word 'political' was not an addition, it was always in there; so any point you make about needing to evaluate the content (without specifying it must be political in nature) a disingenuous argument.

Not at all, the context was that you make the claim you can remove part of a persons quote if you believe it to be impossible, I disagree with this on an ethical standpoint overall (I think this ethical disagreement may be the point you think you 'owned' me on?), and a factual one in this specific case. Even taking you ethical view, you cannot demonstrate impossibility without showing that every instance is impossible; that is why it is entirely logical to move on from one example, to the next one.

[pritch]

This is the case that Yaxley Lennon nearly fucked up. Some of these arseholes got 18 years. Good job.
Yaxley Lennon goes back to court next week and then back to jail. (Said he hopefully.) Be nice if it was the same jail though.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...led-rape-abuse


Update: Some of the reporting of this has been diabolical. One headine read that the guilty had been sentenced to 200 years, the article then divided that number by the twenty defendants and said that they had been sentenced to ten years each, so would be out in five.

The ringleader has been sentenced to life with a MINIMUM 18 years which means, barring a successful appeal, he will do the whole 18 years. Several of the others are sentenced to eighteen years and four are yet to be sentenced. Experienced lawyers say these are not "wet bus ticket" sentences, in British terms they are serious.

Incidentally, while Islamic names are well represented the ringleader is not a muslim. His country of origin is India and to my unqualified eye he appears to be a Sikh.

[pritch]

And in a not entirely unrelated matter: the English Defence League, which Stephen Yaxley Lennon was instumental in founding, had a national rally in Manchester overnight our time.

Here they are with their police escort. What pathetic twats.

[Katman]

This is the case that Yaxley Lennon nearly fucked up. Some of these arseholes got 18 years. Good job.

Can you at least begin to understand the rage that the likes of Tommy Robinson must feel regarding these cases?

[pritch]

Can you at least begin to understand the rage that the likes of Tommy Robinson must feel regarding these cases?

We can all feel contempt for the perpetrators now that they are proven guilty. We can equally feel contempt for Yaxley Lennon who is a racist twat who jeopardised the trials of some of them.

Afterthought: There have been some particulary nasty crimes committed against kids by white guys while all this has been dragging on. "Robinson's" absence was noted. He doesn't give a shit about the kids, he just hates brown guys. He probably quite enjoys taking money of gullible idiots though.

[pritch]

It would seem that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon aka Tommy Robinson aka half a dozen other names has given a speech in London.

He claimed that he is a journalist but that he has been deprived of his right to freedom of speech by the establishment. He claimed this to a crowd of journalists, supporters, and opponents, from the top of a specially erected stage in the middle of London while utilising a speaker system. Not big on irony our Stephen.

He also said "journalists are the enemy of the people" quoting Hitler and more recently Trump. Presumably it had slipped his tiny mind that he had just claimed to be a journalist.

Meanwhile the judge referred his case to the Attorney General so the whole silly saga will drag on. The more gullible gammon will likely keep giving him money which will add to the two million quid reportedly already in his account. Ah well, "a fool and his money..."

[Indiana_Jones]

[Viking01]

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201...by-ideologues/

[TheDemonLord]

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201...by-ideologues/

That was a great interview - JBP was spitting some serious fire in that one.

[TheDemonLord]

Still Verified, Still on Twitter.

Calling for Kids to be put into Woodchippers - that's fine - no breach of any ToS here, they can stay on Twitter....