Free speech.

[FJRider]

No, it's not.

What law would be broken then ... ???

And ... life isn't always fair ... Get over it ...

But if I'm are within the bounds of the and I'm let off ... and you're not ...

[Katman]

What law would be broken then ... ???

And ... life isn't always fair ... Get over it ...

But if I'm are within the bounds of the and I'm let off ... and you're not ...

If everyone in your group was guilty of the same offence, your penchant for sucking pig dick doesn't make his discretion 'fair'.

And yes, I'm all too painfully aware that life isn't always fair.

[Graystone]

A rather telling Typo then...

The reason for his ban is irrelevant, since I've not made any statement as to whether or not it was justified. So it's entirely a strawman of my position, since I've never made that claim.

The only claim I've made is that if his alleged breach of the ToS warranted a Ban, then it stands to reason that other people who have likewise breached the ToS should also be banned.

If they are not being banned, then it is clear that the stated reason (breach of ToS) is not the sole reason for the ban.



It's a derogatory term as far as I (and others) are concerned, Coined by Marxist activists, propagated by University courses with no serious academic standards. I'll simply restate - I look upon you when you use that phrase, in the same way you look upon a member of the KKK when they use the phrase "Nigger Bitch Beneficiary".

Well Observed? Only by Marxists, Racists and Sexists - obsessed with Power, Race and Sex.

And not used to Discriminate? Then tell me - why specify a group if not to discriminate?

By repeatedly saying it is not unfairly applied you are making assumptions on the reason though.

No, well observed by social scientists.

I was not specifying a group, white male privelige is a societal attribute.

[TheDemonLord]

Plenty of people have been banned from You tube with far greater number of subscribers than Alex Jones
Are you suggesting they were out to get them as well
https://www.nickiswift.com/114873/youtube-stars-banned/
For the record in regards to Jones they were clear.

What a Red Herring...

So Hate Speed is against the ToS and is justification for being banned - so let's try a bit of an experiment:

The difference between pedophilia jokes and attacking white people is that pedophilia jokes are bad, while attacking white people is good

or

you can’t be racist against white people

or

Fuck white people, you ain't shit. I'm done with you. 2014, you going down. Black Powwow!!!

And Hate speech is defined as:

Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity

Do you agree that the content of those tweets constitutes Hate Speech, based on the definition?
If the Content of those Tweets are Hate Speech, do you agree that the Authors should be banned (in line with your and the Social Media statements above)?

Which brings us to the last point - all of those authors are still on Twitter, with a verified Check mark. and we know that the list that they are on has been seen by twitter. So why haven't they be banned?

Next up is Candace Owens vs Sarah Jeong:

Sarah Jeong posts a series of Racist tweets, nothing happens - gets hired by the NYT
Candace Owens takes those tweets, replaces the race (from white to Jew if I remember correctly) and then tweets them. Candace Owens gets banned (albeit temporarily) by Twitter.

I don't know how more Black and White (pun intended) it can be.

[TheDemonLord]

If I am in a group that gets stopped ... then I get the officers discretion and the others get charged ... is the law getting fairly enforced or not ... ???

There are 2 philosophical view points here:

The first is the arbitrary response of No, it's not.
but to Quote Star Wars: "Only the Sith deal in absolutes" and to quote Star Trek: "there can be no justice so long as laws are absolute."

Which brings me to the second view:

Everyone who has the mental capacity to operate a vehicle should know that being polite and courteous to the Police is more likely to result in a better outcome, especially if the result was marginal or momentarily over the speed limit.

And since that should be universally known - each individual is able act in such a manner as to maximize their ability to benefit from discretion.

Aside from the fact I ignore most of you claims (as I think most of them are bullshit) and nearly ignored this one.

As is your want and right.

BUT ... is this a call of your's of some form of (reverse .. ???) Police racism ???

There's no such thing as "Reverse Racism", only Racism. If we seek to have a less Racist society, it seems clear to me that to achieve that, we would want less Racism, not more.

Or is it simply that Maori are not allowed to use the officers discretion to escape charges ... if white dudes are getting pinged ... ???

If you are not familiar with the situation, then I'd suggest reading about it before making a comment on it.
If you are familiar with the situation, then you'd know that statement is completely disingenuous.

As I recall ... you are a (self declared) expert in IT. Are you also a (self declared) expert in law too ... ???

Except, I've not made a Legal claim...

[husaberg]

What a Red Herring...

So Hate Speed is against the ToS and is justification for being banned - so let's try a bit of an experiment:


or

or


And Hate speech is defined as:



Do you agree that the content of those tweets constitutes Hate Speech, based on the definition?
If the Content of those Tweets are Hate Speech, do you agree that the Authors should be banned (in line with your and the Social Media statements above)?

Which brings us to the last point - all of those authors are still on Twitter, with a verified Check mark. and we know that the list that they are on has been seen by twitter. So why haven't they be banned?

Next up is Candace Owens vs Sarah Jeong:

Sarah Jeong posts a series of Racist tweets, nothing happens - gets hired by the NYT
Candace Owens takes those tweets, replaces the race (from white to Jew if I remember correctly) and then tweets them. Candace Owens gets banned (albeit temporarily) by Twitter.

I don't know how more Black and White (pun intended) it can be.

The red herrings are all being fished up by you. You keep trying to muddy the water by bringing other people into the arguement.

The rest is just you attempting to claim a win when it the reality that you lost pages ago. When it was pointed out that Youtube and facebook and all the others were entirely within there rights to ban him. You just dont like it that Alex Jones was banned and it was entirely legal the way it happened and it has nothing to do with free speech.
Thus I will ask you a pretty simple question
Were facebook etc behaving within their rights to ban Alex Jones yes or no.

I asked if you agreed that they were behaving within their rights for banning Jones as he had posted material that that was in breach of the stds.
it was a yes or no answer?
Did he or did he not post material that was in breach of the stds?
Were they legally entitled to ban Jones Yes or No?
I note Youtube and twitter and Apple and Facebook all have their own definitions of what is acceptable( i even posted them.)
I posted a list of people that have been banned as you claimed it was only Jones banned and that you believed it was mainly only for his politics. This was clearly untruthful and not backed by facts.

[TheDemonLord]

By repeatedly saying it is not unfairly applied you are making assumptions on the reason though.

No, I'm not. Put the Strawman down.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can be on this point: I have not made any comment as to whether or not Alex Jones was or was not in breach of the ToS. Any question about what he did or did not do is therefore irrelevant to the point I'm making.

No, well observed by social scientists.

Bullshit. The phrase, concept and description was created by an Intersectional Feminist with ZERO scientific training, there was NO methodology that she used to create the concept, it was literally just her personal feelings on the subject. The only people who think it's a serious thing are the Rabid left-wing activist pseudo disciplines.

I was not specifying a group, white male privelige is a societal attribute.

- Says "Not Specifying a group"
- Specifies a group: "White Male"

...

I'm having great difficulty believing you could be that stupid and contradictory.

[TheDemonLord]

The red herrings are all being fished up by you. You keep trying to muddy the water by bringing other people into the arguement.

Nope. They provide a clear case study to show that the rules are being selectively applied.

I asked if you agreed that Alex jones had posted material that that was in breach of the stds.
it was a yes or no answer?

Refer to my answer to Graystone. It's irrelevant to any point that I'm making.

I note Youtube and twitter and Apple and Facebook all have their own definitions of what is acceptable i even posted them.

They have variations on a theme, they are not wildly different. Given the Alex Jones scenario, it would appear that what warrants a Ban on one platform, will warrant a ban on the others.

I posted a list of people that have been banned as you claimed it was only Jones banned and that you believed it was only for his politics. This was untruthful and not backed by facts.

I've not said "Only for his politics" - You really are determined to argue dishonestly.

Here's what I said:

then it is clear that the stated reason (breach of ToS) is not the sole reason for the ban.

Other people have been banned, I'm not disputing that - most of which seems to be for sexual type behavior (which YT, to it's credit has been pretty consistent on) however, it's not relevant to the particular area of discussion - namely Political discussion.

[husaberg]

Nope. They provide a clear case study to show that the rules are being selectively applied.



Refer to my answer to Graystone. It's irrelevant to any point that I'm making.



They have variations on a theme, they are not wildly different. Given the Alex Jones scenario, it would appear that what warrants a Ban on one platform, will warrant a ban on the others.



I've not said "Only for his politics" - You really are determined to argue dishonestly.

Here's what I said:



Other people have been banned, I'm not disputing that - most of which seems to be for sexual type behavior (which YT, to it's credit has been pretty consistent on) however, it's not relevant to the particular area of discussion - namely Political discussion.

Thats not a case study, its you grasping at straws trying to indicate and mitigate a defense for his actions based on your view of others. Rather than address the real points.
For instance, You dont know how many times they have been warned or how many complaints have been received about the others conduct.
But the real telling point is you have still not answered the simple yes or no questions.
Were they Twitter FB Ytube etc within their legal rights to ban Jones based on his conduct and content yes or no?
Has jones posted material that was in breach of the site rules yes or no?
Given that you stated a ban on one forum requires the same behavior to warrant a ban on the rest its especially telling that you refuse to answer the question.

[TheDemonLord]

Thats not a case study, its you grasping at straws trying to indicate and mitigate a defense for his actions based on your view of others. Rather than address the real points.
For instance, You dont know how many times they have been warned or how many complaints have been received about the others conduct.
But the real telling point is you have still not answered the simple yes or no questions.
Were they Twitter FB Ytube etc within their legal rights to ban Jones based on his conduct and content yes or no?
Has jones posted material that was in breach of the site rules yes or no?
Given that you stated a ban on one forum requires the same behavior to warrant a ban on the rest its especially telling that you refuse to answer the question.

I'm not trying to mitigate his actions. This entire post is you trying to argue a point that you think you can win, which is entirely not the point I'm making.

As such, I'm refusing to entertain your diversions. The fact you have to resort to that tactic shows you can't rebut the point I'm making.

I did not state explicitly a ban on one is a ban on all:

Given the Alex Jones scenario, it would appear that what warrants a Ban on one platform, will warrant a ban on the others.

[husaberg]

I'm not trying to mitigate his actions. This entire post is you trying to argue a point that you think you can win, which is entirely not the point I'm making.

As such, I'm refusing to entertain your diversions. The fact you have to resort to that tactic shows you can't rebut the point I'm making.

I did not state explicitly a ban on one is a ban on all:

You are attempting to mitigate his actions in an alsmost child like fashion by offering up
"but but others are doing it mommy", or "but all the other kids get to stay up late mommy" do you seriously consider a judge except that as a defense?

So again Well another non answer of a simple line of questions are you trying to break Katspms record.
You seek to continue to though up all these other issues, to create an impression that its an other issue.
My questions are not a diversion is a simple question that is the whole basis of the foundation of your entire argument.
You are the one claiming he was thrown out for other reasons but you fail to answer whether he is guilty of the very thing alll the entities claim he was thrown out for.
Its pretty simple questions that you refuse to answer.

Were they Twitter FB Ytube etc within their legal rights to ban Jones based on his conduct and content yes or no?
Has jones posted material that was in breach of the site rules yes or no?

I suggest the reason you do so for the simple reason it destroys your argument
your continued reticence to answer such simple question also destroys your credibility of anything else you offer up entirely.
As for my motives a point i think i can win?, i won it pages ago when you refused to answer the simple questions.
Granted all your subsequent Gish gallops have been entertaining though........

[TheDemonLord]

My question Is not a diversion is a simple question that is the whole basis of the foundation of your entire argument.

Nope, it's the foundation of what you WANT to be my argument.

You are the one claiming he was thrown out for other reasons but you fail to answer whether he is guilty of the very thing alll the entities claim he was thrown out for.

If he is guilty, then so are others (who have not been banned) based solely on their actions (not Alex Jones) and the ToS - therefore his ban was not just due to a ToS breach.
If he is not guilty, his ban was not due to a ToS breach.

See how it is entirely irrelevant to the point I'm making?

I suggest the reason you do so for the simple reason it destroys your argument
your continued reticence to answer such simple question also destroys your credibility of anything else you offer up entirely.
As for my motives a point i think i can win?, i won it pages ago when you refused to answer the simple questions.
Granted all your subsequent Gish gallops have been entertaining though........

No Gish Gallops here - or can you point to a link I posted where I asked you to watch an excessively long video or read a long waffly blog post? You can't? Oh Dear.

I'm ignoring what you are asking because it is irrelevant to any points I've made. Which I'll recap (as you seem to have great difficulty comprehending this)

1: The Banning of Alex Jones was the most counter-productive action they could have taken, given the claims that he makes and his audience.

In this statement, I'm not making any claims to the validity of the banning, only that the outcome will not achieve what they seek to achieve.

2: That people who have made multiple racist statements (such as racist remarks directed against White People), which is in breach of the ToS, have not been banned. These people all share a similar political viewpoint, which is aligned with the self-declared political bias of the companies in question and demonstrates a selective application of the rules. The most Black and White example (sorry, but that Pun is far too amusing to only be used once) is Sarah Jeong vs Candace Owens.

Again - nothing about the validity of Alex Jones banning.

So, if you wish to honestly engage then cease this strawman attempt and rebut the points I'm making, not the ones you wish me to make.

[husaberg]

Nope, it's the foundation of what you WANT to be my argument.



If he is guilty, then so are others (who have not been banned) based solely on their actions (not Alex Jones) and the ToS - therefore his ban was not just due to a ToS breach.
If he is not guilty, his ban was not due to a ToS breach.

See how it is entirely irrelevant to the point I'm making?



No Gish Gallops here - or can you point to a link I posted where I asked you to watch an excessively long video or read a long waffly blog post? You can't? Oh Dear.

I'm ignoring what you are asking because it is irrelevant to any points I've made. Which I'll recap (as you seem to have great difficulty comprehending this)

1: The Banning of Alex Jones was the most counter-productive action they could have taken, given the claims that he makes and his audience.

In this statement, I'm not making any claims to the validity of the banning, only that the outcome will not achieve what they seek to achieve.

2: That people who have made multiple racist statements (such as racist remarks directed against White People), which is in breach of the ToS, have not been banned. These people all share a similar political viewpoint, which is aligned with the self-declared political bias of the companies in question and demonstrates a selective application of the rules. The most Black and White example (sorry, but that Pun is far too amusing to only be used once) is Sarah Jeong vs Candace Owens.

Again - nothing about the validity of Alex Jones banning.

So, if you wish to honestly engage then cease this strawman attempt and rebut the points I'm making, not the ones you wish me to make.

Again you refuse to give a yes or no answer
Were they Twitter FB Ytube etc within their legal rights to ban Jones based on his conduct and content yes or no?
Has jones posted material that was in breach of the site rules yes or no?

Lets look at the claims you have made and why its relevent

If Alex Jones has breached the Terms of Use, .

Whatever Alex did that was supposedly in breach of the ToS (and if this were a legal case - a lawyer would have a field day with the vagueness of the ToS) warranted a ban,

There's my point.
If they are banning him on his behaviour

A rather telling Typo then...
The only claim I've made is that if his alleged breach of the ToS warranted a Ban.

If he is not guilty, his ban was not due to a ToS breach..

I'll clarify the distinction - No one would complain about them removing illegal content.

And then they came after him, in a manner that suggests a degree of Collusion.

Your claims and you claim its not relevant if youtube twitter and FB were within their rights to an him now. You by your own claims clearly said it was entirely relevant.

Your continued attempts to throw up other arguments while not answering simple questions is a gish gallop.

Gish Gallop is a technique, named after the creationist Duane Gish who employed it, whereby someone argues a cause by hurling as many different half-truths and no-truths into a very short space of time so that their opponent cannot hope to combat each point in real time

The throwing upo of all the other issues why not answering the simple questions put to you is also a strawman defense.

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent

No one is attempting to answer the conspiracies you are trying to present as they are a series of what if and maybes rather than any constructive decisive cohesive statements.
Its know as Katspaming.

[Graystone]

No, I'm not. Put the Strawman down.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can be on this point: I have not made any comment as to whether or not Alex Jones was or was not in breach of the ToS. Any question about what he did or did not do is therefore irrelevant to the point I'm making.



Bullshit. The phrase, concept and description was created by an Intersectional Feminist with ZERO scientific training, there was NO methodology that she used to create the concept, it was literally just her personal feelings on the subject. The only people who think it's a serious thing are the Rabid left-wing activist pseudo disciplines.



- Says "Not Specifying a group"
- Specifies a group: "White Male"

...

I'm having great difficulty believing you could be that stupid and contradictory.

So when does the backpedling stop? What have you said about Alex Jones, and how does it relate to freedom of speech? What is the point you're making? I was under the impression it was that twitter is discriminating against him by banning him for his political veiws, but any rational person knows you would need to show discrimination (which is why I am asking these questions of you) for that to be a valid point.

So, is the statistical backing is somehow nullified because you don't like the person who came up with the buzzword for it?

I was not specifying a group, white male privilege is a societal attribute; that the attribute refers to a group of people is not discriminatory. I mean, is everyone who uses the word 'women' sexist since is specifies a group? You're completely losing the plot here mate. Is this like a Katman origins story? So many common threads between the two of you which are only growing and becoming more hilarious...

[TheDemonLord]

So when does the backpedling stop? What have you said about Alex Jones, and how does it relate to freedom of speech? What is the point you're making? I was under the impression it was that twitter is discriminating against him by banning him for his political veiws, but any rational person knows you would need to show discrimination (which is why I am asking these questions of you) for that to be a valid point.

"If he is guilty, then so are others (who have not been banned) based solely on their actions (not Alex Jones) and the ToS - therefore his ban was not just due to a ToS breach.
If he is not guilty, his ban was not due to a ToS breach."

See how there is no requirement to do with anything in relation to what Alex Jones actually said/did.

So, is the statistical backing is somehow nullified because you don't like the person who came up with the buzzword for it?

What statistical backing?

Here's the original paper that coined the phrase: http://www.collegeart.org/pdf/divers...-privilege.pdf

Would you care to show me the Statistical analysis? The hint is in the full title of the piece:

White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences Through Work in Women’s Studies

Every Statistic you will present is merely an attempt at a post hoc justification.

I was not specifying a group, white male privilege is a societal attribute; that the attribute refers to a group of people is not discriminatory. I mean, is everyone who uses the word 'women' sexist since is specifies a group? You're completely losing the plot here mate. Is this like a Katman origins story? So many common threads between the two of you which are only growing and becoming more hilarious...

I love how hard you are tying yourself in knots here, to justify the unjustifiable.

"White Male" is a group.

So to answer your question - is everyone who uses the word Women sexist? Well that depends on the context doesn't it... I'm sure you'd agree the statement "Women can't drive" is Sexist, It's implying a negative attribute applied to an entire group of People.

Just like "White Male Privilege" also implies a negative attribute to an entire group of people.