Free speech.

[Graystone]

Or not. Since you know - they are different words and all...

How about we stick to Application, as it's the only thing that has any semblance of relevance.



So, you are agreeing that he could have declined to sign off on the banning, due to the profile of the case? That is the implication of that statement, that only the CEO can make those kind of Executive decisions.

Which means your comment "There is no need for the CEO to Sign off" is actually BS.



Except we all know the quote, none of us are disputing the content of the quote, only the interpretation - I'll ask again - how can you profile behavior on a platform like Twitter without monitoring Content?




So close, You've got the first part right, however - the second part is a red herring, to draw attention away from the fact that you can't dispute that "All Males" means "All Males". Namely because "Maori Crime" doesn't have an academic definition.



Again, it's a Direct quote, you've got the name of the resource. You could try a little honest here, but you aren't. And we both know it's because you've no-doubt read the resource, if it had a context that you thought was favorable, you'd post it up, with much fanfare and aplomb. Yet you are curiously silent...

Here's another Direct Quote (said in reference to Peggy McIntosh's 'work')



(there's those 2 pesky words again)



And yet, it was explicitly clear that it applies to "All Males" - Metaphor or not. See Above.



Well let's start with definitions (seeing as you are having great trouble with them)

Scholarly: involving or relating to serious academic study.

So since I've provided the name of the resource, lets see if it is considered any good and whats this?



That would tend to indicate that it's not an "Obscure" definition, but something that has rather a lot of Academic merit.

However, I'm loving how much you are painting yourself into a corner.

I guess that's your interpretation!

He didn't have to sign off on it, but due to the profile he did, perhaps to show support for those that made the call to apply the ban. I'm not sure how that contradict my comment that there is no need for the CEO to sign off on it...

We did not all know the quote's context at the time you posted it in such a misleading way, nor did what you post relate to the point you are now trying to make from it.

You were the one who brought up Maori Crime as an example, since I corrected you on it, you now want to dismiss it? For shame. The maori example uses the same written form, so the meaning of the statements should be very similar if you are applying basic english in the same way, but you've once again inserted a special exception to the rule...

The source doesn't even mention "White Male Privilege", so it doesn't back up your point at all, that's why you refuse to post the correct citation. Nor is it worded as a definition at all, it is stated that Peggy McIntosh describes it as... Do you know what that is? It's her interpretation. Both awards are from the same ALA source, libraries are containers for a lot of peer reviewed scientific articles and the like, but they are not the authority on them.

[TheDemonLord]

I guess that's your interpretation!

And you wonder why I ridicule you for being disingenuous.... Especially after all the quibbling you are doing about Language...

He didn't have to sign off on it, but due to the profile he did, perhaps to show support for those that made the call to apply the ban. I'm not sure how that contradict my comment that there is no need for the CEO to sign off on it...

Right - He didn't have to sign off, in fact he could have Veto'd the Ban. And Alex Jones would not have been banned. That's the part you are ignoring. Which means that your claim that "ToS means ToS" is fundamentally incorrect.

If there is no need for a CEO to sign off on something, then guess what - the CEO doesn't get bothered asking for it to be signed off.

We did not all know the quote's context at the time you posted it in such a misleading way, nor did what you post relate to the point you are now trying to make from it.

More disingenuous avoidance.

You were the one who brought up Maori Crime as an example, since I corrected you on it, you now want to dismiss it? For shame. The maori example uses the same written form, so the meaning of the statements should be very similar if you are applying basic english in the same way, but you've once again inserted a special exception to the rule...

Except one has a pre-existing definition. The purpose of Maori Crime was to get you to admit to what the Standard of Racism is.

The source doesn't even mention "White Male Privilege", so it doesn't back up your point at all, that's why you refuse to post the correct citation. Nor is it worded as a definition at all, it is stated that Peggy McIntosh describes it as... Do you know what that is? It's her interpretation. Both awards are from the same ALA source, libraries are containers for a lot of peer reviewed scientific articles and the like, but they are not the authority on them.

So, you DO have a bit of honesty - Then seeing as we can dispense with your pretense of "citations" - Do you acknowledge the following 2 statements:

1: That it was from an Academic and Scholarly definition of Male Privilege
2: That the quotes were lifted Verbatim

If so - you need to Answer then why "All Males" does not mean "All Males".

Furthermore, Since "White Male Privilege" is born out of the same 'Theory' as "Male Privilege" I am applying the same criteria from one to the other:

If "All Males" have "Male Privilege", then it must be true (as per the definition) that "All White Males" have "White Male Privilege". Which (thanks to your prior acknowledgement) would make it a Racist and Sexist term. And anyone who subscribes to it is (by your definition) a Racist and Sexist.

As for Peggy McIntosh - she's the one that came up with the theory, so it's not her interpretation, it's her Definition. Seems like you need a bit more of that "Basic English" you keep harping on about.

[TheDemonLord]

No you are suggesting i said stuff or make suggestions i never have
I never said all alt rights are conspiracy theorist etc i said practically all are. (Although auto correct f-ed it up)

I presented you with someone who (by the sources you cite) has been labelled Alt-right. I asked you whether you could find anything from the person himself to prove that he was Alt-Right.

This leaves us with a binary scenario:

1: Sam Harris is Alt-Right and you can post the proof.
2: The house of Cards that you constructed falls down.

And considering point 2 - it means all your claims fall down with it.

I never suggested the alt right doesn't want media attention i said they attempt to manipulate media use the term alt right in an attempt to hide from what the predominate support base consists of.

No, the alt-right has been pretty clear on what it wants - A White country for White People (White Nationalism and an Ethno-State).

I never suggested all alt right were all of one trait i didn't make generalizations like that. I said predominately those that identify with it were a loose collection of nut-jobs that practically all consisted of of those things, not that each and all all had those single attributes

And I pointed out that you are wrong here - There is a core belief required to be Alt-right - see above.

I never suggested you were alt right either. that siad you have showed considerable support for Akas brand of white nationalism, you continually seek to minimalise his actions and agenda even to the point that you attempt to post crap that he cant be racist as he shock hands with someone of a race he attempts to radicalise people against or he claims to have freinds of that race.
etc etc etc

"I never said, but I'll insinuate"

Here's Tommy's Agenda: 1: Stop the importation of those who believe in a fundamentalist view of Islam. 2: Have the Politicians, Police etc. properly investigate and deal to crimes committed by Muslims, without being paralyzed by fears of being racist. 3: deport Muslims who advocate for fundamentalist positions, acts of Terror, Sharia Law etc. etc. 4: Have governments take a harsher line with Saudi Arabia and their love of Wahabist schools of Islamic thought.

That's about it. You'll notice, there is nothing about Race in there. Now as for the handshake - Real Racists don't have friends of the races that they don't like (it's kinda one of the requirements for Racism - to hate everyone of a Race) So, if you've got multiple friends from different races it means you don't hate them because of their race. You might have other prejudicial ideas why you hate them, or you might hate them for they have done or what they advocate but these are not the same.

that's without your rant about communists that was out of left field and nothing to do with what i posted.

Okay - I smiled at the pun - well played.

Your exact line was

conspired against by some malevolent left wing force.

And there's a hint of hyperbole there - My point is to remind you that there is most DEFINITELY a Malevolent Left Wing Force. We know what it is (well some of us) and we know what it can do. There is nothing hyperbolic at all.

I noter you removed one part about the suppport base as evidenced by the posts above rather telling you wish to avoid that.
But case in point who wants to admit they have oldjewspam and shatman support.

I ignored it because as above - the Media you cling to has a habit of labelling everyone alt-right.

[Graystone]

And you wonder why I ridicule you for being disingenuous.... Especially after all the quibbling you are doing about Language...



Right - He didn't have to sign off, in fact he could have Veto'd the Ban. And Alex Jones would not have been banned. That's the part you are ignoring. Which means that your claim that "ToS means ToS" is fundamentally incorrect.

If there is no need for a CEO to sign off on something, then guess what - the CEO doesn't get bothered asking for it to be signed off.



More disingenuous avoidance.



Except one has a pre-existing definition. The purpose of Maori Crime was to get you to admit to what the Standard of Racism is.



So, you DO have a bit of honesty - Then seeing as we can dispense with your pretense of "citations" - Do you acknowledge the following 2 statements:

1: That it was from an Academic and Scholarly definition of Male Privilege
2: That the quotes were lifted Verbatim

If so - you need to Answer then why "All Males" does not mean "All Males".

Furthermore, Since "White Male Privilege" is born out of the same 'Theory' as "Male Privilege" I am applying the same criteria from one to the other:

If "All Males" have "Male Privilege", then it must be true (as per the definition) that "All White Males" have "White Male Privilege". Which (thanks to your prior acknowledgement) would make it a Racist and Sexist term. And anyone who subscribes to it is (by your definition) a Racist and Sexist.

As for Peggy McIntosh - she's the one that came up with the theory, so it's not her interpretation, it's her Definition. Seems like you need a bit more of that "Basic English" you keep harping on about.

Yeh, course he could have veto'd it, you did read the bit in the ToS about reserving the right didn't you? Does the CEO sign off on all the bans? If not, then there is clearly no need for the CEO to sign off on the bans. You should be able to understand that.

Are you denying your original quote removed all context and instead tried to show left bias at 'face value'?

To admit to something I already clearly explained? If you say so

1) No, it is not from a scholarly definition of Male Privilege, much less the White Male Privilege this discussion is about. You are trying to set up a special exemption where the common word use is superseded by some 'definition' you can scrounge up, so you most certainly need to scrounge on up for the exact term, given you are attempting to overturn how words work.
2) Verbatim but with important context removed

Peggy defines the term in the paragraph above, the first sentence reads "Male privilege is a special status conferred on males in societies where male supremacy is the central social organizing feature"
So unless you believe male supremacy is the case, then her definition does not apply.
This was also a work published in the late 2000s, the term white privilege had been used far before that (growing in popularity from 1970) so it most certainly is her interpretation of the term, it was not created in this work.

[husaberg]

I presented you with someone who (by the sources you cite) has been labelled Alt-right. I asked you whether you could find anything from the person himself to prove that he was Alt-Right.
This leaves us with a binary scenario:
1: Sam Harris is Alt-Right and you can post the proof.
2: The house of Cards that you constructed falls down.
And considering point 2 - it means all your claims fall down with it.

Or point 3 which is i never entered any dialogue at all about sam harris and that means you are barking up the wrong tree.

No, the alt-right has been pretty clear on what it wants - A White country for White People (White Nationalism and an Ethno-State).

Same as the racists nutjobs and the anti semites you mean that are also well represented by conpiracy theorists

And I pointed out that you are wrong here - There is a core belief required to be Alt-right - see above.

See my answer above i dont believe i am nor it appears do the majority of journalists and the people , we all know majority rules.........

Here's Tommy's Agenda: 1: Stop the importation of those who believe in a fundamentalist view of Islam. 2: Have the Politicians, Police etc. properly investigate and deal to crimes committed by Muslims, without being paralyzed by fears of being racist. 3: deport Muslims who advocate for fundamentalist positions, acts of Terror, Sharia Law etc. etc. 4: Have governments take a harsher line with Saudi Arabia and their love of Wahabist schools of Islamic thought.

That's about it. You'll notice, there is nothing about Race in there. Now as for the handshake - Real Racists don't have friends of the races that they don't like (it's kinda one of the requirements for Racism - to hate everyone of a Race) So, if you've got multiple friends from different races it means you don't hate them because of their race. You might have other prejudicial ideas why you hate them, or you might hate them for they have done or what they advocate but these are not the same.

Your defense of AKA is simplistic as was your posting of the reasons you believe hes not racist.
By the sum of his actions his words ,plus his core beliefs he is.
No amount of rhetoric regarding his latest re-incarnation is going to change that, all hes done is hes just toned it down a fraction to try to appeal to a wider audience.
Tommys agenda is to create a racial divide

And there's a hint of hyperbole there - My point is to remind you that there is most DEFINITELY a Malevolent Left Wing Force. We know what it is (well some of us) and we know what it can do. There is nothing hyperbolic at all.

So if there def a malevolent left controlling the media who are they the owners are not left wing, All prior data and most conspiracy theorist support there are right wing capitalist owned and operated.
If you are going to make statements like that show some evidence.

I ignored it because as above - the Media you cling to has a habit of labelling everyone alt-right.

You ignored it because no one wants the racist and the conspiracy theory nutters on their side.

[TheDemonLord]

Or point 3 which is i never entered any dialogue at all about sam harris and that means you are barking up the wrong tree.

I never said you did, but you DID hold up the Media as the arbiters of what is and is not Alt-right. My point being that they are not only slightly wrong, but so drastically wrong on so many occasions as to not be worthy as a source.

So - is Sam Harris Alt-right?

Same as the racists nutjobs and the anti semites you mean that are also well represented by conpiracy theorists

Not really, there's quite a divide, you're trying a guilt by association.

See my answer above i dont believe i am nor it appears do the majority of journalists and the people , we all know majority rules.........

Argumentum ad populum.

Your defense of AKA is simplistic as was your posting of the reasons you believe hes not racist.
By the sum of his actions his words ,plus his core beliefs he is.

What sum of his actions? You mean protesting against Islam? You know that Islam isn't a race... If you mean to say he protests against people from certain 3rd world countries who bring certain 3rd world ideas with them (that it's okay to Rape western women) - you know that the objection isn't made on the colour of their skin, but by the ideas that they hold.

I've listened to quite a bit of Tommy, I'd wager more than you.

Tommys agenda is to create a racial divide

That presupposes there was no division before Tommy - Need I remind you how long the Rotherham rapes went un-prosecuted?

So if there def a malevolent left controlling the media who are they the owners are not left wing,

You misunderstand - The point is that there IS a Malevolent Left Wing. It Exists. As for Controlling, I think JBP answered this best - Left Wing types don't like borders and like to be all-inclusive, which means they have a hard time kicking people out who go too far.

I'm reminded of a BBC interview where the interviewee said "I'm literally a Communist" - ask yourself this, if there is not a Left-Wing Bias, would that be acceptable? Would the reaction been the same if they said "I'm literally a Neo-Nazi".

You could argue that this is one discrete datapoint, but I'd counter with it's one of many.

[TheDemonLord]

Yeh, course he could have veto'd it, you did read the bit in the ToS about reserving the right didn't you? Does the CEO sign off on all the bans? If not, then there is clearly no need for the CEO to sign off on the bans. You should be able to understand that.

So you agree then, It is not the case that "ToS means ToS" - And therefore the CEOs (and the wider companies) biases (self-confessed as you agree) have relevance.

Are you denying your original quote removed all context and instead tried to show left bias at 'face value'?

The context was contradictory - You've yet to explain how you can monitor behavior on a platform like Twitter without monitoring Content. If you can do that, then I might be inclined to put the additional statements in.

But you can't, because you know it's impossible. Therefore, I left it out.

To admit to something I already clearly explained? If you say so

No, because I knew you'd play word games once you were trapped in a corner.

1) No, it is not from a scholarly definition of Male Privilege, much less the White Male Privilege this discussion is about. You are trying to set up a special exemption where the common word use is superseded by some 'definition' you can scrounge up, so you most certainly need to scrounge on up for the exact term, given you are attempting to overturn how words work.

So you are denying it's validity, based on what exactly? You know (as do I) that the concept of "White Male Privilege" was born out of the concept of "Male Privilege" and so using the definition of the latter is entirely appropriate. You've claimed it's not a scholarly work, and yet it's written by a PHD holder in the field in question and has received awards from Academia (despite your attempt to downplay them)

You know that in Academia there are specific words (or phrases) that have very clearly defined meanings that are different from the common usage of those words and phrases. For example - the word Theory.

2) Verbatim but with important context removed

See below - as to how well you've interpreted that "Important context" - Maybe you are need of some ESOL lessons, it seems basic English is too taxing for you.

Peggy defines the term in the paragraph above, the first sentence reads "Male privilege is a special status conferred on males in societies where male supremacy is the central social organizing feature"
So unless you believe male supremacy is the case, then her definition does not apply.
This was also a work published in the late 2000s, the term white privilege had been used far before that (growing in popularity from 1970) so it most certainly is her interpretation of the term, it was not created in this work.

Wrong, on multiple accounts - since it wasn't Peggy that wrote the book...

it was referencing her work. Which would be her 1988 (not 2000s) essay "White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences Through Work in Women’s Studies" which is where the 2 concepts "White Privilege" and "Male Privilege" were discussed together as being analogous - It's the start of the idea of "White Male Privilege" and since Peggy was first to create the concept, her definition applies.

However, the material is clear - although not all Males benefit to the same degree, it explicitly states (twice) that "Male Privilege" applies to "All Males" - which fits your criteria for being Sexist.

You are quite correct on one count - you DO need to believe in Male Supremacy to believe such nonsense - which is why I don't believe it, however I challenge you to find anyone within the Gender/Womens studies part of Academia that also doesn't believe in that (or a variant - such as Patriarchy or the Wage Gap) and is still accepted by their peers.

[husaberg]

I never said you did, but you DID hold up the Media as the arbiters of what is and is not Alt-right.
Not really, there's quite a divide, you're trying a guilt by association.

You attempt to say you know better than vast numbers of other people not just journalists when it comes to pigeon holing kooks.
They are guilty by association, thats why they get grouped together they share ideals and so much common ground and supporters

Argumentum ad populum.

As above especially sconsidering why the term was coined an attempt in itself to make out they were different from the other kooks when they were not.

What sum of his actions? You mean protesting against Islam? You know that Islam isn't a race... If you mean to say he protests against people from certain 3rd world countries who bring certain 3rd world ideas with them (that it's okay to Rape western women) - you know that the objection isn't made on the colour of their skin, but by the ideas that they hold.

Here you go tring to turn a comment about AKA's and make it more palatable.
there is nothing in the culture or religion that makes this okay. just as there is nothing in the culture or religion of Catholicism to do the same and commit sexual abuse.
The individuals are accountable for their actions not the religion. You seem to be not able to separate that.

I've listened to quite a bit of Tommy, I'd wager more than you.

Id wager you sure have i only read and watched enough that it took to form a balanced opinion on him.

That presupposes there was no division before Tommy - Need I remind you how long the Rotherham rapes went un-prosecuted?.

I need to remind you that aka's focus was solely on rapes carried out by people of the Indian subcontinent, he not interested in anything unless its a platform to increase racial tension.
I also need to remind you most sexual abuse is not carried out by people from the Indian subcontinent at all. its carried out by people like AKA.
How long has it taken for the clergy to be held accountable for that.

You misunderstand - The point is that there IS a Malevolent Left Wing. It Exists. As for Controlling, I think JBP answered this best - Left Wing types don't like borders and like to be all-inclusive, which means they have a hard time kicking people out who go too far.

Coool so you will be able to back that up with evidence as i have asked you to multiple times, you will also need t counter who actually owns most of the media and who they are aligned with left or right.

I'm reminded of a BBC interview where the interviewee said "I'm literally a Communist" - ask yourself this, if there is not a Left-Wing Bias, would that be acceptable? Would the reaction been the same if they said "I'm literally a Neo-Nazi".

He was open about his views hes also one person one swallow does not make a spring

You could argue that this is one discrete datapoint, but I'd counter with it's one of many.

Its multiple datapoints when it comes to katman.

[Katman]

i only read and watched enough that it took to form a balanced opinion on him.

[husaberg]

That's how adults work they don't need to read and watch every thing they ever said and wrote. They watch and observe enough information to form a balanced view.
Then using reasoning skills they make a judgement based on all the data they have viewed. single data set.
While on the other hand conspiracy theorist like you, look for only single pieces of information, that suit their preconceived adgenda then take it out of context and manipulate it to suit.
They then say look what i found all the while totally ignoring Any data that completely contradicts their original preconceived notion.

[Katman]

Thats how adults work

Even retarded ones?

[Katman]

That's how adults work they don't need to read and watch every thing they ever said and wrote. They watch and observe enough information to form a balanced view. Then using reasoning skills they make a judgement based on all the data they have viewed.
They then say look what i found while totally ignoring Any data that completely contradicts their original preconceived notion.

You've edited that post rather poorly.

[husaberg]

Even retarded ones?

Youre covered in the second part.

That's how adults work they don't need to read and watch every thing they ever said and wrote. They watch and observe enough information to form a balanced view.
Then using reasoning skills they make a judgement based on all the data they have viewed. single data set.
While on the other hand conspiracy theorist like you, look for only single pieces of information, that suit their preconceived adgenda then take it out of context and manipulate it to suit.
They then say "look what i found" all the while totally ignoring Any data that completely contradicts their original preconceived notion.

PS thanks for so elegantly proving my point about you ya total egg.

[Katman]

You edited it you alway never reply to complete posts.

Really?

[husaberg]

Really?

Really thats not what your original post was now was it.

https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/s...post1131111508