Free speech.

[TheDemonLord]

Racism would be one, where twitter bloke is racist, so sees no problem with posts racist against whites, but does with posts racist against other minorities. It may be a left wing philosphy as well, but it is still racist.

And who is it, that finds racism against white people acceptable, but is absolutely intolerant to racism to Minorities? I'll give you another hint - It's adherents to that Left Wing Philosophy...

Twitter bloke may also have seen a post which only changed the race aspect, as being one designed to incite attacks on the original poster, or racist discussion.

For which you'd need to provide something to back that up - critique/parody =/= incitement to attack. That's where your conjecture falls down.

Which changed the intended meaning. And also relied on you understanding the ommitted statements, which you clearly do not, as you cannot even quote them. I'll reiterate; he never said that they monitor behavior without monitoring content, nor any words to that effect.

Uh Huh. He did make statements similar to that and when analyzed they form an impossibility. Which is why I omitted them - that you don't like it, is just proof of your ideological blindness - you'd rather believe a lie than concede a point.

That's sargons law though, you are asserting that the term cannot have another meaning other than the one you have found in your description. My assertion is that there is another meaning which is applicable; do you see the difference? Do you understand the fallacy? I'll give you a hint, it is to ensure a term is not overly constrained by definition so as to be used to narrowly define said term, especially when there can be multiple interpretations, or the actual usage has changed over time. But, history has shown you are incapable of understanding basic fallacies and work to create exceptions in your own favour, so I really can't be arsed starting a detailed discussion on this one until you finish the last one...

Except for one teeensy tiny detail:

Nothing you've posted contradicts what I've posted. You've only referenced your own personal interpretation of the word "Males" to be read as "Some Males" - you've provided nothing from anything approaching an academic source that backs this up. You've tried a linguistic and a semantic argument, but both of these have required you to dismiss what I've posted.

Whereas when you take what I've posted and what you posted in tandem - it's clear that "Males" is to be read as "All Males".

Now, if you can find something from an Academic source that explicitly places a limit on the application....

No, context matters when its removal changes the intended meaning. Context is not a subjective narrative. This is simple shit dude...

So you mean that in the context of a debate, a rebuttal must take the form of a contradictory statement...

See what I mean by picking and choosing when context is/isn't important. Since I'm generous - I'll let you pick:

either Context is important and therefore you failed miserably in your rebuttal and your subsequent whining was just whining.
or
Context isn't important and you can retract all of these accusations (despite me pointing out a valid reason for omitting that you simply don't like).

Pick one.

[Graystone]

Uh Huh. He did make statements similar to that and when analyzed they form an impossibility. Which is why I omitted them - that you don't like it, is just proof of your ideological blindness - you'd rather believe a lie than concede a point.

Let's cut all your other bullshit and see just what lies beneath your major malfunction. Here we have you, once again putting your interpretation so far ahead of all others you remove evidence and context that dispute it. Now I've called you out on it, you still assert he made the statements you continually refuse to quote. Although now you've added the 'similar' caveat, which one can only assume is the start of more backpedaling... He didn't say what you claim he did, and your approach of ignoring this fact is utterly contemptible. There is simply no point discussing the rest of your drivel now that you have shown your true colors.

[TheDemonLord]

Let's cut all your other bullshit and see just what lies beneath your major malfunction. Here we have you, once again putting your interpretation so far ahead of all others you remove evidence and context that dispute it. Now I've called you out on it, you still assert he made the statements you continually refuse to quote. Although now you've added the 'similar' caveat, which one can only assume is the start of more backpedaling... He didn't say what you claim he did, and your approach of ignoring this fact is utterly contemptible. There is simply no point discussing the rest of your drivel now that you have shown your true colors.

Let's see - you've only had an issue with the quote until a few posts ago. and suddenly you only want to discuss a singular issue...

It looks strikingly like you got owned on that point and the others and so want to divert attention away from that.

Here's the issue - I know the full quote, you know the full quote - you're trying to go for some moral high ground, whilst remaining deliberately evasive. One would conjecture that if the full quotation was as iron-clad as you claim, you'd post it up (much like Husa did) - except you haven't.

What he said was an impossible statement, I omitted the impossible part. If you want to make the case (as you claim) that by removing it I've been horribly deceptive - then all you need to do is explain how it can be true.

That's not a particularly high burden of proof - yet you've continually declined to do so.

This leaves us with but one conclusion: You know it's an impossible statement, you can't make the case as to why it's true - which is why you don't post it in full, but so as to give the air of victory (and to avoid conceding the point) you remain as evasive as you accuse me of being so.

[Graystone]

Let's see - you've only had an issue with the quote until a few posts ago. and suddenly you only want to discuss a singular issue...

It looks strikingly like you got owned on that point and the others and so want to divert attention away from that.

Here's the issue - I know the full quote, you know the full quote - you're trying to go for some moral high ground, whilst remaining deliberately evasive. One would conjecture that if the full quotation was as iron-clad as you claim, you'd post it up (much like Husa did) - except you haven't.

What he said was an impossible statement, I omitted the impossible part. If you want to make the case (as you claim) that by removing it I've been horribly deceptive - then all you need to do is explain how it can be true.

That's not a particularly high burden of proof - yet you've continually declined to do so.

This leaves us with but one conclusion: You know it's an impossible statement, you can't make the case as to why it's true - which is why you don't post it in full, but so as to give the air of victory (and to avoid conceding the point) you remain as evasive as you accuse me of being so.

You stacked one omission on another until you thought you point made sense. Dishonest in the extreme.

The actual quote is “The real question behind the question is, ‘Are we doing something according to political ideology or viewpoints?’ And we are not. Period,” Dorsey said. “We do not look at content with regards to political viewpoint or ideology. We look at behavior.” from here

See in bold for the context that you ignored, to justify removing additional context around your other quote. You have been horribly deceptive, because you can monitor behavior, without monitoring the political viewpoint or ideology of the poster.

Guess that leaves your conclusion in the shit It was a test for you, if you were rational and honest you would check quotes like that when they are questioned, so I gave you the opportunity to correct yourself; you have failed miserably.

[TheDemonLord]

You stacked one omission on another until you thought you point made sense. Dishonest in the extreme.

The actual quote is “The real question behind the question is, ‘Are we doing something according to political ideology or viewpoints?’ And we are not. Period,” Dorsey said. “We do not look at content with regards to political viewpoint or ideology. We look at behavior.” from here

See in bold for the context that you ignored, to justify removing additional context around your other quote. You have been horribly deceptive, because you can monitor behavior, without monitoring the political viewpoint or ideology of the poster.

Guess that leaves your conclusion in the shit It was a test for you, if you were rational and honest you would check quotes like that when they are questioned, so I gave you the opportunity to correct yourself; you have failed miserably.

You remember when I made the point earlier about certain political viewpoints having a self-declared moral component? Thank you for so kindly blundering into my trap...

Lets take Trans issues as an example:

"Trans Women are not real Women" - is a perfectly factual statement. In right wing circles, this would be an acceptable statement.
But! If you have a left-leaning bias, this statement would constitute Transphobia and be in breach of Twitters rules (namely the "Abuse and hateful conduct" guidelines)

The behavior is intrinsically linked to a political viewpoint/ideology.

Same with Gun Control debate, Same with the Abortion Debate, Immigration debate, Gender Debate etc. etc. ad nauseum ad infinitum.

As I said - it's an impossible statement, because of the implied moral 'superiority' of certain viewpoints.

[Katman]

It was a test for you....

Thank you for so kindly blundering into my trap...

Are you guys sure you're not one and the same person?

[oldrider]

Google briefing says tech companies should abandon “American tradition” of free speech:- https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/10/g...of-free-speech

[Graystone]

You remember when I made the point earlier about certain political viewpoints having a self-declared moral component? Thank you for so kindly blundering into my trap...

Lets take Trans issues as an example:

"Trans Women are not real Women" - is a perfectly factual statement. In right wing circles, this would be an acceptable statement.
But! If you have a left-leaning bias, this statement would constitute Transphobia and be in breach of Twitters rules (namely the "Abuse and hateful conduct" guidelines)

The behavior is intrinsically linked to a political viewpoint/ideology.

Same with Gun Control debate, Same with the Abortion Debate, Immigration debate, Gender Debate etc. etc. ad nauseum ad infinitum.

As I said - it's an impossible statement, because of the implied moral 'superiority' of certain viewpoints.

Fuck that's weak.

Your 'one conclusion' is clearly in error, no comment on that? I pointed out that the quote you had been referring to was wrong, no comment on that what you removed was not what he actually said? I pointed out that the actual quote means there is no impossibility, you make no reference to what was actually said and go off on some rant about transphobia, the fuck are you on about? Do try and tie this stuff back to reality eh!

[TheDemonLord]

Fuck that's weak.

Your 'one conclusion' is clearly in error, no comment on that? I pointed out that the quote you had been referring to was wrong, no comment on that what you removed was not what he actually said? I pointed out that the actual quote means there is no impossibility, you make no reference to what was actually said and go off on some rant about transphobia, the fuck are you on about? Do try and tie this stuff back to reality eh!

And with that - I think you've just about thrown in the towel.

You only posted it after I goaded you into it, and I did so specifically so you'd make the error you did. I'd already explained earlier about issues that have a political element in relation to Jack's comment.

It's not a rant about Transphobia per se - try reading it again.

It's about certain issues that have a strong political element where depending on whether you are right leaning or left leaning determines if certain statements or phrases are valid critique or abuse/harrassment.

And to highlight this - I provided an example where a perfectly valid right-wing statement, that is scientifically accurate, is regarded as harassment/abuse/transphobic by the Left Wing. Then pointing out in the Twitter ToS this is regarded as a breach of said ToS.

Abortion is another issue with a Clear Left/Right divide and a claimed moral component - so too with Gun Control, Immigration/refugees etc. etc.

Perhaps another way to put it is this:

The only way to know if saying "Trans Women aren't real Women" is harassment or not is entirely dependent on the political viewpoint and ideology you hold.

[Graystone]

And with that - I think you've just about thrown in the towel.

You only posted it after I goaded you into it, and I did so specifically so you'd make the error you did. I'd already explained earlier about issues that have a political element in relation to Jack's comment.

It's not a rant about Transphobia per se - try reading it again.

It's about certain issues that have a strong political element where depending on whether you are right leaning or left leaning determines if certain statements or phrases are valid critique or abuse/harrassment.

And to highlight this - I provided an example where a perfectly valid right-wing statement, that is scientifically accurate, is regarded as harassment/abuse/transphobic by the Left Wing. Then pointing out in the Twitter ToS this is regarded as a breach of said ToS.

Abortion is another issue with a Clear Left/Right divide and a claimed moral component - so too with Gun Control, Immigration/refugees etc. etc.

Perhaps another way to put it is this:

The only way to know if saying "Trans Women aren't real Women" is harassment or not is entirely dependent on the political viewpoint and ideology you hold.

Don't be stupid, it's obvious you didn't goad me into that, and had no idea what was actually said until I posted it. It's why you have not referred to it directly at all since I posted it. It's also clear that faced with your own errors, you're now looking for any excuse to throw in the towel.

You're trying to put the cart before the horse, yes some issues have strong correlation with political viewpoint, but the issue can be evaluated on its own merits, in absence of political content of the post. There are also many, many issues which have no significant political correlation, so even if one accepts your mentally back-flipped interpretation, it is not global, so you cannot claim a thing is impossible. And we can also note, that your much repeated claim of "it being impossible to analyze behavior without analyzing content" has been overturned, and absent from your piss weak attempts at justification since I posted the real quote...

[Banditbandit]

Good grief - I think that 57 pages of argument about Free Speech proves there is such a thing.

[TheDemonLord]

Don't be stupid, it's obvious you didn't goad me into that, and had no idea what was actually said until I posted it. It's why you have not referred to it directly at all since I posted it. It's also clear that faced with your own errors, you're now looking for any excuse to throw in the towel.

Then how come you didn't post it until I specifically goaded you... - Cause, Effect/

As for the "no idea" - I'd like to refer you to post https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/s...post1131112884

Were I described the mechanism for why Political bias is a factor in content analysis and how a companies own bias would manifest itself in the filter rules.

It's there, in black and white - well before you started to complain about the accuracy of the Quotation.

You're trying to put the cart before the horse, yes some issues have strong correlation with political viewpoint, but the issue can be evaluated on its own merits, in absence of political content of the post.

Okay - try this - let's stick with Trans issues: I'd like you to outline without reference to any political or ideological theories the point at which a medical discussion becomes Transphobic.

The simple answer is you can't - you need a context to make that determination, the context is a socio-political one, which means again, his statement is false

There are also many, many issues which have no significant political correlation, so even if one accepts your mentally back-flipped interpretation, it is not global, so you cannot claim a thing is impossible. And we can also note, that your much repeated claim of "it being impossible to analyze behavior without analyzing content" has been overturned, and absent from your piss weak attempts at justification since I posted the real quote...

Sure, there are issues that have no significant Political correlation - but you cannot interpret words without a context. That Context is a socio-political one. Moreover, this doesn't make up the contentious filtering issue that Jack was talking in reference to that statement.

I'll give you an example:

Without a socio-political context, you can't distinguish between the following phrases:

"I fucking hate cheese"
"I fucking hate jews"

You need to know what cheese is, who Jews are, you need to understand what Hate means, you need to understand how profanity modifies language. And that's before we get into the historical contexts.

[Graystone]

Then how come you didn't post it until I specifically goaded you... - Cause, Effect/

As for the "no idea" - I'd like to refer you to post https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/s...post1131112884

Were I described the mechanism for why Political bias is a factor in content analysis and how a companies own bias would manifest itself in the filter rules.

It's there, in black and white - well before you started to complain about the accuracy of the Quotation.



Okay - try this - let's stick with Trans issues: I'd like you to outline without reference to any political or ideological theories the point at which a medical discussion becomes Transphobic.

The simple answer is you can't - you need a context to make that determination, the context is a socio-political one, which means again, his statement is false



Sure, there are issues that have no significant Political correlation - but you cannot interpret words without a context. That Context is a socio-political one. Moreover, this doesn't make up the contentious filtering issue that Jack was talking in reference to that statement.

I'll give you an example:

Without a socio-political context, you can't distinguish between the following phrases:

"I fucking hate cheese"
"I fucking hate jews"

You need to know what cheese is, who Jews are, you need to understand what Hate means, you need to understand how profanity modifies language. And that's before we get into the historical contexts.

I posted it because it is logical to check quotes validity, and you clearly had not done so. I guess being wrong is a type of goading if you are determined to see it that way...

The post that said this "could you just explain how it is possible to filter on behavior, without monitoring content?" ? If you knew what was posted, you would have specified political content, just as the guy you 'quoted' did.

No, lets not stick with the issue you chose, you've claimed an impossibility (that means global application), so you can't cherry pick examples. Explain to me how violently threatening behavior cannot be judged without examining post's political content.

[FJRider]

Without a socio-political context, you can't distinguish between the following phrases:

"I fucking hate cheese"
"I fucking hate jews"

You need to know what cheese is, who Jews are, you need to understand what Hate means, you need to understand how profanity modifies language. And that's before we get into the historical contexts.

Bullshit. There are some that only know about the cheese's that are commonly advertised on TV (and can recite the adds by heart). And the only jew they know lives three doors down their street and wears funny clothes some days of the week.

What's the difference between these two ... ?? Is it down to context ... poor choice of words ... or an indication of a poor sex life ...

"I hate fucking cheese"
"I hate fucking Jews

[Laava]

Good grief - I think that 57 pages of argument about Free Speech proves there is such a thing.

Lol, good one.