Milo Storms Twitter RNC Booth asking them a simple question: if they believe in free speech

[The Beast Within]

bias

 

[sangreporsangre]

Here is a disgusting Salon opinion piece defending "Twitter Troll" Azealia Banks. Banks was banned for being brutally racist. Milo was banned for mocking Leslie Jones movie. Oddly, Salon has no problem with Milo being banned. I guess it's because he is a white male and according to Salon, white males are the only problem in the world.

Azealia Banks’ Twitter ban is everything that’s wrong with Twitter: “Where’s @realDonaldTrump suspension?”

Yes, she trolls hard—meanwhile, white men hurl hate at women and people of color all day, every day, with impunity ...


@sodapopinski How do I link the site so Salon does not get any clicks?

Is Salon a troll site or what? Do liberals actually read that trash or is it just outrage porn? I've only seen it linked on here by more conservative posters and it's always some Onion-esque fuckery. Like with all the pedophilia crap they used to come out with. But I just followed your link on there and looked at some of the headlines....shit is surreal. I have to think that they know they're full of shit and they just come out with this over the top crap to piss off right wingers. Look at this article on the Munich shooting from Friday:

Munich shooting linked to neo-Nazi mass murderer Anders Breivik
The German-born shooter, Ali Sonboly, was likely inspired by right-wing extremists. He was not at all religious

http://www.salon.com/2016/07/23/munich_shooter_linked_to_neo_nazi_mass_murderer_anders_breivik/

Like wtf

 

[Rational Poster]

They believe in free speech as long as you agree with their view. Period. This is classic leftism.

Libertarians believe in the rights of private business until they're the ones getting thrown out.

 

[Hard To Tell]

Is Salon a troll site or what? Do liberals actually read that trash or is it just outrage porn? I've only seen it linked on here by more conservative posters and it's always some Onion-esque fuckery. Like with all the pedophilia crap they used to come out with. But I just followed your link on there and looked at some of the headlines....shit is surreal. I have to think that they know they're full of shit and they just come out with this over the top crap to piss off right wingers. Look at this article on the Munich shooting from Friday:

Munich shooting linked to neo-Nazi mass murderer Anders Breivik
The German-born shooter, Ali Sonboly, was likely inspired by right-wing extremists. He was not at all religious

http://www.salon.com/2016/07/23/munich_shooter_linked_to_neo_nazi_mass_murderer_anders_breivik/

Like wtf

Salon could easily be mistaken for a parody publication mocking the absurdity and hypocrisy of the liberal left. But sadly they are very much serious and worse still lots of people actually buy into their insane bullshit.

 

[Madmick]

How am I defending censorship? By saying I don't think Jack Dorsey should be able to unilaterally ban consumers he deems socially or politically undesirable?

My position is bias free. Unless you include bias against billion authoritarians.

Bullshit. Your post is an implied taunt against libertarians that they're reaping what they sow when theirs isn't the philosophy that is currently in place. That's the hypocrisy. The nature of Milo's position here has nothing to do with the grander libertarian philosophy pertaining to freedom within the private sector, and everything to do with him calling for the fair and balanced treatment of political camps on either side of the spectrum from this specific private establishment (since the man in control of this establishment is a Silicon Valley liberal who would certainly decry any restaurant that precluded Leslie Jones from eating at their establishment based on her skin color or liberal political beliefs).

So unless you explicitly call for the CRA to be rescinded, then all you're doing is sniping from a hypocritical perch. If the libertarians were to end up with their "dick in their own ass", then they should be the ones steering the erection. They're not. Libertarian philosophy isn't responsible for the CRA, and thus isn't responsible for the hypocrisy which is enraging them; the same hypocrisy you have participated in perpetuating.

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

I don't think you understand libertarian philosophy and the property rights argument. Private enterprise is private enterprise. What each capitalist owner serves or sells has no bearing on the ideology.

I think you don't understand the argument at all, which is not the least bit surprising.

The argument isn't that Twitter can't do this. The argument is to draw attention to what Twitter is doing, which is demonstrating a major bias.

You seem to think that a libertarian can only take a position of silence in terms of private business. That's nonsense. A libertarian believes in protests and boycotting. It doesn't believe in using government force. Milo isn't calling for Government force, he's attempting to humiliate Twitter by exposing their behavior.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Milo is an exceptionally gifted troll.
He cucked the American right wing by presenting himself as a stalwart conservative and then continually pushing his brand into aggressively flamboyant homosexuality. He's also a hero to GamerGate despite his open hostility to "manchildren who play video games".

He was able to turn his ban from Twitter into a huge self marketing boost for himself. Milo definitely won this round against Twitter, but time will tell if he can keep this momentum.

Milo has been very honest about being opportunistic. He saw opportunities to get his name out there and took advantage of them. Milo will last as long as this social justice fad does. My guess is that he will be largely forgotten within a few years.

Regardless of Milo's motives, he deserves a lot of credit for standing up to Leftist crybullies and pointing out the tyrannical tendencies of the leftist media and academics. That is why I support him.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Conservative Kassy Dillon was suspended for a few hours on Twitter and then the suspension was lifted. Twitter gave no explanation as to why this happened.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Bullshit. Your post is an implied taunt against libertarians that they're reaping what they sow when theirs isn't the philosophy that is currently in place. That's the hypocrisy. The nature of Milo's position here has nothing to do with the grander libertarian philosophy pertaining to freedom within the private sector, and everything to do with him calling for the fair and balanced treatment of political camps on either side of the spectrum from this specific private establishment (since the man in control of this establishment is a Silicon Valley liberal who would certainly decry any restaurant that precluded Leslie Jones from eating at their establishment based on her skin color or liberal political beliefs).

So unless you explicitly call for the CRA to be rescinded, then all you're doing is sniping from a hypocritical perch. If the libertarians were to end up with their "dick in their own ass", then they should be the ones steering the erection. They're not. Libertarian philosophy isn't responsible for the CRA, and thus isn't responsible for the hypocrisy which is enraging them; the same hypocrisy you have participated in perpetuating.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are genuinely in the dark regarding my position on this issue.

(I will also state, for the record, that I am not entirely clear on the point you are trying to make, either.)

I would remind you of the stance I took in the WR when Jeff Bezos decided to ban the sale of all merchandise bearing the image of the confederate flag. I took a lot of flack from the faux-liberals here for that one.

You have a choice now: Continue to rail against me in ignorance or take a step back and ask me to clarify my position for you.

And what does the Community Reinvestment Act have to do with this topic? You have lost me entirely with that one.

 

[Pixelated Porn]

Libertarians believe in the rights of private business until they're the ones getting thrown out.

Look, I don't give a shit about libertarians or whatever. It is scary that some posters do not care if only one view point can be expressed on dominant social media that finds its way onto the news and tv shows.
These people are insincere or tragically naive.

If a viewpoint is so stupid then it is easy to argue.

I guarantee you if twtter/fb only allowed the opposite view of SJWs then there would be a fucking uproar but have a viewpoint that does not exalt the SJWs then you get banned. It is bullshit.

Freedom of speech is the most important thing. Do you think gay marriage would have EVER BECOME legal if anyone who supported it was fired and persecuted on social media before having their account deleted???

It is just ridiculous how we are accepting the loss of a free exchange of ideas from happening. Not hurting my feelings is more important than other view points.

Now, when you are threatening another person then yes that is too far. Even if it is black people threatening cops.

 

[Rational Poster]

Look, I don't give a shit about libertarians or whatever. It is scary that some posters do not care if only one view point can be expressed on dominant social media that finds its way onto the news and tv shows.
These people are insincere or tragically naive.

If a viewpoint is so stupid then it is easy to argue.

I guarantee you if twtter/fb only allowed the opposite view of SJWs then there would be a fucking uproar but have a viewpoint that does not exalt the SJWs then you get banned. It is bullshit.

Freedom of speech is the most important thing. Do you think gay marriage would have EVER BECOME legal if anyone who supported it was fired and persecuted on social media before having their account deleted???

It is just ridiculous how we are accepting the loss of a free exchange of ideas from happening. Not hurting my feelings is more important than other view points.

Now, when you are threatening another person then yes that is too far. Even if it is black people threatening cops.

Milo still has freedom of speech. Nothing has been infringed.

The owners of a corporation have decided they don't want him participating on it. They don't have to fund his views if they don't want to.

That's real freedom.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I think you don't understand the argument at all, which is not the least bit surprising.

The argument isn't that Twitter can't do this. The argument is to draw attention to what Twitter is doing, which is demonstrating a major bias.

You seem to think that a libertarian can only take a position of silence in terms of private business. That's nonsense. A libertarian believes in protests and boycotting. It doesn't believe in using government force. Milo isn't calling for Government force, he's attempting to humiliate Twitter by exposing their behavior.

Straw-man.

I never said or implied that there was hypocrisy at play in anything Milo or his libertarian supporters were trying to do in retaliation against Twitter.

I'm simply saying that this situation should wake up libertarian ideologues to the tyranny of the marketplace and to the tragic flaw inherent in any so-called "dollar democracy".

What's happening here is even worse than mob rule. Because in the marketplace you don't even need to form a mob to deprive a marginalized group their rights. You just need one authoritarian billionaire.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Libertarians believe in the rights of private business until they're the ones getting thrown out.

If this were true I would have more respect for libertarians.

The fact is, most of them will continue to believe in the "rights" of private businesses even as they are the ones getting thrown out.

 

[chardog]

Does every Leftist in the media know each other? I typed Milo into Google news and noticed a large amount of similar articles from left-wing biased media sites (the majority of media sites are left leaning) condemning Milo.

Like the gamer-gate fiasco, this attack on Milo seems like media collusion.

wouldnt be surprising. Facebook, google, twitter, are part of the mainstream media these days.

These companies have transformed into news outlets and can be the dominant source one day.

 

[dontsnitch]

Straw-man.

I never said or implied that there was hypocrisy at play in anything Milo or his libertarian supporters were trying to do in retaliation against Twitter.

I'm simply saying that this situation should wake up libertarian ideologues to the tyranny of the marketplace and to the tragic flaw inherent in any so-called "dollar democracy".

What's happening here is even worse than mob rule. Because in the marketplace you don't even need to form a mob to deprive a marginalized group their rights. You just need one authoritarian billionaire.

If the authoritarian billionaire does not follow the Liberal zeitgeist, he will not succeed, which is exactly why they do follow it. These companies, for the most part, act as amoral agencies attempting to maximize profits. If you espouse the wrong view, you get the boot. Enter Milo. It's the same reason the NBA pulled the All Star Game.

 

[chardog]

Conservative Kassy Dillon was suspended for a few hours on Twitter and then the suspension was lifted. Twitter gave no explanation as to why this happened.

I figure by the way software behaves, twitter may have an auto ban feature, since they dont have the time to view all realtime thread, if they hit a certain threshold on reports, that can trigger an auto ban of an account till an admin gets time to view the post. That than let reported items run wild, issue an auto-ban and sort it out later, less damaging. If I were building software for twitter, that's how I would have it done. Doesnt seem fair, but better than having your site littered with porn/spam.

 

[ultramanhyata]

If the authoritarian billionaire does not follow the Liberal zeitgeist, he will not succeed, which is exactly why they do follow it. These companies, for the most part, act as amoral agencies attempting to maximize profits.

Do you really think a guy like Dorsey is a closet alt righter who is just cow towing to the "zeitgeist" by banning Milo?

 

[dontsnitch]

Do you really think a guy like Dorsey is a closet alt righter who is just cow towing to the "zeitgeist" by banning Milo?

I don't know, nor is it especially relevant. These guys are amoral when it comes to business, they are absolutely cow towing.

Could he be the exception? Sure, but it's not a coincidence the majority of business entertain the Liberal zeitgeist. It's also the reason why some people hide their views when they're the wrong ones.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I don't know, nor is it especially relevant. These guys are amoral when it comes to business, they are absolutely cow towing.

Could he be the exception? Sure, but it's not a coincidence the majority of business entertain the Liberal zeitgeist. It's also the reason why some people hide their views when they're the wrong ones.

The dynamic you're referring to is real.

This is all the more reason we need to regulate the commercial sector in such a way that a company's owner cannot arbitrarily discriminate and deny service to certain, individual consumers or suppliers.

It will protect the consumers/suppliers. AND protect business from boycotts.

Because if the public understands that a CEO does not have the legal power to ban a certain type of customer the public will not hold it against the CEO, or his company, if the customer in question happens to be someone that segment of the public deems reprehensible.

 

[dontsnitch]

The dynamic you're referring to is real.

This is all the more reason we need to regulate the commercial sector in such a way that a company's owner cannot arbitrarily discriminate and deny service to certain, individual consumers or suppliers.

It will protect the consumers/suppliers. AND protect business from boycotts.

Because if the public understands that a CEO does not have the legal power to ban a certain type of customer the public will not hold it against the CEO, or his company, if the customer in question happens to be someone that segment of the public deems reprehensible.

You cannot force a company to associate itself with views that will hurt it's bottom line.

Take the NBA's decision to change venues. Your idea is to force them to host in NC? Sounds ironically authoritarian.