The No Twitter Mobs signup & discussion thread

[Fawlty]

Simple thing here. Sign up to commit, at least in the WR, to not join any Twitter Mobs that look to take somebody's livelihood for jokes, or ugly comments or behavior from the past that no longer represent that person's views and commitments.

This will require that you understand the difference between criticism of relevant views and shit-mobbing, but I trust that about 65% of us are capable of that.


Super long Jerry Maguire manifesto:

This shit has gone too far. Everybody is looking for any fake excuse to wield Twitter against people for comments that were not serious, or views they no longer hold, for any purpose that might defame somebody for the purpose of taking away their job, by pressuring overly-reactive corporations. This is not an apolitical commitment, but it's a nonpartisan one.

Anyway, shame on us, this is garbage and we need to knock it off. We're angle-shooting the hell out of free speech principles. Just because we can get away with having everybody we don't like fired, does not mean we should.

This should include about 30% of #metoo incidents as well, but that's another more complicated mess.


Examples of shit-mobbing:

Going after comedians and others who are joking (whether or not the joke is funny)

(Sarah Silverman, James Gunn, much of Ann Coulter, much of Roseanne)​

Going after people for racist or other hateful/ignorant/offensive comments they have since disavowed

(Josh Hader, Sarah Jeong, Ben Shapiro)​

Going after anybody without giving them the benefit of the doubt

(Roseanne's latest)​

 

[Devout Pessimist]

I don't have a twitter account.

 

[Quipling]

I don't have a twitter account.

#metoo

 

[all caps]

In

 

[Trotsky]

Somebody doesn't want those old "jokes" about public masturbation to get dug up.

 

[all caps]

I don't have a twitter account.

Me either, but I think @Fawlty means when someone brings this shitty twitter outrage here, we dont participate.

 

[Fawlty]

Gonna hold motherfuckers to account.

I do anticipate a lot of confusion where people think any big Twitter reaction is a "mob," but we'll educate the confused as they confuffle.

 

[Cid]

Fuck that. Anybody who uses twitter deserves whatever is coming to them.

Even if they don't.

 

[Fawlty]

Me either, but I think @Fawlty means when someone brings this shitty twitter outrage here, we dont participate.

obv.

Silverman thread, Hader stuff, that racist Asian bitch, etc.

 

[Trotsky]

Anyways, @Fawlty, I don't think this is a workable premise for a few reasons:

(i) what defines a person's "livelihood" is important. Are they a public servant? Are they someone whose judgment is relied upon for the livelihoods of others?

(ii) what defines the intention to deprive them of that livelihood? Can you criticize the statements and views, while holding short of advocating their termination?

(iii) what is the burden of proof on whether those views are indicative of their current views and/or judgment? If someone advocates genocide but, for several years following does not saying anything explicitly consistent with that, do they get the benefit of the doubt that they are no longer a piece of shit?


Anyways, I'm generally of the same position as you, but I'm also really tired of people bastardizing the shit out of the term "free speech." Nowadays it's been nearly evacuated of all meaning.

 

[Fawlty]

Anyways, @Fawlty, I don't think this is a workable premise for a few reasons:

(i) what defines a person's "livelihood" is important. Are they a public servant? Are they someone whose judgment is relied upon for the livelihoods of others?

(ii) what defines the intention to deprive them of that livelihood? Can you criticize the statements and views, while holding short of advocating their termination?

(iii) what is the burden of proof on whether those views are indicative of their current views and/or judgment? If someone advocates genocide but, for several years following does not saying anything explicitly consistent with that, do they get the benefit of the doubt that they are no longer a piece of shit?


Anyways, I'm generally of the same position as you, but I'm also really tired of people bastardizing the shit out of the term "free speech." Nowadays it's been nearly evacuated of all meaning.

I'm expecting people to be able to read our recent threads and figure this out for themselves. Well, 65% of us anyway. I mean jumping on Silverman or Gunn for jokes, or on the baseball pitcher who was just being a jackass kid, or on the Asian lady who talked shit about white people 4 years ago.

That should include restraining ourselves from calling for, or defending their firings just because we don't like what they used to believe, or the joke they made.

It definitely should not include people who are expressing abhorrent views they currently hold and promote, particularly if they are public officials (that would be really stupid, but again, I think about 65% of us can sniff those out and make the distinction).

If iii comes up, obviously we would discuss it. But that's fine, the point is that we stop and remember that we're not in the Twitter mob, and that pile-on bullshit is not for us.

Free speech has settled in a really tricky spot. It has its legal meaning, but it also has that gray area where we can abuse the fuck out of it, which we do with gusto. The legal meaning becomes irrelevant when we chill it too much. That's always an area of debate though.

 

[xcvbn]

I don't see the issue with holding people to their word if it's something said in the present, or seeking clarification/explanation if it's from the past.

If you post something online with your stupid little e-name next to it then take responsibility for when it comes back around that you're a racist piece of shit or an overt pedophile.

Take responsibility for your words and actions then maybe the manic hysteria over past events will die down. And yes, suffering the consequences is part of it.

This thread is dumb btw- trying to prememptively protect idiots who refuse to own their shit. I think you're a good poster @Fawlty but you're way off base with this one.

 

[Fawlty]

I don't see the issue with holding people to their word if it's something said in the present, or seeking clarification/explanation if it's from the past.

If you post something online with your stupid little e-name next to it then take responsibility for when it comes back around that you're a racist piece of shit or an overt pedophile.

Take responsibility for your words and actions then maybe the manic hysteria over past events will die down. And yes, suffering the consequences is part of it.

This thread is dumb btw- trying to prememptively protect idiots who refuse to own their shit. I think you're a good poster @Fawlty but you're way off base with this one.

We're clearly, massively, outrageously overreacting as a nation, to everything.

But if you're cool with that, GTFO and peace be with you

 

[Trotsky]

I'm expecting people to be able to read our recent threads and figure this out for themselves. Well, 65% of us anyway. I mean jumping on Silverman or Gunn for jokes, or on the baseball pitcher who was just being a jackass kid, or on the Asian lady who talked shit about white people 4 years ago.

That should include restraining ourselves from calling for, or defending their firings just because we don't like what they used to believe, or the joke they made.

It definitely should not include people who are expressing abhorrent views they currently hold and promote, particularly if they are public officials (that would be really stupid, but again, I think about 65% of us can sniff those out and make the distinction).

If iii comes up, obviously we would discuss it. But that's fine, the point is that we stop and remember that we're not in the Twitter mob, and that pile-on bullshit is not for us.

Free speech has settled in a really tricky spot. It has its legal meaning, but it also has that gray area where we can abuse the fuck out of it, which we do with gusto. The legal meaning becomes irrelevant when we chill it too much. That's always an area of debate though.

I'm not up to date on the Silverman. I agree about Gunn. The Asian journalists' tweets did seem pretty out of line and, frankly, I would be fine if NYT fired her just to protect the perceived objectivity of their brand. But I only glanced into that story as well.

And, regarding free speech, regardless of the optics we are still in the golden age. The 60s and 70s may well have been the peak, but the backslide hasn't been all that meaningful. At the core of "free speech principles" is that, so long as the government is neutral, the persons lobbying corporations to fire employees for private speech are themselves exercising important political speech worthy of protection. It's the marketplace of ideas - and it's best when it's vibrant.

 

[Kindacrazy]

Not on twitter, but I would never attack someones livelihood over a joke or even over an opinion.

 

[Fawlty]

I'm not up to date on the Silverman. I agree about Gunn. The Asian journalists' tweets did seem pretty out of line and, frankly, I would be fine if NYT fired her just to protect the perceived objectivity of their brand. But I only glanced into that story as well.

And, regarding free speech, regardless of the optics we are still in the golden age. The 60s and 70s may well have been the peak, but the backslide hasn't been all that meaningful. At the core of "free speech principles" is that, so long as the government is neutral, the persons lobbying corporations to fire employees for private speech are themselves exercising important political speech worthy of protection. It's the marketplace of ideas - and it's best when it's vibrant.

It's Saul Alinsky's wettest dream out there lately. I see it as chaos rather than vibrancy. I think we'll adjust but we have to get past this mob stuff.

 

[xcvbn]

We're clearly, massively, outrageously overreacting as a nation, to everything.

But if you're cool with that, GTFO and peace be with you

lmfao do you even read your own thread???!!! Stop being a lunatic

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Lost me at needing to disavow.

 

[Fawlty]

Lost me at needing to disavow.

It shouldn't "lose you" for not going as far as you want it to.

I'm only asking that we not go after people for shit they don't actually believe, like jokes and former views. That's really not asking much.

 

[Fawlty]

lmfao do you even read your own thread???!!! Stop being a lunatic

?

You think the way things are is dandy. We should keep attacking people for views they don't hold? Getting them fired for jokes and for statements they no longer agree with?

Enjoy that world, no thanks.