The No Twitter Mobs signup & discussion thread

[Gluteus Swag]

The only people who will sign up for "no Twitter mobbing" are the same people who aren't likely to mob in the first place. Meanwhile, the usual crowd will continue to do what they've always done.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

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.

Sure. But to me that implies giving a pass only to those you feel have shown proper penance. Which still demonstrates lack of regard for differing opinions. Hardly an impressive stance.

 

[Fawlty]

The only people who will sign up for "no Twitter mobbing" are the same people who aren't likely to mob in the first place. Meanwhile, the usual crowd will continue to do what they've always done.

Free country and all. Nobody has to be a joiner, but if it makes people stop and ask themselves whether they're going after somebody on some bullshit, that's good. For in that Tweet of death what mobs may come when have fucked off this karate forum must give us pause.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

?

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.

Is it really that hard to avoid racism, misogyny and pedophilia comments on twitter? It is pretty clear at this point what topics will get the mobs riled up and businesses hitting the trap floor button.

 

[Fawlty]

Sure. But to me that implies giving a pass only to those you feel have shown proper penance. Which still demonstrates lack of regard for differing opinions. Hardly an impressive stance.

Yet, it's a standard this place regularly fails to meet.

I'm not implying anything of the sort. I'm just asking that we stop and consider whether we are going after people for things they actually believe.

 

[glenwo2]

I don't have a twitter account.

I used to....until Twitter itself blocked me and asked for me to provide my REAL phone number in order to get access restored.

To twitter, my response was :

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

Twitter is The Great Satan. Or is that facebook?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Yet, it's a standard this place regularly fails to meet.

I'm not implying anything of the sort. I'm just asking that we stop and consider whether we are going after people for things they actually believe.

I get ya. not sure who you think "we" is. I don't support the witch hunt regardless.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Is this like the No Fap Brotherhood?

 

[Sketch]

Yet, it's a standard this place regularly fails to meet.

I'm not implying anything of the sort. I'm just asking that we stop and consider whether we are going after people for things they actually believe.

How do we measure this? Who get's to say whether what someone posts online is something they "actually believe?"

You have mentioned time being a factor here, why? What is the cut off?

 

[Sketch]

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.

That's my issue. Why is she being protected like this? Who the hell is she? Her tweets are absurd. I don't even think she is genuinely racist per say, but she is quite off the rocker I would guess. She is also someone who has a really big mouth to post that stuff online, weird for a corporate entity to go to bat for a new employee like this.

 

[Fawlty]

How do we measure this? Who get's to say whether what someone posts online is something they "actually believe?"

You have mentioned time being a factor here, why? What is the cut off?

There isn't a cutoff. But if people consider this, they'll factor it into their response.

Well, if they have said they don't believe something, they probably don't believe it.

If they are joking, they should get the benefit of the doubt.

Like I said, about 65% of us are capable of making these distinctions and borderline cases are rare. So, it's whatever. But thinking about it, that's good.

 

[Sketch]

There isn't a cutoff. But if people consider this, they'll factor it into their response.

Well, if they have said they don't believe something, they probably don't believe it.

If they are joking, they should get the benefit of the doubt.

Like I said, about 65% of us are capable of making these distinctions and borderline cases are rare. So, it's whatever. But thinking about it, that's good.

Ok, the whole 65% thing is a random number picked out of what? Your assumptions about this subject you have created?

So there isn't a cut off, but if people consider your ideas, they will then factor it into their response? Ok. I think that is a weird thing to assume of people, considering some won't agree with you to begin with but then you are also suggesting they will take your word as gospel and factor your ideas into their response.

Then you say if someone says something they don't believe in, they should get the benefit of the doubt. This I know for sure you don't believe at all. Imagine someone was pro trump for months, then said to you "Nah I'm kidding" I know you would not give them the benefit of the doubt.

Thinking about anything is always good, and I agree with your last point.

 

[Lead]

I don't have twitter should be an option but yes, twitter mobs are stupid and anyone allowing them to affect a persons livelihood is ever worse.

 

[Trotsky]

That's my issue. Why is she being protected like this? Who the hell is she? Her tweets are absurd. I don't even think she is genuinely racist per say, but she is quite off the rocker I would guess. She is also someone who has a really big mouth to post that stuff online, weird for a corporate entity to go to bat for a new employee like this.

I honestly haven't looked into it/her much.

But it's understandable by a newspaper, especially one like the NYT that has had some very controversial and earth-shaking news reporting, wants their employees to feel like they have job security and that the newspaper isn't going to be strong-armed into railroading them for political reasons. Generally speaking, the persons who get hired there can have most any job they want, so I'm betting that's at the center of it.

 

[Trotsky]

I don't have twitter should be an option but yes, twitter mobs are stupid and anyone allowing them to affect a persons livelihood is ever worse.

I ask that you exercise your moderator superpowers to add two news options:

Option #3: "I don't have a Twitter account"
Option #4: "Fawlty has a tiny wiener."

 

[Sketch]

I honestly haven't looked into it/her much.

But it's understandable by a newspaper, especially one like the NYT that has had some very controversial and earth-shaking news reporting, wants their employees to feel like they have job security and that the newspaper isn't going to be strong-armed into railroading them for political reasons. Generally speaking, the persons who get hired there can have most any job they want, so I'm betting that's at the center of it.

You feel that the NYT is mostly concerned about their employees feeling like they have job security as apposed to hiring people that are not extremely controversial? Like you said, they have a brand to protect. You said her tweets were out of line. She used a public medium to express her opinions in a manner that alienates potential investors and clients and also makes their product tainted with all this hysteria (Good or bad, mob or not)

I think most employers would like to provide a safety net for their employees and make them feel good about their work etc. This isn't really a political reason to not hire her or possibly fire her, the things she has said are just really bad. On a corporate level it's reprehensible. People don't get hired or lose their jobs for less.

 

[Gluteus Swag]

That's my issue. Why is she being protected like this? Who the hell is she? Her tweets are absurd. I don't even think she is genuinely racist per say, but she is quite off the rocker I would guess. She is also someone who has a really big mouth to post that stuff online, weird for a corporate entity to go to bat for a new employee like this.

I don't get it either. Why not hire one of the billions of people on Earth who have not publicly made extremely racist Twitter posts?

 

[HomerThompson]

I ask that you exercise your moderator superpowers to add two news options:

Option #3: "I don't have a Twitter account"
Option #4: "Fawlty has a tiny wiener."

Also, please make the poll multiple vote.

Thanks.

@Lead

 

[Lead]

I ask that you exercise your moderator superpowers to add two news options:

Option #3: "I don't have a Twitter account"
Option #4: "Fawlty has a tiny wiener."

A poll about a pole