The End; a portend: Milo Yiannopoulos Banned from Twitter

[QUOTE=Dresta]You actually have to be completely deluded to think that even remotely relevant here.[/QUOTE]
The topic is about Twitter, a business, not the government, barring someone from using it. It specifically applies to this topic, something you would realize if you thought for 2 seconds before posting. If a business that allows people to post their own thoughts through it was not allowed to censor what people say through that business's mediums a messageboard like, say, Insidehoops couldn't have moderators. I'm pretty sure this forum has a few moderators, however lax they may be about moderating.

Now if you can prove that Obama ordered Twitter to ban this twit then you have a point and I will shut up. But if you can't show that his ban was the result of government interference then you in fact don't have any idea what you're talking about.

They unfairly banned Milo when we have people tweeting some horrible things.

Also, free speech means you can't get in trouble or thrown into jail for what you said.

At the same time, you can't go around saying whatever the hell you want. You cannot preach freedom of speech and go tell your boss to ****k off and claim you were falsely fired.

[QUOTE=Dresta] It's character limit doesn't really leave much space for nuanced argument.[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

Thinking about this particular case further I watched an interview that Billy Corgan gave a couple months back where he said that when he deleted his twitter account someone from Twitter corporate HQ contacted him and tried to get him back on. I must admit it raised my eyebrows that they would be so proactive in trying to keep him an active user of their platform.

As he observed their business model obviously depends very heavily on having celebs with x number of followers. Their intervention in this instance is probably motivated by the same business related reasons, can't have celebs leaving twitter when they are your bread and butter.

The same applies for message boards.

Notice how you can never really delete your account?

You can only deactivate it because they want all your posting history in their databases.

I don't think ISH would want to suddenly erase all 20k of my work.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green]The topic is about Twitter, a business, not the government, barring someone from using it. It specifically applies to this topic, something you would realize if you thought for 2 seconds before posting. If a business that allows people to post their own thoughts through it was not allowed to censor what people say through that business's mediums a messageboard like, say, Insidehoops couldn't have moderators. I'm pretty sure this forum has a few moderators, however lax they may be about moderating.

Now if you can prove that Obama ordered Twitter to ban this twit then you have a point and I will shut up. But if you can't show that his ban was the result of government interference then you in fact don't have any idea what you're talking about.[/QUOTE]
:facepalm

WTF are you talking about dude? Who is talking about Obama? Who has said anything about "free speech" in this thread exactly? No-one is making the argument you claim to be rebutting, but you're too much of a smug shit who likes the smell of his own farts to even notice. But yeah, you came in the thread, tugging at your own co[I]c[/I]k, and posting a moronic picture as if you'd put everyone in their place, without even realising that you were arguing with an invisible person, because [I]no one made the argument you are alluding to[/I].

This is about double standards and hypocrisy, not free speech, you utter, utter, [I]utter[/I] cretin. Not to mention that you have destroyed your own arguments regarding the serving of gays: apparently twitter has the "right" to refuse service on the basis of political disagreement, but cakemakers do not; again, this absurd hypocrisy is what is pissing people off: very few people think this is a 1st Amendment matter, but for you, it is the entire argument. It's that these arguments, constantly used to censor and hound others, only ever work in [I]one direction[/I].

You no more choose your political opinions than you choose to be homosexual--they are both entirely determined by your genetics and the environment in which you were raised. If twitter has a right to refuse service based on political opinion, then so do bakers have a right to refuse service to homosexual weddings. No consistency, constant hypocrisy and double-standards: these things are generally irksome, and smarmy rubbish like that silly picture you posted only shows that you've completely failed to understand the problem in any way whatsoever.

FWIW, this might be of interest, regarding Corgan and twitter. His reasons appear to be that there is no tangible financial benefit for artists using the medium:

[url]http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/billy-corgan-on-quitting-twitter-smashing-pumpkins-new-tour-20160317[/url]
[QUOTE][B]You quit Twitter last year. Do you find it refreshing to be free from that?[/B]
I'm not a big fan of social-media models that take a lot from people who have notoriety and don't give a lot in return. I think Twitter, in particular, has been a really poor model in terms of return.
[B]But you used it for years.[/B]
Yeah, I would argue to my detriment.
[B]It must be nice to not have random people just taking shots at you all day long. Things get so toxic on there.[/B]
I agree with that, but you can make that argument across the entire social-media spectrum. I think ultimately artists are gonna figure out how to take advantage of the opportunity to talk people in a very direct way without having to deal with this empowerment of the mob. And then even worse, you work for an esteemed publication, allegedly, and then you have the troll puppets sit around and literally comb through everything you do and then run an article about the size of Manson's *****. I don't know if you saw that headline. That was my favorite recent one.
[B]I remember seeing that one.[/B]
Yeah, I did a video with a friend of mine who works for a wrestling company I work with. We did a funny little video where he was talking about the size of his *****, and I jokingly said that Manson's was bigger. It's obviously a spoof video and we were just joking around, but there were literally headlines of "Billy Corgan Talks About the Size of Marilyn Manson's *****."
[SIZE="4"]But back to Twitter, they actually called me. They called me on the phone after I quit and said, "We wanna know what's going on. Can we help?"[/SIZE] So I appreciated that, but I basically said, "There's no return on what you guys are doing. You're building this massive IPO" — well, now their stock is falling — "but what do we get in return?" In wrestling terms, they take all the stars' heat and the stars don't necessarily get the heat back in terms of return. But there are a few models you could argue that maybe give a return. I think the jury's still out on that. But a model like Twitter has really ultimately been anti-celebrity.
[B]But take someone like Kanye West. He reaches 20 million people, without any media filter, without paying a dime. Isn't that a return for him?[/B]
Here would be my argument, and I'm not personalizing it about anybody: I think it works for a very, very select group of people who tend to say really edgy things in order to go viral, kind of like, "Can you believe what he or she said?" You have to be over the edge. If that edge is part of who you are in public and the public celebrates you for being over the edge, fine. At this point in my life, where I'm a father now and I've obviously spent a lot of time rebuilding my musical life to something that I'm proud of, getting on there and getting into Twitter fights just seems beneath my position.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=BoutPractice]I don't think there should be an absolute right to free speech on a specific internet platform.

Twitter is just like any forum: there are internal rules, your posts can get deleted etc. It's often arbitrary, and often infuriating, but that's the way it is.

If you want perfect free speech, there are certain platforms out there already, or you can create your own, with your own rules. The barriers to entry are very low, too.

So I don't have any problems with this in principle, although I do also wonder why it took them so long to get around to banning the comparatively more dangerous terrorist accounts.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but you can't undermine an organisation like twitter, and push for a move to a site which acts more impartially, and is less politically motivated, without complaining about its abuses first. Yet when anyone complains, up comes this "businesses can do what they like" strawman. Sure they can, but people can also complain about shitty businesses, which act arbitrarily, and are prejudiced against certain people, and constantly only enforce their rules in one direction. I don't see anyone objecting to twitter having and enforcing rules; the point is that twitter, the business, claims to enforce its rules impartially, when that is clearly not the case. It doesn't help in proving the case that whenever it is brought up, you are met by people like RMWG going: "you dumb fu[I]c[/I]ks, the first amendment doesn't apply to private businesses, etc. etc." and ridiculing an argument that was never made (pretending it to be the only argument).

Twitter is like any business: if you think its service is shitty and prejudiced against certain people, you spread that information as much as possible, hoping it will eventually result in a boycott. What is so hard for people to grasp about this?

[QUOTE=Dresta]:facepalm

WTF are you talking about dude? Who is talking about Obama? Who has said anything about "free speech" in this thread exactly?[/quote]My bad, I had assumed you knew what the term "Orwellian" in the OP referred to. I see now that I gave you too much credit. [quote]No-one is making the argument you claim to be rebutting, but you're too much of a smug shit who likes the smell of his own farts to even notice.[/quote]I guess that fart got in your Cheerios, why I didn't smell it and you're so angry. [QUOTE]But yeah, you came in the thread, tugging at your own co[I]c[/I]k,[/QUOTE] I type with both hands, actually, sorry to ruin your fantasizing.[QUOTE]and posting a moronic picture as if you'd put everyone in their place, [/QUOTE]Don't forget also destroying your argument.[QUOTE]without even realising that you were arguing with an invisible person, because [I]no one made the argument you are alluding to[/I].[/QUOTE]Except for the OP? Ok.

[QUOTE]This is about double standards and hypocrisy, not free speech, you utter, utter, [I]utter[/I] cretin.[/QUOTE]So, again...why did the OP use the term "Orwellian?" Not to beat, beat, beat a dead horse but I apologize, again, for overrating your intelligence. I assure you, it won't happen again. [QUOTE]Not to mention that you have destroyed your own arguments regarding the serving of gays: apparently twitter has the "right" to refuse service on the basis of political disagreement, but cakemakers do not; again, this absurd hypocrisy is what is pissing people off: very few people think this is a 1st Amendment matter, but for you, it is the entire argument. It's that these arguments, constantly used to censor and hound others, only ever work in [I]one direction[/I].[/QUOTE]Please illustrate how I am destroying some argument I've made. Go ahead and quote me. You can even type with one hand, although I ask you be a bit less graphic while talking about that kind of thing in the future.

[quote][I]...further Tourrette's ranting...[/I][/QUOTE]Please do improve your posting in the future. I know that I have agreed to stop overrating your intelligence but this was just such a severe disappointment. Like poido with a thesaurus. Oh well.

You guys or he should start up a social network, and that way you guys can make up the rules, and decide what is bannable and what isn't.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green]Except for the OP? Ok.[/QUOTE]

I didn't mention rights at all. As you quite intelligently identified, I used the term Orwellian - this is because my grievance is at the harm being done to society overall and not whether the government is violating constitutional rights.

So yeah, Dresta called you out for trying to be a smartass when you are quite off the mark, and he was right.

[QUOTE=Dresta]Yes, but you can't undermine an organisation like twitter, and push for a move to a site which acts more impartially, and is less politically motivated, without complaining about its abuses first. Yet when anyone complains, up comes this "businesses can do what they like" strawman. Sure they can, but people can also complain about shitty businesses, which act arbitrarily, and are prejudiced against certain people, and constantly only enforce their rules in one direction. I don't see anyone objecting to twitter having and enforcing rules; the point is that twitter, the business, claims to enforce its rules impartially, when that is clearly not the case. It doesn't help in proving the case that whenever it is brought up, you are met by people like RMWG going: "you dumb fu[I]c[/I]ks, the first amendment doesn't apply to private businesses, etc. etc." and ridiculing an argument that was never made (pretending it to be the only argument).

Twitter is like any business: if you think its service is shitty and prejudiced against certain people, you spread that information as much as possible, hoping it will eventually result in a boycott. What is so hard for people to grasp about this?[/QUOTE]

Dresta - might I save you some time? RMWG's responses to you are basically just name calling at this point, devoid of actual argument or substance. Meaning you've already won the actual argument.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green]My bad, I had assumed you knew what the term "Orwellian" in the OP referred to. I see now that I gave you too much credit. I guess that fart got in your Cheerios, why I didn't smell it and you're so angry. I type with both hands, actually, sorry to ruin your fantasizing.Don't forget also destroying your argument.Except for the OP? Ok.

So, again...why did the OP use the term "Orwellian?" Not to beat, beat, beat a dead horse but I apologize, again, for overrating your intelligence. I assure you, it won't happen again. Please illustrate how I am destroying some argument I've made. Go ahead and quote me. You can even type with one hand, although I ask you be a bit less graphic while talking about that kind of thing in the future.

Please do improve your posting in the future. I know that I have agreed to stop overrating your intelligence but this was just such a severe disappointment. Like poido with a thesaurus. Oh well.[/QUOTE]
Are you under the impression that you are the one coming off as an adult in this exchange?

[QUOTE=Bourne]I didn't mention rights at all. As you quite intelligently identified, I used the term Orwellian - this is because my grievance is at the harm being done to society overall and not whether the government is violating constitutional rights.

So yeah, Dresta called you out for [B]trying to be a smartass[/B] when you are quite off the mark, and he was right.[/QUOTE][URL="http://www.yourdictionary.com/orwellian"]My ass is smarter than your brain, my farts even beat Dresta in an argument.[/URL]
Orwellian:

of or like the society portrayed by Orwell in his novel Nineteen Eighty-four, characterized by totalitarian government, irrational political concepts, the politicization of everyday language, etc.

Read more at [url]http://www.yourdictionary.com/orwellian#GWt8cUfcXA0Ol9mK.99[/url]

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green]My bad, I had assumed you knew what the term "Orwellian" in the OP referred to. I see now that I gave you too much credit. I guess that fart got in your Cheerios, why I didn't smell it and you're so angry. I type with both hands, actually, sorry to ruin your fantasizing.Don't forget also destroying your argument.Except for the OP? Ok.

So, again...why did the OP use the term "Orwellian?" Not to beat, beat, beat a dead horse but I apologize, again, for overrating your intelligence. I assure you, it won't happen again. Please illustrate how I am destroying some argument I've made. Go ahead and quote me. You can even type with one hand, although I ask you be a bit less graphic while talking about that kind of thing in the future.

Please do improve your posting in the future. I know that I have agreed to stop overrating your intelligence but this was just such a severe disappointment. Like poido with a thesaurus. Oh well.[/QUOTE]
:oldlol:

Now you've just given up trying to make arguments altogether. I point you to my earlier post, because I can't be bothered to write it again:

[QUOTE]I don't see anyone objecting to twitter having and enforcing rules; the point is that twitter, the business, claims to enforce its rules impartially, when that is clearly not the case. It doesn't help in proving the case that whenever it is brought up, you are met by people like RMWG going: "you dumb fu[I]c[/I]ks, the first amendment doesn't apply to private businesses, etc. etc." and ridiculing an argument that was never made (pretending it to be the only argument).

Twitter is like any business: if you think its service is shitty and prejudiced against certain people, you spread that information as much as possible, hoping it will eventually result in a boycott. What is so hard for people to grasp about this?[/QUOTE]

I never use the term Orwellian myself (i'm no fan of Orwell really, other than as a writer of some decent essays), but I think you'll find its application is not limited to the government, so you're wrong again. Under its broad definition, banning someone for "spreading hate" when they didn't actually do any such thing, while many people are free to spread hate with impunity, can be understood as Orwellian.

And i've already pointed out more than enough of your inconsistencies, thanks; you've pointed out none of mine--if your arguments are not even internally consistent, then that is a sure sign they are false.

[QUOTE=KyrieTheFuture]Are you under the impression that you are the one coming off as an adult in this exchange?[/QUOTE]
Are you under the impression that I am going to respect someone that argues with fart talk and *********ion?

[QUOTE=Dresta]:oldlol:

Now you've just given up trying to make arguments altogether. I point you to my earlier post, because I can't be bothered to write it again:[/quote]And I won't bother replying to something that's already been refuted.



[QUOTE]I never use the term Orwellian myself[/QUOTE]It's in the OP. It's why I posted the comic. You went off over it and now are just rambling, typing with one hand. [QUOTE](i'm no fan of Orwell really, other than as a writer of some decent essays), but I think you'll find its application is not limited to the government, so you're wrong again. Under its broad definition, banning someone for "spreading hate" when they didn't actually do any such thing, while many people are free to spread hate with impunity, can be understood as Orwellian.[/QUOTE]I do believe I just posted the definition, if you're curious.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green][URL="http://www.yourdictionary.com/orwellian"]My ass is smarter than your brain, my farts even beat Dresta in an argument.[/URL]
Orwellian:

of or like the society portrayed by Orwell in his novel Nineteen Eighty-four, characterized by totalitarian government, irrational political concepts, the politicization of everyday language, etc.

Read more at [url]http://www.yourdictionary.com/orwellian#GWt8cUfcXA0Ol9mK.99[/url][/QUOTE]
Congrats on proving you know nothing about Orwell:

"In his essay "Politics and the English Language", Orwell derided the use of clich

[QUOTE=Dresta]Congrats on proving you know nothing about Orwell:

"In his essay "Politics and the English Language", Orwell derided the use of clich

I don't think I've ever seen a smartass get so thoroughly and repeatedly trounced before lol


im hoping he comes back again, i just made popcorn

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green]I post one of the well-known definitions of the word and still you try to argue. :applause:[/QUOTE]
No, you posted "A" definition from yourdictionary.com :lol

Your stupidity is incredible right now. Do you seriously think the word Orwellian can only apply to the government? Surely you cannot be serious with this drivel? Have you heard of doublethink/speak? Is that not Orwellian too?

I suggest you go and read Orwell's essay Politics and the English Language and get back to me. I assure you these things can be referred to as Orwellian. In fact, the word is now so broadly used that I don't use it for its very ambiguity (and yet you still think it is only related to government tyranny).

[QUOTE=Dresta]No, you posted "A" definition from yourdictionary.com :lol

Your stupidity is incredible right now. Do you seriously think the word Orwellian can only apply to the government? Surely you cannot be serious with this drivel? Have you heard of doublethink/speak? Is that not Orwellian too?[/QUOTE]
The top three definitions:

[QUOTE=the dictionary, which you continue to argue with]orwellian


adjective
The definition of Orwellian is something that resembles the world that George Orwell described in his book 1984.
An example of Orwellian is reality television stars having cameras throughout their homes.

Orwellian

of or like the society portrayed by Orwell in his novel Nineteen Eighty-four, characterized by totalitarian government, irrational political concepts, the politicization of everyday language, etc.


adjective
Of, relating to, or evocative of the works of George Orwell, especially the satirical novel 1984, which depicts a futuristic totalitarian state.

Read more at [url]http://www.yourdictionary.com/orwellian#GWt8cUfcXA0Ol9mK.99[/url][/QUOTE]Please drag this on further by saying "something that resembles the world that George Orwell described in his book 1984" would have nothing to do with government censorship. :rolleyes:

Dresta tires out after trying to educate RMWG:
[IMG]https://media.giphy.com/media/l2Jeg6aMfxl2rBUNW/giphy.gif[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Bourne]Dresta tires out after trying to educate RMWG:[/QUOTE]
The irony being, I'm not the one fighting the dictionary.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green]The topic is about Twitter, a business, not the government, barring someone from using it. It specifically applies to this topic, something you would realize if you thought for 2 seconds before posting. If a business that allows people to post their own thoughts through it was not allowed to censor what people say through that business's mediums a messageboard like, say, Insidehoops couldn't have moderators. I'm pretty sure this forum has a few moderators, however lax they may be about moderating.

Now if you can prove that Obama ordered Twitter to ban this twit then you have a point and I will shut up. But if you can't show that his ban was the result of government interference then you in fact don't have any idea what you're talking about.[/QUOTE]
If a private business is legally allowed to ban black people, it's still racist to do it. If a private business is legally allowed to censor speech, it's still anti-free-speech to do it.

Twitter is fully within its legal right to be anti-free-speech. And that is indeed what they have chosen to do, which is fine. It is the case though Twitter is not a free speech platform. It's a selective speech platform.

This isn't difficult to understand.

[QUOTE=NumberSix]If a private business is legally allowed to ban black people, it's still racist to do it. If a private business is legally allowed to censor speech, it's still anti-free-speech to do it.

Twitter is fully within its legal right to be anti-free-speech. And that is indeed what they have chosen to do, which is fine. It is the case though Twitter is not a free speech platform. It's a selective speech platform.

This isn't difficult to understand.[/QUOTE]
I am referring to OP calling this "Orwellian." Is banning the dolt a blow to his ability to attack a comedianne for no good reason (beyond reviving a lame movie franchise)? I guess. He can't tweet. Poor baby. But it is not the government censoring him or any kind of violation of his rights.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green]The irony being, I'm not the one fighting the dictionary.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, you absolutely are. He's not arguing that your example of "totalitarian government" is wrong. It's correct, but it's not the only example... as evidenced by your own list you just posted of definitions including "totalitarian government" AND many other examples other than government.

Unless you believe the "reality TV" example (which YOU provided) is an example of "totalitarian government" just give it up.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green]The top three definitions:

Please drag this on further by saying "something that resembles the world that George Orwell described in his book 1984" would have nothing to do with government censorship. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
The 3rd definition actually conforms to what I am saying, not you, which kind of proves my point about relying [I]entirely[/I] on dictionary definitions when it comes to a word that people will have written whole phds about.

Here's a TED lesson for you on the matter:

[url]http://ed.ted.com/lessons/what-orwellian-really-means-noah-tavlin[/url]

What you're doing is a complete misrepresentation and simplification of the thought of Orwell. I quote:

[QUOTE]Using the term in this way not only fails to convey Orwell's message, it actually risks doing exactly what he tried to warn against. Orwell was indeed opposed to all forms of tyranny...but he was also deeply concerned about how such ideologies proliferate...one of his most important insights was the role language plays in shaping our thoughts and opinions[/QUOTE]

Methods of control are not limited to the government by any means--Orwell was a lifetime socialist you know! Propaganda is his key concern here, and propaganda is not only spread by government agencies.

[QUOTE]The word 'Orwellian' gets thrown around a lot by people who possess a murky idea of what it actually means. Jason Slotkin, for The Atlantic, explains why. The NCTE presents the Doublespeak Award each year to the person or group of people who manipulate language in the most sinister way. Here is a list of past winners. Anyone sound familiar? [/QUOTE]

That Atlantic article actually calls "Orwellian" an "Orwellian" abuse of language, as I was saying it is earlier (and its vagueness being why I don't use it):

[url]http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/06/stop-taking-orwells-name-in-vain/277027/[/url]


The dictionary isn't gonna save you on this one, bud. You're just proving how superficial your understanding of these things is, that you rely on an online dictionary for all your understanding of a concept that could be written about for pages and pages. No-one was talking about government censorship; that silly little image you posted is responding to a [I]straw man[/I]. Admit your mistake, and get over it; it's clear that no-one was talking about government censorship, and you're just wasting time with this pedantic bullshit.

[QUOTE=NumberSix]If a private business is legally allowed to ban black people, it's still racist to do it. If a private business is legally allowed to censor speech, it's still anti-free-speech to do it.

Twitter is fully within its legal right to be anti-free-speech. And that is indeed what they have chosen to do, which is fine. It is the case though Twitter is not a free speech platform. It's a selective speech platform.

This isn't difficult to understand.[/QUOTE]

Twitter allows plenty of right wing commentary. They just don't want people harassing or inciting others.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Twitter allows plenty of right wing commentary. They just don't want people harassing or inciting others.[/QUOTE]
I've seen his 3 posts he directed at her. Was he a dick? Sure. I don't see where the "incitement" was though. He called her a dude and said she was illiterate. I haven't seen anything of him telling other people to attack her.

[QUOTE=NumberSix]Yeah, you absolutely are. He's not arguing that your example of "totalitarian government" is wrong. It's correct, but it's not the only example... as evidenced by your own list you just posted of definitions including "totalitarian government" AND many other examples other than government.

Unless you believe the "reality TV" example (which YOU provided) is an example of "totalitarian government" just give it up.[/QUOTE]This is getting dull. The reality tv definition states, "The definition of Orwellian is something that resembles the world that George Orwell described in his book 1984." That book is about the dangers of totalitarian government. No, really, I am not making this up.[QUOTE=Dresta]The 3rd definition actually conforms to what I am saying, [/quote]The third definition is:

"Of, relating to, or evocative of the works of George Orwell, especially the satirical novel 1984, which depicts a futuristic [B]totalitarian state.[/B]"

That would be about government. Unless you now want to argue whagt "totalitarian state" means...which I'm not going to do, because this really has become tedious.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green]This is getting dull. The reality tv definition states, "The definition of Orwellian is something that resembles the world that George Orwell described in his book 1984." That book is about the dangers of totalitarian government. No, really, I am not making this up.The third definition is:

"Of, relating to, or evocative of the works of George Orwell, especially the satirical novel 1984, which depicts a futuristic [B]totalitarian state.[/B]"

That would be about government. Unless you now want to argue whagt "totalitarian state" means...which I'm not going to do, because this really has become tedious.[/QUOTE]

Ignoring the fact you've been proven to lack full understanding of the term Orwellian, which is NOT an insult since 99% of people wouldn't, my post was not about government censorship, but Twitter censorship. It was fairly clear to see that; if I wanted to make it about the government, I would have said so. And if you want to get super ****, I could say that the Orwellian behaviour of persecuting speech is done by bodies that are arms length from the government so they aren't the government anyway. (Britain, Germany, US, Canada etc not being dictatorships)

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green]This is getting dull. The reality tv definition states, "The definition of Orwellian is something that resembles the world that George Orwell described in his book 1984." That book is about the dangers of totalitarian government. No, really, I am not making this up.The third definition is:

"Of, relating to, or evocative of the works of George Orwell, especially the satirical novel 1984, which depicts a futuristic [B]totalitarian state.[/B]"

That would be about government. Unless you now want to argue whagt "totalitarian state" means...which I'm not going to do, because this really has become tedious.[/QUOTE]
So, explain why reality television CAN be Orwellian, but Twitter CAN'T be Orwellian.

[QUOTE=NumberSix]So, explain why reality television CAN be Orwellian, but Twitter CAN'T be Orwellian.[/QUOTE]
No, I will not. Something that I will point out: Every reality TV series is a bunch of people being compensated in some way for giving the viewing public TMI and often these shows are faked with writers. In Orwell's novel the people are being monitored by the state and have no choice in the matter. The example used isn't great. But the actual definition has to do with government overreach.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green]No, I will not.[/QUOTE]
Got it.


/thread

[QUOTE=Bourne]Ignoring the fact you've been proven to lack full understanding of the term Orwellian, which is NOT an insult since 99% of people wouldn't,[/QUOTE]To further ruin your day: Dictionary definitions are supposed to be based on the common usage of the word. So if 99% of the population defines a word in a certain way then guess what? That becomes it's definition.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green]To further ruin your day: Dictionary definitions are supposed to be based on the common usage of the word. So if 99% of the population defines a word in a certain way then guess what? That becomes it's definition.[/QUOTE]

My day isn't ruined at all - you've been made to look like Ish's version of Cenk Uygur by a few people now and it's been pretty entertaining

so when Jeff bans somebody from ISH who constantly acts like a jackass troll (and has been warned to stop repeatedly) he is being Orwellian?

:lol :lol :lol

[QUOTE=NumberSix]I've seen his 3 posts he directed at her. Was he a dick? Sure. I don't see where the "incitement" was though. He called her a dude and said she was illiterate. I haven't seen anything of him telling other people to attack her.[/QUOTE]


I think it stems past just this one incident. Look I mean it's their platform, and they make the call. If he doesn't like it, he is free to start his own social network, as are you.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green]This is getting dull. The reality tv definition states, "The definition of Orwellian is something that resembles the world that George Orwell described in his book 1984." That book is about the dangers of totalitarian government. No, really, I am not making this up.The third definition is:

"Of, relating to, or evocative of the works of George Orwell, especially the satirical novel 1984, which depicts a futuristic [B]totalitarian state.[/B]"

That would be about government. Unless you now want to argue whagt "totalitarian state" means...which I'm not going to do, because this really has become tedious.[/QUOTE]
You don't seem to be aware of what the word "especially" means. Here's a hint: it doesn't and never has meant "all." You've just refuted your own argument. Not to mention that only one person has used the word, and you respond as if that word only has the narrow definition [I]you[/I] attribute to it, and as if it was being used by everyone (it was [I]the only argument [/I]being made in your eyes), to justify your posting that inane and completely irrelevant meme.

[QUOTE=kentatm]so when Jeff bans somebody from ISH who constantly acts like a jackass troll (and has been warned to stop repeatedly) he is being Orwellian?

:lol :lol :lol[/QUOTE]
Wow, the sheer lack of comprehension of some people is quite incredible. It's like you don't actually think [I]at all[/I] but merely jump on whatever "team" fits more neatly with your prejudices. In the context of the discussion that is being had your post makes no sense whatsoever. No one has even come close to implying what you're saying, but you and RMWG keep repeating this inanity as if it becomes more true just because you keep saying it. LEARN TO READ YOU FOOL.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green][B]No, I will not.[/B] Something that I will point out: Every reality TV series is a bunch of people being compensated in some way for giving the viewing public TMI and often these shows are faked with writers. In Orwell's novel the people are being monitored by the state and have no choice in the matter. The example used isn't great. But the actual definition has to do with government overreach.[/QUOTE]



A cowardly retreat, but honest :roll: