The End; a portend: Milo Yiannopoulos Banned from Twitter

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).