Chat Forum
It is currently Sun Aug 09, 2020 3:17 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1753 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4832
eldanielfire wrote:
kiwinoz wrote:
Twitter goes full retard

Quote:
The Star of David has been deemed "hateful imagery" by Twitter, which is locking the accounts of users who display it in their profile pictures.
The Campaign Against Antisemitism has reported that several Twitter users have contacted them in recent days to report that their accounts had been locked by the social media platform. The reason given? According to messages they received from Twitter: "We have determined that this account violated the Twitter Rules. Specifically for: Violating our rules against posting hateful imagery. You may not use hateful images or symbols in your profile image or profile header. As a result, we have locked your account."

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemi ... ter-635847


It makes you wonder, who exactly is working at Twitter. It seems tech social media jobs attract people with really extreme views and a lack of grip on reality.


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/twitt ... -of-david/

Quote:
Twitter has banned users from displaying the Star of David in their profile pictures.

MOSTLY FALSE

What's True
Twitter's Hateful Conduct Policy prohibits threats against people due to religious affiliation, and Twitter has disabled some accounts that used the Nazi-era 'yellow star' or ‘yellow badge’ symbol in their profiles for violating that rule.

What's False
Twitter does not have a blanket prohibition against users' displaying the Star of David, although in July 2020 they mistakenly locked some accounts for doing so even though those accounts were not in violation of Twitter's policies (and those accounts have since been restored).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28681
4071 wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
kiwinoz wrote:
Twitter goes full retard

Quote:
The Star of David has been deemed "hateful imagery" by Twitter, which is locking the accounts of users who display it in their profile pictures.
The Campaign Against Antisemitism has reported that several Twitter users have contacted them in recent days to report that their accounts had been locked by the social media platform. The reason given? According to messages they received from Twitter: "We have determined that this account violated the Twitter Rules. Specifically for: Violating our rules against posting hateful imagery. You may not use hateful images or symbols in your profile image or profile header. As a result, we have locked your account."

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemi ... ter-635847


It makes you wonder, who exactly is working at Twitter. It seems tech social media jobs attract people with really extreme views and a lack of grip on reality.


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/twitt ... -of-david/

Quote:
Twitter has banned users from displaying the Star of David in their profile pictures.

MOSTLY FALSE

What's True
Twitter's Hateful Conduct Policy prohibits threats against people due to religious affiliation, and Twitter has disabled some accounts that used the Nazi-era 'yellow star' or ‘yellow badge’ symbol in their profiles for violating that rule.

What's False
Twitter does not have a blanket prohibition against users' displaying the Star of David, although in July 2020 they mistakenly locked some accounts for doing so even though those accounts were not in violation of Twitter's policies (and those accounts have since been restored).


SO Twitter has banned images of the Star of David as hate imagery. Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6891
Quote:
The images in question ranged from a white Star of David in a graffiti style, to a superimposition of the modern blue star on the flag of Israel spliced with the yellow star Jews were forced to wear by the Nazis, to a montage of yellow stars.


Snopes not quite correct.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28681
kiwinoz wrote:
Quote:
The images in question ranged from a white Star of David in a graffiti style, to a superimposition of the modern blue star on the flag of Israel spliced with the yellow star Jews were forced to wear by the Nazis, to a montage of yellow stars.


Snopes not quite correct.


Snopes hasn't been the corrective force it once was. They've been called out as biased themselves where culture or politics are concerned or them re frame questions to give an answer that is more appealing. This is one example by adding stuff 'twitter doesn't have a blanket ban on star of David bans' so they don't have to claim it's true.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2020 4:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9914
A hero for the age.

https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/202 ... nfluencers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2020 5:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9914
Nicholas Sandman has just settled with the WAPO I see. CNN has already capitulated. I reckon he could come out of this with $100m after fees once he has finished with the other 6.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2020 5:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14267
I think there was a thread about that. Could be interesting reading it back.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2020 5:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4832
eldanielfire wrote:
4071 wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
kiwinoz wrote:
Twitter goes full retard

Quote:
The Star of David has been deemed "hateful imagery" by Twitter, which is locking the accounts of users who display it in their profile pictures.
The Campaign Against Antisemitism has reported that several Twitter users have contacted them in recent days to report that their accounts had been locked by the social media platform. The reason given? According to messages they received from Twitter: "We have determined that this account violated the Twitter Rules. Specifically for: Violating our rules against posting hateful imagery. You may not use hateful images or symbols in your profile image or profile header. As a result, we have locked your account."

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemi ... ter-635847


It makes you wonder, who exactly is working at Twitter. It seems tech social media jobs attract people with really extreme views and a lack of grip on reality.


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/twitt ... -of-david/

Quote:
Twitter has banned users from displaying the Star of David in their profile pictures.

MOSTLY FALSE

What's True
Twitter's Hateful Conduct Policy prohibits threats against people due to religious affiliation, and Twitter has disabled some accounts that used the Nazi-era 'yellow star' or ‘yellow badge’ symbol in their profiles for violating that rule.

What's False
Twitter does not have a blanket prohibition against users' displaying the Star of David, although in July 2020 they mistakenly locked some accounts for doing so even though those accounts were not in violation of Twitter's policies (and those accounts have since been restored).


SO Twitter has banned images of the Star of David as hate imagery. Thanks.


Mostly false.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2020 5:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4832
eldanielfire wrote:
kiwinoz wrote:
Quote:
The images in question ranged from a white Star of David in a graffiti style, to a superimposition of the modern blue star on the flag of Israel spliced with the yellow star Jews were forced to wear by the Nazis, to a montage of yellow stars.


Snopes not quite correct.


Snopes hasn't been the corrective force it once was. They've been called out as biased themselves where culture or politics are concerned or them re frame questions to give an answer that is more appealing. This is one example by adding stuff 'twitter doesn't have a blanket ban on star of David bans' so they don't have to claim it's true.


Well, there's a f**king shock from the regurgitator of right-wing nonsense. They've been moaning about Snopes for ages because its pro-reality bias seems to them like anti-conservative bias. They much prefer their own alternative facts. Ideally entirely unchecked.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2020 7:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28681
4071 wrote:

Mostly false.



Wait. Twitter have removed accounts with Stars of David or they haven't. And the evidence is, even in our own link is yes they have.

Taking a re-framed statement where the phrasing is now asking a different question from a site with a recent history of doing as such doesn't change that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2020 7:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28681
4071 wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
kiwinoz wrote:
Quote:
The images in question ranged from a white Star of David in a graffiti style, to a superimposition of the modern blue star on the flag of Israel spliced with the yellow star Jews were forced to wear by the Nazis, to a montage of yellow stars.


Snopes not quite correct.


Snopes hasn't been the corrective force it once was. They've been called out as biased themselves where culture or politics are concerned or them re frame questions to give an answer that is more appealing. This is one example by adding stuff 'twitter doesn't have a blanket ban on star of David bans' so they don't have to claim it's true.


Well, there's a f**king shock from the regurgitator of right-wing nonsense. They've been moaning about Snopes for ages because its pro-reality bias seems to them like anti-conservative bias. They much prefer their own alternative facts. Ideally entirely unchecked.


:lol: There is nothing right wing in my response. Oh and plenty of people have seen the inconsistency in snoops. Just because you are obsessive pro-left wing and act as if a liberal/left position can't actually be wrong on anything. You're another Bimboman, you obsessively can't accept wrong or innaccuracy on your political positions and attack and smear anyone who does.

If Snopes have got it wrong, and they have, they have it wrong. It doesn't matter if this is observed by right, left or centralists or people who don't identify with any political position. Twitter did remove those accounts. It doesn't need you desperately attacking those who point this out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2020 8:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8598
4071 wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
kiwinoz wrote:
Quote:
The images in question ranged from a white Star of David in a graffiti style, to a superimposition of the modern blue star on the flag of Israel spliced with the yellow star Jews were forced to wear by the Nazis, to a montage of yellow stars.


Snopes not quite correct.


Snopes hasn't been the corrective force it once was. They've been called out as biased themselves where culture or politics are concerned or them re frame questions to give an answer that is more appealing. This is one example by adding stuff 'twitter doesn't have a blanket ban on star of David bans' so they don't have to claim it's true.


Well, there's a f**king shock from the regurgitator of right-wing nonsense. They've been moaning about Snopes for ages because its pro-reality bias seems to them like anti-conservative bias. They much prefer their own alternative facts. Ideally entirely unchecked.


You definitely live in an alternate reality if you think Snopes has a "pro-reality" bias. JFC.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2020 10:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4832
eldanielfire wrote:
4071 wrote:

Mostly false.



Wait. Twitter have removed accounts with Stars of David or they haven't. And the evidence is, even in our own link is yes they have.

Taking a re-framed statement where the phrasing is now asking a different question from a site with a recent history of doing as such doesn't change that.


Well, that's an interesting take.

Original post:
Quote:
The Star of David has been deemed "hateful imagery" by Twitter, which is locking the accounts of users who display it in their profile pictures.

Your response:
Quote:
It makes you wonder, who exactly is working at Twitter. It seems tech social media jobs attract people with really extreme views and a lack of grip on reality.


And so, upon checking, it turns out that the Star of David has NOT been deemed hateful imagery. Which was the premise you were responding to.
Quote:
Twitter's Hateful Conduct Policy prohibits threats against people due to religious affiliation, and Twitter has disabled some accounts that used the Nazi-era 'yellow star' or ‘yellow badge’ symbol in their profiles for violating that rule.
For the hard of thinking (that's you), that means accounts have been disabled which have the Nazi-era symbol rather than the Star of David. Because the Star of David has not been deemed hateful imagery.
Quote:
Twitter does not have a blanket prohibition against users' displaying the Star of David
There's no prohibition against the Star of David.
Quote:
in July 2020 they mistakenly locked some accounts for doing so even though those accounts were not in violation of Twitter's policies (and those accounts have since been restored).
Some accounts were mistakenly blocked and then unblocked because, no, Twitter have not deemed the Star of David as hateful imagery. Which again, in case you aren't following, was exactly the premise to which you responded.

So the premise was simply wrong.

And when this is pointed out, you first double down
Quote:
SO Twitter has banned images of the Star of David as hate imagery. Thanks.

And then you change the premise
Quote:
Wait. Twitter have removed accounts with Stars of David or they haven't. And the evidence is, even in our own link is yes they have.


Accounts have been mistakenly blocked that had the Star of David. And then unblocked. Because, no, Twitter have not deemed the Star of David hateful imagery. Which - before you decided to change the premise - was the original point.

You then follow up that deceptive little bit of goalpost-moving by accusing me of
Quote:
Taking a re-framed statement where the phrasing is now asking a different question.

Which is EXACTLY what you have just done.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2020 10:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:06 pm
Posts: 669
goeagles wrote:
4071 wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
kiwinoz wrote:
Quote:
The images in question ranged from a white Star of David in a graffiti style, to a superimposition of the modern blue star on the flag of Israel spliced with the yellow star Jews were forced to wear by the Nazis, to a montage of yellow stars.


Snopes not quite correct.


Snopes hasn't been the corrective force it once was. They've been called out as biased themselves where culture or politics are concerned or them re frame questions to give an answer that is more appealing. This is one example by adding stuff 'twitter doesn't have a blanket ban on star of David bans' so they don't have to claim it's true.


Well, there's a f**king shock from the regurgitator of right-wing nonsense. They've been moaning about Snopes for ages because its pro-reality bias seems to them like anti-conservative bias. They much prefer their own alternative facts. Ideally entirely unchecked.


You definitely live in an alternate reality if you think Snopes has a "pro-reality" bias. JFC.


Are the stories about the owner embezzling money from Snopes to spend on hookers mostly true? The stories about him leaving his wife for a porn star who now works for snopes and admits to moderating articles are verified. Snopes might have been decent once, its garbage now.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... domme.html
https://www.europereloaded.com/facebook ... embezzler/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2020 10:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4832
eldanielfire wrote:
4071 wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
kiwinoz wrote:
Quote:
The images in question ranged from a white Star of David in a graffiti style, to a superimposition of the modern blue star on the flag of Israel spliced with the yellow star Jews were forced to wear by the Nazis, to a montage of yellow stars.


Snopes not quite correct.


Snopes hasn't been the corrective force it once was. They've been called out as biased themselves where culture or politics are concerned or them re frame questions to give an answer that is more appealing. This is one example by adding stuff 'twitter doesn't have a blanket ban on star of David bans' so they don't have to claim it's true.


Well, there's a f**king shock from the regurgitator of right-wing nonsense. They've been moaning about Snopes for ages because its pro-reality bias seems to them like anti-conservative bias. They much prefer their own alternative facts. Ideally entirely unchecked.


:lol: There is nothing right wing in my response. Oh and plenty of people have seen the inconsistency in snoops. Just because you are obsessive pro-left wing and act as if a liberal/left position can't actually be wrong on anything. You're another Bimboman, you obsessively can't accept wrong or innaccuracy on your political positions and attack and smear anyone who does.

If Snopes have got it wrong, and they have, they have it wrong. It doesn't matter if this is observed by right, left or centralists or people who don't identify with any political position. Twitter did remove those accounts. It doesn't need you desperately attacking those who point this out.



The thing is, you are wrong. Simply wrong.

You are mixing up two different things.

1. Twitter have deemed the Star of David "hateful imagery"

This was the first assertion, to which you responded, and it is false.

2. Twitter have accidentally (and briefly) blocked accounts that have a Star of David in them, despite them not being in violation of their policies.

This is true. The fact that it is true does not support the first claim, however. Because it is a different claim. In fact, the reinstatement of those accounts underlines just how false the first claim actually was. The Star of David has NOT been deemed "hateful imagery". Once again, it's machine learning getting things wrong and having to be fixed by human judgment. Which seemed the likeliest explanation from the very beginning.


Last edited by 4071 on Fri Jul 24, 2020 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2020 10:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4832
goeagles wrote:
4071 wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
kiwinoz wrote:
Quote:
The images in question ranged from a white Star of David in a graffiti style, to a superimposition of the modern blue star on the flag of Israel spliced with the yellow star Jews were forced to wear by the Nazis, to a montage of yellow stars.


Snopes not quite correct.


Snopes hasn't been the corrective force it once was. They've been called out as biased themselves where culture or politics are concerned or them re frame questions to give an answer that is more appealing. This is one example by adding stuff 'twitter doesn't have a blanket ban on star of David bans' so they don't have to claim it's true.


Well, there's a f**king shock from the regurgitator of right-wing nonsense. They've been moaning about Snopes for ages because its pro-reality bias seems to them like anti-conservative bias. They much prefer their own alternative facts. Ideally entirely unchecked.


You definitely live in an alternate reality if you think Snopes has a "pro-reality" bias. JFC.


Says the guy who thinks Trump's response to the coronavirus has been "fine".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2020 10:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4832
Harvey2.0 wrote:
Are the stories about the owner embezzling money from Snopes to spend on hookers mostly true? The stories about him leaving his wife for a porn star who now works for snopes and admits to moderating articles are verified. Snopes might have been decent once, its garbage now.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... domme.html
https://www.europereloaded.com/facebook ... embezzler/


All of those claims can be true without even remotely undermining the accuracy or legitimacy of the site.

What you have done there is commit a very basic logical fallacy. Which is pretty much what the Mail was going for - ad hominem attacks on the people behind the site means that the content can be safely dismissed without ever once addressing the actual content.

No examples of this impacting the fact-checking on Snopes, no examples of Snopes getting things wrong or demonstrating bias. Just attacking the people (apparently because some of them like sex!) and letting moral prurience and a lack of critical thinking do the rest for them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2020 10:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28681
4071 wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
4071 wrote:

Mostly false.



Wait. Twitter have removed accounts with Stars of David or they haven't. And the evidence is, even in our own link is yes they have.

Taking a re-framed statement where the phrasing is now asking a different question from a site with a recent history of doing as such doesn't change that.


Well, that's an interesting take.

Original post:
Quote:
The Star of David has been deemed "hateful imagery" by Twitter, which is locking the accounts of users who display it in their profile pictures.

Your response:
Quote:
It makes you wonder, who exactly is working at Twitter. It seems tech social media jobs attract people with really extreme views and a lack of grip on reality.


And so, upon checking, it turns out that the Star of David has NOT been deemed hateful imagery. Which was the premise you were responding to.
Quote:
Twitter's Hateful Conduct Policy prohibits threats against people due to religious affiliation, and Twitter has disabled some accounts that used the Nazi-era 'yellow star' or ‘yellow badge’ symbol in their profiles for violating that rule.
For the hard of thinking (that's you), that means accounts have been disabled which have the Nazi-era symbol rather than the Star of David. Because the Star of David has not been deemed hateful imagery.
Quote:
Twitter does not have a blanket prohibition against users' displaying the Star of David
There's no prohibition against the Star of David.
Quote:
in July 2020 they mistakenly locked some accounts for doing so even though those accounts were not in violation of Twitter's policies (and those accounts have since been restored).
Some accounts were mistakenly blocked and then unblocked because, no, Twitter have not deemed the Star of David as hateful imagery. Which again, in case you aren't following, was exactly the premise to which you responded.

So the premise was simply wrong.

And when this is pointed out, you first double down
Quote:
SO Twitter has banned images of the Star of David as hate imagery. Thanks.

And then you change the premise
Quote:
Wait. Twitter have removed accounts with Stars of David or they haven't. And the evidence is, even in our own link is yes they have.


Accounts have been mistakenly blocked that had the Star of David. And then unblocked. Because, no, Twitter have not deemed the Star of David hateful imagery. Which - before you decided to change the premise - was the original point.

You then follow up that deceptive little bit of goalpost-moving by accusing me of
Quote:
Taking a re-framed statement where the phrasing is now asking a different question.

Which is EXACTLY what you have just done.


:lol: You are still completely dancing around the fact Twitter did block accounts of the Star of David. The fact when it was reported they reversed it is another matter. No one claimed it was Twitters official stance. But it is clear someone there was doing it. A point you keep avoiding that even you snopes link had to reword the question to claim anything but "yes it did happen". Why do you think they did that?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2020 10:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28681
4071 wrote:


The thing is, you are wrong. Simply wrong.

You are mixing up two different things.

1. Twitter have deemed the Star of David "hateful imagery"

This was the first assertion, to which you responded, and it is false.

2. Twitter have accidentally (and briefly) blocked accounts that have a Star of David in them, despite them not being in violation of their policies.

This is true. The fact that it is true does not support the first claim, however. Because it is a different claim. In fact, the reinstatement of those accounts underlines just how false the first claim actually was. The Star of David has NOT been deemed "hateful imagery". Once again, it's machine learning getting things wrong and having to be fixed by human judgment. Which seemed the likeliest explanation from the very beginning.


Shifting your arguments again! Twitter did deem them hate imagery. That is how they were banned. Don't you get it. Why are you resisting this point? Any quick search of the victims their banned accounts showed with screen shots it was due to their images being deemed hate:

ImageImage

There's the evidence you are so desperate to avoid. You then post rubbish that it was only yellow stars (it wasn't) in a link that reframed the question (The answer was yes). And now you add it was all accidental, therefore you agreed it did happen all along but somehow assert I still got it wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2020 10:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4832
eldanielfire wrote:

:lol: You are still completely dancing around the fact Twitter did block accounts of the Star of David. The fact when it was reported they reversed it is another matter. No one claimed it was Twitters official stance. But it is clear someone there was doing it. A point you keep avoiding that even you snopes link had to reword the question to claim anything but "yes it did happen". Why do you think they did that?


Seriously, do you really think that Twitter is just full of people manually checking the posts and profile pictures to moderate the content? I'm beginning to think that you do.


Claim: The Star of David has been deemed "hateful imagery" by Twitter

Response from Twitter: "We categorically do not consider the Star of David as a hateful symbol or hateful image."

Seems pretty clear cut.

But you're going to go with standing by the original claim. Because... you imagine Twitter has people working there manually checking all the pictures and posts for hateful imagery? And therefore someone working there is personally blocking accounts for having the Star of David?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4832
eldanielfire wrote:
There's the evidence you are so desperate to avoid. You then post rubbish that it was only yellow stars (it wasn't) in a link that reframed the question (The answer was yes). And now you add it was all accidental, therefore you agreed it did happen all along but somehow assert I still got it wrong.


THIS

1. Twitter have deemed the Star of David "hateful imagery"

IS NOT THE SAME AS THIS

2. Twitter have accidentally (and briefly) blocked accounts that have a Star of David in them, despite them not being in violation of their policies.


They have not deemed the SoD as hateful imagery and no one working there (which relates your response to the original claim) considers the SoD as hateful imagery. That should be pretty simple to grasp, right?

I mean, if you think the story is all about the accidental and temporary blocking of some accounts, then what about it made you respond with:
Quote:
It seems tech social media jobs attract people with really extreme views and a lack of grip on reality.


Something in the story must have made you think that it pointed to people with extreme views. Why would you come to that conclusion if you were aware that it was a mistake and not actually the position of the company or anyone who worked at the company?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 18186
Santa wrote:
Nicholas Sandman has just settled with the WAPO I see. CNN has already capitulated. I reckon he could come out of this with $100m after fees once he has finished with the other 6.

I very much doubt it but a nice little earner all the same.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28681
4071 wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:

:lol: You are still completely dancing around the fact Twitter did block accounts of the Star of David. The fact when it was reported they reversed it is another matter. No one claimed it was Twitters official stance. But it is clear someone there was doing it. A point you keep avoiding that even you snopes link had to reword the question to claim anything but "yes it did happen". Why do you think they did that?


Seriously, do you really think that Twitter is just full of people manually checking the posts and profile pictures to moderate the content? I'm beginning to think that you do.


Claim: The Star of David has been deemed "hateful imagery" by Twitter

Response from Twitter: "We categorically do not consider the Star of David as a hateful symbol or hateful image."

Seems pretty clear cut.

But you're going to go with standing by the original claim. Because... you imagine Twitter has people working there manually checking all the pictures and posts for hateful imagery? And therefore someone working there is personally blocking accounts for having the Star of David?


Wow. Changing your argument again. Because corporations apologies after the fact are all legit when responding to bad publicity, especially the suggestion of antisemitism? It could be, it could not be. I'd not bet it was that simple as an accident given everything.

And no no one said someone was personally blocking each individual account. Putting new words into my mouth to create a strawman is not changing the facts here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28681
paddyor wrote:
Santa wrote:
Nicholas Sandman has just settled with the WAPO I see. CNN has already capitulated. I reckon he could come out of this with $100m after fees once he has finished with the other 6.

I very much doubt it but a nice little earner all the same.


Yeah, ridiculous amounts, silly to assume so. But I always thought it was mad reporting at the time. Adult journalist literally condemning him with almost no actual evidence except a photograph and a video of someone talking in his face.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9914
eldanielfire wrote:
paddyor wrote:
Santa wrote:
Nicholas Sandman has just settled with the WAPO I see. CNN has already capitulated. I reckon he could come out of this with $100m after fees once he has finished with the other 6.

I very much doubt it but a nice little earner all the same.


Yeah, ridiculous amounts, silly to assume so. But I always thought it was mad reporting at the time. Adult journalist literally condemning him with almost no actual evidence except a photograph and a video of someone talking in his face.


My reasoning:
1. He's going for $250m a pop
2. He settles for $20m each time
3. $20m * 8 = $160m
4. Minus $60m fees

Completely made up of course but not, I think, completely crazy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4832
eldanielfire wrote:
Wow. Changing your argument again. Because corporations apologies after the fact are all legit when responding to bad publicity, especially the suggestion of antisemitism? It could be, it could not be. I'd not bet it was that simple as an accident given everything.
.


Given everything?

Everything like... what?


eldanielfire wrote:
And no no one said someone was personally blocking each individual account. Putting new words into my mouth to create a strawman is not changing the facts here.

Okay, so you do actually understand that it's a program doing this. You just think it was acting based on an informal policy in the company that the SoD should be secretly deemed hateful imagery. But only unconventional versions of it. For... reasons....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28681
4071 wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Wow. Changing your argument again. Because corporations apologies after the fact are all legit when responding to bad publicity, especially the suggestion of antisemitism? It could be, it could not be. I'd not bet it was that simple as an accident given everything.
.


Given everything?

Everything like... what?


eldanielfire wrote:
And no no one said someone was personally blocking each individual account. Putting new words into my mouth to create a strawman is not changing the facts here.

Okay, so you do actually understand that it's a program doing this. You just think it was acting based on an informal policy in the company that the SoD should be secretly deemed hateful imagery. But only unconventional versions of it. For... reasons....


Indeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2020 9:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9914
So. Lightfoot has the Columbus statue removed in the middle of the night and then we get this response from Chicago Italian Americans.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_contin ... e=emb_logo

Talk about pushing people to vote Trump.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2020 9:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9914
Oh this should be good.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/podc ... ljXOFNOZFO

To understand what’s wrong with our public education system, you have to look at what’s arguably the most powerful force in our schools: White parents. Listen to the trailer for “Nice White Parents,” a new series from @serial, brought to you by @nytimes. https://t.co/ljXOFNOZFO

Just in time for the election.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2020 9:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2020 4:26 pm
Posts: 393
I see the Wiley vs The Jews thread got deleted. What happened?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2020 10:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9914
AnkleTap wrote:
I see the Wiley vs The Jews thread got deleted. What happened?


Some anti-semite complained about the anti anti Semitism.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2020 10:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2020 4:26 pm
Posts: 393
Santa wrote:
AnkleTap wrote:
I see the Wiley vs The Jews thread got deleted. What happened?


Some anti-semite complained about the anti anti Semitism.

Boasty, house on the coast G. (Let's hope its paid off)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2020 2:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14267
A magnificent piece from Men's Health, containing smear after smear in that inimitable radical progressive's way.

Quote:
Joe Rogan Is Spreading Transphobic Hate Speech and It's Putting Lives in Danger :lol:

Rogan has a history of platforming divisive voices. Now he's actively fanning the flames of hate.
By Philip Ellis
Jul 22, 2020



Joe Rogan is one of the biggest figures in podcasting. His show, The Joe Rogan Experience, consists of lengthy, often rambling interviews with a diverse array of athletes, academics, actors, entrepreneurs, and more. But you could also say that Rogan has really built his audience through selecting guests who bring their own notoriety to his show, or whose specialist subject is the kind of hot-button issue that will inevitably gain him some streams.

These interviews can take many forms, like getting infamous tech boss Elon Musk to smoke weed on camera, instantly immortalizing the moment in meme form. Or, more esoterically, speaking with pilots who claim to have had close encounters with UFOs. A lot of the time it's harmless (if slightly deranged) fun. And then there are the episodes which, by virtue of Rogan's massive online reach, lend a veneer of credibility to some truly dangerous prejudices.

Take the recent episode with guest Abigail Shrier. During Shrier's conversation with Rogan, in which she promoted her book, Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, Shrier invalidated the lived experience of trans and nonbinary kids and teens, and made numerous dangerous, entirely unsound false equivalencies. She compared transitioning among teenagers to historic adolescent phenomena such as eating disorders, self-harm, and (bafflingly) the occult, calling this age group "the same population that gets involved in cutting, demonic possession, witchcraft, anorexia, bulimia."

She even described wanting to transition as a "contagion" with the potential to infect other children with the same ideas, drawing yet more scientifically baseless parallels with eating disorders. "Anorexics, they are always really careful when they put them together," she said. "They have to be on hospital wards because we know that it will cause it to spread."


Plenty of savvy producers book guests like this to stir up controversy and accumulate outrage-clicks from their viewers. But was Rogan sitting back as a host and letting Shrier dig her own grave? Nope. He appeared to reaffirm this notion that being trans is something a child can be persuaded into through peer pressure, referring to time spent with "wacky friends" at school. He also mocked Caitlyn Jenner, and described LGBTQ+ activists as people who aren't "looking at all sides of it."

"They have this agenda," he said, "and this agenda is very ideologically driven that anyone who even thinks they might be trans should be trans, are trans, and the more trans people the better. The more kids that transition the better."

For all their talk of self-harm and other issues that teenagers can experience, neither Rogan nor Shrier openly acknowledged that more than half of transgender and nonbinary youth seriously considered attempting suicide last year. And that wasn't due to "wacky friends" somehow transmitting gender dysphoria; it was due to the prolific, ubiquitous messaging in media that tells them there is something wrong with them, and how they feel doesn't matter.

By alluding to a pro-trans lobby with that aforementioned agenda, Rogan positioned himself and Shrier as marginalized voices in their own right—a technique commonly employed by high-profile pundits who believe "cancel culture" is somehow coming for their right to free speech. But Rogan has 283 million active users across his social channels. Similarly, Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling tweets her transphobic half-thoughts out to 14.3 million followers—many of whom are the very kids she is attacking. They have huge platforms, and they are using them to actively, willfully spread misinformation and propaganda that will cause very real harm.

"As long as these tactics keep making him money ... he doesn't care who he hurts along the way."

Of course, you could always make the argument that Rogan doesn't actually believe any of the views that he encourages his guests to espouse on his show. Maybe he is just a cultural weathervane, conducting interviews on whatever outrageous topic is making headlines at the time. In one episode, he might endorse Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, or provide a safe space for openly gay strongman Rob Kearney to share his story. But in others, he is guilty of humoring (if not downright enabling) homophobic jokes and alt-right conspiracy theories from his guests.

Which is worse? To expose such bigotry to your millions of subscribers because you genuinely endorse it? Or to have so little conviction that you will knowingly platform hate speech about some of the most vulnerable, persecuted young people in our society to benefit your own career? You be the judge. Both are appalling in their own way.

Rogan likes to put on a furrowed brow and even, pensive voice; the hallmarks of a reasonable man with an inquisitive mind. Someone who is "just asking questions" or "wants to start a debate." In reality, he's an intellectual shock jock who amplifies the voices of conspiracy theorists, white supremacists, homophobes, and transphobes in the name of interesting conversation. And it's becoming increasingly clear that as long as these tactics keep making him money and acquiring him followers, he doesn't care who he hurts along the way.

Philip Ellis Philip Ellis is a freelance writer and journalist from the United Kingdom covering pop culture, relationships and LGBTQ+ issues.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 25, 2020 8:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9914
Here's a hate crime that inexplicably has not made it to the front pages of the Guardian, the NYT, Wapo, CNN, MSNBC etc.

https://nypost.com/2020/07/11/wisconsin ... orcyclist/

Quote:
A Wisconson man who struck and killed a motorcyclist told investigators he intentionally crashed head-first into the victim because he believed all Harley riders are “white racists,” local officials said.

Daniel Navarro, 27, of Fond du Lac, has been charged with a homicide as a hate crime after he allegedly veered across a road around 6:45 p.m. last Friday to hit former Marine and police officer Phillip Thiessen, 55, on his Harley Davidson, the county sheriff said during a press conference Thursday.

“Navarro told detectives that he believed the person driving the motorcycle was white because in Wisconsin, white people drive Harley-Davidson motorcycles, and the Harley culture was made up of white racists,” Sheriff Ryan Waldschmidt said. “He admitted he could not specifically see who was driving this motorcycle.”

Navarro, who is Hispanic, told investigators during a 3.5-hour interview his attack was motivated by increasing instances of racism against him — though Navarro had never previously met Thiessen or known anything about him, Sheriff Waldschmidt said.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2020 7:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9914
BLM types eh...

https://youtu.be/RSc9mMzKKsA

:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2020 1:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28681
A guardian article that males much sense. How BAME is an unhelpful, inaccurate and basically useless term.

Quote:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... l-language

The term BAME isn't fit for use. We need a new political language
Kenan Malik

We can’t analyse society without categorising people. But we need precision in the categories used

“I hate being described” as one, tweeted Channel 4’s Krishnan Guru-Murthy. Sunder Katwala, founder of the thinktank British Future, doesn’t identify as one. And last week Coventry’s Belgrade theatre promised never to use the description again.

What they are all talking about is “BAME”, that soulless acronym to describe black, Asian and minority ethnic people that is creeping into fashion in policy circles and journalism. It has been around for a while, but the Covid-19 pandemic and the discussions around Black Lives Matter protests have given the term a higher visibility. The majority of people, though, have no idea what it means. And most people who might be described as BAME loathe the term.

The problem is not simply that BAME is a clunky description. The debate also points to deeper questions about how people are categorised and what such categories tell us.


It’s impossible to analyse society or the impact of social policies without distinguishing between categories of people. In France, the nation’s universalist ethos means that ethnic and religious data is rarely collected. The resolve to treat everyone as citizens, not as bearers of specific racial or cultural histories, is valuable. In practice, though, many people are denied equal treatment and racism is deep seated, but the lack of data makes it difficult to gauge discriminatory practices.

In Britain, there has been much debate about the unequal impact of Covid-19 on ethnic minorities. Not so in France, largely because there’s little information in which to root a debate. But if lack of statistics is a problem, possessing data is no panacea. Decisions on what data to collect and how to interpret it may themselves mislead.

Take the question of street violence. Twenty years ago, the major issue of concern was not knife crime but street robbery. Then, as now, black people were over-represented in the statistics, leading to the claim that there is something about black culture leading to criminality.

The criminologists Marian FitzGerald, Jan Stockdale and Chris Hale analysed the data. They showed that street crime was much more likely in areas with a high population turnover and a combination of young people living in poverty alongside others who were both more affluent and trendy enough to own gadgets such as mobile phones. Young black people lived disproportionately in such areas. But where such areas included large numbers of poor white people, they, too, were involved in robberies.

Over time, as identities have become less political, the meaning of 'black' has changed
The category “lives in an area of high population turnover with a mixture of poor people and affluent trendies” is not politically salient. “Black” is. So street robbery became associated with black people. The result is what FitzGerald calls “statistical racism”.

People belong to many categories and categories overlap. African Caribbeans and Bangladeshis in Britain, for instance, are disproportionately working class, compared not just with white people but with other minority groups, such as Indians, Chinese and black Africans. But while discussion of the white population routinely takes class into account, discussions of minorities rarely do.

Consider school exclusions. Black pupils are disproportionately excluded from school. Look more closely and you see the problem is in particular with those of Caribbean descent. Pupils of black African descent are less likely to be excluded than their white peers.

Figures also show that pupils claiming free school meals (FSM) – a proxy for poverty – are three times more likely to be excluded than the average pupil; 40% of all school exclusions are of FSM pupils.

School exclusion, then, is a major issue facing white working-class pupils, too, and class as well as race may play a role in the disproportionate exclusion of black pupils. But to say so is to invite the accusation that one is downplaying the significance of racism. And so, more nuanced accounts of discrimination are often ignored.

When I was growing up, I saw myself, and was seen as, “black”. In the 1980s, it was a political term, denoting a sense of a common struggle against racism. Over time, as identities have become less political, more ethnic or cultural, so the meaning of “black” has changed.

Some see BAME as a means of articulating that feeling of commonality that “black” once denoted. It’s not. It’s an administrative, not a political, term. What we still lack is a political language that can both encompass the varied experiences of particular groups and imbue a sense of solidarity to struggles for social change.

• Kenan Malik is an Observer columnist


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2020 2:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4492
Santa wrote:


I love their justification that he deserves it for being there while Asian.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2020 3:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4832
New guy wrote:
Santa wrote:


I love their justification that he deserves it for being there while Asian.


You can tell a lot about someone's character when they insist on doubling down when they have made a mistake instead of apologising or retracting.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2020 3:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6891
LinkedIn now joining the fun. Removing posts critical of the CCP or pro Uigur and removing outspoken black conservatives who criticise BLM.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 27, 2020 5:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19059
Location: Centre of the Universe
eldanielfire wrote:
A guardian article that males much sense. How BAME is an unhelpful, inaccurate and basically useless term.

Quote:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... l-language

The term BAME isn't fit for use. We need a new political language
Kenan Malik

We can’t analyse society without categorising people. But we need precision in the categories used

“I hate being described” as one, tweeted Channel 4’s Krishnan Guru-Murthy. Sunder Katwala, founder of the thinktank British Future, doesn’t identify as one. And last week Coventry’s Belgrade theatre promised never to use the description again.

What they are all talking about is “BAME”, that soulless acronym to describe black, Asian and minority ethnic people that is creeping into fashion in policy circles and journalism. It has been around for a while, but the Covid-19 pandemic and the discussions around Black Lives Matter protests have given the term a higher visibility. The majority of people, though, have no idea what it means. And most people who might be described as BAME loathe the term.

The problem is not simply that BAME is a clunky description. The debate also points to deeper questions about how people are categorised and what such categories tell us.


It’s impossible to analyse society or the impact of social policies without distinguishing between categories of people. In France, the nation’s universalist ethos means that ethnic and religious data is rarely collected. The resolve to treat everyone as citizens, not as bearers of specific racial or cultural histories, is valuable. In practice, though, many people are denied equal treatment and racism is deep seated, but the lack of data makes it difficult to gauge discriminatory practices.

In Britain, there has been much debate about the unequal impact of Covid-19 on ethnic minorities. Not so in France, largely because there’s little information in which to root a debate. But if lack of statistics is a problem, possessing data is no panacea. Decisions on what data to collect and how to interpret it may themselves mislead.

Take the question of street violence. Twenty years ago, the major issue of concern was not knife crime but street robbery. Then, as now, black people were over-represented in the statistics, leading to the claim that there is something about black culture leading to criminality.

The criminologists Marian FitzGerald, Jan Stockdale and Chris Hale analysed the data. They showed that street crime was much more likely in areas with a high population turnover and a combination of young people living in poverty alongside others who were both more affluent and trendy enough to own gadgets such as mobile phones. Young black people lived disproportionately in such areas. But where such areas included large numbers of poor white people, they, too, were involved in robberies.

Over time, as identities have become less political, the meaning of 'black' has changed
The category “lives in an area of high population turnover with a mixture of poor people and affluent trendies” is not politically salient. “Black” is. So street robbery became associated with black people. The result is what FitzGerald calls “statistical racism”.

People belong to many categories and categories overlap. African Caribbeans and Bangladeshis in Britain, for instance, are disproportionately working class, compared not just with white people but with other minority groups, such as Indians, Chinese and black Africans. But while discussion of the white population routinely takes class into account, discussions of minorities rarely do.

Consider school exclusions. Black pupils are disproportionately excluded from school. Look more closely and you see the problem is in particular with those of Caribbean descent. Pupils of black African descent are less likely to be excluded than their white peers.

Figures also show that pupils claiming free school meals (FSM) – a proxy for poverty – are three times more likely to be excluded than the average pupil; 40% of all school exclusions are of FSM pupils.

School exclusion, then, is a major issue facing white working-class pupils, too, and class as well as race may play a role in the disproportionate exclusion of black pupils. But to say so is to invite the accusation that one is downplaying the significance of racism. And so, more nuanced accounts of discrimination are often ignored.

When I was growing up, I saw myself, and was seen as, “black”. In the 1980s, it was a political term, denoting a sense of a common struggle against racism. Over time, as identities have become less political, more ethnic or cultural, so the meaning of “black” has changed.

Some see BAME as a means of articulating that feeling of commonality that “black” once denoted. It’s not. It’s an administrative, not a political, term. What we still lack is a political language that can both encompass the varied experiences of particular groups and imbue a sense of solidarity to struggles for social change.

• Kenan Malik is an Observer columnist



I've wondered about this as I'm a bit of a language geek (i.e. trying to learn more, definitely not an expert). I generally detest acronyms and jargon that dilute the meaning of something. Throughout the media coverage of the protests I wondered about BAME (and BIPOC here in Canada - Black, Indigenous, Person/People of Colour) ... was it lazy journalists who came up with this? Do you call someone a 'bame' or do you say B.A.M.E.s?

BIPOC I find especially annoying (so can only imagine how people included in it might feel!) because it identifies two groups and then shoves everyone else into 'the rest'. Funny that 'marginalized people' are further marginalized by the term used to describe them.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1753 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AlanBengio, CarrotGawks, EverReady, Google Adsense [Bot], maverickmak, Mog The Almighty, Oxbow, Rinkals, terryfinch, TheToddster, Vleis, Yourmother and 44 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group