Free speech on Twitter?

[Swordsman18]

How do you all feel about the Trust and Safety Council now present on Twitter to monitor offensive and harmful speech?

https://blog.twitter.com/2016/announcing-the-twitter-trust-safety-council

[Lustful Bride]

I think it will last for like maybe half a year and then stop working. Itl be as broken as youtube's copyright policies.

I feel that Mr. Enter describes it better.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a8zBZJU7i0

[Yukina]

I think it will last for like maybe half a year and then stop working. Itl be as broken as youtube's copyright policies.

I feel that Mr. Enter describes it better.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a8zBZJU7i0

*high-fives* Nice to see a fellow Mr. Enter fan. :)

[Lustful Bride]

*high-fives* Nice to see a fellow Mr. Enter fan. :)

*high fives back* ^_^ The cycle of high fiving is complete!

Yeah I like listening to people who give more slow, and thought out stuff like he does instead of screaming overreactions and he swears less than most people do. :P Which I also like.

[Far eyes]

Trust and safety... you know what that sounds like, it sounds like one of those Slogans old Communist use to pull out of there asses to hide some crushing of unpopular opinions. So Da Druze Stalin approves.



They should use a nice fitting picture to, you know somthing like think of the children... lets see a nice combo.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/23/e4/a4/23e4a44a07c4759c851eb3127f8036ec.jpg
(image linked since it contains a kidlet in image) - Staff

Hey there we go. Photoshop a twitter mark on the flag, more effort then i am willing to give it but yah lets go with that one.

On a less snarky note...  no no i dont think i can manage a less snarky note.

Oh i know so will the new accepted greeting on Twitter be "Mellow greetings. What seems to be your boggle?"

[Lustful Bride]

On a less snarky note...  no no i dont think i can manage a less snarky note.

Oh i know so will the new accepted greeting on Twitter be "Mellow greetings. What seems to be your boggle?"

It makes sad that our culture seems to be pulling hard to that direction of everyone having the softest skin and expecting that everytime they walk into a room and sigh that everyone should just stop what they are doing and ugh.

Id rather stick with Edgar Friendly's crew and eat rat burgers :P

[Arsha]

The system will undoubtedly flop.
What they're essentially trying to do through censoring people is change social attitudes... and while Twitter has made quite the impact upon many lives, I think the Trust and Safety thing is being a bit too ambitious.

The issue probably resides more in the real world though where we have this conflict between people who value honesty and directness, and others who prioritize passive acceptance; avoiding conflict at all costs (Cause conflict is bad). Society has taken a turn towards the latter, and people are starting to interpret disagreement as offensive, insulting, and unacceptable...

I may or may not have been influenced by the Stalinist images above with that one.
But regardless, the Twitter thing is probably just going to be something that Twitter can point at years from now and say "Hey, we tried"

[Sain]

Sounds honestly like dumb decision to let this happen. Twitter could potentially lose a lot of users if they let this council exercise their power freely. If people can't use twitter like they used to someone is just going to make a similar site that allows actual free speech and will eventually replace Twitter for people who are being censored and eventually Twitter starts losing money. Kind of strange that whoever owns the company would want to take that kind of risk when it seems to serve no actual benefit, I mean it definitely isn't going to garner them any new users.

[TheGlyphstone]

...Where are the censoring abilities of this 'council' actually laid out? I looked over the page linked, and the page it linked to, and all I see are the usual feel-good platitudes about how Twitter doesn't tolerate bad things, and these partner-groups who also don't tolerate bad things are now here to show solidarity with Twitter as regards to their mutual rejection of bad things.

[Far eyes]

...Where are the censoring abilities

Ahh.. i think you just found the thing i find the most idiotic. See if you never lay out there power, you just say things like "A case by case basis" and some other vague sort of feel right shit like "Personal attention" and "everybody a safe space" and never actually address the power issue then you can just pretend its not a bunch of people with questionable political and moral agendas making decisions based on what they feel like today.

[TheGlyphstone]

Ahh.. i think you just found the thing i find the most idiotic. See if you never lay out there power, you just say things like "A case by case basis" and some other vague sort of feel right shit like "Personal attention" and "everybody a safe space" and never actually address the power issue then you can just pretend its not a bunch of people with questionable political and moral agendas making decisions based on what they feel like today.

That's my point. Unless they actually have ability, they're utterly irrelevant and this 'council' might as well not exist. If Twitter is going to censor its content, that is Twitter doing the censoring, and the 'partners' do nothing and mean nothing. It's just a Kumbaya 'we all agree that these things are naughty and are joining forces to speak more loudly about how naughty they are', I see absolutely nothing anywhere that Twitter is actually going to start censoring outside its pre-existing terms of service.

[Far eyes]

Yah but there terms of service is vague shit, and this "council" is vague. My main concern is not that it will do noting it is that it will use the vague non rules space to enforce what ever they feel like they want to on any particular day of the week. 

[TheGlyphstone]

So exactly what they already do, but on a larger scale/volume. Nothing newsworthy then, except Twitter can make a press release about a 'Health and Safety Council', where they couldn't make a press release about 'adding additional staff to investigate reports/ToS violations'. It's panic for panic's sake, at least until anyone can point to some sort of actual concrete censorship to complain about.

[Kythia]

A lot of the complaints seem to be vaguely hypocritical as well.  " Why am I constantly being treated like a child.  How dare this thing happen. The people who support this are bad people and must be stopped"

It seems like that attitude is within spitting distance of the one they claim to oppose?  You know, if people don't like it when others are offended, seeing it as somehow self-entitled, then, I dunno, maybe lead by example?  Bu meh.

[ReijiTabibito]

I'll link at the bottom, but there's actually a TED talk from a couple of months ago by Jon Ronson (the Welsh journalist) called 'How One Tweet Can Destroy Your Life' about the Justine Sacco debacle.

For those of you unawares, Sacco was the unfortunate woman traveling to Africa who, as a joke, tweeted JUST BEFORE she got onto a plane 'Going to Africa.  Hope I don't get AIDS.  Just kidding, I'm white!'  When she landed, almost a dozen hours later, she discovered she had lost her job and was the NUMBER ONE TOPIC trending on Twitter.  Mostly from these SJW types who took her words at face value.

It's worth pointing out the following.  1: Sacco is from South Africa, herself.  She knows quite well that AIDS is not a racial disease.  2: Her tweet was intended as a mockery of egotistical culture, primarily the US, where a lot of the attitude seems to be 'if it's not happening here, it's not important.'  3: the journalist who broke the story later admitted he did it mainly as a way to gain traffic on his blog.

Ronson basically went on to explain that in the early days of Twitter, it was a simple way to communicate parts of one's life that were normally not visible to the online world.  Whereas today, it's basically become a gigantic club which social regressives use on anyone who disagrees with their point of view - a tool for online shaming, which Ronson notes is quite the opposite of what it was when it first started.

I was watching the Rubin Report this week, and his guest talked about the fact that the fact that we actually have this as a problem is both good and bad.

Good, in that it shows just how far we have come as a society.

Bad, because that problem actually threatens our society MORE than the problems we had to conquer in order to GET here.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAIP6fI0NAI

[Kythia]

That seems like a pretty solid argument in favour of the council but I get the impression you didn't mean it as such? Not sure what your position is here.

[Lustful Bride]

That seems like a pretty solid argument in favour of the council but I get the impression you didn't mean it as such? Not sure what your position is here.

It the basic problem of what is appropriate or just a joke to one person is worth banning to another person. :/

How do you make a council be fair and yet having to instruct measures over a community that is multinational, multiculturarl, etc etc etc. It just snt going to work.

If there was a Deadpool on this id be placing my bet for it to last a month at most.

[ReijiTabibito]

Yeah, if it came off that way, I didn't mean it to.  Let's see if I can clear up what I'm saying.

This whole Council thing on Twitter is just the latest symptom of the Social Justice Warrior culture, which insists that the right to free speech is subordinate to someone's right not to be offended, or their right not to have their experience invalidated.  In short, people are sexist bigot homophobes and must be shamed into behaving appropriately, IE, whatever is in line with what the Social Justice Warriors are espousing today.

Other recent events that are also symptoms of this toxic culture include:

Symptom A:
The events last Halloween at Yale, where a professor who merely tried to stick up for freedom of expression and saying 'it's not our business what the kids wear on October 31st' had an incredibly SJW-based response.  There's a video quite well-known by now of the professor's husband - who is a master at one of Yale's colleges - being screamed at by a black girl about how college is not about creating an 'intellectual space,' it's about 'creating a home.'  I will note with some irony that the one doing the yelling, culminating in the 'why the fuck did you accept the position' - the position being master of the college - was one of the people on the committee involved with his appointment.

(Note to you, kiddies.  If you want a home, you can live in your parent's basement.  There's no debt after 4 years spent there.)

Symptom B:
The not one but TWO incidents at Missouri University where it was made clear that the press - the guardians of free speech and thus liberal principles - were not welcome in their safe spaces.  The more famous one involved Melissa Click, a communications professor whose main published articles included, I shit you not, a pair of writings on the depth of the Twilight books.  She's the infamous one who yelled 'I need some muscle over here!' to remove a journalist.  The other involves a photojournalist - who, by his general appearance, I would probably say is East Asian in ethnicity - basically being muscled out by a group of students who refuse, Spartacus-like but WAY less heroically, to identify themselves as anything other than 'Concerned Student 1950.'

(I don't live in Missouri, but if I ever move there, FUCK if I'm sending any of my kids to that school.)

Symptom C:
The simple fact that nobody in this movement seems to see the fact that their actions are taking us backward, not forward.  At Missouri, they insisted on having safe spaces for students.  Of course, being the equal-minded people that they are, they insisted that everyone get an equal amount of space.  And of COURSE, being the racially-sensitive persons that they are, they insisted that each race get its own space.  In short:

They argued for separate but equal safe spaces.

(If you hooked up the men and women who DIED in the Civil Rights Movement to electrical dynamos, you could power NY, LA, and DC with the spinning they're doing 6 feet under.)

Twitter is also rapidly going down the tubes - Stephen Fry, who is definitely someone I would call a liberal, closed down his Twitter account over outrage over a joke he made about Jenny Beavan (a great costume designer in cinema, as the Brits put it) coming to BAFTA ceremony dressed as a 'bag lady.'  (Nevermind the fact that she was onstage to be made a joke of in the first place is because she won an award for Mad Max: Fury Road.  Nevermind the fact that Beavan herself has publicly stated she was 'absolutely not upset' by his joke.)  Twitter's stock is plummeting, because people are starting to recognize it for what it is - an online club the SJWs avail themselves of for the purpose of shutting up anyone that doesn't fall in line with the narrative.


What we are seeing, quite simply, is v2.0 of China's Cultural Revolution - where students and children were turned against their teachers and their parents, called to denounce them in public, as agents of capitalism.  Millions of people suffered at this time, historical artifacts and sites - pieces of China's rich history - were destroyed, and Mao basically created a cult of personality surrounding himself.

Deng Xiaopeng, who was one of the great reformers and architects of modern-day China, was one of the major people who took over after Mao's death and the abandonment of the Cultural Revolution.  He was forcibly retired during the Revolution because Mao feared his stances on primarily economic policies.  He and his family were targeted, repeatedly, by the Red Guards, including throwing his eldest son in prison.  (Said son became a paraplegic because of said action.)

By 1981, the CCP basically said that the Cultural Revolution was "responsible for the most severe setback and the heaviest losses suffered by the party, the country, and the people since the founding of the PRC."  Keep in mind, they also had the Great Leap Forward (IE, the Great Face Plant), which caused a famine that caused the deaths of tens of millions of people.  And they thought the Cultural Revolution damaged China more.


In short: I hope that Twitter implodes if it's going to trade free speech away for protection from the Social Justice Warriors.

[Kythia]

I'm sorry I'm still not with you. Those three symptoms are people expressing their opinions.That's...That's what you want to happen. They think opinions other than their's are wrong, you think opinions other than yours are wrong. What do you see as the difference here? Why do you feel the people in those "symptoms" shouldn't have the right to express their opinion? I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be argumentative, you just seem to be trying to draw some line in the sand that I don't see. It's easy to characterise your position as "people with opinions different to mine are trying to undermine something important to me therefore they should be forced to stop talking somehow" and I'm sure it's not that, I just don't see how.

[Lustful Bride]

This makes me think of something I heard once. What is the difference between a Social Activist and a Social Justice Warrior?

The Social Activist will see a disabled person in a wheelchair unable to work because his workplace has stairs and no way for them to properly climb them. So they will march, protest, work, and get donations, whatever is necessary to ensure that the person in the wheelchair is able to have a ramp or whatever, to get to work properly and have the same chances as anyone else.

A Social Justice warrior will insult the company the man works for, and have the stairs smashed so that those who don't need a wheelchair will be unable to get to work. And then will claim that they acted in the best interests of the person in the wheelchair, causing their co-workers to hate them.

SJWs are antithetical to their causes. :P

Edit:I don't think Reiji is properly explaining his position....

[Kythia]

Sorry, forgot to mention. The reason it sounded like you were pro council is that you spend a lot of time focusing on what you clearly see as community overreaction. Would it not be better to have a group of experts rather than the great unwashed? As I say, your position seems to be a strong support of the council except for the part where you say it isn't.

Lustful: that's...That's never actually happened though has it. I mean, it's a good example of a meaningless slur used to condemn a group without bring weighed down with like evidence and facts and truth and stuff, sure, but it's not yanno important.

[Lustful Bride]

Lustful: that's...That's never actually happened though has it. I mean, it's a good example of a meaningless slur used to condemn a group without bring weighed down with like evidence and facts and truth and stuff, sure, but it's not yanno important.

*Shrug* meh. I don't know what to tell you then :P

[ReijiTabibito]

I'm sorry I'm still not with you. Those three symptoms are people expressing their opinions.That's...That's what you want to happen. They think opinions other than their's are wrong, you think opinions other than yours are wrong. What do you see as the difference here?

Okay. Let me see if this will help guide.

The difference is simple - I might think your opinion is wrong, but if it's REALLY important to me that you think the same way I do, I'm going to try and convince you, rationally and logically, into why my opinion is better.  If you don't agree with me after I've made my argument, okay, no problem, it's no skin off my nose if you and I don't believe the same things.

A Social Justice Warrior - the people taking over Twitter - will say, "No, you MUST AGREE WITH ME.  You have to believe everything that I do."  And if you don't, they'll call you a racist, a bigot, a sexist, they will shame you into compliance.  There is no tactic too low for them.  I want to note this very strongly.  It's not enough to an SJW if you just stop opposing their ideology.  It's 1984: you will agree with me, and you will say so.

Why do you feel the people in those "symptoms" shouldn't have the right to express their opinion? I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be argumentative, you just seem to be trying to draw some line in the sand that I don't see. It's easy to characterise your position as "people with opinions different to mine are trying to undermine something important to me therefore they should be forced to stop talking somehow" and I'm sure it's not that, I just don't see how.

They should have the right to express their opinions.

But their opinion is that everyone should have the same opinion they do.  That there is only one correct way of seeing things.  Thinking like that is anathema to what is supposed to be a freethinking and tolerant society, capable of handling intellectual discourse in an adult manner.  SJWs are reducing what should be intellectual discussions to nothing but character assassination.

EDIT: Moved last segment to next post.

[Kythia]

That made me chuckle,  I think you've got yourself a little off track. You attacked a professor earlier for writing about twilight - because the thought of a person who studies the media writing about an incredibly successful media franchise is apparently hilarious to you - and then attack social justice warriors for shaming and personal attacks.

I'm really sorry but I do kind of think you're explaining this badly. But I've got to go to work and my curiosity has been somewhat sated. Nice talking to you.

[ReijiTabibito]

Sorry, forgot to mention. The reason it sounded like you were pro council is that you spend a lot of time focusing on what you clearly see as community overreaction. Would it not be better to have a group of experts rather than the great unwashed? As I say, your position seems to be a strong support of the council except for the part where you say it isn't.

Not if the group of experts are going to quash free speech.  Which is basically what this council's job is.  Free speech means FREE SPEECH.  It's the old Voltaire saw: "I might disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Can speech be hurtful?  Of course.  Welcome to Earth.  Life is hurtful, unless you're one of those fortunate silver-spooned scions that never has to worry about anything.  But I would rather accept the possibility of people using hurtful hate speech against me, and knowing I can say whatever I want, rather than have censors everywhere making sure that nobody says anything bad.

They're like the guys from the 80s and 90s who tried to get music labeled because they were worried it might corrupt the poor little kiddies.





First.  The fact that the phrase 'incredibly successful media franchise' can be applied to drivel like Twilight is simultaneously depressing and horrifying, because it's shown just how far we've fallen as a culture.  I should also note that Click's work includes such sterling hallmarks like 50 Shades of Grey and My Big Redneck Wedding.

Second.  My objection to this is threefold.  One: that this is allowed to pass for legitimate academic work.  Two: actual taxpayer money was spent on this - Click received a grant in 2009 to attend a convention in Dallas.  About Twilight.  To study attendees.  Not the work itself, the people who read it.  Three: Click has received awards for this work.  Strictly at the local level (thank God), but someone thinks that this is actually worth awarding.  Why?  How exactly does better understanding something that's going to be forgotten fifty years from now advance the course of human civilization?

Click has no business being looked up to, being seen as someone to emulate, being a role model at the collegiate level.  If she'd like to take a few steps down to middle school, then I wouldn't have much issue with it.  But you have to actually work at middle school, you can't justify your continued existence by writing about what is bottom-barrel culture.

Third.  Yes, I may have made a personal attack on Melissa Click, deriding her for her choice of 'work' in the academic field.  But the difference between the SJWs and me is that I don't expect Melissa Click to come up to me and say 'Gosh, Reiji, you're totally right about everything you say' just because I said it.  I expect it to accomplish nothing other than to let me speak my own views.  The SJWs expect their personal attacks to silence any dissension.

Final.

Yes.  I may be explaining this badly.  That is one possible explanation for how my position has remained unclear thus far.

So, if I may, let me try and explain my position in the most direct manner possible.

The Council is a concession of Twitter to the SJWs, who will use it to suppress free speech in the name of social justice and 'correct' speech.

This is BAD.

EDIT: A couple of spotted grammar errors, unplaced spaces, and a word change for clarity.  Plus one moved quote/response.

[Maiz]

Someone unironically using 'sjw' is a record scratch. 'Social Justice Warrior Culture' is like vacuum appearing and eating all sound for a couple seconds. Comparing this to the Cultural Revolution is like, I don't know. The death of sound, maybe?

Which culture has fallen? And from where? What is the pinnacle of culture to you? Why is Twilight any worse than the silly stuff people read two/three/four/five/six/seven/etc centuries ago? Why do you want to police and censure what Click writes? Have you legitimately read her stuff? What arguments is she making? What advances the course of human civilization? What makes something worthy of study? What is bottom-barrel culture? What is top-barrel culture? Where does this very site fit in this whole cultural fall idea?

[Far eyes]

What always strikes me funny about the "sjw" is there creed of absolute annihilation of anything that dos not fit there narrow world view. Really they kind of remind me of the French revolution. Now i am just going to sit here and wait for the revolution to devour it self with any luck.

You know honestly this generation needs its George Carlin, and people like him just to knock some of the wind out of the righteous sales. Taking your own dumb shit to seriously is like the number 1 disease of this generation.

[ReijiTabibito]

Someone unironically using 'sjw' is a record scratch. 'Social Justice Warrior Culture' is like vacuum appearing and eating all sound for a couple seconds. Comparing this to the Cultural Revolution is like, I don't know. The death of sound, maybe?

You may think the comparison isn't apt.  I disagree.  The whole point of the Cultural Revolution was to promote and inculcate Maoist thought amongst the Chinese people (cloaked in the guise of protecting 'true' Communist ideology), and purge dissenting viewpoints (such as that held by Deng Xiaoping).

One viewpoint.  One correct way of looking at things.  Decided by a small handful of people.

You've already got the movement clamoring for hate speech codes, involving the police in these matters, and an insistence on 'academic justice' (IE, telling the right story) over academic freedom.

And that's nothing to say of the fact that revoking the First Amendment - which is effectively what they're trying to do - isn't just a pipe dream anymore.  A couple of guys went to Yale and spent 1 hour asking students to sign a petition to overturn the First Amendment.  They got almost one signature per minute.  And keep in mind, Yale is supposed to be the bastion of liberal principles.

Which culture has fallen? And from where? What is the pinnacle of culture to you?

If we're talking about the US, then Western European-based culture.  From where?  I can't really say how high, but I would say our peak time culturally was somewhere in the range of the 1700s to the start of the 20th century.  I'm a bit of a classicist, so I use the following definition for culture: "a pursuit of total perfection by means of getting to know, on all the matters which most concern us, the best which has been thought and said in the world."

Why is Twilight any worse than the silly stuff people read two/three/four/five/six/seven/etc centuries ago?

It's NOT.  The difference is that A: you didn't have university educators confusing it for real academic work, and B: we haven't any idea what that silly stuff is, because the vast majority of it no longer exists (or is inaccessible to the average person).  Twilight is going the same way as all that silly stuff from a while ago, it just hasn't happened yet.

Why do you want to police and censure what Click writes?

I don't.  But I don't think her scribblings on 50 Shades of Grey should be considered 'acceptable' collegiate level work, much in the same way that a high school English teacher should not accept a book report based on Dick and Jane.  It's beneath the level of academic rigor that should be demanded for that level of education.  I'm not asking her to go out and read Eco's The Name of the Rose, but she can certainly find something better than this.

Have you legitimately read her stuff? What arguments is she making?

No, I haven't.  Mainly because her stuff isn't either available for reading, or I don't have money to be flashing around to buy an article online.

What advances the course of human civilization? What makes something worthy of study?

Quite simply?  Knowledge.  The more we understand something, the more knowledge we gain and can thus better ourselves.  But while studying anything is going to add to our knowledge base, not everything is equally worthy of study.

Things worthy of study are things that can actually be used to benefit mankind.  I go and I study engineering, I can learn how to build bridges, houses, structures necessary for the existence of modern industrialized society.  I go and I study something like Twilight, what can I do with that?

When I was at university, I had a choice - I could study science or I could study history as my major.  I picked the former, because while I recognized that science was harder and required more study and thought and idea, I also recognized that science can be used to build.  The smartphone in your pocket, self-driving cars, rocket flight?  Science.  Furthermore, I realized that there's no money in history, unless you are a university professor, a New York Times-bestselling writer, or work in a museum.

What is bottom-barrel culture? What is top-barrel culture?

Kanye West, the Kardashians, Jersey Shore, to give the three examples that immediately spring to my mind.  I could probably list a few more, but they are the exemplars of it.  (Plus, one of them would probably get me lynched.)

Lord of the Rings, The Wealth of Nations, Lovecraft & Derleth.  And I understand that none of us can be concerned with high-minded culture all the damn time.  I admit that I get chuckles from watching things like World's Dumbest and enjoy loading my Monty Python DVDs into the player for another round of silliness.  There's nothing wrong with a good bit of humor and low-brow things.  But when everything is low-brow, when there is no appeal to higher nature and everything is just sex and violence, that's not a good thing.

Now i am just going to sit here and wait for the revolution to devour it self with any luck.

That's what it's doing right now.  The people the revolution is eating?  Are the people who started it back in my parent's generation.  Insistence on ideological purity is dangerous, because you can always be accused of not being pure enough if you go out of lockstep with the movement.

You know honestly this generation needs its George Carlin, and people like him just to knock some of the wind out of the righteous sales. Taking your own dumb shit to seriously is like the number 1 disease of this generation.

This generation has its Carlin.  He's called George Carlin.  He talked about a lot of things - the thing I keep remembering from him?  "Political Correctness is Fascism disguised as Manners."

[Oniya]

This generation has its Carlin.  He's called George Carlin.  He talked about a lot of things - the thing I keep remembering from him?  "Political Correctness is Fascism disguised as Manners."

The problem is that George Carlin isn't seen as 'relevant' by many people because he isn't still talking.  Gadflies (which can be oh-so-necessary) lose their effectiveness when they stop buzzing and biting.  Our generation had Carlin.  This generation - not so much.

[Far eyes]

The problem is that George Carlin isn't seen as 'relevant' by many people because he isn't still talking.  Gadflies (which can be oh-so-necessary) lose their effectiveness when they stop buzzing and biting.  Our generation had Carlin.  This generation - not so much.

This is kind of what i mean. Though man he would get a kick out of poking fun at this shit i am sure ...

[ReijiTabibito]

The problem is that George Carlin isn't seen as 'relevant' by many people because he isn't still talking.  Gadflies (which can be oh-so-necessary) lose their effectiveness when they stop buzzing and biting.  Our generation had Carlin.  This generation - not so much.

Humanity would be in a pretty sorry state if we fully embraced the belief that because you are dead you aren't relevant anymore.  But I agree with you that it's not the same without him around.

I'm also afraid that if we're expecting a new Carlin for a new generation, we're going to be sorely disappointed.  Comedians used to do colleges as part of their bread and butter.  Now more and more of them are avoiding the places altogether.  Expecting this more 'enlightened, tolerant' generation to produce a George Carlin is a bit out of their realm, methinks.

[Maiz]

You may think the comparison isn't apt.  I disagree.  The whole point of the Cultural Revolution was to promote and inculcate Maoist thought amongst the Chinese people (cloaked in the guise of protecting 'true' Communist ideology), and purge dissenting viewpoints (such as that held by Deng Xiaoping).

One viewpoint.  One correct way of looking at things.  Decided by a small handful of people.

You've already got the movement clamoring for hate speech codes, involving the police in these matters, and an insistence on 'academic justice' (IE, telling the right story) over academic freedom.

And that's nothing to say of the fact that revoking the First Amendment - which is effectively what they're trying to do - isn't just a pipe dream anymore.  A couple of guys went to Yale and spent 1 hour asking students to sign a petition to overturn the First Amendment.  They got almost one signature per minute.  And keep in mind, Yale is supposed to be the bastion of liberal principles.

Oh no! Someone is doing a petition, this is exactly like the Cultural Revolution! [aside for people reading this: http://abovethelaw.com/2015/12/yale-students-sign-a-petition-to-repeal-the-first-amendment-stop-being-stupid/ ]  And it is definitely connected to government oppression as well! Social justice warriors are just shooting people in the streets for not listening to them! Except, like, this is all sarcasm and you are a reactionary over exaggerater.

Other places have hate speech laws and they seem pretty okay. Also, universities regularly use 'academic freedom' to hurt people. Your posturing about universities is a little misguided. They fuck up a lot and hold a ton of actually harmful views. They have actively hurt people in the past and the present, but you seem not to care.

If we're talking about the US, then Western European-based culture.  From where?  I can't really say how high, but I would say our peak time culturally was somewhere in the range of the 1700s to the start of the 20th century.  I'm a bit of a classicist, so I use the following definition for culture: "a pursuit of total perfection by means of getting to know, on all the matters which most concern us, the best which has been thought and said in the world."

Why Western Euro based culture? What makes this timespan so great? Why does our peak culture cover slavery and colonization? Why do you use that definition of culture?

It's NOT.  The difference is that A: you didn't have university educators confusing it for real academic work, and B: we haven't any idea what that silly stuff is, because the vast majority of it no longer exists (or is inaccessible to the average person).  Twilight is going the same way as all that silly stuff from a while ago, it just hasn't happened yet.

Why does this matter? Why can't a scholar have the academic freedom to study what she wants? Why must scholars go through you first?

I don't.  But I don't think her scribblings on 50 Shades of Grey should be considered 'acceptable' collegiate level work, much in the same way that a high school English teacher should not accept a book report based on Dick and Jane.  It's beneath the level of academic rigor that should be demanded for that level of education.  I'm not asking her to go out and read Eco's The Name of the Rose, but she can certainly find something better than this.

No, I haven't.  Mainly because her stuff isn't either available for reading, or I don't have money to be flashing around to buy an article online.

So, you don't actually know what her work says or claims or argues or anything. Instead you continuously attack her because she does not conform to your ideas of what good knowledge means. Who decided the level of academic rigor? Why is it you? Why don't you read her stuff first?

Quite simply?  Knowledge.  The more we understand something, the more knowledge we gain and can thus better ourselves.  But while studying anything is going to add to our knowledge base, not everything is equally worthy of study.

Things worthy of study are things that can actually be used to benefit mankind.  I go and I study engineering, I can learn how to build bridges, houses, structures necessary for the existence of modern industrialized society.  I go and I study something like Twilight, what can I do with that?

I haven't read her stuff, so I can't make claims about what it does or doesn't do. But why do you get to say what knowledge is? Is she not contributing to knowledge? Just because it doesn't seem relevant to you doesn't mean it doesn't have something to say. Who made you the judge of what is scholarly pursuit? How come studying Twilight isn't important, but studying Shakespeare is?

When I was at university, I had a choice - I could study science or I could study history as my major.  I picked the former, because while I recognized that science was harder and required more study and thought and idea, I also recognized that science can be used to build.  The smartphone in your pocket, self-driving cars, rocket flight?  Science.  Furthermore, I realized that there's no money in history, unless you are a university professor, a New York Times-bestselling writer, or work in a museum.

This is an incredibly biased opinion! Why is science harder? Why do you think it requires more study/thought/idea? Why do you think humanities can't build things?

Kanye West, the Kardashians, Jersey Shore, to give the three examples that immediately spring to my mind.  I could probably list a few more, but they are the exemplars of it.  (Plus, one of them would probably get me lynched.)

So, people who are not white or Western European descended are bottom barrel culture? Why? Why do you have an issue with pop culture? Have you heard Kanye's stuff? What makes it bottom barrel culture? What about the Kardashians? Jersey Shore?

Lord of the Rings, The Wealth of Nations, Lovecraft & Derleth.  And I understand that none of us can be concerned with high-minded culture all the damn time.  I admit that I get chuckles from watching things like World's Dumbest and enjoy loading my Monty Python DVDs into the player for another round of silliness.  There's nothing wrong with a good bit of humor and low-brow things.  But when everything is low-brow, when there is no appeal to higher nature and everything is just sex and violence, that's not a good thing.

Lord of the Rings is boring, badly written, and honestly a fucking yawn fest. I guess The Wealth of Nations might be interesting to some one, but I have more joy in my life than to read it for fun. Lovecraft is horrifically racist and honestly overrated. Never heard of Derleth but I don't like the way he has two 'e's in his name so clearly he contributed nothing. Why do you consider your opinions worth more than mine? (I am assuming your response with this question)

[Oniya]

As someone who has lived through a number of different 'pop cultures', I can only say this:

Linked because I'm not sure how old that top guy is in the picture.

[ReijiTabibito]

Oh no! Someone is doing a petition, this is exactly like the Cultural Revolution! [aside for people reading this: http://abovethelaw.com/2015/12/yale-students-sign-a-petition-to-repeal-the-first-amendment-stop-being-stupid/ ]  And it is definitely connected to government oppression as well! Social justice warriors are just shooting people in the streets for not listening to them! Except, like, this is all sarcasm and you are a reactionary over exaggerater.

Exaggerator.

And I don't care that the petition might actually have been faked, or the students might have been lied to, or anything like that.  And they may not be shooting people in the streets now, but that's because the cancer hasn't metastasized to the brain.  More to the point, do you not understand the insane logic behind signing a petition to ban the right to petition?

Other places have hate speech laws and they seem pretty okay. Also, universities regularly use 'academic freedom' to hurt people. Your posturing about universities is a little misguided. They fuck up a lot and hold a ton of actually harmful views. They have actively hurt people in the past and the present, but you seem not to care.

Name one.  Just one.  Please, name one harmful view that universities on the whole embrace.

Why Western Euro based culture? What makes this timespan so great? Why does our peak culture cover slavery and colonization? Why do you use that definition of culture?

...because the people who founded the United States of America, and built the country were from Western Europe?

It covers slavery and colonization because those were unfortunate events that happened in the timespan.  I never said that that timeframe was perfect, I just said it was the best.  You can have a best at something and still have things that aren't perfect.

Why does this matter? Why can't a scholar have the academic freedom to study what she wants? Why must scholars go through you first?

They shouldn't go through me.  Academic integrity and honesty should be handled, like I was taught, through peer review.  The people in the profession should decide what's worth studying and what's not.  But the regressive left has essentially built themselves an echo chamber inside academia - which goes against peer review.

So, you don't actually know what her work says or claims or argues or anything. Instead you continuously attack her because she does not conform to your ideas of what good knowledge means. Who decided the level of academic rigor? Why is it you? Why don't you read her stuff first?

What part of I can't did you miss?

I haven't read her stuff, so I can't make claims about what it does or doesn't do. But why do you get to say what knowledge is? Is she not contributing to knowledge? Just because it doesn't seem relevant to you doesn't mean it doesn't have something to say. Who made you the judge of what is scholarly pursuit? How come studying Twilight isn't important, but studying Shakespeare is?

...I just said that I don't get to decide, that should be left to the experts.

As for Twilight vs Shakespeare, you're right.  I shouldn't judge.  After all, the Bard only wrote 400 years ago.  It's not fair to judge them with the same stick.  Tell you what.  400 years from now, if people are still studying Twilight, you can come find my grave and tell me I was wrong.  I won't be able to reply, because I'll be dead, but you know, semantics.

So, people who are not white or Western European descended are bottom barrel culture?

Show me where I said that.  Please.  I ask you.

Have you heard Kanye's stuff? What makes it bottom barrel culture? What about the Kardashians? Jersey Shore?

I have.  It's nothing special to write home about.  Keep in mind that Kanye said he would boycott the Grammy Awards unless he won Album of the Year...despite not being nominated.

The Kardashians, Jersey Shore, Real Housewives...they're all cut from the same cloth: watching badly behaved people.  These are supposed to be our cultural icons?  The people our children are supposed to look up to?

And why do you think it's not bottom barrel culture?  Hm?  What's good and uplifting and inspiring about any of it?

Lord of the Rings is boring, badly written, and honestly a fucking yawn fest. I guess The Wealth of Nations might be interesting to some one, but I have more joy in my life than to read it for fun. Lovecraft is horrifically racist and honestly overrated. Never heard of Derleth but I don't like the way he has two 'e's in his name so clearly he contributed nothing. Why do you consider your opinions worth more than mine? (I am assuming your response with this question)

How do you know?  Have you read Lord of the Rings?  Why do you think it's such a 'fucking yawn fest'?  Have you read HP Lovecraft?  And yes, you're right, he was totally racist in a time where nobody else was.  I guess that means that I shouldn't read anything that was written by people who were sexists or racists or bigots.  Can you recommend some non-sexist/racist/bigoted material for me to absorb?

[Kythia]

Her work is incredibly easy to find. I just did it in ten seconds on the bus. Google melissa click articles. First result is a bio page. It contains links to articles. Why exactly can't you do the same? Have you tried or are you lying?

[TheGlyphstone]

I wrote an essay in 7th grade about a Shakespeare play. Because it was about Shakespeare, does it make my middle school essay of higher literary merit and quality than a college-level academic paper about the popularity of Twilight?

[ReijiTabibito]

I'm assuming you mean her Missouri faculty page?

If you are, then a few things to note.  One - some of those articles are pay-to-read.  I'm currently living paycheck to paycheck, I'm not tossing down $32.95 for a book I can live without.

Two - of the remaining articles left, a couple of those are just quick 2 minute summaries on her work there.  At least, I'm assuming they are.

Three - one article is literally about the troubles various Missouri U faculty members faced while pregnant.  If I wanted an explanation on that, I don't need to read an article, I can just pick up the phone and call a few people I know.

I wrote an essay in 7th grade about a Shakespeare play. Because it was about Shakespeare, does it make my middle school essay of higher literary merit and quality than a college-level academic paper about the popularity of Twilight?

That depends.  Did your 7th grade English teacher ask you to write it at a collegiate level?  Quality is one of those subjective terms that changes depending on where you go and who you talk to.  A good quality paper written by a high school sophomore isn't going to look the same as a good quality paper written by a doctorate student, even if they are on the same subject.

[Maiz]

Exaggerator.

And I don't care that the petition might actually have been faked, or the students might have been lied to, or anything like that.  And they may not be shooting people in the streets now, but that's because the cancer hasn't metastasized to the brain.  More to the point, do you not understand the insane logic behind signing a petition to ban the right to petition?

Okay you can think this but it seems incredibly paranoid.

Name one.  Just one.  Please, name one harmful view that universities on the whole embrace.

It appears that the ppl behind the video didnt say it was a ban but something more nuanced and complex, thats different. And it is common for universities to use 'academic freedom' to hide racist/sexist reasons for not tenuring people (or to hide sexual harassment)

...because the people who founded the United States of America, and built the country were from Western Europe?

It covers slavery and colonization because those were unfortunate events that happened in the timespan.  I never said that that timeframe was perfect, I just said it was the best.  You can have a best at something and still have things that aren't perfect.

Why is it the best? How are slavery and colonization not inherently tied to culture at this time? Why can they be separated?

They shouldn't go through me.  Academic integrity and honesty should be handled, like I was taught, through peer review.  The people in the profession should decide what's worth studying and what's not.  But the regressive left has essentially built themselves an echo chamber inside academia - which goes against peer review.

If her work was published in a journal, then it was peer reviewed. You seem to know little abt academia

What part of I can't did you miss?

...I just said that I don't get to decide, that should be left to the experts.

As for Twilight vs Shakespeare, you're right.  I shouldn't judge.  After all, the Bard only wrote 400 years ago.  It's not fair to judge them with the same stick.  Tell you what.  400 years from now, if people are still studying Twilight, you can come find my grave and tell me I was wrong.  I won't be able to reply, because I'll be dead, but you know, semantics.

Like Kythia pointed out, her articles are available online :)

Show me where I said that.  Please.  I ask you.

I have.  It's nothing special to write home about.  Keep in mind that Kanye said he would boycott the Grammy Awards unless he won Album of the Year...despite not being nominated.

The Kardashians, Jersey Shore, Real Housewives...they're all cut from the same cloth: watching badly behaved people.  These are supposed to be our cultural icons?  The people our children are supposed to look up to?

And why do you think it's not bottom barrel culture?  Hm?  What's good and uplifting and inspiring about any of it?

What you elevate and what you cast down say it very clearly! I don't think it's bottom barrel culture because I don't think such a thing exists.

How do you know?  Have you read Lord of the Rings?  Why do you think it's such a 'fucking yawn fest'?  Have you read HP Lovecraft?  And yes, you're right, he was totally racist in a time where nobody else was.  I guess that means that I shouldn't read anything that was written by people who were sexists or racists or bigots.  Can you recommend some non-sexist/racist/bigoted material for me to absorb?

Why does it matter if I've read them or not? You are happy to give your opinions about things you haven't read at all. No where did I say you can't read it but why should I consider it high culture? And if you legitimately want non sexist/racist/bigoted material, you could google a bunch of different things and find some useful stuff

Two - of the remaining articles left, a couple of those are just quick 2 minute summaries on her work there.  At least, I'm assuming they are.

Three - one article is literally about the troubles various Missouri U faculty members faced while pregnant.  If I wanted an explanation on that, I don't need to read an article, I can just pick up the phone and call a few people I know.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

At first, we were shocked by the interest in and praise for Twilight's message of abstinence. We thought surely teens would find this message irrelevant and puritanical, especially against the backdrop of the hypersexualized American media landscape in which teen characters typically engage in hookups and other sexually permissive activities.

[2.6] Nevertheless, as we have reflected more on the fans' interpretation, the draw to Twilight's abstinence message makes sense. In general, the girls idolized Edward Cullen as a romantic hero. We must connect this idolization to where teen girls are developmentally. In adolescence, girls become interested in romance and dating. Not surprisingly, at the same time, they become more aware of social norms that suggest that they should have romantic feelings for someone of the opposite sex (Simon, Eder, and Evans 1992). Typically, young girls develop crushes on teen idols (and we see Edward here as fulfilling the role of the teen idol, albeit a fictional one) as a way of acknowledging their emerging sexual feelings in a safe, nonthreatening way (Engle and Kasser 2005). In this context, Twilight's Edward is a powerful exception to typical teen boys, who are often viewed by girls as only interested in sex (McRobbie 1991). In contrast, the teen idols to whom girls are typically drawn project a feminine form of masculinity that is sexually nonthreatening and thus accessible (Engle and Kasser 2005; Karniol 2001; McRobbie 1991; Sweeney 1994). Edward represents a "safe" sexuality: his simultaneous passion for Bella and his protection of her virtue result in a romantic hero who is both sexually charged and chaste.

[2.7] The appeal of Twilight's abstinence that we discovered by interviewing and surveying fans was not the most frequently mentioned topic by our sample, yet it was perhaps one of the most eye-opening themes that we uncovered. We went into the project thinking that teen fans would roll their eyes at Twilight for not containing enough sex. Instead, Twilight appealed to some of the fans we studied precisely because it was not oversaturated with sexual permissiveness.

...

[5.5] Our analysis of Twilight's fans and messages suggests that the series is influential in teens' understanding of sexuality. Because "the media [have] become the key site for defining codes of sexual conduct" (McRobbie 2004, 257), they are an important site of investigation of gender and sexuality norms.

This is fascinating. Maybe actually read it, you know? And why is it bad to write an article about people's lived experiences? Why are you so anti-intellectual?

[TheGlyphstone]

That depends.  Did your 7th grade English teacher ask you to write it at a collegiate level?  Quality is one of those subjective terms that changes depending on where you go and who you talk to.  A good quality paper written by a high school sophomore isn't going to look the same as a good quality paper written by a doctorate student, even if they are on the same subject.

That's not really relevant - you are dismissing the value or quality of this person's articles because of their subject matter, without ever having read them or anything about them other than that they exist and are about something you don't like. My point is that the subject matter is irrelevant to the quality of the work and the professionalism it is written at, exactly as you are arguing in return.

[Kythia]

Sorry, you lost me. My comment was in response to your repeated and emphasised insistence that you couldn't read her articles. It now seems you can but don't want to read even the free ones for various reasons, have I understood right? What did you originally try when you came to the conclusion you couldn't read them?

[ReijiTabibito]

That's not really relevant - you are dismissing the value or quality of this person's articles because of their subject matter, without ever having read them or anything about them other than that they exist and are about something you don't like. My point is that the subject matter is irrelevant to the quality of the work and the professionalism it is written at, exactly as you are arguing in return.

So if subject matter is irrelevant to the quality of the work and professionalism it's written at, then what are we supposed to take away from that?  It's okay to write about anything at long as it's good quality and professional in return?

That said, this has nothing to do with what you think about the topic at hand.

Why are you so anti-intellectual?

*empty room echo*

Sorry, you lost me. My comment was in response to your repeated and emphasised insistence that you couldn't read her articles. It now seems you can but don't want to read even the free ones for various reasons, have I understood right? What did you originally try when you came to the conclusion you couldn't read them?

I made the rookie mistake of clicking the first link in the bunch, seeing the pay-to-read, and assuming that all the rest were the same.  But at least I went back and found I was wrong rather than arrogantly assume that I was right.

[LisztesFerenc]

The Council is a concession of Twitter to the SJWs, who will use it to suppress free speech in the name of social justice and 'correct' speech.

  Why is this automatically a bad? Twitter is a private entity, it is free to impose a "correct speech" policy that supersedes the government's free speech, and whilst I agree it is problematic in practice to manage, I don't see it automatically being bad. Plenty of websites do not allow political discussions because of how heated they become, yet life goes one. I don't buy this all or nothing approach whereby we cannot possible regulate some of the more nastier debate tactics on the internet and twitter. Again, I do however acknowledge their implementation will be tricky and could be counter productive, but to dismiss the possibility of their success sounds  a lot like a perfect solution fallacy.

[TheGlyphstone]

I made my feelings about the topic at hand bluntly clear on the first page - this is reactionary panic for the sake of reactionary panic, with a hefty dose of complaining about a problem that doesn't exist.

[ReijiTabibito]

Twitter is a private entity, it is free to impose a "correct speech" policy that supersedes the government's free speech, and whilst I agree it is problematic in practice to manage, I don't see it automatically being bad.

That can be a particularly dangerous precedent.  If you say that private entities are allows to supersede the authority of the government, even in one case, for something that might potentially be beneficial, you risk someone using that precedent down the road for something that's not so nice.

I don't buy this all or nothing approach whereby we cannot possible regulate some of the more nastier debate tactics on the internet and twitter. Again, I do however acknowledge their implementation will be tricky and could be counter productive, but to dismiss the possibility of their success sounds  a lot like a perfect solution fallacy.

We can.  It's called teaching people to debate properly and not be a total jerk.  Also, just to point out.  Any restriction on free speech is technically against the Constitution.  However, we are willing to recognize that some trade-offs are more beneficial.  We don't allow people to shout fire in a crowded theater falsely because of the potential consequences of that action.

I made my feelings about the topic at hand bluntly clear on the first page - this is reactionary panic for the sake of reactionary panic, with a hefty dose of complaining about a problem that doesn't exist.

You and I say it doesn't exist, but the fact remains that people still think that it is.

[Kythia]

Any restrictions on free speech is against the constitution? Seriously? So Oniya, above, posting a link because there was a child in the image was her bowing to unconstitutional rules?

I think you've overstated your case there. Wind it back a bit.

[Far eyes]

As someone who has lived through a number of different 'pop cultures', I can only say this:

Linked because I'm not sure how old that top guy is in the picture.

Lets not even pretend the rest of those guys are any place near Freddie Mercury level, vocally or artistically. On a good day most of the top 3 can sort of hit a note. Freddie Mercury had a 5 octave range voice, if you know anything about vocalists you know how mind blowing that is.

[TheGlyphstone]

I don't think we are saying the same thing. You've been talking about how 'SJWs' are causing the downfall of modern civilization by militantly forcing everyone to exist in padded pillows of non-offensive language. I'm saying that is ridiculous, and entirely a construct of people with persecution complexes looking for something to feel attacked about.

Case in point, the OP. This supposed 'council' has literally no power or ability, no authority, and no relevance, but because it might possibly have some potential ability to maybe censor someone according to some undefined arbitrary standard, it's the end of Twitter. It's fearmongering for no end except manufactured outrage.

[LisztesFerenc]

We can.  It's called teaching people to debate properly and not be a total jerk.  Also, just to point out.  Any restriction on free speech is technically against the Constitution.

  No, the government restricting your freedom of speech is against the Constitution. Private business and citizens are permitted to in their own private space.

[ReijiTabibito]

Any restrictions on free speech is against the constitution? Seriously? So Oniya, above, posting a link because there was a child in the image was her bowing to unconstitutional rules?

I think you've overstated your case there. Wind it back a bit.

Free speech means you get to say whatever you want, and not have to worry about the police coming to your house to lock you up because you said it.  In the wake of the Missouri stuff, the local police actually told people to call them to report hurtful speech.  That is not the government's business.

Also, I point out that Oniya posted the link (as opposed to the regular picture) because she was unable to ascertain the age of Bieber (hiss!) in that particular image, and E has a voluntarily-agreed upon rule not to depict children under the age of 16.  There was another picture, of Josef Stalin with a small child, that was linked for the exact same reason.  Oniya can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that the rule about 'no pictures of people under 16' is less to do with free speech and more to do with laws and statutes regarding child pornography.

[Kythia]

It's not clear you've fully understood what free speech is. Rules regarding posting child pornography are a restriction on free speech. And hence, per you, unconstitutional.

I think I'm done. Nice talking with y'all. Enjoyed it.

[LisztesFerenc]

Also, I point out that Oniya posted the link (as opposed to the regular picture) because she was unable to ascertain the age of Bieber (hiss!) in that particular image, and E has a voluntarily-agreed upon rule not to depict children under the age of 16.

  Agreed on by who? I'm pretty sure that would be Vekseid, the private owner of E. I certainly wasn't consulted on the decision. I don't object to it, but I was never asked, as is the case with the majority of E's userbase,

  Likewise, the private owners of Twitter are free to say you cannot use hurtful speech on their sight. That's not against the Constiution

[ReijiTabibito]

By anyone who uses the site.  We might not have been part of the decision making process, but part of the joining process says that we will abide by the established rules of E.  In each of our memberships is inherently understood that we agreed not to break the rules.

And no, it's not, but people don't see it that way, which is why they're leaving the site.

Also...

I think I'm done.

Ditto.  I'm going to go stick to calling Trump a fascist.

[TheGlyphstone]

Ditto.  I'm going to go stick to calling Trump a fascist.

That, at least, is something we can agree on.

[Blythe]

How do you all feel about the Trust and Safety Council now present on Twitter to monitor offensive and harmful speech?

https://blog.twitter.com/2016/announcing-the-twitter-trust-safety-council

My opinion is neutral. There hasn't been enough time of the Council in action for me to make an informed decision whether it's helping or hurting Twitter and its users.

My first impression is there seems to be nothing detailed out about any ability to actually enforce any type of discipline or sanction against offensive/harmful speech. It mostly just looks like groups that Twitter will talk to when gauging some stuff on their site, which doesn't seem to be inherently helpful or hurtful at the moment. My other impression is that their 2nd organization bulletpoint of "Grassroots advocacy organizations that rely on Twitter to build movements and momentum" seems like it's too broad and a bit ill-thought out.

Anyways, prefer to wait to see this in actual action for a while first. I think they mean well, but I think in practice it would be incredibly hard to implement successfully.

[LisztesFerenc]

By anyone who uses the site.  We might not have been part of the decision making process, but part of the joining process says that we will abide by the established rules of E.  In each of our memberships is inherently understood that we agreed not to break the rules.

And no, it's not, but people don't see it that way, which is why they're leaving the site.

  So just checking, are you still sticking to websites regulating what you can and cannot say on them as being against the Constitution, or do you just disprove of it but accept that since the first amendment begins "Congress shall" the scope does not extend to non-governmental websites?

[Nachtmahr]

And no, it's not, but people don't see it that way, which is why they're leaving the site.

I'd like to call for some facts here and see a real statistic showing the impact this change has had on Twitter's actual user base. If not, this is purely speculation and kind of a mute, overly generalizing argument. I actually have no doubt that if Twitter took some real steps to eliminating hatespeech and threatening behavior on Twitter, at least as many people would be streaming towards it for the added security it would provided compared to other social media as people would apparently be leaving because their toxic behavior is being "Censored".

[ReijiTabibito]

  So just checking, are you still sticking to websites regulating what you can and cannot say on them as being against the Constitution, or do you just disprove of it but accept that since the first amendment begins "Congress shall" the scope does not extend to non-governmental websites?

To elaborate - and this is my last statement:

A private organization may restrict speech, on the basis that it is a private organization and therefore not subject to the First.  I may disapprove of this behavior, but since, for example, E is not the government, it doesn't fall under the Amendment's provisions.

A government organization, however, may not restrict free speech, as it is part of the government, and the government is not allowed to inhibit free speech.  To use a short example: if a university receives federal funding, or has any federal oversight attached to it, then speech codes are - according to the letter of the law - illegal.

[LisztesFerenc]

To elaborate - and this is my last statement:

A private organization may restrict speech, on the basis that it is a private organization and therefore not subject to the First.  I may disapprove of this behavior, but since, for example, E is not the government, it doesn't fall under the Amendment's provisions.

A government organization, however, may not restrict free speech, as it is part of the government, and the government is not allowed to inhibit free speech.  To use a short example: if a university receives federal funding, or has any federal oversight attached to it, then speech codes are - according to the letter of the law - illegal.

  Okay weird, you do get freedom of speech. Your previous statements made it seem like you didn't, as you kept bringing it up when talking about Twitter, which is a private organization and thus, as you noted, allowed to do this.

[Lustful Bride]

*Thinks this has all gone off track, and wonders why I care about this even though I hate and don't use sites like twitter*


You know, I think one of the problems with this council, is that by what criteria do you judge a persons post? What constitutes offensive content? How do you prevent it from being abused? (Because if youtube has taught me anything, all these measures can be abused and it can be done so easily).

And how do you ensure that those running it actually have the best of intentions and don't start one day cutting down upon dissent and oppinions that are reasonable, but that they do not like?

[LisztesFerenc]

*Thinks this has all gone off track, and wonders why I care about this even though I hate and don't use sites like twitter*


You know, I think one of the problems with this council, is that by what criteria do you judge a persons post? What constitutes offensive content? How do you prevent it from being abused? (Because if youtube has taught me anything, all these measures can be abused and it can be done so easily).

And how do you ensure that those running it actually have the best of intentions and don't start one day cutting down upon dissent and oppinions that are reasonable, but that they do not like?

  I imagine the same way moderators, here or on any site, don't get to ban people who disagree with them: trust and peer accountability.

[Avis habilis]

You know, I think one of the problems with this council, is that by what criteria do you judge a persons post? What constitutes offensive content? How do you prevent it from being abused? (Because if youtube has taught me anything, all these measures can be abused and it can be done so easily).

And how do you ensure that those running it actually have the best of intentions and don't start one day cutting down upon dissent and oppinions that are reasonable, but that they do not like?

It doesn't matter, because that's not what they'll be doing. This group is being formed to consult on policies for dealing with harassment & intimidation. That's it. Claims of a PC inquisition policing posts for upsetting content are at wildly misinformed (at best).

[Lustful Bride]

It doesn't matter, because that's not what they'll be doing. This group is being formed to consult on policies for dealing with harassment & intimidation. That's it. Claims of a PC inquisition policing posts for upsetting content are at wildly misinformed (at best).

Meh *shrug* I guess this could be more of someone yelling "The Sky is falling" and it getting progressively worse as it turns into a game of
"He said, She said." :P

[Far eyes]

Meh *shrug* I guess this could be more of someone yelling "The Sky is falling" and it getting progressively worse as it turns into a game of
"He said, She said." :P

*Hums hell march*
*Walks out of the thread*

[Nachtmahr]

I just can't help but feel that anyone who actively opposes any rules, regulations or control of harassment, violent behavior, bigotry or abuse, even if "Just" in verbal format, are doing so because they feel targeted by such a move.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to say "He who smelt it, dealt it!" or anything. I just can't seem to wrap my mind around how any attempt at damming the often vile and cruel voices that all scream in hateful unison at others is a bad thing, nor do I see how it's censorship. A lot of the people who are arguing that any anti-harassment policy is censorship and a violation of our human rights are the same people who will quite happily admit that they will say almost anything to a person they don't like on, for example, Twitter to make them shut up or outright flee the platform. Is that not hypocrisy at it's finest?

Measures like these, to me at least, aren't meant to censor or take away our right to free speech, but rather the opposite: It's meant to encourage free speech in an environment where you won't be chewed up and spat out for voicing your opinion on controversial topics in a civilized manner. It's meant to protect those whose voices are drowned out in a sea of toxicity and cruelty.

They can be bigots, fascists or fundamentally religious for all I care, people have a right to their opinion, but all this is meant to do is ensure that you voice your opinion in a civilized manner, rather than charging at someone like a caveman, screaming profanities and trying to chase them out of what you have claimed as your own cave when in fact it was meant for everyone.

Maybe that's just my Danish definition of Freedom of Speech talking though, I don't know. Here you can definitely still say or do what you want, but you will also be held accountable. If I threaten someone with violence, or even death, then I could face fines or even jailtime. Why? Because it's absurd and wrong to do that. You're not allowed to kill someone, so why should you be allowed to tell them you're going to do it and just turn around and leave?

The reason why we see a police presence at demonstrations isn't because we aren't allowed our opinions (In most cases, at least) but because sometimes, in the heat of passion, otherwise intelligent individuals can devolve into bloodthirsty dogs and loose themselves, and that's not okay. So why should it be okay just because you're on Twitter or Facebook? Why should people be allowed to gather in angry, misinformed or ignorant mobs and try to chase out anyone and everyone they don't like, while the hosts just turn and look the other way, pretending they don't hear a thing?

I just don't get it.

[Far eyes]

I just don't get it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMI_26oljqs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o25I2fzFGoY

[Nachtmahr]

I really like that George Carling skit there, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean by it and how it relates to the point I was making. Would you mind elaborating on that? ^^'

[Far eyes]

Because this is largely not about safety, its its as much about safety as a police state is about safety. Its about "proper" language. Thats what the Carling skit link was relating to. And "proper" is defined by what ever the witch hunt of the flavor of the month is.

[LisztesFerenc]

Because this is largely not about safety, its its as much about safety as a police state is about safety. Its about "proper" language. Thats what the Carling skit link was relating to. And "proper" is defined by what ever the witch hunt of the flavor of the month is.

  But we have proper behavior too (its rude to ask how much someone ears, don't stare at someone, don't fist bump at a formal meeting). Proper behavior also varies from culture to culture (in some places burping after a meal its polite to burp, in others it an insult for a guest to eat all the food on their plate). What is proper also changes, as handshakes are being phased out in some parts of Asia. So if we manage to have proper behavior, can't we have proper speech?

  I'm not saying it won't be problematic, but twitter is full of such vileness that I don't think do nothing is a realistic option. "Educate others to not be rude" sounds good, but it basically means "being harassed daily? cheer up, in a couple of decades people will know better....maybe".

[Far eyes]

can't we have proper speech?

Fuck No
Adjusted: "And i mean Mellow greetings. Fellow citizen"

[LisztesFerenc]

Fuck No
Adjusted: "And i mean Mellow greetings. Fellow citizen"

  Okay, so slippery slope fallacy. Do you have anything else to contribute to the topic?

[Far eyes]

  Okay, so slippery slope fallacy. Do you have anything else to contribute to the topic?

No, i was thinking of maybe posting some cat pictures at this point.

[LisztesFerenc]

  This is PROC. Not sure where cat pictures fit in here, wait who am I kidding, all 3.

[Nachtmahr]

I have to admit that I don't think you're being particularly mature about this discussion right now, Far eyes. I also think you're doing a fairly poor job of communicating your point.

Are you trying to say that you think any attempt at enforcing proper conduct on social media is ineffective, or that it shouldn't be happening at all and people should be free to be as vile as they want to be, with a complete disregard for the safety and well-being of others?

I like to think of it like a smoking ban, as those have been getting increasingly popular in the last decade. There are places where smoking is rude, and it's not really fair to subject 10-20 people to something they find uncomfortable if none of them are participating, thus there's nothing wrong with having some rules as to where you can or can't smoke. I don't see that there is any harm in trying to make certain social media sites "Safe" in the sense that you can have a debate without it turning into a contest of who can be the most disgusting and cruel to the other party.

Or are you saying that being unreasonably rude is somehow the natural state of online communication, and thus people should just accept that that's the way it is or get off the internet? Because acting like lots of people do on the internet has never been the socially acceptable way to conduct oneself in any society. In many places, particularly in Europe, the behavior that Twitter seeks to keep an eye on is even outright illegal and thus should be monitored and prevented where possible. It's got nothing to do with a police state where hearts and minds are under constant government scrutiny, it's just about making Twitter a bit less uncomfortable to visit.

I like Twitter's format, but I don't think I can count how many times I have written something or replied to someone and then had the most vile stuff posted back at me. Hell, I've had people stalk me, harassing me in every reply-chain that I've been in until I spent a week or two being inactive, likely making them loose interest. Is that really not harassment, but just someone exercising their right to voice their opinion that they'd rather I wasn't alive? Because it kind of feels like harassment. And that's without going into the sort of thing that popular Twitter-users experience.

I'm just still looking for any real reason why an attempt at curbing toxic behavior is a bad thing.

[Far eyes]

You know what.

I actually started typing out a response i got about a decent half a page, you know what i realized i do not actually care. I dont care for this discussion its not going to go any place except the word toxic being used a few more times witch is rapidly turning into the modern equivalent of Godwin's law.

So peace out, take from what what you will.
*Leaves this time for real*

[Nachtmahr]

I'm not sure this is really the intended purpose of a debate forum, but alright I suppose.

I guess that's the end of it then. I think it's a great shame because it's an interesting topic.

[Renegade Vile]

Are you trying to say that you think any attempt at enforcing proper conduct on social media is ineffective, or that it shouldn't be happening at all and people should be free to be as vile as they want to be, with a complete disregard for the safety and well-being of others?

Yes. People should be free to be as vile as they want to be, because it is impossible to draw a line. Either you allow everything to be said, judged and evaluated equally (and trust that the stupid ideas, the abuse, etc. will be identified as such and disregarded), or you start censoring which is a downward slope that can be manipulated to suit corporate media needs.
Will this result in hate-speech? Yes. So what? You know what gives hate speech power? Censorship. Censorship will breed frustration and in turn push other people to thinking in the same vein. Same goes for insults and other verbal abuse, including trolling. Giving it attention gives it power. Ignoring it, takes all the power away. Easier said than done, perhaps, but if you live in a country where Free Speech is an essential element, then you have to take the bad with the good.

I like to think of it like a smoking ban, as those have been getting increasingly popular in the last decade. There are places where smoking is rude, and it's not really fair to subject 10-20 people to something they find uncomfortable if none of them are participating, thus there's nothing wrong with having some rules as to where you can or can't smoke. I don't see that there is any harm in trying to make certain social media sites "Safe" in the sense that you can have a debate without it turning into a contest of who can be the most disgusting and cruel to the other party.

There are smoking bans for concrete health reasons such as second-hand smoking, allergies, lung diseases and asthma. This is comparing apples and pears. I see a ton of harm in just the word "Safe". It creates separation and segregation, as well as control and monitoring. IF you're having a debate and someone turns cruel, ignore them or end the debate. Simple.

Or are you saying that being unreasonably rude is somehow the natural state of online communication, and thus people should just accept that that's the way it is or get off the internet? Because acting like lots of people do on the internet has never been the socially acceptable way to conduct oneself in any society. In many places, particularly in Europe, the behavior that Twitter seeks to keep an eye on is even outright illegal and thus should be monitored and prevented where possible. It's got nothing to do with a police state where hearts and minds are under constant government scrutiny, it's just about making Twitter a bit less uncomfortable to visit.

Unreasonably rude is the natural state of online communication because most people use their monitors as a barrier allowing them to spew any horrible thought that crosses their minds without fear of reprisal. Accept it, but do not get off the internet. Ignore it. You are not going to stop these people from being assholes and making these safe spaces will end up getting a lot of people who don't deserve it banned as well. Everyone's had a heated argument that took an unfortunate turn. How will you handle those one-off cases?
I live in Europe. I have no idea what you're talking about. What behavior is illegal? Bullying? "Racism"? All muddy terms.

I like Twitter's format, but I don't think I can count how many times I have written something or replied to someone and then had the most vile stuff posted back at me. Hell, I've had people stalk me, harassing me in every reply-chain that I've been in until I spent a week or two being inactive, likely making them loose interest. Is that really not harassment, but just someone exercising their right to voice their opinion that they'd rather I wasn't alive? Because it kind of feels like harassment. And that's without going into the sort of thing that popular Twitter-users experience.

Report them as harassers. I'm pretty sure Twitter has channels that help you deal with harassment. That still should not open the door to some group of "educated" individuals judging people's every word. Social media is a dung-heap enough as it is without it also being policed.

I'm just still looking for any real reason why an attempt at curbing toxic behavior is a bad thing.

You are not going to curb anything. In fact, you're only going to bring toxic behavior off Twitter and potentially into the outside world. Censorship is -never- a good thing. To know what toxic behavior is, we need to be exposed to it, simple as that. I've had my fair share flung at me, and what you do is: ignore it.

[Renegade Vile]

Additionally, I took a quick glance at some of the organizations that council will be working with.
Hollaback and Feminist Frequency 's presence immediately make me suspicious.