@sargentd said:
@davillain: Mike Pence has zero shot at it
And that's being generous.
Eoten's forum posts
@Maroxad said:
@appariti0n said:
@Maroxad: I'll get straight to the point.
You claimed libs of tiktok was an existential threat. Then cited the Club shooter as an example.
When I pointed out the club shooter is non-binary, you immediately pivoted away, and also edited your post after the fact to make it seem like you were trying to make a different point.
In summary, you're more than happy to imply that libs of tiktok had something to do with that club shooting with no evidence. But when it comes out that said shooter is non-binary, you're suddenly not wanting to rush to judgement before the facts come out. Meanwhile, all across America, there are plenty of black people, some of them with platforms, some of them not, that have been constantly harping on the threat white men, and white supremacy poses to America. Yet I don't think I've ever seen you blame them when a black person kills a white person. Which happens plenty. It's almost as though it's only "Stochastic terrorism", when the victim is of a very specific identity group.
But you know what? It's my fault. I should have swore off discussing anything with you the very first time we met, when you went on a long rant about how horrible Final Fantasy 6 is, and in the same thread admitted to playing through it twice. You can't even be intellectually honest within the same thread, let alone across multiple threads. So all the best to you. 😉
My point was that they were seen as an existential threat. Which, Libsoftiktok is clearly are being seen as. This is why I said "represent an existential threat". After several comments it should have been obvious I was talking about them appearing as a threat (regardless of whether or not oyu disagree). Thought that would have been pretty obvious but I guess not.
The nonbinary argument is incredibly asinine. One can be transgender and still be a transphobe (see Blaire White), One can be nonbinary and still be an anti-LGBT bigot. Are you one of those people who tried using the "but he smokes weed" argument recently in regards to another recent incident?
As for FF6, I am pretty sure I often rate that as one of the better FFs. Saying that it wasn't all that great or ambitious compared to other contemporaries, such as Ultimas, Wizardries or Dragon Quests, doesnt mean it wasnt a decent game in its own right. I suggest you start focus on actually reading what people actually say, rather than put words in their mouths and get upset when people dont respond the way you want them to.
Wow, you could take the gold mental in mental gymnastics.
@nirgal said:
I try not to express my opinion on sexual harassment cases against famous people since you really can't know whether it was actually harassment or a way or getting money.
I have seen cases that ended up being one or the other.
And even though I have a very low idea of Trump. Other people can also be assholes.
You should really look at what happened with her last case if you want to see how little credibility she actually has. When you do, keep in mind what type of person would actually believe her nonsense, and why.
Here's a sample.
Loading Video...
Lmao, this woman again? What happened to her first lawsuit exactly? She had no evidence, refused to co operate with the police with her claims, never filed any kind of report, when the police offered to investigate, she backed out. She clearly has problems of some kind, but her allegations were never credible. But, people who desperately want to believe it's true will cling to this shit like gospel.
@Maroxad said:
@mattbbpl said:
They're just using the terms Elon himself used to describe his perceived censorship on Twitter. Zaryia and others are using it because of his words, and they're discussing it because Elon is taking part in those same practices.
And he has to if he wants it to be profitable. The TOU is in place as a business decision.
This so much.
Brand Safety and PR are extremely important factors to consider. Advertisers dont want to associate with extremist views regardless of political affiliation. Nothing to rock the boat so to speak. Businesses generally speaking do not want to take risks. There is a reason you don't see many games with an Ao rating. Even GTA sticks at M ratings.
With Twitter, losing 90% of the advertiser revenue, it should be abundantly clear, advertisers dont want anything to do with conspiracy theories, tinfoilhattery, and speech promoting violence.
But it isn't just on the advertiser (revenue) end here either.
Users themselves prefer having regulations on speech. This is why since Elon Musk took over, people have been migrating to competing platforms. But not the "free speech" alternatives. Turns out that most people just dont want to hear disruptive speech, threats, endorsement of violence and hate speech. People are allowed to say such things, but people should be allowed to host and be on platforms where those things are not allowed. That is free speech for ya. Goes both ways.
If advertisers didn't want anything to do with conspiracy theories or tinfoilhattery, they wouldn't publish commercials on television networks either. They want reach, pure and simple. They go to where their ads are seen by the most people. The fact that has more recently come out that Twitter was using bots to artificially inflate their value for advertisers will have a lot to do with fewer advertisers than having Musk in charge.
People on Twitter prior wanted an echo chamber all to themselves where only their opinions are heard and reiterated. This is the epitome of close mindedness and bigotry, and like most bigots, those users fear being exposed to ideas they don't like. That is why those people have been leaving Twitter. The vast majority on Twitter don't care one way or the other who is in charge.
@Vaasman said:
@appariti0n said:
Can either of you elaborate what free speech is actually suppressed by not allowing someone on Twitter to impersonate someone else? Keep in mind, this applies only to Blue check accounts, who are not flagged as parody. When the whole point of a Blue check is to certify that you are who you say you are.
I'm really scratching my head here to figure out what viewpoints are suppressed by Elon doing this.
Like:
"I demand the right to pretend to be someone else and express my viewpoint as that other person, if you disagree you're limiting my free speech!"
Said no-one ever.
Literally all Musk and the far right could say about twitter before the purchase was how the platform shouldn't be able to block certain accounts despite proven records of doxing, harassment, hate speech, and incitement. Yet now they're suddenly a-okay with the site blocking parody at the owner's expense, marked as such or otherwise. Are you suggesting parody is worse than doxing or incitement to violence?
Parody is a form of self-expression, protected by the first amendment, and so is negative criticism.
One is well within their own right not to allow it on their platform. But it's laughable to then turn around and say this person who won't allow conversation they don't like is a champion of free speech. Blocking unfavorable content while condemning others who did the same; it's shameless hypocrisy.
Nobody said any of those things. However, at one point, people just like you working for Twitter started setting lower, and lower bars for that criteria, and it's been proven that bar to violate those rules was higher for prominent figures on the left. You people throw the "hate speech" tag around so much it's already obvious that all it really means is the speech you hate. Twitter is full of people criticizing Musk, and making jokes at Musk's expense. It seems to only be the people pretending to be Musk that received any kind of punishment. That's because there's a difference between speech and impersonating someone else online.
If I called into your work, sounding like you, told your boss I was you, then called him something very unsavory with the intention of getting you fired, is it just speech? Is that a first amendment parody? Kathy Griffin specifically changed her display name to specifically match Musk's only to go on and make political statements in his name. That's not parody, it's malicious.
Like I told the other guy, this isn't the hill you want to defend. It's a mound of shit that you're better off moving past.
@playmynutz said:
@girlusocrazy: what I like about this forum is the rules are clear and available before you post.
Yeah on YouTube I got a video taken down for copyright music which is completely fair and a valid reason to take my video down. Facebook I don’t believe I ran into the mods oh well back in 2014 for “spamming” they called it to this day I don’t agree but whatever.
It is just an algorithm running so maybe the AI mod thought my Pinterest thumbnail was NSFW I don’t know.
Hopefully Elon Musk makes changes to the algorithm as he promised, I think he will. Yes, the algorithm needs up dating at least yearly.
There should be a board that reviews the state of the algorithm and the board can’t be the CEO or any twitter employee so the board can unbiasedly adjust the algorithm. Maybe the stockholders can vote in members to the board and vote them out.
Something like a board of directors but are competent enough to do the job and aren’t there because the few people who vote voted them in after being paid large amounts of money to vote.
Who is unbiased? Nobody. So that proposal won't work.
@zaryia said:
@eoten said:
Again, you're confusing speech with actions. Just like threatening to kill people isn't covered under free speech. If you're trying to make the claim that someone pretending to be someone else, even as a joke or in actual malice is just free speech, you're being intentionally disingenuous in order to whine about Elon Musk. Go find something valid to complain about him for, there's plenty.
What the **** are you talking about. Most of this post is rambling that has nothing to do with what I said. Just another absurd and extreme analogy that makes 0 sense.
I'm not whining about Musk. I'm saying people were being extreme hypocrites. Crying about TOS bans for years and now championing TOS bans all of a sudden. 🤣
I'm glad they finally understand that neither situation ever had anything to do with freedom of speech. You thinking the TOS bans you disliked for years were against freedom of speech, but now the TOS bans you suddenly agree with are fair is just you being a hopeless tribal and hypocrite.
You know damn well what my post is saying, and I'll make it even simpler for you. It's a losing argument to try to compare impersonating someone else as free speech, in many cases it's even a crime. You're trying to shoehorn this into an anti-musk narrative where it doesn't fit while there are dozens of better things to complain about.
@Maroxad said:
@eoten said:
It's the typical know-it-all mentality. You think you know everything and so anyone who doesn't agree, must not be telling the truth. But I've lost track of how many stupid comments you've made about US society or culture that doesn't even come close to reality, and then how often you've tried applying that to US politics. An actual intellectual would at least understand that they don't know everything, they would at least recognize that MAYBE someone who has actually voted in a US election might actually know more about the process than someone who has merely read about it. But no, not you, you already know everything and so everyone else is lying.
And by all means, talk about Ukraine all you want. ROFLMAO, the part where you thought there weren't large Neo Nazi groups with authority in Ukraine was funny. You actually believed that was just some Russian lie. Which only proves the point that according to you, a lie is simply something you do not believe.
Whether you are American, European Brazillian or Chinese, the value of a post comes from the contents of the post, not the background of the person making them. Unfortunately you have a long history of whining when a non-american such as myself comments on US politics.
FYI: There is a reason I warned people that they shouldnt be too certain of a democratic, or republican win in the midterms, or 2020.
And I have pointed out several times that many of your posts when it comes to the US have been without context or understanding, seen through the lens of political advertising. You refuse to believe it and double down on inaccuracies. That's where the problem is. You have way too much ego to consider the information you've been spoon fed could be wrong. You've shown many times you have little understanding on how US elections are conducted, or why, and instead of learning, you simply call everyone a liar who doesn't agree with your spoon fed textbook narrative on the subject.
@zaryia said:
@eoten said:
Your attempts to troll aren't working.
I wasn't trolling. You typically are though. Or at least I hope you are, the alternative is quite worse.
@eoten said:
This is the kind of extremes the left tends to go for any argument.
I didn't make up any extremes. People who were crying like little babies over TOS bans for YEARS are now for TOS bans. The difference and nuance being what they subjectively dislike or like about each instance or person being banned. Pick and choose tribalism.
This is very simple shit: Free speech abolitionists being hypocritical. What's not to get?
@eoten said:
In the US, you can criticize police. But putting on a police uniform and driving around telling people you're a cop is not free speech. In fact, you'll go to jail for it.
Someone impersonating Elon musk with the word "PARODY ACCOUNT" plastered on their banner in Twitter is not even remotely comparable to impersonating a cop IRL. One is illegal in USA, the other barely even violates a TOS of a private platform. These are universe apart. What kind of half-baked crazy analogy was this lol.
You make false claims about me bringing up extremes but then you come up with an actual assinine and extreme example. In the same post. Holy shit 🤣🤣.
@eoten said:
So I would stop trying to hammer that square peg of a fact into that round hole you call a thought, it isn't working for you.
Not taking advice from an anti-vaxxing, climate denying, free speech flip-flopper on facts. Sorry.
Again, you're confusing speech with actions. Just like threatening to kill people isn't covered under free speech. If you're trying to make the claim that someone pretending to be someone else, even as a joke or in actual malice is just free speech, you're being intentionally disingenuous in order to whine about Elon Musk. Go find something valid to complain about him for, there's plenty.
Log in to comment