OK, so I don't think I have a finger on the pulse of America more than anyone else[1] and I'm extremely biased, but still.
We have two candidates that are really unpopular by historical standards. One convention seemed to be working very hard on giving you reasons why you might want to vote for Hillary Clinton even if you didn't like her.
The other convention ended with Donald Trump announcing that he alone could save America, while standing under a big gold Trump sign right out of The Onion.
Now, political predictions are of course a tricky thing, of course, but one strategy seems sounder than the other.
[1] I've always been sorta proud of my terrible score on Charles Murray's dippy, "How much of an effete snob are you?" test a few years back.
You didn't provide anything resembling evidence above, and googling Leslie Jones' name didn't seem to provide anything that looked likely to substantiate your claims.
I'm not using that paragraph to justify Milo's ban. I'm using his forgery of posts to justify his ban. However, nothing you've presented justifies banning Jones on those grounds. Just posting racist and homophobic stuff doesn't do it, as that paragraph makes pretty clear.
I think Tim Kaine was endearingly dorky. He's not a great speaker, but he looked genuinely thrilled to be up there, and that counted for a lot with me (and a lot of my friends).
Do we have a term for those in the 18-20 limbo of being legally allowed to hold a rifle in the army but not buy a beer at the enlisted club?
Minorish? Adultoid?
I suppose the answer to that depends on whether he gets the conviction or not… but the first thing that I thought of when I read that story was the story of the cops involved with Lawrence.v.Texas and the prosecutors involved with Lawrence.v.Texas.
I wonder if we would have gotten a decision like Obergefell as quickly if Texas had repealed it's sodomy statute[1] in 1998 or something. I'm not crying into my beer about this, of course, but it seems like really bad strategy now, and for that matter it was obviously really bad strategy at the time.
[1] Indefensible on any but the most frivolous of public policy grounds.
I've spent most of my professional life working for a big company. I think the libertarians are onto something about the superiority of private enterprise--it produces annoying red tape way more efficiently than government.
It's not clear to me that racist comments, in general, are banned by the Twitter TOS. The only reference is this:
"Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease. We also do not allow accounts whose primary purpose is inciting harm towards others on the basis of these categories."
Just making bigoted general comments about members of a certain race (or other listed class) doesn't seem to count.
I bet that if Twitter really put its mind to it, they could set up a system that automatically detected the kind of harassment that Jones was being subjected to and, say, suspend all the participants' accounts for 24 hours or the like.
Posting it on InfoWars. Either the author thinks that's a great venue for publication (and they're delusional) or they can't get a substantial audience any other way (which says terrible things about their credibility).
Also, the article is rambling garbage, with slavery apologism and some random appeals to unrelated activists. Did you actually read it? If so, why on Earth did you think it added anything worth adding when you could have just linked the reparations.me site yourself?
Yes, "racist comments"[1] and forged tweets are, in fact, entirely different things. Building a case for a double standard on the basis that Twitter treats different things differently is not convincing.
[1] I'll stipulate that Jones posted these, but won't actually believe it until I see links to them on her timeline. No, screenshots don't count--you can thank Milo and his scumbag buddies for that.
The lack of self-awareness here would be staggering if it were anybody but @notme, who wanted everybody to take the Munich shooter's gun violence very, very seriously until it turned out that he wasn't a jihadist. Then he became an example of gun violence that we were not only supposed to live with, but forget about entirely.
The degree of disappointment when Twitter supposedly doesn't live up to its stated standards of neutrality is actually kind of stunning to me. It's obvious marketing guff, and being upset that it doesn't describe the reality of the service seems a lot like being upset that drinking a Lite beer won't actually draw the attention of attractive members of the appropriate sex.
My interest is usually on the whole “wait, what does this mean?” and “how will this play out?” rather than the whole issue of “let’s judge what happened”.
Yes, and I think comments that look like partisan snark, or even anti-partisan snark, are not likely to encourage people to discuss things along those lines.
As for the difference between Clinton's sin of being extremely careless with here email and Trump's sin of... asking Russian intelligence agencies to help him win the election by engaging in criminal activities so he can shift US foreign policy in a radically pro-Russia direction, well, it's important in how this plays out because, while there are many things that affect how future developments will play out, one of those things is what the candidates have actually done.
Who is disagreeing with anybody on Trump, here? Taking yet another opportunity to say how much we are against Trump and how bad he is sure can be said in good-faith and it can be well-reasoned… but who here disagrees on Trump?
Well, silence or assent when you agree--even if you think you were previously known to agree--really seems to be exactly the sort of thing that builds trust. Sarcasm, especially the sort that suggests that people are being mindlessly partisan when expressing a concern, seems to be the sort of thing that would do precisely the opposite.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Morning Ed: Crime {2016.07.28.Th}”
OK, so I don't think I have a finger on the pulse of America more than anyone else[1] and I'm extremely biased, but still.
We have two candidates that are really unpopular by historical standards. One convention seemed to be working very hard on giving you reasons why you might want to vote for Hillary Clinton even if you didn't like her.
The other convention ended with Donald Trump announcing that he alone could save America, while standing under a big gold Trump sign right out of The Onion.
Now, political predictions are of course a tricky thing, of course, but one strategy seems sounder than the other.
[1] I've always been sorta proud of my terrible score on Charles Murray's dippy, "How much of an effete snob are you?" test a few years back.
On “What Milo Tells Us About Free Speech And Decency”
You didn't provide anything resembling evidence above, and googling Leslie Jones' name didn't seem to provide anything that looked likely to substantiate your claims.
Maybe you should do your own research.
"
I'm not using that paragraph to justify Milo's ban. I'm using his forgery of posts to justify his ban. However, nothing you've presented justifies banning Jones on those grounds. Just posting racist and homophobic stuff doesn't do it, as that paragraph makes pretty clear.
On “Morning Ed: Crime {2016.07.28.Th}”
My guess is he'll do OK just because Pence seems like such a drip, but I don't have much to go on beyond personal bias.
"
So in what sense do you think the website fails to speak for itself?
"
I think Tim Kaine was endearingly dorky. He's not a great speaker, but he looked genuinely thrilled to be up there, and that counted for a lot with me (and a lot of my friends).
On “What Milo Tells Us About Free Speech And Decency”
I was thinking you could incorporate numbers of reports, see who's following whom, et c.. But I probably am underestimating the difficulty.
"
I'm assuming it would work by a sudden spike in Tweets with only minimal attention paid to content.
In any event, both phenomena you're describing are hideously dysfunctional, so it's hard for me to see preventing them as bugs rather than features.
On “Morning Ed: Crime {2016.07.28.Th}”
Do we have a term for those in the 18-20 limbo of being legally allowed to hold a rifle in the army but not buy a beer at the enlisted club?
Minorish? Adultoid?
I suppose the answer to that depends on whether he gets the conviction or not… but the first thing that I thought of when I read that story was the story of the cops involved with Lawrence.v.Texas and the prosecutors involved with Lawrence.v.Texas.
I wonder if we would have gotten a decision like Obergefell as quickly if Texas had repealed it's sodomy statute[1] in 1998 or something. I'm not crying into my beer about this, of course, but it seems like really bad strategy now, and for that matter it was obviously really bad strategy at the time.
[1] Indefensible on any but the most frivolous of public policy grounds.
On “What Milo Tells Us About Free Speech And Decency”
I've spent most of my professional life working for a big company. I think the libertarians are onto something about the superiority of private enterprise--it produces annoying red tape way more efficiently than government.
"
Yes, but wouldn’t that interrupt the pile-ons that form the backbone of call-out culture?
I would certainly hope so.
Wouldn’t that be tone policing, if applied to the wrong people?
I don't think so.
"
It's not clear to me that racist comments, in general, are banned by the Twitter TOS. The only reference is this:
"Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease. We also do not allow accounts whose primary purpose is inciting harm towards others on the basis of these categories."
Just making bigoted general comments about members of a certain race (or other listed class) doesn't seem to count.
"
Which will still likely be bureaucratic.
"
Smaller venues? Algorithmic support?
I bet that if Twitter really put its mind to it, they could set up a system that automatically detected the kind of harassment that Jones was being subjected to and, say, suspend all the participants' accounts for 24 hours or the like.
"
Allegedly Jewish and openly anti-semitic. It's a really charming combination.
On “Morning Ed: Crime {2016.07.28.Th}”
What did the author of the article get wrong
Posting it on InfoWars. Either the author thinks that's a great venue for publication (and they're delusional) or they can't get a substantial audience any other way (which says terrible things about their credibility).
Also, the article is rambling garbage, with slavery apologism and some random appeals to unrelated activists. Did you actually read it? If so, why on Earth did you think it added anything worth adding when you could have just linked the reparations.me site yourself?
On “What Milo Tells Us About Free Speech And Decency”
Yes, "racist comments"[1] and forged tweets are, in fact, entirely different things. Building a case for a double standard on the basis that Twitter treats different things differently is not convincing.
[1] I'll stipulate that Jones posted these, but won't actually believe it until I see links to them on her timeline. No, screenshots don't count--you can thank Milo and his scumbag buddies for that.
On “Morning Ed: Crime {2016.07.28.Th}”
The lack of self-awareness here would be staggering if it were anybody but @notme, who wanted everybody to take the Munich shooter's gun violence very, very seriously until it turned out that he wasn't a jihadist. Then he became an example of gun violence that we were not only supposed to live with, but forget about entirely.
"
If you don’t like it,
The issue isn't the "reparations" website. The issue is that you actually take InfoWars seriously.
On “What Milo Tells Us About Free Speech And Decency”
it seems Leslie Jones isn’t above stooping to Milo’s level
Has she posted forged Tweets in order to drive a wave of harassment at a specific Twitter user?
Otherwise, your complaint doesn't appear to hold up to basic scrutiny.
"
The degree of disappointment when Twitter supposedly doesn't live up to its stated standards of neutrality is actually kind of stunning to me. It's obvious marketing guff, and being upset that it doesn't describe the reality of the service seems a lot like being upset that drinking a Lite beer won't actually draw the attention of attractive members of the appropriate sex.
On “Morning Ed: Crime {2016.07.28.Th}”
InfoWars? ...Seriously?
On “NYT: Donald Trump Encourages Russia to Find Hillary Clinton’s Missing Emails”
Remember when opposing the Iraq War was supposed to be disloyal? I... kinda wish I didn't.
"
My interest is usually on the whole “wait, what does this mean?” and “how will this play out?” rather than the whole issue of “let’s judge what happened”.
Yes, and I think comments that look like partisan snark, or even anti-partisan snark, are not likely to encourage people to discuss things along those lines.
As for the difference between Clinton's sin of being extremely careless with here email and Trump's sin of... asking Russian intelligence agencies to help him win the election by engaging in criminal activities so he can shift US foreign policy in a radically pro-Russia direction, well, it's important in how this plays out because, while there are many things that affect how future developments will play out, one of those things is what the candidates have actually done.
"
Who is disagreeing with anybody on Trump, here? Taking yet another opportunity to say how much we are against Trump and how bad he is sure can be said in good-faith and it can be well-reasoned… but who here disagrees on Trump?
Well, silence or assent when you agree--even if you think you were previously known to agree--really seems to be exactly the sort of thing that builds trust. Sarcasm, especially the sort that suggests that people are being mindlessly partisan when expressing a concern, seems to be the sort of thing that would do precisely the opposite.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.