Does Twitter Have An Anti-Conservative Bias, Or Just An Anti-Nazi Bias?

from the springtime-for-jack-dorsey dept

In an article for Quillette titled, “It Isn’t Your Imagination: Twitter Treats Conservatives More Harshly Than Liberals,” Columbia University research fellow Richard Hanania offers us proof–once and for all–that social media companies are biased against conservatives. Either that, or it’s the latest in a growing list of bogus, exaggerated or otherwise dubious anti-conservative bias claims (I’ll let you judge for yourself).

“Until now, conservatives have had to rely on anecdotes to make their case,“ Hanania writes. Adding that, “[m]y results make it difficult to take [social media platforms’] claims of political neutrality seriously.” The data he collected (with the help two research assistants, no less) looks at “prominent, politically active” people suspended from Twitter since the company’s launch in 2006.

Accounts included in the data set were selected from individuals and organizations whose suspension was covered in a “mainstream” news outlet, and who expressed a preference for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.

Out of 22 (!!!) accounts in the data set that met these criteria, 21 (or 95%) were Trump supporters. Despite the small sample size, the author argues this is compelling evidence for Twitter’s anti-conservative bias. Even if conservatives are more likely to break Twitter’s rules, he argues, it “doesn’t seem credible” the disparity would be so wide.

But let’s look a little more closely at this. These are the 22 accounts make up the data set:

  1. Rose McGowan (the list’s lone Clinton supporter)
  2. Azealia Banks
  3. Tila Tequila
  4. James O'Keefe
  5. Richard Spencer
  6. Baked Alaska
  7. Roger Stone
  8. Gavin McInnes
  9. Candace Owens
  10. Alex Jones
  11. Chuck Johnson
  12. Robert Stacy McCain
  13. Milo Yiannopoulos
  14. Radix Journal
  15. National Policy Institute
  16. Craig R. Brittain
  17. David Duke
  18. American Nazi Party
  19. James Allsup
  20. American Renaissance
  21. Jared Taylor
  22. Laura Loomer

Scanning the list, you probably noticed the “American Nazi Party.” This is not an anomaly. The bulk of the list is a who’s who of outspoken or accused white nationalists, neo-Confederates, holocaust deniers, conspiracy peddlers, professional trolls, and other alt-right or fringe personalities (go ahead, pick a couple and Google them). It does not include any mainstream conservatives, unless, I suppose, you count recently-indicted Trump campaign advisor and “dirty trickster” Roger Stone.

Reasons listed for banning these individuals in Hanania’s own data sheet include “violent threats,” “harassment,” “inciting violence,” “targeted abuse,” “doxxing,” “pro-Nazi tweets,” and “racist slurs.” Additionally, about a quarter of the accounts listed are still active and no longer suspended.

Kicking off a bunch of Nazis and trolls isn’t very compelling evidence that your average conservative is getting unfair treatment on Twitter. The majority of the “victims” here seem to have been engaged in abuse, and it’s reasonable for a private company like Twitter to kick off people who are undermining the quality of their platform by harassing or threatening other users.

Considering the alt-right’s propensity to scream and yell about getting “deplatformed,” these 22 accounts probably aren’t that representative of Twitter’s 67 million U.S. monthly active users. Nor does their small number (despite the author having two research assistants) indicate a broad, systemic problem.

Of course, social media companies may be not be perfectly neutral when it comes to politics. The Bay Area, where many of these companies are based, is a very liberal place. In 2016, only 9.4% of San Francisco County voted for Donald Trump. It’s entirely plausible that this disposition affects their products and policies in subtle ways. Yet, to date there has not been compelling evidence of systemic bias or a grand conspiracy to silence conservatives (despite this becoming a standard trope in congressional hearings and conservative conferences).

But social media platforms aren’t bastions of free speech, either. Their evolving norms and policies around content moderation raise a host of concerns and issues. At minimum, platforms could do a lot better at being transparent in their enforcement and governance decisions.

For conservatives, as I’ve argued before, crying wolf about censorship is a self-defeating strategy that will only make people not listen when it actually happens. Nazis, while sometimes useful in edge cases around free speech or references to Godwin’s law, are not stand ins for the median conservative American. Targeted abuse or incitements to violence are also not the same thing as free speech. Let’s not get these things mixed up.

Filed Under: bias, conservatives, content moderation, nazis, richard hanania, trolls
Companies: twitter


Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Cole D Snap, 22 Feb 2019 @ 9:48am

    Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corporatist, YES.

    You kids who think that it's good to side with corporate power had better read "1984" again with better understanding: the exercise of power is an end in itself. Just because right now Twitter supports YOUR views doesn't mean they won't tomorrow "deplatform" you for not being sufficiently with The Party.

    Example: Tennis player Martina Navratilova, known for decades as lesbian, recently said that letting "trans" people play against genetic women will simply mean that the women lose. -- Which is clearly so. -- And the "LGBT" association (sorry, can't recall exactly which, but think it's that name), anyway, they KICKED OUT THIS FAMOUS LESBIAN FOR INDEPENDENT OPINION.

    NO corporation is your friend: they're AMORAL.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 9:56am

      Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corporatist,

      they KICKED OUT THIS FAMOUS LESBIAN FOR INDEPENDENT OPINION.

      No, they removed her from their advisory board and ambassador program for opinions incompatible with their core mission. As they said in their announcement:

      This is not the first time we have approached Martina on this topic. In late December, she made deeply troubling comments across her social media channels about the ability for trans athletes to compete in sport. We reached out directly offering to be a resource as she sought further education, and we never heard back.

      We believe that growth is possible, and we extend once again to Martina the invitation to learn from this experience, to study the data on trans athletes in sport, and to examine how statements like hers further stigma and discrimination.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 10:45am

        Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corporati

        "We reached out directly offering to be a resource as she sought further education, and we never heard back."

        God, what an amazing amount of arrogance, condescension, and self-righteousness rolled up in one little sentence.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 10:47am

          Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corpo

          God, what an amazing amount of arrogance, condescension, and self-righteousness rolled up in one little sentence.

          So what would you have them do? They are an organization with a very clear mission, and she - as a person with important roles in that organization - was undermining it. What was the correct response on their part?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2019 @ 10:02am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-c

            It's the presumption of moral superiority which has led to the rise of Trump.

            Liberals truly believe they are morally superior to conservatives, even when they clearly are not, and if anyone points out to them any flaw in their political logic, or that they too facilitate or ignore injustice, they throw tantrums and cry for censorship, which they often get.

            Jussie Smollett knew he'd be believed. What he allegedly did was a crime, and what the media did enabled it.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2019 @ 11:36am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, p

              Your agenda is showing. As for moral superiority.. Organizations have missions and goals and if someone who is on say your advisory board is publically making statement against your core mission you offer to educate or discuss. They did that. She didnt reach back so she was removed.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2019 @ 3:03pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, p

              Against Trump and his supporters it isn't a presumption - it is cold hard fact. We are better than a bunch of people who want to keep children in concentration camps with pedophiles for profit, support corruption, and call for opening up libel law to suppress dissent and want to abuse emergency powers for things they flat out admit aren't emergencies or even effective. It is like Lincoln's request to the states at the start of the civil war - just send representatives to congress. Instead they attacked Fort Sumter. Only in this case it doesn't involve travel - just not supporting literal fascists.

              Sorry conservatives but you are objectively in the wrong - that is why you are so pissed off like the rants against California being a 'moocher' when it is a world economy in itself and a major net contributor.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        techflaws (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 9:52pm

        Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corporati

        I really wonder what kind of "data" that might be. But nice of them they wanna teach everyone who doesn't agree.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 10:01am

      Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corporatist,

      Hello there! I almost did na-zi you there!

      Globalist is a dog whistle for "jew" so you are really implying it's anti-american, pro-jew, and pro corporatist.

      You are getting in a tizzy with companies kicking off repulsive people off private platforms and use white supremacist language to help get your point across and throw in some projection trying to invoke 1984 even though you'd totally love a 1984 society if it was your flavor of facism.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        btr1701 (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 11:16am

        Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corporati

        Since there are globalists who exist who are factually not Jews, what is the politically correct word we can use when we want to talk about them that won't cause guys like you to come running in whining about dog sirens and pig whistles and whatnot?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Prinny, 22 Feb 2019 @ 11:45am

          Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corpo

          Better question, dood: what do you call a being who can hear a dog whistle that normal people don't notice?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 12:17pm

          You call them “globalists”, but you make it absolutely clear that you are referring to globalists in the non-dog-whistle sense through context. Bringing up globalism/globalists without prompting and without any other context is typically how the dogwhistle works.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            btr1701 (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 2:30pm

            Re:

            COMMENTER: "This is exactly what globalists want."

            (Disclaimer: My comment refers to non-Jew globalists.)

            TECHDIRT COWARD: "Dogwhistles! Anti-Semitism code! Aaaaggghh!"

            COMMENTER: "No, I was told that a disclaimer of Jewishness relieves me of pig siren evil code responsibility."

            TECHDIRT COWARD: "You're only saying you don't mean Jews. We know you really do! Disclaimer nullified!"

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              Prinny, 22 Feb 2019 @ 2:46pm

              Re: Re:

              You can't reason your way out of a Kafka trap, dood, because people who deploy them aren't capable of sound reasoning!

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2019 @ 12:14am

                Re: Re: Re:

                Prinny, I just want to say you're my absolute favorite new commenter here. Thanks, dood.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 2:56pm

              Re: Re:

              (Disclaimer: My comment refers to non-Jew globalists.)

              lol. When you find yourself needing to make a disclaimer like this, it's time to have a think about how you got here.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              TFG, 22 Feb 2019 @ 3:05pm

              Re: Re:

              Or, you could be not an ass about it by talking abot "non-jew globalists" which, you know, just begs for people to draw conclusions, and instead attempt to have an actual discussion regarding the aims of an actual globalist viewpoint by providing a simple, quick definition of globalism. Let's clean up your example:

              COMMENTER: "This course of action supports the aims of the globalist ideology - namely the idea that there should not borders between countries."

              Then hopefully they expand on that, since on its own it's not exactly much.

              At that point it should be possible to have a discussion, though I wouldn't be surprised if Prinny pops in to be an annoyance. If indeed the AC's insist you're a racist at that point, then you can ignore them and talk to the people who are willing to talk.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2019 @ 12:13am

        Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corporati

        Dogwhistle is a dogwhistle for "I can't argue against your actual words so I'll put my own in your mouth instead"

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2019 @ 10:04am

        Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corporati

        The policies aren't the problem. The selective enforcement of those policies is.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 10:48am

      Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corporatist,

      That isn't "siding with corporate power". Also, corporatism is exactly American, so try again. It is one of the things which is totally wrong with the US. Let us know when and where your fairyland version of "America" existed.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      James Burkhardt (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 10:50am

      Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corporatist,

      Athlete Ally, (not ""LGBT" association", by with I assume you meant the ILGA) an LGBT advocacy organisation pushing for acceptance of LGBTQ individuals in sports, removed her from the advisory board after several attempts to tone her commentary down because her outspoken views were not in line with the goals of the organization. That's a bit necessary for an advocacy organization, which relies on donations from those they are advocating for. If those you advocate for do not believe you are acting in their interests, they stop donating and you can no longer fund the research, legal council, messaging (through advertising), and lobbing that are the essential functions of an advocacy organization.

      I am confused why your largely incoherent statement is against the idea that an advocacy organization should have to be advised by people who disagree with the goals of the intended advocacy.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        James Burkhardt (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 10:56am

        Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corporati

        Ack! slight misstatement due to rewording a statement and not shifting other wording around.

        I am confused why your largely incoherent statement is promoting the idea that an advocacy organization should have to be advised by people who disagree with the goals of the intended advocacy.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Gary (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 10:51am

      Re: Neither, but anti-Troll

      Cole, please explain why you aren't a troll? 1) Makes ad-hom atack labeling views "Kids." 2) Threadjacks the article to complain about global corporate threat. 3) Ignores facts in article, cites unrelated article. 4) Frequent use of caps.

      I didn't list your Jew-Globalist anti semitic bias since it was only implied, not stated.

      But thanks for posting. While we have your attention, could you please explain how a service like twitter would actually work without terms of service and moderation? Is there any example you can site for a completely unmoderated service or posting board?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2019 @ 11:39am

        Re: Re: Neither, but anti-Troll

        Cole is just another name for blue. You'll recognize his patterns immediately, the kids thing is particularly telling.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      btr1701 (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 11:13am

      Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corporatist,

      Twitter has gone off the deep end when it comes to the transgender nonsense. They're banning people for stating scientific facts (e.g., no amount of surgery or hormones will change a person's genetic make-up) and for committing two activist-invented offenses: referring to a person by his/her legal name if that's not the name they currently identify with, and 'misgendering', which is refusing to use inaccurate or grammatically incorrect pronouns when referring to someone. In some cases, you can be banned for refusing to use completely made-up words that don't even exist in the English language (zhe, zhir) when a transgender demands it of you.

      A journalist was suspended by Twitter for tweeting that the company is censoring "basic facts and silencing people who ask questions about this [transgender] dogma". After the suspension was over, she posted a message to the Twitter CEO saying, "Hey, Twitter, journalist here. Are we no longer allowed to report facts on your platform?" That tweet resulted in another suspension.

      They can do whatever the like with their service but the idea that they can still profess with a straight face to be the 'free speech wing of the Free Speech Party' is such laughable bullshit that they should be publicly shamed and mocked for it whenever and wherever possible. At this point, they're as much champions of free speech as was the Soviet Politburo of old.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 11:16am

        Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corporati

        completely made-up words

        All words are completely made up.

        can still profess with a straight face to be the 'free speech wing of the Free Speech Party'

        They don't "still profess" that, nor did they ever even really "profess" it. Their UK General Manager said that, once, seven years ago.

        Meanwhile, here's what Jack Dorsey said about it four months ago:

        this quote around “free-speech wing of the free-speech party” was never a mission of the company. It was never a descriptor of the company that we gave ourselves. It was a joke, because of how people found themselves in the spectrum.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          btr1701 (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 11:29am

          Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corpo

          > completely made-up words

          All words are completely made up.

          Oh, for fuck's sake. Seriously? Way to thoroughly (and purposely, one suspects) miss the point. I suppose there always has to be one relentlessly pedantic asshole in every bunch.

          this quote around “free-speech wing of the free-speech party” was never a mission of the company.

          In other words, even Dorsey realizes how completely foolish that quote makes his company look now and is backpedaling away from it. Notice he never gave those disclaimers in the past when glowing major media reports made it the unofficial motto of the company.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 11:34am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-c

            Oh, for fuck's sake. Seriously? Way to thoroughly (and purposely, one suspects) miss the point. I suppose there always has to be one relentlessly pedantic asshole in every bunch.

            No, it's that you're seeing a distinction where there isn't one. Language evolves.

            You're also lying, of course. Twitter does not ban anyone for refusing to use words - it bans people for repeated, targeted misgendering. If you don't want to use someone's chosen pronoun, you are free to refer to them by name or not at all. What you will get banned for is repeatedly, insistently calling them by a different pronoun as a way of harassing them.

            In other words, even Dorsey realizes how completely foolish that quote makes his company look now and is backpedaling away from it

            Amazing how fast you pivoted from "they should be mocked for continuing to claim this" to "they should be mocked for backing down on this claim". Apparently, realizing that you utterly misrepresented a situation doesn't slow you down in the slightest.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              stderric (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 6:42pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, p

              Better be careful, you're laying into btr pretty hard there and we all know what happens when you give someone a fit and there's nobody around to hook up a defrembulator. Their mind. Blown.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2019 @ 12:25am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, p

              "it bans people for repeated, targeted misgendering."

              Then explain the existence of account bans for single incidences of misgendering?

              Heck, @TSJessikaJayne was banned for misgendering HERSELF.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2019 @ 10:09am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, p

              Who is targeted by the statement that "men aren't women?"

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 11:40am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-c

            I can decide to call you a "nazi" if I want.

            Everyone here can choose to call you a "nazi" if they feel that it describes you better than other words you may prefer.

            Hopefully that's not a problem. It would be a shame if you felt that being called a "nazi" was in some way abusive, if someone here chose to refer to you as such.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Mason Wheeler (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 11:29am

          Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corpo

          Yeah, claiming that something embarrassing from your past was "just a joke" is a classic deflection tactic.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 12:21pm

        Twitter has gone off the deep end when it comes to the transgender nonsense. They're banning people for stating scientific facts (e.g., no amount of surgery or hormones will change a person's genetic make-up) and for committing two activist-invented offenses: referring to a person by his/her legal name if that's not the name they currently identify with, and 'misgendering', which is refusing to use inaccurate or grammatically incorrect pronouns when referring to someone. In some cases, you can be banned for refusing to use completely made-up words that don't even exist in the English language (zhe, zhir) when a transgender demands it of you.

        Question: How much literal bodily pain does treating transgender people with basic decency and respect cause you to feel?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 4:34pm

          Re:

          Not that someone like you would understand concepts like honesty, integrity, or honor, but to those who do, compromising those is even more harmful than physical bodily harm.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            bhull242 (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 5:13pm

            Re: Re:

            Fine. How does it harm your honesty, integrity, or (I really don’t understand this one) honor? I understand these ideas, but not how they apply here.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2019 @ 12:28am

              Re: Re: Re:

              Well, you see, if he doesn't believe that transwomen are actual women, it would be dishonest and dishonorable of him to pretend otherwise.

              This is actually a very simple concept.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 5:14pm

            Re: Re:

            What dishonesty have I committed if I call someone by a name they prefer? How is my integrity harmed if I refer to someone with their preferred pronouns? If I treat a trans person with the same dignity and respect with which you would ask them to treat you, what have I dishonored, and how did I dishonor it?

            Also, quick thought exercise for you. Say you know a woman at your job named Jane Doe. She gets married to Buck Wilde (I heard they had one hell of a reception) and legally changes her name to Jane Wilde, a name she was not born with. For the purposes of any future formal meetings, she asks people to call her “Mrs. Wilde” instead of “Ms. Doe”. How much of an affront to your honesty, integrity, and honor does her request represent — and how is it any different than a trans person asking you to use their preferred name when talking to/about them?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2019 @ 5:20am

              Re: Re: Re:

              So... yeah. As I predicted, you don't understand these concepts.

              It's not surprising, really. Look up the research that's been done on the psychological foundations of morality. There are five basic axes, but the weird thing is that liberals seem to only understand two of them (care/prevention of harm and fairness/equality, on full display here). The further to the left you go, the more blind you become to the other three, to the point where a lot of extremist SJW types like yourself are literally unable to comprehend the reality of the rest of it! (The other three being loyalty and honor, respect for authority and tradition, and respect for sanctity. Again, the incomprehension of these principles is on full display here.)

              They ask a conservative person how they think a liberal person would react to various moral scenarios, and he can predict their behavior fairly accurately. But ask a SJW how a conservative person would react, and their predictions come entirely through the filter of the two axes liberals understand and turn out to be completely wrong most of the time. It's as if you guys honestly believe that the other three don't exist and conservative people are simply lying and being hypocritical when they talk about them.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Prinny, 23 Feb 2019 @ 6:13am

                Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Wow, that's amazing, dood! You're saying it's not just trolling to say SJWs are crazy, but there's actual scientific research that proves it?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2019 @ 6:25am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Meh. Not crazy per se. Just... you know... a bit mentally deficient.

                  The truly crazy ones are the Libertarians. The research seems to indicate that their malfunctioning brains literally only have one axis, the respect for authority one, and it's installed backwards!

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                nasch (profile), 23 Feb 2019 @ 9:16am

                Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Rather than trying to hunt it down, perhaps you could provide references about how liberals only understand two of the moral axes and conservatives understand all of them.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2019 @ 10:06am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  There's a lot of good research on the subject, but not all of it is easily accessible online. This TED talk by one of the primary researchers in the field is a good starting point, though.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    nasch (profile), 23 Feb 2019 @ 2:48pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Here's the key part from Wikipedia:

                    Researchers have found that people's sensitivities to the five moral foundations correlate with their political ideologies. Using the Moral Foundations Questionnaire, Haidt and Graham found that liberals are most sensitive to the Care and Fairness foundations, while conservatives are equally sensitive to all five foundations.[10] Libertarians have been found to be sensitive to the proposed Liberty foundation.[4] According to Haidt, this has significant implications for political discourse and relations. Because members of two political camps are to a degree blind to one or more of the moral foundations of the others, they may perceive morally-driven words or behavior as having another basis—at best self-interested, at worst evil, and thus demonize one another.[11]

                    Researchers postulate that the moral foundations arose as solutions to problems common in the ancestral hunter-gatherer environment, in particular intertribal and intra-tribal conflict. The three foundations emphasized more by conservatives (Loyalty, Authority, Sanctity) bind groups together for greater strength in intertribal competition while the other two foundations balance those tendencies with concern for individuals within the group. With reduced sensitivity to the group moral foundations, progressives tend to promote a more universalist morality.[12]

                    I didn't spend enough time on it to evaluate how well this theory is supported by the evidence. But even if it becomes the generally accepted theory of human morality, I would be very cautious about what you do with it. Sensitivity to a larger number of moral foundations doesn't make a group "more moral". It's just a different focus.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Toom1275 (profile), 24 Feb 2019 @ 4:17pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Just look again at what those supposedly "moral" axes are - unquestioning obedience of authority, adherence to the in-group, and blind acceptance of tautological faith.

                      What Liberals are missing isn't morality, it's religion - something largely tangential/orthoginal to true morality.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Stephen T. Stone (profile), 23 Feb 2019 @ 9:51am

                The other three being loyalty and honor, respect for authority and tradition, and respect for sanctity.

                1. I consider not deferring to the wishes of other people when the burden is as minimal as remembering a name to be disloyal and dishonorable.

                2. “We’ve always done it this way” is one of the most dangerous phrases in the English language. I respect authority and tradition so long as I have a good reason to do so.

                3. I treat nothing as “sacred” because it would require putting a person or thing on a pedastal and acting as if who- or whatever sits on that pedastal is a holy artifact to never be touched or interfered with. Fuck that noise. I treat people with the respect they have earned; that alone is enough.

                ask a SJW how a conservative person would react, and their predictions come entirely through the filter of the two axes liberals understand and turn out to be completely wrong most of the time

                Two things.

                1. “SJW” is a marvelously vague phrase that can mean whatever you want it to mean for the purposes of a given argument. Use more concrete language.

                2. I’m guessing this is your cop-out for giving me an answer to that thought exercise about married people’s names and trans people’s names.

                It's as if you guys honestly believe that the other three don't exist and conservative people are simply lying and being hypocritical when they talk about them.

                Lived experience does tend to make me believe that, yes.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2019 @ 2:59pm

                  Re:

                  Did you even watch the video? From your astoundingly ignorant response here, particularly the first half which the video directly addresses and takes apart, I would assume not. But you really should, and this one as well featuring the same guy, speaking at Duke University ostensibly about moral issues in higher education, but a lot of it is quite generally applicable.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 23 Feb 2019 @ 4:29pm

                    Re: Re:

                    And what does any of this have to do with treating trans people with basic human dignity and respect?

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2019 @ 4:44pm

                      Re: Re: Re:

                      Do you know what the fact that you persist in attempting to frame the discussion in those specific terms tells me? It tells me that your mind is still literally not capable of comprehending the answer if I were to give it to you. It would be like trying to explain calculus to someone who had never taken algebra or trig; you simply lack the basic framework to understand more advanced concepts.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 23 Feb 2019 @ 5:14pm

                        “The answer is too intelligent for your dumb ass to understand” is no excuse…for you. If you understand what you are talking about well enough, you can craft a version of your answer for five different levels of understanding/difficulty. If you cannot answer a simple question — “When someone is transgender, how does calling them by a name they were not born with somehow become a hassle?” — with an answer that matches up with what you presume is my level of intellect, you are the one with the problem.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          Toom1275 (profile), 23 Feb 2019 @ 6:01pm

                          Re:

                          He's projecting to you that he's merely parroting his argument from elsewhere.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2019 @ 3:39am

                          Re:

                          The question is difficult to answer because it is not valid in the first place. It seems like a simple question to you, but to people with the broader perspective afforded by the moral axes you're missing, it sounds a whole lot like "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" It's a trap question that, in order to give any answer at all, forces you to acknowledge an invalid premise. The only valid answer I can give is "Mu."

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 24 Feb 2019 @ 8:04am

                            Re: Re:

                            Damn, man, just say “I can’t answer the question” if you can’t answer the question.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                              identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2019 @ 8:31am

                              Re: Re: Re:

                              Seriously? I explained that this is an invalid question that has no proper answer, and you twist that into "can't answer the question"?

                              OK, now you have to be doing it on purpose. At this point, Prinny might be right about you simply being malicious, because there's no way you can possibly be that stupid. I've seen some of the other things you post on other topics, and they can't be produced by a mind that's dense enough to legitimately come up with that answer.

                              Please, take some time, step away from these comments, watch the videos I linked to expand your mind a little, and reconsider your life choices. I don't know what it was that led you to this point, but it's kinda screwed up!

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • icon
                                Stephen T. Stone (profile), 24 Feb 2019 @ 8:38am

                                this is an invalid question that has no proper answer

                                The only proper answer is the one you can give me based on your own opinions and thinking. This is not a yes-or-no thing, honey — if you cannot give an answer to the question (“When someone is transgender, how does calling them by a name they were not born with somehow become a hassle?”), just say so. I promise I won’t think any less of you than I already do.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  identicon
                  Prinny, 23 Feb 2019 @ 3:21pm

                  Re:

                  So not only are you trying to force your values on people, dood, you are openly trying to also force your lack of values on them as well!

                  This makes me doubt both the "crazy" and the "mentally deficient" theories; it's starting to look more like you're simply evil!

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2019 @ 5:25pm

                  Re:

                  Also, and I can't believe I missed this the first time around:

                  I treat nothing as “sacred” because it would require putting a person or thing on a pedastal and acting as if who- or whatever sits on that pedastal is a holy artifact to never be touched or interfered with.

                  This right here just proves my basic thesis.

                  Of course you have things you treat as sacred. To give one very obvious example: the doctrine of accepting transgender people's preferred identity is sacred to you. Look at the way you are doing exactly what you clam you never do in regards to this very issue: you treat any disagreement or questioning of the doctrine as blasphemy!

                  But of course you don't realize this, because (as was my point way back at the start) you are so deep in SJW territory that your mind literally lacks the moral axis to properly comprehend it.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 23 Feb 2019 @ 5:29pm

                    the doctrine of accepting transgender people's preferred identity is sacred to you

                    I do not consider this a holy “doctrine” to be placed above all else. I consider it common goddamn courtesy and an offer of basic human respect.

                    you treat any disagreement or questioning of the doctrine as blasphemy!

                    No, I treat it as you having an issue with offering trans people the same level of dignity and respect as you would ask them to give you. If a trans person kept calling you by a name you did not go by and explicitly did not want them to use when talking to/about you, how is that any different than you doing that to a trans person?

                    This is not a religious/sanctity issue. This is an issue of basic human dignity.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2019 @ 3:35am

                      Re:

                      I do not consider this a holy “doctrine” to be placed above all else.

                      Perhaps. I can't read your thoughts. But I can read your actions, and they say quite clearly that you still consider it a thing that Simply Can Not Be Questioned By Decent Folk, and you react to said questioning according to classical, well understood patterns of aversion to desecration and blasphemy.

                      If a trans person kept calling you by a name you did not go by and explicitly did not want them to use when talking to/about you, how is that any different than you doing that to a trans person?

                      Are you familiar with the term "gender dysphoria"? It's the technical, clinical explanation of what transsexualism is. It's a recognized, studied psychological condition.

                      With that in mind, let's go to one of the classics. Let's say that the name I wanted people to use when talking to me was Napoleon, because I believed myself to be him. (Yes, that Napoleon.) Would you say that basic respect and courtesy demands that you feed my delusion? Certainly not; your argument would almost certainly be the exact opposite, and here's the truly interesting part: it would be motivated by the same moral axis that you're applying here, namely Care/Prevention of Harm.

                      But because this issue has become so heavily politicized by the extreme Left, people who have internalized those values are unable to apply that principle consistently without exposing themselves to painful cognitive dissonance, so instead they hack their brains into applying a lesser standard of Care that still lets them feel like they're being moral, but with less effort.

                      This is not a religious/sanctity issue.

                      As someone who explicitly claims nothing is sacred, you have no grounds for stating that, about this or any other issue. Do you have any idea how ridiculously arrogant it sounds to hear somebody say "because I don't believe something is sacred, no one else is allowed to hold that opinion either"?

                      dignity

                      You keep using that word. I do not think you know what it means. I also think you haven't seen the second video, in which the lecturer explains specifically what dignity is about and how it's almost literally the exact opposite of the cultural values you're espousing here. Here's a hint: the entire point of dignity is that it's not something someone else can give you or take away from you.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 24 Feb 2019 @ 8:33am

                        Re: Re:

                        you still consider it a thing that Simply Can Not Be Questioned By Decent Folk

                        If I considered you decent, you might have a point. And I recognize that calling trans people by their preferred name is a thing that can be questioned — but if you can question the subject, I can question you about your position. Don’t like it? Door’s to your left.

                        you react to said questioning according to classical, well understood patterns of aversion to desecration and blasphemy

                        I react to that questioning by wondering how calling trans people by their given name is apparently a burden greater than any other; if you can provide solid reasoning for that belief of yours (that isn’t just pseudo-intellectual claptrap about morals that you dug up from a TED talk to make yourself sound smarter), I’ll be more than happy to listen to and consider your position.

                        Let's say that the name I wanted people to use when talking to me was Napoleon, because I believed myself to be him. (Yes, that Napoleon.) Would you say that basic respect and courtesy demands that you feed my delusion?

                        Your delusion is not even remotely similar to gender dysphoria. I would have no issue with referring to you by your given name — or with reporting you to the proper authorities for a psychiatric evaluation. And by the by, I despise the notion that people with gender dysphoria are someone psychologically “damaged” or “mentally ill”, so how about you stay away from using that little bit of bullshit again.

                        Certainly not; your argument would almost certainly be the exact opposite

                        Except it wasn’t.

                        it would be motivated by the same moral axis that you're applying here, namely Care/Prevention of Harm

                        And what the hell is so bad about not wanting to harm other people? You demonize the idea so much that it comes off as you not caring about doing harm to others regardless of the other moral axes.

                        because this issue has become so heavily politicized by the extreme Left, people who have internalized those values are unable to apply that principle consistently without exposing themselves to painful cognitive dissonance, so instead they hack their brains into applying a lesser standard of Care that still lets them feel like they're being moral, but with less effort

                        Trans people face higher rates of suicide if their gender identity isn’t consistently affirmed. Rather than give them the dignity of referring to them with their preferred name/pronouns and treating them like you would treat any cis person who presents as that trans person’s gender, you would continually misgender and deadname them — and you would then say “oh but I care about that poor thing” and act as if your intentional disrespect and mistreatment of that person is “love” and “caring”.

                        You know who else passed off abusive behaviour as “love” and “caring”? Anti-gay religious folks who were (and still are) all about telling gay people they will burn in Hell and will never be more than unclean sinner filth in the eyes of God…and justifying that emotionally abusive bullshit as an act of “love”.

                        If you would treat a trans person no better than an anti-gay religious person would treat a gay person, you may want to reconsider your values. I mean, unless you want to drive a trans person to suicide, in which case what the fuck.

                        Do you have any idea how ridiculously arrogant it sounds to hear somebody say "because I don't believe something is sacred, no one else is allowed to hold that opinion either"?

                        The funny thing is, holding something sacred is what results in the “no one else is allowed to hold an opinion” mindset. I do not treat the discussion of “transgender people and deadnaming” as sacred precisely because I know other people will have different opinions than mine and that is fine. My whole schtick has been about getting you to answer a simple, single question: “When someone is transgender, how does calling them by a name they were not born with somehow become a hassle?” If I thought my opinion was the definitive word on the matter and no one else could dare differ from my position, I wouldn’t even bother asking the question — I would tell you how to think about it and say “fuck you” if you disagreed.

                        the entire point of dignity is that it's not something someone else can give you or take away from you

                        And yet you would want to impugn the dignity of trans people — to treat them with less respect than you would any cis person who asks you to call them by a preferred name — only because they are trans. You want to make trans people feel as if they have no dignity, no place in your part of society, no sense of worth as a person trying their best to get along in a world that actively wants them gone.

                        You wanna do that? I cannot stop you. But you can be damn sure I would do my best to make you feel like a piece of cold dog shit for doing it.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2019 @ 9:28am

                          Re: Re: Re:

                          If I considered you decent, you might have a point.

                          That is the point. Because I question your sacred dogma, it places me outside of what you consider decent.

                          Your delusion is not even remotely similar to gender dysphoria.

                          Believing onself to be something that they objectively are not? How is it different in any way?

                          And by the by, I despise the notion that people with gender dysphoria are someone psychologically “damaged” or “mentally ill”

                          Of course you do. It causes painful cognitive dissonance that you would prefer to avoid. That's how the dogmatic mentality works: any facts that disagree with the doctrine are blasphemous and must be ignored or suppressed, by force if necessary.

                          I can't be sure, but it's likely also mixed up with incorrect, stigma-laden ideas about what it means to be "mentally ill" that make the conclusion sound a lot worse to you than it really is.

                          And what the hell is so bad about not wanting to harm other people? You demonize the idea so much that it comes off as you not caring about doing harm to others regardless of the other moral axes.

                          Not quite. It's a lot more nuanced than that; it involves the concept of antifragility. Defining it formally gets really involved, but the TLDR version is "whatever does not kill me makes me stronger." While this isn't universally true--crippling, permanent damage is a thing that does exist, both for bodies and for minds--generally speaking it's a feature of nearly every aspect of humanity.

                          It's a completely uncontroversial statement to claim that your bones and muscles grow stronger with low-level abuse and strain (commonly known as "working out") and atrophy into uselessness with disuse. It's also well-known that if a body, particularly a young, developing one, is shielded from disease by a hyper-sterile environment, the immune system will go on a rampage and create allergies rather than doing its job right.

                          Well, a person's psyche is the same way. It grows strength and resilience by dealing with difficult situations. Shielding them from that kind of "harm" is just as harmful in the bigger picture as shielding them from germs or the need to physically exert themselves. It leaves them fragile by denying them the opportunity to exercise their mental antifragility.

                          Trans people face higher rates of suicide if their gender identity isn’t consistently affirmed.

                          Yeah. What was that you were saying about it not being a mental illness?

                          Rather than give them the dignity

                          Flag on the play. Dignity is not something that can be given or taken away by others.

                          My whole schtick has been about getting you to answer a simple, single question: “When someone is transgender, how does calling them by a name they were not born with somehow become a hassle?”

                          No, that is not a simple question. It's a simplistic question, which is a very, very different thing.

                          You want to make trans people feel as if they have no dignity, no place in your part of society, no sense of worth as a person trying their best to get along in a world that actively wants them gone.

                          Not at all. You're projecting like wow here! What I truly want is to be able to help them. And that's not an abstract thought or wishy-washy "it would be nice if" sort of thing.

                          A close friend of mine is afflicted with gender dysphoria and he suffers immensely from it. Not from how people react to it or to knowing that he's trans, but from the issue itself. For various reasons, he regards me as his closest (or occasionally "only", depending on his current state of mind) friend, even though he's well aware of my views and I've told him multiple times, to his face, that I don't consider him a woman. Despite that, he remains a loyal friend and I end up frequently getting an earful about the struggles he's going through and acting as a "shoulder to cry on." So this is not an abstract concept to me. It's not a fuzzy moral issue that happens to other people. It's something I'm personally very familiar with, and that experience has done a lot to inform my opinions on the subject. I would love nothing more than to see him fixed, but that can't happen without first acknowledging that a problem that needs fixing exists!

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 24 Feb 2019 @ 2:09pm

                            I’m no longer in the mood to continue this discussion for a variety of reasons, but I did want to say one more thing:

                            What I truly want is to be able to help them.

                            This is pretty much the same excuse used by the people who drove gay people to suicide and self-harm through the emotional and physical torture known as “conversion ‘therapy’ ”. Psychologically abusive treatment done out of “love” is still psychologically abusive. To wit:

                            I would love nothing more than to see him fixed

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2019 @ 2:51pm

                          Re: Re: Re:

                          Cis Short for cis-gendered, meaning someone who identifies with the sex they were born as. Typically used by whiny tumblr users who complain about not being accepted for who they are and yet bash these "cis" people for being born and being okay with the sex they were born with.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2019 @ 11:37am

                        Re: Re:

                        is your video just that scene from the simpsons with Milhouse's dad playing charades?

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 9:38pm

            Re: Re:

            Not that someone like you would understand concepts like honesty, integrity, or honor, but to those who do, compromising those is even more harmful than physical bodily harm.

            What are you, a fucking Klingon?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 4:42pm

          Re:

          Can we claim to be of retirement age when we decide we are ready to retire at 30? I demand to be referred to as 65 and you better respect my rights and give me my pension.

          Fuck off

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2019 @ 10:10am

          Re:

          How does claiming "men aren't women" disrespect anyone?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 1:59pm

        Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corporati

        Always funny when people, like you, who don't understand science try to pretend science is on their side.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Toom1275 (profile), 23 Feb 2019 @ 2:42pm

          Re: Re: Re: Neither, but anti-American, pro-globalist, pro-corpo

          They're just dusting off their old "science" they used to claim that Blacks physically lacked the capacity for being human.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Gary (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 9:55am

    Missing

    I must be missing something - how is 22 names a "Dataset" and not just cherry picked examples?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 9:56am

    Another day

    Another techdirt water-carrying article defending hatred of free thought when it doesn't align left.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Toom1275 (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 9:58am

      Re: Another day

      [asserts facts not in evidence]

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 10:10am

        Re: Re: Another day

        Read the article, and the previous month's. Whenever there's a scandal affecting the left, techdirt is quick to bring out articles reminding their useful idiots that the right is big bad and scary. They won't cover the left scandal for another month, when it's forgotten.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 10:17am

          Re: Re: Re: Another day

          Whenever there's a scandal affecting the left, techdirt is quick to bring out articles reminding their useful idiots that the right is big bad and scary. They won't cover the left scandal for another month, when it's forgotten.

          Citations very much needed...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 10:25am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Another day

            Just from this week. Bias right in the titles.

            Catholic School Teen's Lawyers File $250M Defamation Suit Against The Washington Post; Fail To List Any Actual Defamation

            Justice Thomas Is Apparently Serious About Completely Upturning Over 50 Years Of 1st Amendment Law

            United States Gifted With 33rd National Emergency By President Who Says It's Not Really An Emergency

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 10:30am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another day

              Those titles are all factual, and only mildly opinionated in how they state those facts.

              I think this just isn't the blog for you. There are lots of sources out there with an angle you'd find more palatable.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 10:44am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another day

              I don't see how any of those involve "scandals affecting the left." Nor do any of them appear to be "remindeing [our] useful idiots that the right is big and scary."

              The first one is about a defamation lawsuit, in which we criticize the lawsuit. We have written about tons of defamation lawsuits, often to criticize them, without any bias towards the political leanings of the participants. Indeed, we criticized a silly defamation lawsuit against the President. And another one against actor James Woods, who is famously a Trump supporter (though we also criticized one of his silly defamation lawsuits). So, I don't see how that has anything to do with what you claimed.

              The second one is about Justice Thomas looking to shake up defamation law massively. I don't see how that's anything about "the right" being "big bad and scary." Indeed, most of the 1st Amendment scholars who I follow and who were aghast at this are considered right leaning. I didn't realize that defending the 1st Amendment had magically become a leftist thing.

              The final one was pointing out how the National Emergency process is abused regularly, but every president since it's been around. That covers three Democratic Presidents and four Republican Presidents, including the latest one. I, again, don't see how that's "biased." It's a factual reporting, that also mentions the fact that it's been abused in the past. And we regularly criticized the previous president for his (regular) abuse of executive power as well.

              So... um, I'm afraid I need to go back and ask you again for some citations that actually back up your statement. Because, accurate stories that make people you like look bad is... not the same same thing as systemic bias against your beliefs, skippy.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 11:52am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another day

              I see no real bias there... If you only look at the good things or bad things in any given scenario, you're trying to impose a view of the world that can't really exist: the idea of a black and white morality with no gray in between.

              TD posts both good and bad things about their prefered topics all the time, often going into the why and how. Though I can't speak for Mike himself (nor any of the other authors for that matter), To my understanding he just calls it as he sees it.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Rocky, 22 Feb 2019 @ 1:24pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another day

              Just from this week. Bias right in the titles.

              When your worldview is so far out of step with how a majority of people perceive the world, every headline not conforming exactly to your ideas will seem to be biased.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2019 @ 10:18am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another day

              The titles are fed to Google News for people to read regardless of whether or not they click through to this site.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Valkor, 25 Feb 2019 @ 7:00am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another day

              Top Right Corner: search box Type "Obama" Enjoy.

              Currently, the "Right" is taking heat because they're the ones with the power to do stupid crap. When the pendulum swings the other way, the "Left" does their own despicable nonsense.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Thad (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 9:58am

      Re: Another day

      Another Anonymous Coward boldly taking the pro-nazi position.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 10:13am

        Re: Re: Another day

        If course I'm anonymous. The left loves to dox and censor.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 10:15am

          Re: Re: Re: Another day

          If course I'm anonymous. The left loves to dox and censor.

          Kinda weird then how this "lefty" blog Techdirt allows anonymous comments and doesn't interfere with you posting as many dumb garbage ones as you please, huh?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 10:34am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Another day

            You have not apparently seen the flag button that hides comments the left disagrees with.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 10:56am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another day

              You have not apparently seen the flag button that hides comments the left disagrees with.

              Quick challenge: list three other news or opinion websites that allow fully anonymous comments without holding them for moderation.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Designerfx (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 11:38am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another day

              the flag button is for people who are stupid, not "left", right, or middle. Just because "right posting" is getting flagged as you hilariously see, it's easily because they're incapable of making a factual argument that isn't "LEFTIST BIAS".

              Should they make an argument of something even remotely coherent (high bar and all), I'd be willing to guess it's not going to be flagged. Call it...the things other news organizations don't care to uphold?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2019 @ 12:34am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Another day

            Ah yes, because a single example disproves the trend right? Let's imagine he used the name SquiggleyMumps on Techdirt while spewing right wing views. Now let's imagine he uses the name SquiggleyMumps on Reddit where he maintains a corporate friendly image and represents his business. Would it be smart for him to do that? No. Because he is right and you know it. Here's a prime example of how the left loves to dox straight from the left's own favorite news source https://money.cnn.com/2016/06/22/technology/every-trump-donor-bot/index.html

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Thad (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 10:53am

          Re: Re: Re: Another day

          ...and between "Anonymous Coward" and "pro-nazi", the one you take issue with is "Anonymous Coward", huh?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 11:20pm

          Re: Impotence is usually curable.

          Poor Jhon.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 10:01am

      Re: Another day

      Another techdirt water-carrying article defending hatred of free thought when it doesn't align left.

      That's right. Zach Graves, whose career includes working at Cato, R Street and Lincoln Networks. All notoriously "leftist" organizations... oh wait.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      stderric (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 7:06pm

      Re: Another day

      Another techdirt water-carrying article defending hatred of free thought when it doesn't align left.

      And another pseudo-conservative decrying the right of private businesses to refuse service to whomsoever they choose, when those refused happen to align right. (Even if there's insufficient evidence to show that that's happening in this case.)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Major, 22 Feb 2019 @ 9:59am

    What is a Anti-Nazi ...

    What is a Anti-Nazi Bias when everyone you disagree with is a Nazi to you...

    The only Bias there should be on any social media is an anti-extreme one. But right now i see some crazy leftist spouting race baiting things so hatefull, that any Nazi would be proud. Furthermore they remain almost never censored in any way.

    Lately i can read a clear bias in most Techdirt article too. You should start reflecting in your own bias before you end up so far on one side, YOU will be the Nazi that need to be censored.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 10:01am

      Re: What is a Anti-Nazi ...

      What is a Anti-Nazi Bias when everyone you disagree with is a Nazi to you

      Did you notice the part where the American Nazi Party is one of the banned accounts? If you're trying to understand what a nazi is, start there.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Major, 22 Feb 2019 @ 10:34am

        Re: Re: What is a Anti-Nazi ...

        I sure saw that, but the communist party is still up there. Even though the ideology resulted in almost as many death if not more. So my point is still valid on that regard.

        Oh and since you actually took the time to answer my "poorly" written comment. This is clearly proof that you are an Undercover Nazi and need to banned from the whole internet.

        Try again you nazi scum ?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 10:41am

          Re: Re: Re: What is a Anti-Nazi ...

          I sure saw that, but the communist party is still up there. Even though the ideology resulted in almost as many death if not more.

          Um, Twitter isn't banning accounts based on the history of their ideology - it is banning them based on their current practices on Twitter

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 11:22pm

          Re: Re: Re: What is a Anti-Nazi ...

          Next time you call someone nazi scum don’t put a question mark there. It makes you sound like an indescisive cunt.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Rog S., 24 Feb 2019 @ 8:07pm

        Re: Re: What is a Anti-Nazi ...

        Or, start with the fact that the famous ACLU case of "defending Nazis” only happened because the "Nazi ”in the case was Jewish.

        His name was Frank Collin~Cohen.

        Just like Milos Yiannopoulis and so many other alleged right wingers, extremists, and actual terrorists are also Jewish.

        But when their name hits the papers, discussing their religious fanaticism and what radicalized them, or their negative effects on others is VERBOTTEN.

        This is what happens when the racist and sectarian ADL and SPLC become arbiters of open discourse, and cockblock(cockchop? ) democratic engagement .

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 10:03am

      Re: What is a Anti-Nazi ...

      Is this really the best you can come up with? It's just sad.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 10:35am

      Re: What is a Anti-Nazi ...

      In order to define what an antiNAZI is it would first be necessary to know what a NAZI was.

      If you can define what a Ruthenian was then you may be well on your way to defining what a NAZI really was. Problem is defining a Ruthenian is damn difficult bordering on nearly impossible. The only thing one can be said with certainty is the NAZI really hated then. Why?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    John85851 (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 10:07am

    It's called crying wolf

    Mainstream conservatives really need to push-back more on these kinds of "studies" since it gives them all a bad reputation. Then like the boy who cried wolf: We're being censored on Twitter! No you're not. We're being censored on Facebook! No you're not. We're being censored on YouTube! No you're not. We're being censored on some other site! No you're not. We're being censored for real this time! Sorry, no one cares any more.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 10:11am

      Re: It's called crying wolf

      Of course, at a certain point we're just going to have to stop pretending that people like the trolls and nazis on this list are anything other than "mainstream". Most of them are household names for the pro-Trump wing of the GOP (which is most of it) and there are plenty of examples of them being quoted or promoted by elected GOP representatives, defended by major conservative news organizations, etc.

      So perhaps we should start talking about what "moderate" conservatives need to do, since they can no longer even claim to have a firm hold on the "mainstream".

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    A. Gilbertson (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 10:40am

    Fails to demonstrate a lack of balance

    If Mr. Hanania had really wanted to demonstrate a lack of balance by Twitter, he would have to also provide a list of liberals engaging in equally-bad behavior but NOT getting kicked off the platform. The fact that he's only provided a list of 21 "prominent conservative accounts" that got kicked off only proves that he was able to find 21 accounts with a conservative bent that got banned.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      btr1701 (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 11:23am

      Re: Fails to demonstrate a lack of balance

      If Mr. Hanania had really wanted to demonstrate a lack of balance by Twitter, he would have to also provide a list of liberals engaging in equally-bad behavior

      Oh, it's out there. You can get kicked off Twitter for 'abuse' because you refuse to use made-up gibberish words to refer to a transgender person, but repeated and credible death threats against conservative writers get no action from Twitter no matter how many times they're reported.

      I agree, however, that this study has many flaws in its methodology and doesn't prove what it purports to prove.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 12:59pm

        Re: Re: Fails to demonstrate a lack of balance

        This is pretty much what goes on, but conservative views can find a home even on Twitter, or Facebook, and particularly on YouTube and probably Instagram. Censorship tends to be self-correcting anyway.

        It should be pretty obvious after the Jussie Smollett case that the media has a clear liberal bias. People have decided that because they don't like Trump, his supporters are fair game for abuse or even worse.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 1:53pm

        Re: Re: Fails to demonstrate a lack of balance

        This is pretty much what goes on, but conservative views can find a home even on Twitter, or Facebook, and particularly on YouTube and probably Instagram. Censorship tends to be self-correcting anyway.

        It should be pretty obvious after the Jussie Smollett case that the media has a clear liberal bias. People have decided that because they don't like Trump, his supporters are fair game for abuse or even worse.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          bob, 22 Feb 2019 @ 6:40pm

          Re: Re: Re: Fails to demonstrate a lack of balance

          Troll/astroturf fail right here.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Rog S., 26 Feb 2019 @ 9:22am

          Re: Re: Re: Fails to demonstrate a lack of balance

          You are not wrong.

          A very wealthy minority of NGO sponsored neocons are activelly and literally controlling, aka “influencing ” our democratic dialogues.

          Sadly, many of them are Jewish, or other minority views, which Karl Bode covered here at Techdirt awhile ago; and worse,these are anti -democratic in the worst, most fascist sense, as described by a post Holohoax scholar, Viktor Frankel, who wrote “Mans Search For Meaning, ” which was soundly shit upon by theoretically feminist organizations, and other Israelified, ADL infused and infected organizations and crisis PR pundits who find the term "man " to be offensive.

          But thankfully, the Jussie Smollet thingy will be revealed eventually as yet another Anti Defamation League inspired hoax, like most of these ADL sponsored cases:

          https://static1.businessinsider.com/r-us-israeli-man-sentenced-in-israel-over-global-bomb-threats-2 018-11

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 2:01pm

        Re: Re: Fails to demonstrate a lack of balance

        "Wahhhh, I can't be a bigot on Twitter!"

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          btr1701 (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 2:36pm

          Re: Re: Re: Fails to demonstrate a lack of balance

          LOL! Another mental midget arrives to let us know that he arrogantly considers his own political beliefs to be so self-righteously correct that there can be no legitimate disagreement with him, and that anyone who does is per se a bigot.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Conservative Comedy Rulez, 22 Feb 2019 @ 3:03pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Fails to demonstrate a lack of balance

            Another mental midget

            Classic burn! It's a bit high level though, so let me explain: "midget" is a non-technical term, now broadly regarded as offensive, for people with dwarfism - a disorder that causes someone to be small in stature.

            What btr1701 has cunningly done is taken that term and couple it with the adjective "mental" - suggesting, quite coyly and hilariously, that the commenter's intelligence is smaller than normal, and that its growth is stunted.

            I'm dyin' over here!

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Valkor, 25 Feb 2019 @ 7:35am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fails to demonstrate a lack of balance

              Thanks for the tongue in cheek deconstruction of a classic. I looked it up, and at least one book cites the origin as 1951!

              Complete side point: Midget used to refer to a small person with proportional features, and dwarf used to refer to the more common disproportional type. Now the word midget, like moron, idiot, and imbecile, are formerly technical terms that are now insults. Thanks, euphemism treadmill.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Rog S., 26 Feb 2019 @ 9:40am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fails to demonstrate a lack of balance

                Valkor, is this you, a military supplier /contractor?

                http://www.valkortactical.com/

                Its nice to know how military trolls and their surveillance state apparatchiks are infecting dialogues, and influencing our democratic discourse, dontchathink?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 4:16pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Fails to demonstrate a lack of balance

            Oh no, the person who wants to intentionally misgender transgender people because the world will end if he has to type a different word doesn't think he's a bigot.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 11:25pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Fails to demonstrate a lack of balance

            Careful. You are currently projecting at .6 OOTBs.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        bhull242 (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 5:26pm

        Re: Re: Fails to demonstrate a lack of balance

        You’ve said this bit about pronouns several times but have yet to provide even one example. Nor have you provided examples of “leftists” not being banned for abusive behavior that conservatives have been.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Lebron Paul 2020, 22 Feb 2019 @ 10:42am

    Kinda said the quiet part out loud there, no?

    When you try to prove that the right is being cencored & your list short list of "prominent" conservatives is half EXPLICIT white nationalist.

    ...twitter destroyed with facts & logic

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2019 @ 2:46pm

      Re: Kinda said the quiet part out loud there, no?

      I've seen twitter ban people for simple conservative postings that did nothing more than dismantle liberal logic.

      The bias is real, and so what? Everyone can get their message out online. The internet was designed to survive a nuclear war, which is why it's almost impossible to censor.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Rog S., 26 Feb 2019 @ 9:43am

      Re: Kinda said the quiet part out loud there, no?

      and other black /female /other .

      What -is diversity only ok when it is batshit crazy Jewish supremacism /ADL sponsored?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Glenn, 22 Feb 2019 @ 10:59am

    According to conservatives it's a liberal world gone mad (which is redundant to them: "liberal" and "world gone made" being the same thing). They just don't get it that they're the ones out of step with reality... and they never will get it. That's what it means to be "conservative". They also can't differentiate between platforms and the people that use them (as opposed to the people that run them--who, generally, try to be even-handed with their policies).

    Dear conservatives: isn't it sad feeling persecuted? OK, now you know how all of your victims have felt for the past several thousand years. Congrats! Don't you wish you could lean more toward the center? treat everyone else the way you'd like to be treated? ...no? well, too bad for you. I guess "live and learn" just ain't your thing.

    P.S. BTW, liberals are pretty much the same but in a reverse way--a lot less "stick in the mud" (or "stick up the ...well, you know).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 11:13am

    An Anti-Conservative Bias, Or Just An Anti-Nazi Bias?

    There's a difference?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      bob, 22 Feb 2019 @ 6:43pm

      Re: An Anti-Conservative Bias, Or Just An Anti-Nazi Bias?

      Yes there is.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        David, 23 Feb 2019 @ 3:20pm

        Re: Re: An Anti-Conservative Bias, Or Just An Anti-Nazi Bias?

        Words like "Conservative" and "Liberal" have lost their literal meaning in the U.S. "Conservative" is usually associated with the Republican Party which has nothing to do with the abolitionist party of Lincoln. Let's see whether there is a difference between "Conservative" and "Nazi" when Twitler overrides the House of Representatives in its core role of budgeting the government in the division of powers.

        Frankly, looking at McConnel's face when serving a leading role in dismantling U.S. democracy makes me wonder what Trump has on him. But it's not like the others don't fall in line.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 11:51am

    To me what this list highlights is that those with extreme conservative views are more likely to behave abusively towards those who don't agree with them than those with extreme liberal views (which include concepts like tolerance and acceptance).

    So I don't think it's even anti-Nazi bias; it's anti-abuse bias.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 2:15pm

      Re:

      Those who claim "trans" women are still men have gotten banned.

      I've seen conservatives threatened with violence and nothing happens, but they speak a wrong word and they're gone.

      The bias is real.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Thad (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 2:26pm

        Re: Re:

        Those who claim "trans" women are still men have gotten banned.

        Not exactly disproving the premise that people are getting banned for being abusive there, Mr. Coward.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 3:16pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Calling that abusive, yet allowing phrases like #toxicmasculinity, reflects a bias. Many WOMEN don't like being forced to treat transgendered individuals born male as if they were female.

          I've seen direct threats of rape and murder against conservatives that go unpunished.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Thad (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 3:41pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Yes, you've made your point. You're a bigot, and you're mad that people sometimes get banned from Twitter because they're bigots.

            If you believe conservatism is synonymous with bigotry, well...that does indicate that there's a real problem here, but it's not a problem with Twitter.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 4:11pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I wasn't the one who made the anti-transgender remarks.

              I don't rely on Twitter to build an audience because that audience can too easily be nuked. The bias against conservatives is pretty obvious. Milo is a good example. Anti-male, anti-white narratives are given their own hashtags, while conservatives, particularly white males, have largely been silence or marginalized on the platform.

              It doesn't make me a bigot to point out the bias in Twitter enforcement, which includes ignoring rape and death threats against conservatives while banning conservatives for minor infractions. Your namecalling changes nothing.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 4:28pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Exactly how is it "abusive" to note that "transgendered women" were born male?

          Do we all have to fall in line with some PC-think not to be censored? That's Orwellian. Look at the Jussie Smollett case: the media didn't question the story, and said it was a consequence of Trump's presidency. That could have started a race riot.

          The presumption that you get to lay down the political law with others that you do not allow to lay down the law with you is very telling.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Zof (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 11:59am

    Twitter is a shithole. It's only value now is a place for mental people to be angry and suicidal. Every other post on twitter is some form of "I want to kill myself" or "Hey, look at my virtue! I'm doing really good hating today!". It's trash. It's the worst of us.

    The worst human beings on Earth use twitter. Our mental defectives. People not over not being popular in high school mostly.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mason Wheeler (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 1:42pm

      Re:

      As I've been saying pretty much since day 1, it's a service that's full of Twits.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 1:45pm

        Re: Re:

        As I've been saying pretty much since day 1

        And yet it's still never gotten a laugh...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Conservative Comedy Rulez, 22 Feb 2019 @ 3:00pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Wait, I take it back. It took me an hour, but I just got it!

          For folks still in the dark: see, the service is named "Twitter", which is a word referring to birdlike sounds. But if you look closely, you'll notice the first four letters are T, W, I and T. Now the hilarious thing is - bear with me here folks - those four letters spell "twit", which is a word meaning a silly or stupid person.

          This joke is fucking genius.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Rog S., 26 Feb 2019 @ 9:46am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Im no Mason Wheeler fan, but it /he /she /cis /non -cis unspecified is correct.

          But I would go one further and state that Twitter is full of Twats.

          And, many of those with yeast infections, or worse: halitosis.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Bobo, 22 Feb 2019 @ 2:27pm

      Re:

      Yeah, fuck people for being open about depressions I guess.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 11:27pm

      Re:

      So why aren’t you there then bro?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 12:07pm

    Social media's hate toward to conservatives is just like the link between vaccines and autism - it takes an awful lot of fudging, ignoring, and editing the data to make anything appear.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 12:27pm

    All credit to Twitter user @ndrew_lawrence:

    Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views

    Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?

    Con: LOL no…no not those views

    Me: So…deregulation?

    Con: Haha no not those views either

    Me: Which views, exactly?

    Con: Oh, you know the ones

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    crade (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 12:56pm

    It's actually a brilliant commie plot.. They are slowly making the conservatives all into complete converts.. Today convert them into deciding a private company shouldn't be able to make it's own decisions about who can use it's service.. Tomorrow rations and food stamps?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    John Kras, 22 Feb 2019 @ 1:22pm

    Would agree BUT ONE PROBLEM

    Why is Louis Farrakhan still on there? Why was Laura looker who is Jewish and believe me not a white supremist banned on there. While we're at it, why is David Duke still have an account. Sorry the people are banning are conservatives. Pleasr research more

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Gary Pauls, 22 Feb 2019 @ 1:30pm

    You mean Laura Loomer

    Yeah why does David Duke and Louis Farrakhan still have twitter accounts? No one on techdirt talks about that and I am jewish

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 2:29pm

      Re: You mean Laura Loomer

      Wow it took you 8 minutes to write a second sentence pretending to be a different outraged Jew... have you been tested for lead exposure?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 3:45pm

      Re: You mean Laura Loomer

      Hey Gary/John: when you reply to yourself, it shows up for everyone to see that you're actually the same person pretending to be a different person... but nice work "Gary/John". Also, your statement doesn't make any sense. As the article explains, people were banned -- temporarily or permanently -- based on abusive behavior. Not because of their views.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 4:09pm

        Re: Re: You mean Laura Loomer

        Shouldn't a poster's identifying information be private?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 5:26pm

          Re: Re: Re: You mean Laura Loomer

          It is, other than one little tidbit that can trip people attempting to sockpuppet up if they're not familiar with the site, and said tidbit is not only visible to everyone, it doesn't provide any information beyond whether or not multiple comments are coming from the same IP address.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2019 @ 12:50am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: You mean Laura Loomer

            It's better than nothing, but ip addresses can be shared. I use a VPN to help protect my privacy, which means I share an outgoing IP address with potentially thousands of people. And since privacy interested people are more likely to read Techdirt that means the likelyhood of sharing an IP with someone else here isn't vanishingly small.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              That One Guy (profile), 23 Feb 2019 @ 7:49am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You mean Laura Loomer

              Can be, but the odds of two or more people sharing the same IP address and commenting on a given article at the same time are pretty small, so it's not likely to be an issue except very rarely. If someone's really concerned about being confused with other AC's it's simple enough to use a throwaway name for their comments in a given thread(TD's #1 fan/stalker does this) without actually needing to sign in.

              Barring potential confusion from an occurrence like that it's handy for people who don't feel like signing in to hold long conversations with others as clearly from the same person, and occasionally tripping up putz's who try to sockpuppet only to faceplant.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          bob, 22 Feb 2019 @ 6:50pm

          Re: Re: Re: You mean Laura Loomer

          It is. Look at the little picture next to your inputted name. If the pic is the same then the comment came from the same IP address. No one sees what the IP address is but you know that a person sent a mesaage from the same one.

          So just changing a name and posting later pretending to be someone else usually trips up stupid trolls.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 8:55pm

          Re: Re: Re: You mean Laura Loomer

          Weren't you the guy who argued that copyright trumps privacy? Privacy's important all of a sudden?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Rog S., 26 Feb 2019 @ 9:50am

      Re: You mean Laura Loomer

      Thanks for sharing.

      Heres a bagel.

      Stick it in your yap, while you study identity -flagging, and “argument from authority ”, which, these sad days means “argumentum ad Judaica ”

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 2:28pm

    Craig R. Brittain - he isn't a dataset he is a laughing stock. Known for making bank by extorting cash from people over their nudes, he then went on to harass VC's who laughed at his Uber but not enough like Uber to get sued startup, then running (he'd have taken a car but his service had no drivers & well he dislikes having to bike everywhere) for office, to suing Twitter and everyone else for kajillions of dollars because they banned him (and the long list of sock puppet accounts he created & controlled to support his fantasy that he was serious) & then whined because he couldn't ride his bike to the appropriate district to argue his lawsuit.

    Its cute people like to hold him up as a great white hope for poor conservatives, but if you scratch the surface you find him acting in ways they decry others doing & ignoring those facts because he is part of their tribe.

    I've seen him naked, I can't take anything including him seriously.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    keithzg (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 4:37pm

    Someone should do an *actual* study

    I strongly suspect there is some bias in Twitter's banning, although not of the anti-conservative variety, but rather towards less popular accounts. I mean hell, a random Twitter friend of mine just got his account seemingly auto-banned because he tweeted a joke to another friend that their cat was going to "kill [them] dead" . . . which also shows pretty hilariously poor automation, since you'd think even an automated system would realize that "kill you dead" is the formulation of a joke rather than a threat.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      bob, 22 Feb 2019 @ 6:51pm

      Re: Someone should do an *actual* study

      English is your first language isn't it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Feb 2019 @ 8:18pm

      Re: Someone should do an *actual* study

      If there is bias, it isn't the bias anyone suspects. It is the bias caused by wanting to please to everyone & failing to do so. The entire system has become a joke b/c Twitter fell into the 'we have to do something" game. As I've said multiple times Twitter needed to demand people grow up & block or mute things they find offensive. The second you give into the if x people report it nuke it, you get that number of people reporting it. A shitty game of tit for tat grows out of this, with Twitter just giving the timeout first, ask question later.

      I mean seriously does anyone think saying Learn To Code is super offensive?? Yet people got banned, timedout for saying it. Of course if you look closer you'd see it was "payback" towards journalists who told fly-over country people to learn to code if they wanted to succeed or advance when their jobs/industries were failing. So mean that people offended by journalists previously were having a moment of joy when the script flipped and they were being put out of a job... but the punishments were bias against conservatives TAC! Shocking, it was the conservatives who were mocked in the first place & they enjoyed when the same thing happened to those who told them to code... but that offended people so we have to punish all these people... while the group who did it first never was punished.

      If the phrase learn to code offends you so much, there is this feature to mute that statement and you can block people who annoy you....

      But that requires actual thought & not just knee jerk reactions to whoever is whining the loudest...

      But then what do I know, I got timed out for a 3 yr old tweet calling myself faggot while I've seen full on White Supremacist rants untouched (the same goes for some other groups as well but there seems to be different bars for difference races in play).

      When you are catching someone joking their cat is going to kill them, you've completely failed... because while you were working on adding that to the bot you've ignored actual targeted harassment thats been reported 20 times but your backlog is so large because you have to check each report of people offended because someone said a hot dog is not a sandwich.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2019 @ 6:26pm

        Re: Re: Someone should do an *actual* study

        I seem to remember someone on twitter talking about being suspended for calling themselves that.

        Wonder if it's the same person who posted that story here?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That Anonymous Coward (profile), 23 Feb 2019 @ 8:18pm

          Re: Re: Re: Someone should do an *actual* study

          Its happened to a few people... I'm just the loudmouth who hangs out here & yelled about it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Feb 2019 @ 8:21pm

    twitter blocker, facebook blocker, urlblocker

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2019 @ 6:06am

    What I find amazing is ...

    What I find amazing is that anyone takes any of these arguments seriously. The difference between the Conservative view and the Liberal view is that the Liberal view has become based on hatred. Racial hatred, sexual orientation hatred, old/young hatred, hatred hatred hatred.

    There is no doubt that the liberal party has changed over the last few years. There is also no doubt that the Conservative party has changed as well. The Conservative party (Republicans) now includes libertarians in large part, because the Liberal (Democratic) party doesn’t want them. Just look at Alan Dershowitz as an example.

    Personally, I think the Democrats with their “intersectional” definition of Hatred will burn itself out. It doesn’t matter how much Twitter bans conservatives, or Facebook, or even Techdirt. Conservatives have a superior world view, basically because it is not based on hatred.

    Jews are worth hating according to Farracon, who is not banned. People who had slaves are worth hating. People who wear blackface are worth hating (wtf?). Blackface? Wow, that’s a crime now.

    The picture that the liberals are painting of America is worth hating, that’s for sure. There is no America where MAGA hat wearing white boys are putting nooses around anyone’s neck - that’s an absurd fantasy. If you hate America, and you hate White people, and you hate Old people, and you hate Jewish people, you’re either a liberal or a nutcase.

    Maybe both.

    Anyone with an ounce of sense sees what’s going on. It’s a farce, it’s people like Bezos the clown trying to incite hatred and promote violence and discord. It’s not who we are or who we want to be. I hope he gets sued into oblivion, along with the rest of the misguided idiots who promote such time-wasting enterprises.

    And yes, I think Techdirt sucks, too. The writing here is ridiculous and absurd. Outlandish. Outrageous. Humorous, silly and kind of fun to critique. Enjoyable, actually. Fun, in a perverse kind of way. Death threats? I don’t think so, any more than Smollett received “threats”. It’s all a farce.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Toom1275 (profile), 23 Feb 2019 @ 6:22am

      Re: What I find amazing is ...

      [asserts facts not in existence]

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2019 @ 9:01am

      Re: What I find amazing is ...

      How much hate does it take to ban gay couples from your bakery?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2019 @ 9:52am

        Re: Re: What I find amazing is ...

        How much selective enforcement of an ostensibly neutral policy does it take to constitute censorship?

        I've had people claim they were outside of my home ready to shoot me, or were on their way there to kill me, yet their Twitter accounts survived unscathed. I've seen the same thing happen to others. The bias is real.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2019 @ 10:09am

          Re: Re: Re: What I find amazing is ...

          Great way to deflect the question:

          How much hate does it take to ban gay couples from your bakery?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2019 @ 2:44pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: What I find amazing is ...

            Loaded question, as it presumes that being anti-gay is "hating" someone rather than an act.

            Women have no problem using violent men against "creeps" who hit on them or pretend to want just friendship. They say men are "toxic" yet this logic seems not to be applied with regard to straight men who endure the same behavior from gay men, except the gay men are presumed not to be interested.

            Liberals define many things as "hate" which are not defined the same way for conservatives. That is bias.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              nasch (profile), 23 Feb 2019 @ 2:51pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I find amazing is ...

              They say men are "toxic" yet this logic seems not to be applied with regard to straight men who endure the same behavior from gay men, except the gay men are presumed not to be interested.

              Am I the only one who doesn't understand this sentence?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Toom1275 (profile), 23 Feb 2019 @ 3:06pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I find amazing is ...

                Apply a sufficiently copious amount of hammers (the tool) and screwdrivers (the drink) and eventually you might think there's something in there to understand.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2019 @ 6:24pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I find amazing is ...

                I'm sure there's a lot you don't understand.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2019 @ 6:25pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I find amazing is ...

                If women have to worry about unwanted sexual advances from creepy straight men, would straight men not also have to worry about unwanted sexual advances from creepy gay men who can also pretend to be straight?

                Either they should, since gays and straights are equals, or gay men are superior (and therefore not equal to) straight men.

                Which is it?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  nasch (profile), 23 Feb 2019 @ 6:47pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I find amazing is ...

                  If women have to worry about unwanted sexual advances from creepy straight men, would straight men not also have to worry about unwanted sexual advances from creepy gay men who can also pretend to be straight?

                  Without doing any research into the matter, I would think the difference is women are more worried about unwanted advances from men because of A) the greater possibility of physical intimidation or assault, B) there are way more straight men than gay men and C) it's still more socially acceptable for a man to hit on a woman than on a man and therefore more likely.

                  Either they should, since gays and straights are equals, or gay men are superior (and therefore not equal to) straight men.

                  Which is it?

                  Well I think I just demonstrated that your question is a false dichotomy by showing several other possible reasons why the situations could be different besides the two that you presented.

                  Also, why would a gay man hitting on another man pretend to be straight?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2019 @ 12:48am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I find amazing is ...

                    In the Liberal framework, every minority is superior. Extra points if you are “intersectional”, like gay and black. WItness Smollett.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2019 @ 8:19am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I find amazing is ...

                    It's more likely for a man to OPENLY hit on a woman. Gay men cloak and can get much closer while still "under the radar." If straight men are so predatory, and straight men and gay men are equals, that would make gay men equally predatory.

                    Women can get other men to be violent on their behalf. Much "male violence" is rooted in some dispute over a woman. Women talk about "incel" violence without noting that many workplace shootings of innocent co-workers happened because some ex was hunting his lover down at her job.

                    If the standards for "homophobia" were applied equally, straight women would be "heterophobic." If the standards for dealing with unwanted advances from straight men were applied to unwanted advances from gay men, the consequences of such an advance would become much more severe for the "creepy" homosexual.

                    Most men don't realize that half or more of their male friends may very well be gay. The numbers won't reflect the population because gay men specifically target straight men, particularly the ones ignored by women.

                    In an attempt to make this more on-topic, Twitter should get out of the censorship business OR just admit they have a bias. If they want to be biased, that's fine, because some other internet company will step in to the market, but if they want to market themselves as promoting an open exchange, they should allow a post like this, when odds are they would not.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      nasch (profile), 24 Feb 2019 @ 11:27am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I find amazing is ...

                      It's more likely for a man to OPENLY hit on a woman...

                      So where the hell are you getting all this information? This sounds like four paragraphs of unsourced crap from r/redpill.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2019 @ 6:03pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I find amazing is .

                        I understand him without any problem, and I think he is right on point.

                        It really is hilarious to hear criticism of “unsourced crap” on this “unsourced crap” (crap is often in the headline) and extremely biased website.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          nasch (profile), 24 Feb 2019 @ 6:40pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I find amazing

                          So you can't back any of it up.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2019 @ 1:41am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I find amaz

                            Much “male violence” is rooted in some dispute over a woman.

                            You might not be familiar with that,unless you’ve actually had a relationship with a woman.

                            Which I doubt.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2019 @ 1:44am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I find amaz

                            You are Mr. “Sick burn bro”, right? Are you gay? Or are you 12?

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              nasch (profile), 25 Feb 2019 @ 11:43am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I find

                              You are Mr. “Sick burn bro”, right? Are you gay? Or are you 12?

                              I was going to explain what you misunderstood, but I guess the fact that you seem to think "gay" is an insult speaks for itself. Unless I have misunderstood what you mean when you ask me if I'm gay, in which case pardon me.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2019 @ 9:02pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I f

                                I didn’t say that gay was bad. And you didnd’t Answer the question. You write like a child.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • icon
                                  nasch (profile), 26 Feb 2019 @ 11:49am

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What

                                  OK, I'll pretend your question was sincere. I am neither gay nor 12.

                                  You write like a child.

                                  Another amazing example of your quick witted repartee. Truly cutting.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2019 @ 9:28pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I find amazing is ...

              How much hate does it take to start pizzagate?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2019 @ 1:40pm

        Re: Re: What I find amazing is ...

        Name one bakery which has BANNED gay couples. I bet if you can find one it's gonna be Muslim owned.

        The bakery which you are thinking of did not ban gays people, it refused to write a message on a cake congratulating their wedding. That is a clear first amendment issue. Gay couples are still welcome to shop there and order any messages they like that do not require the bakery to violate their beliefs in the writing.

        Or, well, they would be if the bakery hadn't been forced to shut down by the hate mob.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2019 @ 6:07pm

          Re: Re: Re: What I find amazing is ...

          They can hate the bakers for not baking. They can hate white people on behalf of generations past (even the good slave owners, which were many). They can hate the MAGA hat wearing noose bearing bleachers (imaginary, of course). They can HATE you because someone HATES them. Basically, that’s the equation. Round up every low frequency societal group, remind them that once THEY felt hated (which is often integral to their identity), so they should HATE the HATERS more.

          Welcome to the Democratic Party, Hate Squared. That’s the equation.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 23 Feb 2019 @ 9:57am

      You read InfoWars, don’t you, Squidward?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 23 Feb 2019 @ 2:37pm

      Re: What I find amazing is ...

      The difference between the Conservative view and the Liberal view is that the Liberal view has become based on hatred. Racial hatred, sexual orientation hatred, old/young hatred, hatred hatred hatred.

      Voted funny. Sad, but still funny.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2019 @ 10:56am

    Minimum

    "At minimum, platforms could do a lot better at being transparent in their enforcement and governance decisions."

    No, "at minimum," they could tell us all that governance decisions and the enforcement thereof are only as transparent as they wish, since the company is privately held, not a governmental agency or public utility. If they want to pretend to give more of a damn than that, it's above minimum.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Feb 2019 @ 2:40pm

      Re: Minimum

      If they "wish" to be seen as supporting freedom of speech, they give that up when they refuse to be transparent.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    John Bornfer, 23 Feb 2019 @ 11:25am

    Is kevin hart the actor banned on Twitter for all his gay joked

    NO BECAUSE HE IS PART OF THE LEFT AND HATE IS OK ON TWITTER FROM THE LEFT. Techdirt has good articles but there political bias shows here in this article. Truth is truth

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Joe Bashworth, 23 Feb 2019 @ 11:31am

    What about LEFTIST Rep Omar said about Jews

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    George Barner, 24 Feb 2019 @ 10:17am

    So Diamond and Silk who are African American were banned!!!

    All Diamond and Silk who are on YouTube was support Trump were African American got banned on both Facebook and twitter. So there white supremisist huh techdirt. Give me a break, your article shows your TRUE POLITICS. Go vote for Obama again who gave us SOPA and the Trans Pacific Partnership which would have hurt the Net. Your just a bunch of leftist and your article proves it

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Rog S., 24 Feb 2019 @ 7:30pm

    re: ~Let’s not get these things mixed up.

    And this, preceded by what amounts to a classic ADL -ish smear of a group of people.

    And, as Israeli apartheid and their hasbara troll factories and associated racist, genocidal zionists get not a single blip of media attention.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2019 @ 3:38am

      Re:

      Sure they do, they get regularly smeared by idiots like yourself, who call their legitimate attempts to defend themselves from terrorism, invasion, and actual genocidal campaigns "genocide" and "racism."

      Quick question: which side is it who has repeatedly, openly asserted in the media that the other side has no right to exist and ought to be driven into the sea?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Hasbara troll #145279365821458, 26 Feb 2019 @ 8:22pm

    I think its the Israeli fascists, racists, and murderers, and their zionazis who are winning, in case I havent made myself clear.

    To be even more precise: what a shithole Israel is, because it is the embodiment of Abrahamuc supremacy, and the Jewish -christian -islamic mental disorder.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Digitari, 27 Feb 2019 @ 4:56am

    Transgender are born that way, like the LGBTQ? Aren't pedophiles born that way too?

    asking for a friend....

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.