[Chicken, He Clucked]

So we require integrity and common decency from actors personal Twitter accounts, but not from their detractors.

The idea that Leslie's use of "white people" in previous tweets is somehow equivocal to targetted racist abuse by an organisation that is inherently racist, is ludicrous and contemptible.

[SpaceBallz]

When you chose to be a public figure and do a film that children will be watching, that comes with responsibility. You don't engage in twitter wars with random trolls using fake accounts. What if Johnny Depp started acting inappropriately during one of his Disney film productions?

Oh, wait...

http://www.chattsportsnet.com/featured/ ... vorce/582/
http://www.australianetworknews.com/pir ... me-rumors/

[Ron Daniels]

The author of the reply tweeted that it was fake. His account is also suspended.

So my thoughts on that gem are that people are close to subjecting themselves to civil liability for harassing tweets.

I'll take your word for it but can I ask not having used Twitter myself how does one fake a tweet and make it look real like here? I'm curious to know how they do it.

I'm guessing this one was done by use of Photoshop or another image editor. There are websites that allow you to make prank tweets, google how to fake a tweet for a list, but the giveaway is the taking a picture of a screen.

But taking a picture if the screen, rather than print screen, you pickup background noise and glare that takes away from imperfections.

[Scum]

So we require integrity and common decency from actors personal Twitter accounts, but not from their detractors.

The idea that Leslie's use of "white people" in previous tweets is somehow equivocal to targetted racist abuse by an organisation that is inherently racist, is ludicrous and contemptible.

Nobody is trying to equate the two. What (at least I) have been trying to get through to people on here is that she has a reputation of making racist tweets.

An organisation? What organisation? I wasn't aware that all of the internet trolls were part of some giant organisation.

Why are you trying to dilute the facts here? Leslie made racist tweets in the past. The trolls made racist tweets at her. What is so hard to understand?

Again, I'm not trying to equate the two, but in a realistic sense... Yes, they are kind of equatable to a certain extent. If one guy yells fire in a movie theater, or twenty-five people yell fire in a movie theater... isn't it still wrong?

When you chose to be a public figure and do a film that children will be watching, that comes with responsibility. You don't engage in twitter wars with random trolls using fake accounts.

Exactly. Even though Twitter is meant for adults, we all know kids find a way onto these sites. You don't see any of the other stars from the original or reboot on social media using profanity or getting involved in this nonsense. She played with fire and obviously couldn't handle it.

My point still stand and I find it funny everyone seems to be glossing over it. If the "abuse" gets to you that much... DON'T GO ON TWITTER! It's not like we're talking about an essential function here. It's a stupid social media site with a reputation for these kinds of things.

[Chicken, He Clucked]

Nobody is trying to equate the two. What (at least I) have been trying to get through to people on here is that she has a reputation of making racist tweets.

She has a reputation of using the term white people in the same way many black stand-up comedians do. Her tweets aren't in the same league as spamming an individual with gorilla pictures. That's some Django Unchained Leonardo DiCaprio level racism.

An organisation? What organisation? I wasn't aware that all of the internet trolls were part of some giant organisation.

In which case I don't think you know the full facts. Brietbart. Alt-right. 4Chan. This abuse was politicised by a regressive, racist, anti-feminist far right movement. That's what Milo's involvement was all about.

Why are you trying to dilute the facts here? Leslie made racist tweets in the past. The trolls made racist tweets at her. What is so hard to understand?

I am establishing the fact you're glossing over, which is there was a difference in severity and volume.
You're comparing someone allegedly making sporadic, broadly racist tweets (and tbh I don't believe L Jones is racist), to hundreds of people making specific, co-ordinated, personal racist tweets attacking one individual.

If one guy yells fire in a movie theater, or twenty-five people yell fire in a movie theater... isn't it still wrong?

Of course, but that isn't remotely the same as what happened. What do Leslie Jones' allegedly racist historic tweets have to do with what happened last month? You think it's an injustice Milo was banned from Twitter and not her? Then you haven't been following or understanding what Milo is or has been doing for the past few years.

Exactly. Even though Twitter is meant for adults, we all know kids find a way onto these sites. If the "abuse" gets to you that much... DON'T GO ON TWITTER! She played with fire and obviously couldn't handle it.

I get trolls have been around on the internet for as long as I can remember. And as a teenage guy you get a thick skin to it. But that doesn't make it ok. We have social media now. Simply saying "That's how it is, don't like it leave!" isn't a way to make the situation better. If you think it was just kids perpetuating the abuse you are mistaken.

In what kind of topsy turvy world should we be ok with racist trolls using a social media platform, but tell victims of abuse they need to leave if they can't take it. No-one should have to handle these idiots.

You don't see any of the other stars from the original or reboot on social media using profanity or getting involved in this nonsense.

Remind me what colour their skin is again?

Leslie Jones was targetted specifically by Milo when the casting was announced. And the haters latched on to the idea her character was a racial stereotype from the trailer to scapegoat their abuse. And later claim she was a racist to distract from their racism. That's what they do and that's why she was targetted.

It's a stupid social media site with a reputation for these kinds of things.

So a good job they banned Milo and are trying to clear some of the trolls away!

[Scum]

Nobody is trying to equate the two. What (at least I) have been trying to get through to people on here is that she has a reputation of making racist tweets.

She has a reputation of using the term white people in the same way many black stand-up comedians do. Her tweets aren't in the same league as spamming an individual with gorilla pictures. That's some Django Unchained Leonardo DiCaprio level racism.

An organisation? What organisation? I wasn't aware that all of the internet trolls were part of some giant organisation.

In which case I don't think you know the full facts. Brietbart. Alt-right. 4Chan. This abuse was politicised by a regressive, racist, anti-feminist far right movement. That's what Milo's involvement was all about.

Why are you trying to dilute the facts here? Leslie made racist tweets in the past. The trolls made racist tweets at her. What is so hard to understand?

I am establishing the fact you're glossing over, which is there was a difference in severity and volume.
You're comparing someone allegedly making sporadic, broadly racist tweets (and tbh I don't believe L Jones is racist), to hundreds of people making specific, co-ordinated, personal racist tweets attacking one individual.

If one guy yells fire in a movie theater, or twenty-five people yell fire in a movie theater... isn't it still wrong?

Of course, but that isn't remotely the same as what happened. What do Leslie Jones' allegedly racist historic tweets have to do with what happened last month? You think it's an injustice Milo was banned from Twitter and not her? Then you haven't been following or understanding what Milo is or has been doing for the past few years.

Exactly. Even though Twitter is meant for adults, we all know kids find a way onto these sites. If the "abuse" gets to you that much... DON'T GO ON TWITTER! She played with fire and obviously couldn't handle it.

I get trolls have been around on the internet for as long as I can remember. And as a teenage guy you get a thick skin to it. But that doesn't make it ok. We have social media now. Simply saying "That's how it is, don't like it leave!" isn't a way to make the situation better. If you think it was just kids perpetuating the abuse you are mistaken.

In what kind of topsy turvy world should we be ok with racist trolls using a social media platform, but tell victims of abuse they need to leave if they can't take it. No-one should have to handle these idiots.

You don't see any of the other stars from the original or reboot on social media using profanity or getting involved in this nonsense.

Remind me what colour their skin is again?

Leslie Jones was targetted specifically by Milo when the casting was announced. And the haters latched on to the idea her character was a racial stereotype from the trailer to scapegoat their abuse. And later claim she was a racist to distract from their racism. That's what they do and that's why she was targetted.

It's a stupid social media site with a reputation for these kinds of things.

So a good job they banned Milo and are trying to clear some of the trolls away!

Yes, she has a reputation for saying "white people". If you look up the definition of the word "racism" and then look at some of her tweets, or some of the things black stand up comedians say it's STILL racism. Racism is to lump everyone into one stereo-type based on skin color. Leslie saying "white people problems" or "ya'll white girls look the same" IS racist. No matter what spin or excuse you try to make, it is racism.

I'm very familiar with Milo, Brietbart and this so called "alt-right". I've been following Milo and "gays for Trump" just as closely as I've been following Clinton Cash, the DNC rigging of the primary elections, Brexit, FOX news being a democratic owned controlled opposition, etc. I am very well informed on these subjects. It's my #1 hobby.

I don't think Leslie should be banned, but no, I don't think Milo should have been banned either. It's a double standard. Milo didn't tweet pictures of gorillas or anything like that. He negatively reviewed the movie. Milo had a target on his back because the owner and operator of Twitter doesn't agree with his politics. That's why he was banned. NOT because of anything he said to Leslie. Again, trust me when I say I understand what's going on, I've been following Milo for years.

That's how it starts. Ban the people we don't agree with. Nerf the world. It's thought policing.
You don't see pro-ISIS twitters getting shut down to this extreme? I see people post things about killing cops every day on twitter and facebook. Yet, for some reason, these things are ok? I don't think those accounts should be banned either, I don't think anyone should be banned. WORDS are not ACTIONS. I've been punched in the face a multitude of times, I've also been made fun of a teased. I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt, getting physically assaulted is on a whole different level. "safe spaces" and "micro-agressions" are the worst thing to even happen in our country.

Why does the color of their skin matter? Isn't that statement in and of itself racist? The movie "white girls" is the most racist piece of "art" in recent memory. People ate it up. Because it's cool to make fun of white people. Make fun of blacks? RACIST!
So... your saying it's only possible for a black person to be stereo-typed? What? Milo targeted all four of them. He called them "ugly, fat, ugly, fat." that is hardly targeting one person. Yes in his review he says "Leslie was the worst of the bunch, embodying the stereotypical black woman." Was he totally wrong in this assessment? Is he now not allowed to make his opinion known, much like you and I are making our opinions known?

Point is, yeah I understand Twitter, Gbfans, Facebook, all of these public forums and websites are private entities. They can ban whoever they want for whatever reason they want. That is fine, I will not dispute these facts. BUT when people start getting banned for one thing but other people don't get banned for far worse things, a problem presents itself.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press...
Freedom of speech. And before you try to say freedom of speech only represents talking out against the government, I suggest you (or anyone with that theory of belief) take a long hard look at the the first amendment. "Freedom of speech shall not be abridged." Abridge = (1)shorten (a book, movie, speech, or other text) without losing the sense. (2)Curtail (rights or privileges).

[JurorNo.2]

"ya'll white girls look the same"

That kind of thing is said as an ironic play on pre-existing bigoted views.

Yes in his review he says "Leslie was the worst of the bunch, embodying the stereotypical black woman." Was he totally wrong in this assessment? Is he now not allowed to make his opinion known, much like you and I are making our opinions known?

I'm sure it was more his calling an African American "barely literate" that got him banned. People outside the US don't always realize how touchy a subject that is.

And he should realize that just because a character is a stereotype doesn't mean it's a racist depiction. Racist implies you think lesser of a group of people. But just pointing out that cultural mannerisms and quirks exist, that to me is not bigotry. Everyone has some kind of ethnicity and/or culture.

You don't see pro-ISIS twitters getting shut down to this extreme?

I do agree with you on this point. Unless they're maybe being monitored, I don't know why those people are allowed to continue posting.

[Scum]

"ya'll white girls look the same"

That kind of thing is said as an ironic play on pre-existing bigoted views.

Yes in his review he says "Leslie was the worst of the bunch, embodying the stereotypical black woman." Was he totally wrong in this assessment? Is he now not allowed to make his opinion known, much like you and I are making our opinions known?

I'm sure it was more his calling an African American "barely literate" that got him banned. People outside the US don't always realize how touchy a subject that is.

And he should realize that just because a character is a stereotype doesn't mean it's a racist depiction. Racist implies you think lesser of a group of people. But just pointing out that cultural mannerisms and quirks exist, that to me is not bigotry. Everyone has some kind of ethnicity and/or culture.

You don't see pro-ISIS twitters getting shut down to this extreme?

I do agree with you on this point. Unless they're maybe being monitored, I don't know why those people are allowed to continue posting.

Juror, you continue to be my best friend on these forums.

[JurorNo.2]

Yay, free candy! (It's free, right?)

[Scum]

Yay, free candy! (It's free, right?)

...I'll split it with ya?

[JurorNo.2]

Yay, free candy! (It's free, right?)

...I'll split it with ya?

You're not sleeping with it, are you? (Sorry, lol.)

[Scum]

...I'll split it with ya?

You're not sleeping with it, are you? (Sorry, lol.)

It's always the quiet ones.

[JurorNo.2]

You're not sleeping with it, are you? (Sorry, lol.)

It's always the quiet ones.

::clears throat::

[Sav C]

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press...
Freedom of speech. And before you try to say freedom of speech only represents talking out against the government, I suggest you (or anyone with that theory of belief) take a long hard look at the the first amendment. "Freedom of speech shall not be abridged." Abridge = (1)shorten (a book, movie, speech, or other text) without losing the sense. (2)Curtail (rights or privileges).

I've gone around acting like this applied to me my whole life, but I've got to be careful since I don't actually have freedom of speech: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/tom-kott/f ... 24999.html

[Scum]

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press...
Freedom of speech. And before you try to say freedom of speech only represents talking out against the government, I suggest you (or anyone with that theory of belief) take a long hard look at the the first amendment. "Freedom of speech shall not be abridged." Abridge = (1)shorten (a book, movie, speech, or other text) without losing the sense. (2)Curtail (rights or privileges).

I've gone around acting like this applied to me my whole life, but I've got to be careful since I don't actually have freedom of speech: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/tom-kott/f ... 24999.html

I forget the name of the stand-up comedian, but I know there was some massive hub bub about some comedian getting into a WORLD of trouble for saying something on stage in Canada.

[Ron Daniels]

Point is, yeah I understand Twitter, Gbfans, Facebook, all of these public forums and websites are private entities. They can ban whoever they want for whatever reason they want. That is fine, I will not dispute these facts. BUT when people start getting banned for one thing but other people don't get banned for far worse things, a problem presents itself.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press...
Freedom of speech. And before you try to say freedom of speech only represents talking out against the government, I suggest you (or anyone with that theory of belief) take a long hard look at the the first amendment. "Freedom of speech shall not be abridged." Abridge = (1)shorten (a book, movie, speech, or other text) without losing the sense. (2)Curtail (rights or privileges).

I get your sentiment, I really do. But there is no problem with selective enforcement on a private website. You can't enforce a violation of the First Amendment vis-a-vis a USC 1983 claim or otherwise. You have no rights on a private website and the reason is two-fold: 1) you freely contract away those rights by agreeing to the terms of service (and no one reads them) and 2) the First Amendment precludes Congress (and the States) from making any law to restrict free speech (which has been caveated by the Supreme Court) and is inapplicable to private entities.

[Chicken, He Clucked]

Yes, she has a reputation for saying "white people". If you look up the definition of the word "racism" and then look at some of her tweets, or some of the things black stand up comedians say it's STILL racism. Racism is to lump everyone into one stereo-type based on skin color. Leslie saying "white people problems" or "ya'll white girls look the same" IS racist. No matter what spin or excuse you try to make, it is racism.

Some of things a lot of people say could be classed as racism, it depends on the context. Also observational stereotyping isn't strictly racist. Racism is, by definition, a belief that attributes render one race superior or inferior to another. But you have to understand the context where black people were enslaved by white people for centuries. Context. That's what progressiveness is. A social course correction. It's about challenging prejudices and empowering minorities. I have a friend who says white people can't dance. That's not racist. The second part of the definition is 'prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior', this is what was happening to Leslie Jones and many ethnic minorities still have to tolerate at the hands of white people. Historically this far outweighs that which white people have suffered. That's not the same as saying black racism against whites is ok, either. But you need to take context into consideration also. Why is this relevant? You think Milo and the trolls were combating racism by targeting her? No, of course not, they were themselves being racist.

I'm very familiar with Milo, Brietbart and this so called "alt-right". I've been following Milo and "gays for Trump" just as closely as I've been following Clinton Cash, the DNC rigging of the primary elections, Brexit, FOX news being a democratic owned controlled opposition, etc. I am very well informed on these subjects. It's my #1 hobby.

I don't think Leslie should be banned, but no, I don't think Milo should have been banned either. It's a double standard. Milo didn't tweet pictures of gorillas or anything like that. He negatively reviewed the movie. Milo had a target on his back because the owner and operator of Twitter doesn't agree with his politics. That's why he was banned. NOT because of anything he said to Leslie. Again, trust me when I say I understand what's going on, I've been following Milo for years.

Do you know who else says "Trust me, I know" but then spouts utter bilge? D. Trump. Do you subscribe to Alex Jones too?

If you truly followed Milo, you'd know that he has an agenda against feminism, ethnic minorities, islam and that his far right group is recruiting huge swathes of socially inept and angry videogamers and geeks into his alt right organisation, exploiting their insecurities to organise them against various boogeymen, politically-motivated targets, under the guise of righteous trolling and free speech. Milo himself has very little faith in his convictions, he just says what gets him followers, money and power. When Leslie Jones was cast in GB he was calling her a big black man. She was targeted by him.

There was no double standard, Milo wasn't banned for posting a Ghostbusters review, he was banned because he libeled Leslie Jones and rallied his followers against her. He was very good at staying technically within the rules of Twitter to orchestrate harrassment campaigns. Nobody was stopping Milo expressing his political opinion, but he wasn't content with doing that, because his political opinion is vile. He refers to himself as 'alt-right' nothing so-called about it. I'm from Britain, so I dare say I know more about Milo than you do, I've seen him here on our TV guest shows, praising his followers for attacking a fellow guest and stating women have nothing of value to contribute to society. The guy is a joke. Twitter gave him a ton of chances to reign in his toxic behaviour but he kept pushing it, and tweeting fake tweets of Leslie Jones being racist and homophobic, (accusing your target of hurling the abuse you are yourself perpetrating) is libel.
Why would I trust you when your conclusions are incredibly naive?

That's how it starts. Ban the people we don't agree with. Nerf the world. It's thought policing.

I agree freedom of speech should be protected above all else. A May government in the UK gives me major concerns. But what happened to Milo wasn't an infringement of free speech. Twitter lets tons of conservatives use it's platform. Conservatives making out like they're under attack from Twitter is just political rhetoric. The freedom to abuse and harrass on a privately owned platform is not a constitutionally protected right.

You don't see pro-ISIS twitters getting shut down to this extreme?

You do. There are lots. And some of them may be being monitored. And usually those supporters are posting viles stuff but aren't harrassing individual accounts.

I see people post things about killing cops every day on twitter and facebook.

And I see people post things about coprs killing black people. Amazing how differently we see the world, right? #BlackLivesMatter doesn't mean cops lives don't matter, however Milo and the right want you to think.

Yet, for some reason, these things are ok?

Disingeuous. Twitter have never said these things are ok.

WORDS are not ACTIONS.

No, but organised misogyny, racism, abuse and libel are not welcomed on a privately owned social media platform, especially when you disagree with the politics of it's owner.

I've been punched in the face a multitude of times

Ummm... Sweet?

I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt, getting physically assaulted is on a whole different level. "safe spaces" and "micro-agressions" are the worst thing to even happen in our country.

So what you learned was physical abuse is a lot worse than verbal abuse... so safe space from verbal abuse is the worst thing to ever happen to your country? Great logic. Was it one of those "triggered SJW'S" who punched you in the face?

Why does the color of their skin matter?

All the other actors are white.

Isn't that statement in and of itself racist?

No of course it f'ing isn't.

The movie "white girls" is the most racist piece of "art" in recent memory. People ate it up. Because it's cool to make fun of white people. Make fun of blacks? RACIST!

Again, read a history book and understand the importance of context. Also... who the hell 'ate up' White Girls... It was critically panned and widely regarded as a terrible film with an awful premise. But there's a comedic difference between a white person "blacking-up" - which has derogatory racist historical connotations of the b&w minstrels, compared to what the Wayans did. For a start the logistics of a black guy "whiting-up" - something which has never happened historically, is extremely difficult without prosthetics, and the film swaps their genders as well. That absurdity is played for comedic effect and observational ribbing of white valley girls (from memory, i've only seen part of the film). Your logic is missing context. Also be careful when comparing a comedian's material, which exists separately to their own political views, with the words of a journalist with a racially-motivated political agenda.

Milo targeted all four of them. He called them "ugly, fat, ugly, fat." that is hardly targeting one person.

How physcially attractive would he rate the original four - I'm sure he vocalised this too, right? Anyway, sounds like a great guy, what are his politics. Can I sign up?

Yes in his review he says "Leslie was the worst of the bunch, embodying the stereotypical black woman." Was he totally wrong in this assessment?

Yes.

Is he now not allowed to make his opinion known, much like you and I are making our opinions known?

Yes, making your opinion known is not libeling people as racists and homophobes, and setting your 300k racist 4chan followers on them.

BUT when people start getting banned for one thing but other people don't get banned for far worse things, a problem presents itself.

The solution isn't to unban the person who did the one thing.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution

Sorry, British, couldn't give a hoot.

[JurorNo.2]

recruiting huge swathes of socially inept and angry videogamers and geeks into his alt right organisation, exploiting their insecurities to organise them against various boogeymen, politically-motivated targets, under the guise of righteous trolling and free speech.

I can speak to this regarding a friend of mine. He was a hard luck guy and the MRA stuff really fed into that, made him increasingly bitter and paranoid. His sense of humor was all but gone after awhile, everything was one big outrage. It was upsetting to watch it happen.

Btw, yes, I have had feminazi friends too, and yes, they can be just as annoying to live with. Anytime you let an ideology define your life to that extent, there's going to be trouble, IMO.

[Scum]

First of all, I've gotta get better at pulling single quotes for the sake of sanity. That being said, let's go!

Some of things a lot of people say could be classed as racism, it depends on the context. Also observational stereotyping isn't strictly racist. Racism is, by definition, a belief that attributes render one race superior or inferior to another. But you have to understand the context where black people were enslaved by white people for centuries. Context. That's what progressiveness is. A social course correction. It's about challenging prejudices and empowering minorities. I have a friend who says white people can't dance. That's not racist. The second part of the definition is 'prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior', this is what was happening to Leslie Jones and many ethnic minorities still have to tolerate at the hands of white people. Historically this far outweighs that which white people have suffered. That's not the same as saying black racism against whites is ok, either. But you need to take context into consideration also. Why is this relevant? You think Milo and the trolls were combating racism by targeting her? No, of course not, they were themselves being racist.

The context that black people were enslaved by white people? Why does everyone leave out the fact that the black people were SOLD BY OTHER BLACK PEOPLE to the white "slave masters"? Or the fact that Jews were enslaved? Or the Irish? NOBODY has had an easy road, all races colors and creeds have had to deal with adversity. It's not an excuse anymore. I'm sorry, I know it's an unpopular belief. You want to know who has the right to call oppression? Muslim homosexuals.
You're right though, they weren't combating racism, but neither was Leslie. All in all I think my original point still does stand. She had a history of saying racist shit regardless of context. Two wrongs don't make a right. Perhaps this point we just won't see eye to eye on, which is fine.

Do you know who else says "Trust me, I know" but then spouts utter bilge? D. Trump. Do you subscribe to Alex Jones too?
If you truly followed Milo, you'd know that he has an agenda against feminism, ethnic minorities, islam and that his far right group is recruiting huge swathes of socially inept and angry videogamers and geeks into his alt right organisation, exploiting their insecurities to organise them against various boogeymen, politically-motivated targets, under the guise of righteous trolling and free speech. Milo himself has very little faith in his convictions, he just says what gets him followers, money and power. When Leslie Jones was cast in GB he was calling her a big black man. She was targeted by him.

There was no double standard, Milo wasn't banned for posting a Ghostbusters review, he was banned because he libeled Leslie Jones and rallied his followers against her. He was very good at staying technically within the rules of Twitter to orchestrate harrassment campaigns. Nobody was stopping Milo expressing his political opinion, but he wasn't content with doing that, because his political opinion is vile. He refers to himself as 'alt-right' nothing so-called about it. I'm from Britain, so I dare say I know more about Milo than you do, I've seen him here on our TV guest shows, praising his followers for attacking a fellow guest and stating women have nothing of value to contribute to society. The guy is a joke. Twitter gave him a ton of chances to reign in his toxic behaviour but he kept pushing it, and tweeting fake tweets of Leslie Jones being racist and homophobic, (accusing your target of hurling the abuse you are yourself perpetrating) is libel.
Why would I trust you when your conclusions are incredibly naive?

I had to look up "bilge", I don't think what I said could be considered rubbish, or naive.I never stated fact or even proposed to state fact. I stated an opinion. And, I didn't find it to be necessary to go into detail about "trust me I know." I didn't want to hit you and the rest of the forum with a wall of text. But if it's proof that I at least have an idea of what I'm talking about, I'll provide it.
If you can say "I'm from Britain, so I dare say I know more about Milo than you do". Then I'll use that same argument.
"Feminism = Cancer" - is not anti-feminist. It's the so called "third wave feminism." The theory here is that feminism has turned into misandry masquerading as feminism. Instead of turning women into strong and equal, it has turned strong women into victims. Do I agree completely? No, but when you actually do some research and find out the actual theory of belief behind this "movement", it starts to make sense.
The "anti-minority" stance is not an anti-minority stance at all. It's mostly, at least from what I've seen lately, against Black Lives Matter. Which, when you look at the facts starts to hold at least a little bit of water. I'll use your argument, "I'm from America, I live in New Jersey. I work in New York, D.C., Baltimore, Boston, North Carolina, and Connecticut.. I have seen first hand BLM protests, sat in traffic, lost days worth of pay. I have been personally effected. Majority of these protesters don't even know what their protesting, spout about killing cops and whatnot. I understand Milo's stance on this wholeheartedly.
Islam. Even some of the most Liberal and left wing news sources admit Islam is a problem. They (for the most part) are still stuck where Christianity was in the 1600s. They throw gays off of cliffs, keep their women in ninja uniforms and don't let them speak. You can't be a feminist advocate AND be an advocate of Islam. It's just not possible. Again, I'll use your argument again. My brother is a very high ranking official in the U.S. Military. He has spent more time in these Islamic countries, I wouldn't say negative things about Islam if I didn't believe the source, but he validates it, and I believe him.
I stopped listening to Alex Jones about 10 years ago (after he went on a rant about scientists growing babies in cows). I listen to the No Agenda podcast almost exclusively now. The only neutral news source left on the planet.

I agree freedom of speech should be protected above all else. A May government in the UK gives me major concerns. But what happened to Milo wasn't an infringement of free speech. Twitter lets tons of conservatives use it's platform. Conservatives making out like they're under attack from Twitter is just political rhetoric. The freedom to abuse and harrass on a privately owned platform is not a constitutionally protected right.

I implore you to check out the information on Facebook and Twitter censoring Conservative news sources and articles. I didn't want to believe it, but it's true.

I agree though, it's not constitutionally protected, but when twitter sells itself as "the free speech wing of the internet", a certain connotation comes with that.

You do. There are lots. And some of them may be being monitored. And usually those supporters are posting viles stuff but aren't harrassing individual accounts.

Harassment doesn't have to be direct postings. Seeing this nonsense in people's feeds is harassment enough.

And I see people post things about coprs killing black people. Amazing how differently we see the world, right? #BlackLivesMatter doesn't mean cops lives don't matter, however Milo and the right want you to think.

It's just as bad. I see posts about killing Trump, Obama, Clinton, Bush, NONE of it is okay.
It's not that we see the world differently, it's that we're friends with/follow different people. I've been in situations with police where I KNEW if I was a black dude I would have been in cuffs. I know where the BLM movement comes from, and I absolutely sympathize with it and understand it. It's anything thing I've seen first hand.
Dare I use the "I'm from Britain" argument against you again? I've seen the protests and gotten stuck IN the protests a few times now. For the most part the people protesting don't even know what the message is behind it. They just hate cops and yes, white people. I've seen it. It exists.

Disingeuous. Twitter have never said these things are ok.

But the implications of their vast inaction says otherwise.

especially when you disagree with the politics of it's owner.

Exactly what I'm saying. Double standards based on political beliefs.

So what you learned was physical abuse is a lot worse than verbal abuse... so safe space from verbal abuse is the worst thing to ever happen to your country? Great logic. Was it one of those "triggered SJW'S" who punched you in the face?

The punches I've taken have been from a multitude of sources. Hockey, Martial Arts, that time years ago when me and my idiot buddies thought it would be a good idea to start our own "fight club". Sticking up for the chubby little Asian dude back in high school who used to get bullied all the time. I won the fight sticking up for him, and then the kid punch me in the mouth for sticking up for him. You know what I've learned from every fight I was in? "I need to learn how to fight so I don't get my ass kicked again."

Yeah I think "safe spaces" are probably the worst thing to even happen in our world. Name me ONE thing of beauty in this world that hasn't come from strife or adversity? It's important for children to learn they aren't safe, they aren't the center of the universe, and there are other opinions out there. This "safe space" generation doesn't understand the art of rising above adversity and making something of themselves. They're taught to put their fingers in their ears and yell "LALALA", rather than debate and try to understand the other side of said debate. It's funny when you watch Milo's college tour (especially the one in Chicago). THAT is the problem with safe spaces.

All the other actors are white.

Ernie Hudson is white?

No of course it f'ing isn't.

He's a man. Not an "It". That so racist, I'm going to go find myself a safe space. I'm sickened!

Again, read a history book and understand the importance of context. Also... who the hell 'ate up' White Girls... It was critically panned and widely regarded as a terrible film with an awful premise. But there's a comedic difference between a white person "blacking-up" - which has derogatory racist historical connotations of the b&w minstrels, compared to what the Wayans did. For a start the logistics of a black guy "whiting-up" - something which has never happened historically, is extremely difficult without prosthetics, and the film swaps their genders as well. That absurdity is played for comedic effect and observational ribbing of white valley girls (from memory, i've only seen part of the film). Your logic is missing context. Also be careful when comparing a comedian's material, which exists separately to their own political views, with the words of a journalist with a racially-motivated political agenda.

So, a comedian can be blatantly racist but a satirical journalist can't make racial statements? Also,
You're obviously a lot younger than I am, so your view is skewed of this movie as it didn't come out when you were in your teens. We used to get stoned and watch this movie over and over because it as hilarious. I've had this conversation endless times with the black kids I used to get BBQ'd with. They agreed with me, it's racist. We agreed it didn't really matter, it was funny and we understood it. But it was racist. This is coming from black guys and girls. They agreed (and still agree) that we as Americans have moved past this nonsense and should stop using the past as an excuse to make it OK for blacks to be racist against whites. Maybe you don't understand this because you're British?

How physcially attractive would he rate the original four - I'm sure he vocalised this too, right? Anyway, sounds like a great guy, what are his politics. Can I sign up?

I would imagine it would go something like "hot black guy, balding crater face, dick nose fatty, and goofy looking Jew that needs a haircut"

Sorry, British, couldn't give a hoot.

Sorry, American, we don't want to end up like you guys!

[SpaceBallz]

I never quite understood the "It's okay to say racist things as long as it's in proper context" thing. It's a double-edged sword because you don't know who your gonna offend.

[JurorNo.2]

I never quite understood the "It's okay to say racist things as long as it's in proper context" thing.

Because the reason racism is wrong is due to its ugly motivation. So, when people say context, they mean the feelings behind it. And if a comment is just an ironic reaction to racism, it's not the same thing.

It's a double-edged sword because you don't know who your gonna offend.

Oh that I agree with, we all are far too sensitive.

[SpaceBallz]

Is breaking down people's comments sentence-by-sentence for retort a thing now? Not trying to bash how people reply, but I noticed in the last page someone's paragraph was broken down into like 5-6 quoted short replies and each sentence could be taken out of context, whereas the entire comment was put together to make a singular point.

You don't pick apart fillings in a taco and leave an opinion for each ingredient, do you?

[JurorNo.2]

Um, I was just making clear which point I was replying to. ::shrugs::

[Scum]

Is breaking down people's comments sentence-by-sentence for retort a thing now? Not trying to bash how people reply, but I noticed in the last page someone's paragraph was broken down into like 5-6 quoted short replies and each sentence could be taken out of context, whereas the entire comment was put together to make a singular point.

You don't pick apart fillings in a taco and leave an opinion for each ingredient, do you?

It's the same thing we're seeing on the major news networks right now. A 45 minute speech clipped down into 30 seconds, totally out of context. It's like the pictures you see of politicians giving the nazi salute. It's like seriously, you can snap a picture of anyone who waves at a crowd and make it look like their doing the nazi salute!

I never quite understood the "It's okay to say racist things as long as it's in proper context" thing.

Because the reason racism is wrong is due to its ugly motivation. So, when people say context, they mean the feelings behind it. And if a comment is just an ironic reaction to racism, it's not the same thing.

That's thought policing at it's finest right there. I've been told a multitude of times "it's not the intention, it's the action." How can you determine motivations and "feelings"?

[JurorNo.2]

Because the reason racism is wrong is due to its ugly motivation. So, when people say context, they mean the feelings behind it. And if a comment is just an ironic reaction to racism, it's not the same thing.

That's thought policing at it's finest right there. I've been told a multitude of times "it's not the intention, it's the action." How can you determine motivations and "feelings"?

Well I think intentions and actions do matter more than words. And I don't see that as thought policing, I see that as giving people the benefit of the doubt. Words are cheap, clumsy, and easily misunderstood; frankly no one should be judged merely on their words.

[JurorNo.2]

Your know what's interesting? Dan outright says some Trump voters are racists, and Trump (Mr. I Start Feuds with Veterans' Families) hasn't said boo about it to the press. I suspect because Dan was wisely diplomatic about it and made it clear that he didn't think Trump himself was racist, just that he was attracting that type. He may be one of very few public figures to skillfully avoid a Trump feud!

[pferreira1983]

When you chose to be a public figure and do a film that children will be watching, that comes with responsibility. You don't engage in twitter wars with random trolls using fake accounts. What if Johnny Depp started acting inappropriately during one of his Disney film productions?

Oh, wait...

http://www.chattsportsnet.com/featured/ ... vorce/582/
http://www.australianetworknews.com/pir ... me-rumors/

Yeah, I'm not too sure fans should take all the blame with stuff like this.

[JurorNo.2]

When you chose to be a public figure and do a film that children will be watching, that comes with responsibility. You don't engage in twitter wars with random trolls using fake accounts. What if Johnny Depp started acting inappropriately during one of his Disney film productions?

Oh, wait...

http://www.chattsportsnet.com/featured/ ... vorce/582/
http://www.australianetworknews.com/pir ... me-rumors/

Yeah, I'm not too sure fans should take all the blame with stuff like this.

I didn't harass a public figure online, therefore I take no blame.

[pferreira1983]

I didn't harass a public figure online, therefore I take no blame.

What you meant to say was "I didn't harass anyone online therefore I take no blame".

[featofstrength]