Speaking of harassers, as I was in the previous post, everyone’s favorite PR maven and serial libeller, Janet “Judgy Bitch” Bloomfield, has been suspended from Twitter — this time, one hopes, for good, as she’s a prime example of someone using Twitter as a “hate amplifier,” which she has stoked in the past with deliberate and malicious libel. She also made a second account to get around her previous suspension, which one would think would in itself be enough of a TOS violation to justify permanent suspension. The real question isn’t why she was suspended; it’s why she wasn’t suspended for good a long time ago.
EDIT: Removed portions of this post so as not to further inflame the situation.
Your position is quite clear, Wilson. The problem is that Janet’s banning from Twitter is not the result of a conspiracy to silence dissent, it’s about her committing acts of slander and harassment. It’s not that complicated a point.
Ah, right.
So your position is not logically consistent, then. My bad, that’s why I was confused. Have fun moving about in confusing, ill defined circles.
He keeps on with the “silencing” bullshit. She wasn’t silence, she can still spout her vicious libel and slander all she wants, she just can’t do it on Twitter anymore, so please explain to me how she was silenced?
Wilson, insults are not ad hominems. Hate to break it to you. Well, not really, more like hate that I have to break it to you.
It’s… simple, alright. For certain definitions of simple.
It’s also unsupported by any actual logic or evidence. You have not demonstrated “intellectual weakness”, nor have you shown how encouraging Twitter to enforce its own ToS somehow constitutes “oppression” of any sort, let alone the specific varieties we ‘rail against’ here.
Perhaps you should define some of your terms and then show your work. That would be fun. Not as fun as you just fucking right the fuck off would be, of course, but it’s clear that that won’t be happening, sadly.
@Wilson:
We can “address what they say in a logical manner” til our tongues turn blue and the cows come home. We can personally boycott her as much as we like. But she is not in a debate with us. She is instigating harassment. She is acting to harm others, through the platform of twitter. How is it “intellectual weakness” to want to stop that harm?
The reference was just playing off of “silencing” bigots. It wasn’t my best joke in the world, I’ll admit.
But hang on, Wilson, you think voluntarily commenting on a blog and arguing with folks is analogus to being held captive by a serial killer who wants to skin you alive? Please explain, Wilson, I’m starting to become fascinated by your mental process.
@Wilson:
And my (and others’) point is that these aren’t simply idiotic opinions. They are harassment. Simply mocking or ignoring the harassment doesn’t stop the damage they cause.
JB will claim martyrdom no matter what happens, with no legitimacy for anyone besides her rabid fans. That shouldn’t be relevant at all to the current discussion.
Hey, Wilson, could you maybe combine multiple points that you’re attempting to make into one email? Because I just looked at the sidebar and damn, dude, it’s all you. That’s not a good way to make a positive first impression.
Or one comment, rather. Please don’t email me, or David, or anyone else here.
So she’ll argue it’s a conspiracy. So? She can argue what she likes. She does. With frequent disregard for the facts. Will that gain her sympathy, or credibility, beyond her established coterie? Highly unlikely.
@Wilson:
“Argumentum ad hominem” is a logical fallacy, relevent to a syllogism. It’s when you say that some aspect of the arguer makes their argument invalid.
Like I’ve said, insults are not an ad hominem. They’re just insults.
And just to spell it out even more, because you apparently enjoy tedious repetition, examples!
“You are an idiot. Your argument is invalid because A B C.” Not an ad hominem.
“Your argument can’t possibly be valid, because you are an idiot.” Ad hominem.
Piss off, Wilson, you’re a boring troll. Nobody gives a flying fuck if JB claims there’s some conspiracy. Nothing she says is worth arguing with; she’s only fit to be mocked.
Today’s XKCD seems apropos.
http://xkcd.com/1432/
Also not an ad hominem:
“Chucklefucks like you are the reason why blah blah blah.” Notice that I’m not trying to use your chucklefuckery as a premise in a logical argument, I’m just making a statement. When you try to claim “ad hominem” in cases where the person is not even trying to construct an syllogism, it makes you look even sillier.
Us rejoicing in JB’s ban is not going to make her a martyr to any reasonable person. Most reasonable people won’t give a shit that a professional troll got what was coming to her, in fact most reasonable people will probably applaud that this troll was put down. The only people who will feel that she is a martyr of some sort are the fuckwitted moron who are the MRA’s and who really gives two shits about their flaky opinions in the first place. If they hold up as a martyr then good, because more and more people will see how damn evil and cracked they really are because only someone severely fuckwitted would hold up JB as some sort of hero.
@Wilson:
Oh for fucks sakes. READ! These are not just opinions or stand-alone statements broadcast to the ether, they are actions resulting in harassment! They are not posters on street corners, they are door-to-door shitmongerers dumping manure on their targets and encouraging others to do the same.
Harassment is the thing being fought against here, not opinions.
Living up to your terms of service is not the same as silencing someone, and censuring someone is not the same as martyring them is not the same as giving them power over your opinions.
Hey fuckwit troll, read the Comments Policy here:
I’ve emailed David. Now FUCK OFF.
And instead of snidely shitting on others by thanking me for such a patient reply, how about some admittance that you were… I don’t know… wrong about ad hominems? That you now better understand what they are and won’t randomly accuse people of it again?
I kind of love the unstated background things here, though.
Someone, let’s call them JC, posts massively long rants on Twitter, often calling other people whores, sluts, idiots, anything. They also actually doctor up fake messages from other people, attribute those messages to other people, and pretend that the fake messages are real. They harass, insult, snipe, rage and shit everything up.
When Twitter (And in limited fashion, other places, like here) point out that’s shitty behavior and is now no longer tolerated… the response is:
“Why are you silencing these people? Don’t you know that if you can’t logically engage with their arguments, they win by default! This just makes them martyrs and gives them fuel for a conspiracy angel!”
Yes, maybe, but who cares? They’re shit flinging monkeys flinging shit. I don’t have to *care* or want to be patient when someone is going to spend time calling me a whore, or photoshopping up a message where I claim that everyone is evil. Being polite, kind, patient or willing to have someone around isn’t a thing you have to do. It’s nice, sure, and I think free speech is important, but free speech isn’t unrestricted speech, so don’t give me *that*. Why is their right to call everyone a slutty idiotic manhating whore out to dismantle civilization more important than my wish not not to be called a slutty idiotic whore?
@Phoenician in a time of Romans
I have no idea what point you may or may not be trying to make.
It takes a special variety of pedantic bore to come to a mockery blog and complain that the people there aren’t mocking enough.
Wilson posts like an IRC native. Wonder why that could be.