Patterico's Pontifications

11/16/2016

Twitter Bans Alt-Right Accounts

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:49 pm



USA Today:

Twitter suspended high-profile accounts associated with the alt-right movement, the same day the social media service said it would crack down on hate speech.

Among those suspended was Richard Spencer, who runs an alt-right think tank and had a verified account on Twitter.

I’m torn on this one.

On the one hand, Twitter certainly seems to target voices from the right. I’m no fan of provocateur Milo Yiannawhatever, but his account seemed to be suspended, not for what he did, but for ugly stuff his fans did. Glenn Reynolds was temporarily suspended after he made a comment that — while he apologized for it, and it probably could have been phrased better — seemed, when read charitably and in full context, to advocate a sensible policy of self-protection.

Twitter also seems to take its cue from leftists with agendas. Anita Sarkeesian, a militant feminist, was made part of Twitter’s “Trust and Safety council.” Next thing you know, Robert Stacy McCain was suspended, after having done . . . I don’t know what he supposedly did, but I do know he had criticized Sarkeesian.

Also, Twitter and other companies may be taking their cue for the dishonest, nutty, and untrustworthy Southern Poverty Law Center. The USA Today piece says:

Heidi Beirich, spokeswoman for the Southern Poverty Law Center, told USA TODAY that the center had asked Twitter to remove more than 100 accounts of white supremacists who violated Twitter’s terms of service. She also pointed to two alt-right accounts that had been verified by Twitter, Spencer’s and Heimblach’s.

Ugh. Keep them out of anything having to do with . . . anything.

On the other hand, Twitter has every right to ban who they want. It’s a private company. They’re subject to criticism for it, but they have the right. And I certainly want to control who posts here. Generally, that would include racists — a description that seems to fit Richard Spencer, who wants to ship minorities out of the country:

“I don’t think people have fully recognized the degree to which he’s [Trump] transformed the party,” said Richard Spencer, a clean-cut 38-year-old from Arlington, Virginia, who sipped Manhattans as he matter-of-factly called for removing African-Americans, Hispanics and Jews from the United States.

I would not be thrilled with having such people post here, although I might hear them out, at first. Mostly to make fun of them.

And I recognize a couple of the other names on the list of the banned: “Paul Town, Pax Dickinson, Ricky Vaughn and John Rivers.” Pax Dickinson and John Rivers are jackasses. I ban them on Twitter.

But, you see, I choose to do that.

So it’s not as easy an issue, in my view, as many on both sides make it out to be.

In general, though (and I say this as no fan of the alt-right): I think this is a bad move for Twitter — and one of many.

92 Responses to “Twitter Bans Alt-Right Accounts”

  1. They do show good judgment in deciding to whom to award those little blue check-marks though.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. This is like an earnest self-justification for the tapeworm that wastes your time while it deceives you into thinking you’re learning something unique and important.

    Twitter is ridiculous, period. Even a blog post about Twitter is a substantive argument about something that’s ridiculous. And then you ignore your own argument.

    Twitter is the kind of thing that attracts people like Donald Trump.

    Sad.

    While I’ve typed this comment, at least three more kids have gotten on my lawn, so ….

    Beldar (fa637a)

  3. #NeverTweeter. Never had it. Don’t figure I ever will.

    nk (dbc370)

  4. i’m not torn about censorship

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  5. Well I dint tweet, but I do find illuminating like the links I postbere, whereas Spencer I’ll be more concerned when outright inciting tie violence is allowed.

    narciso (d1f714)

  6. I don’t know anything about the alt-right except that I am not supposed to like it.

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  7. This is like an earnest self-justification for the tapeworm that wastes your time while it deceives you into thinking you’re learning something unique and important.

    Twitter is ridiculous, period. Even a blog post about Twitter is a substantive argument about something that’s ridiculous. And then you ignore your own argument.

    Twitter is the kind of thing that attracts people like Donald Trump.

    Sad.

    While I’ve typed this comment, at least three more kids have gotten on my lawn, so ….

    You think you’re a curmudgeon, but Charles Murray is among the most curmudgeonly of all curmudgeons — and he likes it.

    I’ve been persuaded by him that there is a virtue in learning to say things in 140 characters. It doesn’t mean that everything should be said in 140 characters, of course — but there is some value in brevity, and learning how to achieve it.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  8. I don’t tweet. Apparently the alt right has already started a migration to gab.ai

    kishnevi (c81531)

  9. I would hope that they would also suspend accounts like Joss Whedon’s, where he called for “Preventing Trump from taking office.” Or the many many little people “alt-left” accounts where truly hateful bile is displayed.

    But they won’t.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  10. I’ve been persuaded by him that there is a virtue in learning to say things in 140 characters.

    Why so wordy?

    nk (dbc370)

  11. Well its the mindstone that is making him did that.

    narciso (d1f714)

  12. I guess we need to play this game the Twitter way: Make a big stink about the “alt-left” every time they tweet.

    Starting with the outright Communists.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  13. Get off Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, all of the other horsestuff social media. That’s the solution.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  14. as he matter-of-factly called for removing African-Americans, Hispanics and Jews from the United States.

    The link provided does not quote him saying this, and in fact it is full of smears of the type, “you know how else…” I’m prepared to accept that Spencer might be a racist but I would expect to see evidence of that.

    Gabriel Hanna (4f5ff1)

  15. Truly the Age of Narcissism. Opt out.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  16. Some tweets pointed out unconfortable truths like the nature of early voting in the election, the riculous claims of David corn, et al,

    narciso (d1f714)

  17. While I’ve typed this comment, at least three more kids have gotten on my lawn, so ….

    George Everett Wilson, Sr.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  18. Peter daou is having a full gollum freakout, like eichenwald had last week,

    narciso (d1f714)

  19. Ironically, Gabriel, I would point you to Spencer’s tweet where he told someone about the speech in which he called for “peaceful ethnic cleansing” . . . but it cannot be accessed. Because he was suspended from Twitter.

    spencer-peaceful-ethnic-cleansing

    Patterico (115b1f)

  20. The Atlantic, blocked me just because, so I’m abiding by madam dafarge’s crack judgement

    narciso (d1f714)

  21. This is all a set up to get Trump kicked off Twitter so he can’t respond to all the “typically false news stories.”

    AZ Bob (f7a491)

  22. “We’ll help them go somewhere else. I’m not a maniac,” Spencer said of the minorities he wants to eject from the country. “I know in order to achieve what I want to achieve, you have to deal with people rationally.”

    Gabriel, are you suggesting that the quote is false, or that he said those words but the article mischaracterizes what they’re about?

    Milhouse (40ca7b)

  23. Spencer better hope that Jared Kushner does not take him, or the other neo-Nutsies, seriously.

    And I told you so. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/16/trump-kushner-christie-transition/93992468/

    nk (dbc370)

  24. And I recognize a couple of the other names on the list of the banned: “Paul Town, Pax Dickinson, Ricky Vaughn and John Rivers.” Pax Dickinson and John Rivers are jackasses. I ban them on Twitter.

    Ricky Vaughn isn’t a jackass. He’s a jackhole.

    L.N. Smithee (b84cf6)

  25. So its just arbitrary crimethink.

    narciso (d1f714)

  26. 24. If you can go for to toe with people a lot less than six degrees from the mob, anything is possible.

    urbanleftbehind (6e1f6f)

  27. I never heard of these people or Richard Spencer, but it’s interesting that the direct quote suddenly ends and the reporter paraphrases what Spencer said.

    Hey, I’m paranoid. I used to read the LATimes.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  28. Ironically, Gabriel, I would point you to Spencer’s tweet where he told someone about the speech in which he called for “peaceful ethnic cleansing” . . . but it cannot be accessed. Because he was suspended from Twitter.

    Here’s the speech. The reference to “ethnic-cleansing” is about 40% of the way down.

    Milhouse (40ca7b)

  29. Gabriel, are you suggesting that the quote is false, or that he said those words but the article mischaracterizes what they’re about?

    I get what Gabriel is saying. Based on what we see, yes, it looks like he’s calling for what they claim. But media sources also lie. You know what would tell us? His speech where he talks about “peaceful ethnic cleansing.” Sounds bad as a phrase, but let’s see the context.

    But I can’t find the context. The one link I see for it . . . was in a tweet of his. Which is now gone. Because they banned him.

    It makes a point: if someone’s speech is hateful, making the speech go away makes it harder to prove that what they said was really hateful.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  30. Yay for commenters! Thanks, Milhouse. I’ll take a look.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  31. Narciso, Twitter didn’t accuse them of crimethink. Twitter found them unsuitable for their private enterprise. You know that whole thing about “freedom of association” that is so passe these days.

    John Hitchcock (29d9e2)

  32. I was speaking of rocky vaughn, you know how minitrue this output is.

    narciso (d1f714)

  33. The (relatively) free market has a solution: Gab.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  34. Re milo why didn’t suspend the accounts of those who actually were offensive.

    narciso (d1f714)

  35. OK, I have read it.

    Gabriel?

    I contend that the speech Milhouse linked is wholly consistent with the description of Spencer in the article.

    I doubt I would ban him if he posted here. I’d want people to debate him and explain why he’s wrong.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  36. Re milo why didn’t suspend the accounts of those who actually were offensive.
    narciso (d1f714) — 11/16/2016 @ 8:43 pm

    Probably because those whom the Supreme Victims du Jour hate are controlling all their commenters while the Supreme Victims du Jour have no control over any of theirs.

    John Hitchcock (29d9e2)

  37. Re milo why didn’t suspend the accounts of those who actually were offensive.

    Good question. That was what I wondered at the time.

    His tweets “actually were offensive” (I assume, the concept of “offense” being generally annoying to me), but were not actually threatening or abusive. Which is what he was supposedly banned for.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  38. When is Twitter going to go after the alt-Jihadists?
    Not that the regular Jihadists aren’t already bad enough.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  39. Read the speech. As Greeks can tell you, ethnic cleansing in 1919 was hardly peaceful.

    kishnevi (c81531)

  40. I am, as you might imagine, not a fan of the alt-right.

    And yet: if twitter drives them from twitter, they’ll just build their own not-twitter, and use that. And if facebook drives them from facebook, they’ll just build their own not-facebook, and use that.

    And every iteration of this reduces the space for people from different political viewpoints to come together and talk to or listen to each other, increasing the fragmentation of our society, and making it harder for us to communicate with one another – or, ultimately, to coexist.

    So: twitter has the right to do this, and I totally get why they *want* to, and it’s a bad idea that will hurt us all more than it will help us.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  41. The same reason. They let the wookie win, meanwhile having floated a straw man re the clearances. Then they scorch it.

    narciso (d1f714)

  42. Narciso, Milo’s basic idea seems to be that we must let people be as offensive, insulting and abusive as they wish to be. Banning them would contradict that idea.

    kishnevi (c81531)

  43. I read it too, and yes he is a complete nut-job racist.

    So now I know what the alt-right is. They probably would have remained fringe if the left didn’t give them all this publicity.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  44. Paul gottfried, named it long before Spencer,

    narciso (d1f714)

  45. Yeah, but Twitter is a public enterprise traded on the NYSE.
    Think of it as if it were Trump Hotels. They can’t refuse service based upon political philosophy.

    Neither can Twitter. Time to sue.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  46. You see how they censor true labeling like clickbait

    narciso (d1f714)

  47. How often do they inject somelivesmatter or cair propaganda into their feeds

    narciso (d1f714)

  48. Our host (#8) has interrupted me (while I was shouting at those kids on my lawn) to point out:

    [T]here is a virtue in learning to say things in 140 characters.

    The glib answer to which is: So what’s stopping you?

    But the more thoughtful response to that observation is also suggested by our host’s own comment, the balance of which (not including its quotation of my earlier comment) ran to 368 characters, or three Tweets worth. That comment was far from wordy or prolix. And yet it was thoughtful and substantive and civil. All 368 characters were well chosen — which is to say, the words that happened, on this particular occasion, to produce 368 characters were well chosen.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  49. Think of it as if it were Trump Hotels. They can’t refuse service based upon political philosophy.

    Says who? Actually they can, in most states and municipalities.

    Neither can Twitter. Time to sue.

    Even in those few states and municipalities that ban public accommodations from discriminating on political grounds, since when is twitter a public accommodation?

    Milhouse (40ca7b)

  50. But the more thoughtful response to that observation is also suggested by our host’s own comment, the balance of which (not including its quotation of my earlier comment) ran to 368 characters, or three Tweets worth. That comment was far from wordy or prolix. And yet it was thoughtful and substantive and civil. All 368 characters were well chosen — which is to say, the words that happened, on this particular occasion, to produce 368 characters were well chosen.

    That’s kind of you to say, but I didn’t choose the words as carefully or well as if I had had to cram the thought into 140 characters.

    There’s something interesting about trying to get a thought inside the Twitter window, which tells you precisely by how many characters you have exceeded the word limit. I have gotten pretty good at being able to tell as I get within a few words of the limit whether I will make it or not. And I often find that rewording the tweet to make it shorter also makes it more powerful.

    What’s stopping me? Laziness. If I pored over every comment as I might when writing an 800-word op-ed for a major newspaper (which I have done) I would comment far less often. But the comments would probably be better.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  51. I will never use Twitter. It’s there to spread memes and leftist tropes. That’s all.

    NJRob (a07d2e)

  52. since when is twitter a public accommodation?

    Since it’s inception.

    in most states and municipalities.

    You don’t have to sue in every city, and you don’t have to win all that often to break them.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  53. It all depends on the TOS, I suppose.

    lee (55777a)

  54. since when is twitter a public accommodation?

    Since it’s inception.

    Really? What makes it a public accommodation? How does it fit the definition?

    in most states and municipalities.

    You don’t have to sue in every city, and you don’t have to win all that often to break them.

    You can’t sue wherever you like. Just because some city has an ordinance against political discrimination doesn’t mean you can sue twitter there. Why would they be subject to that city’s jurisdiction?

    Do you at least acknowledge that Trump Hotels is free to discriminate on political grounds, almost everywhere it does business?

    Milhouse (40ca7b)

  55. It all depends on the TOS, I suppose.

    TOS is not a contract; the provider is not bound by it.

    Milhouse (40ca7b)

  56. I will never use Twitter. It’s there to spread memes and leftist tropes. That’s all.

    I follow hundreds of people, mostly conservatives and libertarians.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  57. They’re everywhere. International. Interstate commerce clause. I’d make a federal case of it. And if it got thrown out I’d take it to Brussels.

    I’m sure by now there is a French or Hungarian competing version of Twitter, possibly even State owned and operated. Euro’s are jingoistic enough to predate on American corps with the thinnest of pretense and very little urging.

    Ask Budweiser.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  58. Twitter is barely profitable. If it weren’t for covert shell company investments

    papertiger (c8116c)

  59. I’d make a federal case of it.

    You can’t make a federal case of it, because there’s no federal law against political discrimination. Nor, as far as I know, does the EU have any such law.

    And being everywhere does not make a company subject to the jurisdiction of every town and village in the country, let alone the world.

    Milhouse (40ca7b)

  60. They’re Podesta at three steps remove.

    papertiger (c8116c)


  61. You can’t make a federal case of it, because there’s no federal law against political discrimination

    You’d like to think so, but we live in a world where making gay wedding cakes is a constitutional imperative especially for the deeply religious.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  62. I’m torn on this one…So it’s not as easy an issue, in my view, as many on both sides make it out to be.

    C’mon, Patrick, it’s not that hard.

    1. Is Twitter a private or a public company? If you want to get into that idiotic Civil Rights Act of 1965 twaddle about a private company doing business with the public therefore makes their private entity, thus it’s “public” for the purposes of government regulation, then you’ve lost your way. Either the government runs (or should run) the economy or it doesn’t (or shouldn’t.) If you’re a civil libertarian, then you understand that private property is owned by an individual or company (which is owned by individuals) and, barring the violation of the rights of others, the government has no business “regulating” the economy because of the individual(s)’s property rights. In this case, however, government regulation is not at issue.

    2. What is at issue is the notion of a private company having the power to regulate its own business. People who use Twitter consent to Twitter’s contract on usage, which gives them (Twitter) the ultimate power to permit members to continue to use the site. This is Property Rights 101, Pat. Thus, they have the right to choose who to they want on their site.

    3. Where this becomes slightly muddied is the notion that Twitter puts forth that they are an unbridled champion of free speech. While I’m sure that it makes them feel morally superior, in reality, it’s plain that Twitter culls who it deems “offensive” or whatever — which they are legally permitted to do. Don’t like it? Either don’t use Twitter or hold their feet to the fire and demonstrate that they’re liberal hypocrites (redundancy alert) with respect to their alleged “free speech” principles.

    And for the record, “hate” speech is speech.

    J.P. (9e0433)

  63. You can’t make a federal case of it, because there’s no federal law against political discrimination

    You’d like to think so, but we live in a world where making gay wedding cakes is a constitutional imperative especially for the deeply religious.

    No federal case has ever been made against anyone for not making gay wedding cakes, for the simple reason that there is no federal law against discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. All such cases have been made in states or cities where such a law exists. The cases are still bogus, because the bakers are all willing to bake for gay customers, but the false claim is that they are discriminating against gay people, and that only works where that’s against the law.

    Milhouse (40ca7b)

  64. J.P, your argument is confused, as many arguments on this topic are, because they mix two different aspects of the freedom of speech. There is the first amendment’s legal protection of free speech, which only applies to the government. And there is the moral concept of free speech, which is part of the American ethos and applies to private actors too. Patterico is not torn over whether the government should force twitter to carry right-wing views. He is certain that it should not. Twitter is a private company and therefore not bound by the first amendment. But we are all private people and therefore not bound by it either. If twitter has the legal right to censor right-wing speech, we have the same right to criticize it for that. Twitter encourages the public to see it as a platform for free speech, when in fact it is not, and that deserves criticism. (In fact its business model depends on that perception, which gets us into the murky area of fraud and possible government intervention after all.)

    Milhouse (40ca7b)

  65. JP – I don’t think anyone commenting here disagrees that Twitter has the *legal* right to ban alt-right commenters.

    That doesn’t mean that it’s the pragmatic thing to do. That doesn’t mean that it won’t actually hurt Twitter more than it helps them. That doesn’t mean that it’s the *ethical* thing to do given how they’ve marketed their product.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  66. There’s this mechanic I heard about set up a shade tree type of repair shop along a busy street. Basic stuff. A tool shed and a awning to keep the weather off while he works on the cars is all that was there.
    I guess he did a fair amount of business. Enough to upgrade to a tough shed and tin roof.
    Then the county stepped in.

    The one thing this guy didn’t have was the kiss of approval from the government. No business licence and no way to get one since the country didn’t want his kind of establishment at that location. The county came in, removed all his improvements, and scraped the lot clean.

    Twitter has a business licence of some sort and is therefore beholding to the feckel whim of government in some form or fashion, just as we all are.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  67. #44- I read it too, and yes he is a complete nut-job racist.

    So now I know what the alt-right is. They probably would have remained fringe if the left didn’t give them all this publicity.

    No, I don’t think you do. Let me try and explain. I don’t identify as AR, but I know where they are coming from.

    They are of the mindset that Nigeria, Nirobia, Kenya, and other like nations have too many black people, and have a plan to have as many whites and other races and ethnicities flood those nations, and by wresting away their institutions, culture, and majority through intimidation, shame, hook and by crook make them more just and moral nations by making them no longer majority black.

    Wait, just kidding! The “they” in the above paragraph are globalist and progressives, blacks are whites, and the nation’s are western. The AR opposes this plan, and could care less if you or anyone thinks they are racist for wanting to preserve western civilization as predominantly white and Christian. They have no problem with the far east being Asian Buddhists, the middle east being Arab Muslim, Israel being Jewish or Africa being black. What they don’t understand is why it’s wrong for us, who have given so many advances to the world, are wrong, immoral, and racist for being a white Christian nation.

    They don’t see themselves as being the ones that are changing the political battlespace from ideological to identity politics. It has been thrust on us. They just see themselves as recognizing the new reality first, and inevitably so will you.

    The Structure of American Racial Détente
    The rules of the deal were pretty straightforward. For whites, they stated that outright racist statements and explicit appeals to white racial identity were essentially banned. Along with this, whites accepted a double standard about the appropriateness of cultural and political tribalism. For obvious and reasonable historical and economic reasons, black and brown people explicitly pursuing their own interests was viewed differently than whites doing the same thing.

    The other side of the deal was that so long as white people were sufficiently punished for acts of outright racism, minority leaders and communities would be cautious with accusations of racism. The key here was that once leveled and proved, the accusation of racism was a blow most whites could not come back from. From Jimmy the Greek to Michael Richardson, being labeled a racist was a black mark that did not wash off easily. […]

    Privilege theory and the concept of systemic racism dealt the death blow to the détente. In embracing these theories, minorities and progressives broke their essential rule, which was to not run around calling everyone a racist. As these theories took hold, every white person became a racist who must confess that racism and actively make amends. Yet if the white woman who teaches gender studies at Barnard with the Ben Shahn drawings in her office is a racist, what chance do the rest of have?

    Within the past few years, as privilege theory took hold, many whites began to think that no matter what they did they would be called racist, because, in fact, that was happening. Previously there were rules. They shifted at times, but if adhered to they largely protected one from the charge of racism. It’s like the Morrissey lyric: “is evil just something you are, or something you do.” Under the détente, racism was something you did; under privilege theory it is something you are.

    That shift, from carefully directed accusations of racism for direct actions to more general charges of unconscious racism, took away the carrot for whites. Worse, it led to a defensiveness and feeling of victimization that make today’s whites in many ways much more tribal than they were 30 years ago. White people are constantly told to examine their whiteness, not to think of themselves as racially neutral. That they did, but the result was not introspection that led to reconciliation, it was a decision that white people have just as much right to think of themselves as a special interest group as anyone else.

    The unfortunate place where we now find ourselves is one in which blatant attacks on white people, often from white people, are driving them further into a tribal cocoon. Samantha Bee’s awful and irresponsible berating of white women as the evil force behind Trump’s victory, while condescendingly describing magical people of color as the only ones who can save us, is a clear example of where white defensiveness and victimization are coming from.

    Furthermore, the ever-present drumbeat from the Left that every conservative victory is the death throes of bad, old white people who are about to be swept away by waves of brown immigration is making many whites dig in. On a certain level, how can you blame them? They are explicitly being told that their values and way of life are under the sword. How do we expect them to react?

    http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/14/election-marks-end-americas-racial-detente/

    The whole concept of diversity in America is a set piece plan to destroy white Christian culture. Consider; California is now a majority Hispanic state, and didn’t even have a republican challenger for the open Senate seat this year. Coincidence? Maybe, but get back to me in ten years and let’s see how things work out there…

    LBascom (1cae03)

  68. Touchable. If AT&T decided they didn’t want to sell phones to some category of identity politics they would be slapped down resolutely.

    It can happen to twitter.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  69. So I read that link from Milhouse–wasn’t about to do so at work.

    I agree that Spencer is a racist. But in that link he did not call for the removing of minorities from the United States. He’s calling for racial separatism, which is simply not the same thing, and it is practiced on a small scale by the people who denounce Spencer as racist. He wants white people to have their own state in North America. That is simply not equivalent to calling for the deportation of non-whites from what is now the United States, any more than saying “I think women should compete in women-only sporting events” is the same as saying “Men should be forbidden from sporting events.”

    So, yeah, you always have to get the real quote.

    Gabriel Hanna (4f5ff1)

  70. It certainly is their system, but I am curious as to the legality of unfairly targeting one group over another in terms of their TOS.

    If they take issue with obnoxymious alt-Righters, then what aboutvwriters on the “alt-Left”???

    IGotBupkis (0ae9e2)

  71. that’s the journalist, ‘our betters’ bupkis,

    narciso (d1f714)

  72. @Bupkis: Two Twitter accounts made identical comments, but with the different races and presidential candidates swapped in. Both accounts were reported. The anti-white tweet was deemed not abusive and the account left in place, the anti-black tweet was deemed abusive and the account was banned.

    Gabriel Hanna (4f5ff1)

  73. “Ctrl-left” rather than “alt-left”. Busybodies always ready to tell you what your problem is and make rules against you doing it again ever.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  74. Twitter has a business licence of some sort and is therefore beholding to the feckel whim of government in some form or fashion, just as we all are.

    Why would Twitter need a license to run its business? Maybe California has such licenses, but the USA doesn’t, so there’s nothing a Trump administration could do about it.

    Touchable. If AT&T decided they didn’t want to sell phones to some category of identity politics they would be slapped down resolutely.

    No, it wouldn’t. There is no law that could be used for such a purpose. There are some states and cities where it would have to sell phones to everyone, but that wouldn’t affect its other locations. And since Twitter doesn’t have locations it’s irrelevant.

    It certainly is their system, but I am curious as to the legality of unfairly targeting one group over another in terms of their TOS.

    Again, in most places there’s no law against political discrimination. So unless they’re located somewhere where such a law exists, it’s not a problem for them.

    Milhouse (40ca7b)

  75. He wants white people to have their own state in North America. That is simply not equivalent to calling for the deportation of non-whites from what is now the United States,

    How much of North America? I don’t think he’s talking something the size of DC or PEI, or even Idaho. And he is calling for the deportation of non-whites from whatever territory his state does occupy.

    Milhouse (40ca7b)

  76. I think they used to call it systemic closure,

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/16/exclusive-ucla-professors-freak-out-over-trump-in-department-wide-emails/

    Bwa haha just read that. “With all do respect….”

    Patterico (115b1f)

  77. I agree that Spencer is a racist. But in that link he did not call for the removing of minorities from the United States. He’s calling for racial separatism, which is simply not the same thing, and it is practiced on a small scale by the people who denounce Spencer as racist. He wants white people to have their own state in North America. That is simply not equivalent to calling for the deportation of non-whites from what is now the United States, any more than saying “I think women should compete in women-only sporting events” is the same as saying “Men should be forbidden from sporting events.”

    And if blacks and Hispanics and Jews don’t want to voluntarily leave the area that this jewel of a human being wants to be all-white, then what?

    Where you live is a little different from having organizations in which certain groups compete, and people can choose to participate or not.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  78. And if blacks and Hispanics and Jews don’t want to voluntarily leave the area that this jewel of a human being wants to be all-white, then what?

    Well, even in the article you originally cited he said he wouldn’t use force, he’d use incentives to induce them to leave.

    Milhouse (40ca7b)

  79. That will never get everyone out. In the end there will be force.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  80. We can sit around and pretend that these racists will allow a handful of people they obviously consider vermin to remain in what they will believe to be THEIR land. But in the end, they’ll do whatever it takes and we all know it. Let’s not pretend otherwise. These people are vile.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  81. Or a small and manageable minority.

    Full disclosure: I believe Israel should be an ethnic state, and if I were magically to find myself Israeli PM I would take half the budget that is currently used to encourage Jews to immigrate and devote it to a parallel program to encourage non-Jews to emigrate. Parallel financial incentives and logistical help, subsidized tickets, agents in foreign countries to help them find jobs, housing, language lessons, etc. No force. Essentially the program of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane.

    Milhouse (40ca7b)

  82. Yes Spencer is like duke with two ivy league sheepskins, when you’re not taught about
    Finding principles one can end up there.

    narciso (d1f714)

  83. The difference is that the USA isn’t supposed to be a “white” state. And you can’t become a naturalised white person.

    Milhouse (40ca7b)

  84. Popular speech doesn’t require protection.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  85. 84.The difference is that the USA isn’t supposed to be a “white” state.

    Then why was it et up that only white men could vote?

    And you can’t become a naturalised white person.

    Naturalization is a privilege which by no means defines the state. America is unique like that. My wife came from Korea and is now an American. I can move to Korea and even (maybe) be granted Korean citizenship but I will never, ever be a Korean.

    There are white countries, Milhouse. Whether they were designed that way, which I suspect, or it’s just happenstance they do exist. They used to be called Western Civilization as a whole until being White became the Original Sin of leftism. And it seems ONLY these nations are targeted for “diversity”.

    Don’t confuse racism, the unfounded hate of other races, with white survivalism which is the observation of a deliberate systematic attempt to end to the white race. Oddly, it’s biggest proponents seem to be whites themselves. Far leftist but white nonetheless.

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  86. @Patterico: But in the end, they’ll do whatever it takes and we all know it. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

    I didn’t. What I said is that I haven’t seen a quote where he expresses what is attributed to him.

    Maybe you should email him and ask him the question directly. Then you’d know what he says.

    Gabriel Hanna (fd688e)

  87. 81.We can sit around and pretend that these racists will allow a handful of people they obviously consider vermin to remain in what they will believe to be THEIR land. But in the end, they’ll do whatever it takes and we all know it. Let’s not pretend otherwise. These people are vile.

    Are you talking about the plight of the American Indian or the plight of the American Caucasian? We know how the first turned out.

    http://joelsgulch.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/turn-in-your-weapons.jpg

    Rev. Hoagie® (785e38)

  88. He wasn’t talking about people who think women shouldn’t vote, but it applies to them, too.

    DRJ (15874d)

  89. I don’t know how we’re going to keep America white and Christian when we allow miscegenation. Whites marrying non-whites; Christians marrying non-Christians. If God had intended for the white race to mix with the other species, He would not have put us on different continents.

    Loving v. Virginia should be overturned before Roe v. Wade or Hodges v. Obergefehl, in my opinion.

    nkkk (dbc370)

  90. Rev. Hoagie® (785e38) — 11/18/2016 @ 4:20 am

    Then why was it set up that only white men could vote?

    Actually, each state had its own voting requirements, and the federal government had none, except that the electors for the House of Representatives should have the same qualifications as thosw for the most numerous branch of the state legislature. Senators were chosen by the state legislators and Electors for president, however a state wanted to do it.

    There was no hard and fixed rule * but often it was white male property owners over he age of 21 – the federal government was given the power of naturalization. In the Dred Scott decision in 1857, Chief Justuce Taney claimed that on;y whotes could be citizens, but he had no real basis for that.

    * Till about 1807, New Jersey gave the right to vote to certain women.

    http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/new-jersey-recognizes-the-right-of-women-to-vote

    On February 22, 1797, the New Jersey Assembly passed “An Act to regulate the Election of Members of the Legislative-Council and the General Assembly, Sheriffs and Coroners, in this State,” which specifically included women in the franchise. The status of women voters had been unclear for decades. The 1776 New Jersey Constitution had vaguely stated that “all inhabitants” of the state could vote. To remedy this, a voting law in 1790, which applied only to seven counties, had clarified the Constitution by using the phrase “he or she” in referring to voters. Finally, in an effort to create uniformity, the Assembly passed the 1797 voting law, recognizing the right of women to vote across the state.

    …The state Constitution’s vague guarantee to “all inhabitants” probably allowed women to vote in the 1780s. Certainly, women’s suffrage was not a controversial issue in the state: the 1790 voting law was approved with only three dissenting votes in the Assembly. Despite this, women apparently did not vote in large numbers until after the passage of the 1797 law. There is no record of any public discourse on women voting until a 1797 legislative race in Elizabethtown, when the local women turned out en masse to decide a close election.

    Women voted in large numbers until 1807, when the Assembly passed a law limiting suffrage to free white males. The 1807 law was not seen as specifically hostile to women; instead, it was intended to clarify the Constitution’s guarantee of the franchise to “all inhabitants.” Because some objected that “all inhabitants” could allow slaves and aliens to vote, the Assembly acted to clarify the state’s voting requirements. Interestingly, the women of New Jersey did not object to their exclusion with any rigor; they did not lobby or protest against the law…

    …Contrary to popular opinion, the 19th Amendment did not give women the right to vote; it merely guaranteed women the right to vote. By the time the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920, more than three-fourths of the states already allowed women to vote in some or all elections.

    California was one such place women could vote in 1912 – they may have given the victory to Woodrow Wilson.

    Sammy Finkelman (ad84eb)

  91. Patterico (115b1f) — 11/16/2016 @ 9:58 pm

    There’s something interesting about trying to get a thought inside the Twitter window, which tells you precisely by how many characters you have exceeded the word limit. I have gotten pretty good at being able to tell as I get within a few words of the limit whether I will make it or not. And I often find that rewording the tweet to make it shorter also makes it more powerful.

    It’s like writing poetry. If you workon it, you can often manage to say what you want within its constraints – or maybe add anoher stanza.

    I never posted on Twitter but I have had to stay within limits. Sometimes on (usually commercial) web sites that limit the size of comments, and I used to have to stay within the 99-line 72 characters per line limit on BBSs (although you could make it 79 characters), and there’s the 80 character limit on eBay feedback. I think Amazon book reviews also have a limit, but it’s high.

    This kind of micro-editing, even though for arbitrary reasons, does tend to make the writing better.

    Sammy Finkelman (83cfe1)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1316 secs.