Laura Loomer banned from Twitter after criticizing Ilhan Omar

Okay, so you acknowledge the double standard in suspending Loomer?

 

I agree they banned one and not another. Who appear to have done something similar.

But I haven't seen either post. So I don't know about a double standard.

 

If you "haven't seen either post" then how do you know that they "appear to have done something similar?"

 

posts in this thread
But I don't know that anyone has posted the actual quotes/posts that are in question.
The OP link didn't post the tweet that got her banned.

Have you seen the tweets that bring this OP to be a topic?

 

Is there talk of Farrakhan being elected to public office?

 

Didn't you see the image in the OP? http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-twitter-after-criticizing-ilhan-omar.546673/

I am the thread creator, so yes!

 

Hard to read, but it looks like she is attacking an individual.
While he is not.
Don't know if that is the reason.

Her's doesn't seem like a banning offense to me. But I get infractions for things that here that I scratch my head about.
And it takes a few infractions before a ban takes place here.

So, maybe twitter has X amount of warnings/infractions also, before a ban.
And maybe this isn't her 1st warning.

 

There is nothing in Twitter's rules that says that only attacking individuals will result in a suspension or ban. In fact, in the rules, users are not allowed to target others based on race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease and Farrakhan called all Jews "termites!" So he didn't target an individual, he DID target an entire religious group! So actually, it is less likely to be banned by attacking an individual. What do you think of his tweet?

Sure, but her tweet isn't even enough for a warning. She was talking about Ilhan Omar, a Muslim. She said that Omar believes in Sharia law, and that is correct. She correctly pointed out two things that take place under Sharia, but didn't say that this is Omar's VERSION of sharia. Omar herself would agree with all of this! However, Loomer incorrectly stated that Omar supports female genital mutilation, but Omar DID question a bill that would've made it a felony offense, even though she did support it in the end. Loomer is only guilty of being factually inaccurate.

 

What, newspapers, radio talk shows and TV stations? I asked, do THEY call THEMSELVES free speech platforms?

To clarify, I was talking about social media, not newspapers, radio talk shows and TV stations.

They are providing the speech that they ALLOW.

So it sounds as though you agree that there is bias and double standard. That's good! It means that you aren't blind!

 

Of course I agree that that there is bias, hypocrisy and 'doubles standards' in Twitter. It would be incredible if there were not!

 

Are you saying that you think it would be intentional?

 

I misunderstood you.

What does the Acosta banning have to do with this discussion?

 

Yes, that was my question to another member. What about it?

I absolute CONDEMN those disgusting remarks. I just thought that you were saying that he should be banned from Twitter for them, even though he didn't use Twitter to say it.

 

Why did you even bring up Trump Tower?

 

Then you should probably condemn Farrakhan's comments, otherwise you're doing a pretty poor job!

How ELSE is it used? And is it always "abused" in the others ways? Or are there acceptable ways that it can be used?

It is relevant to your analysis of the tweet.

But you can EASILY say that Loomer's "definitely was" anti-Muslim?

Yes, but aren't you going further than that, to say that it was hate speech or offensive speech?

An "active policy to treat “conservative” users more harshly [than] “liberal” ones in its moderation" would NOT be bias? Surely you can't be serious!

And I very much doubt that you ever will. I think that it would LITERALLY need to smack you in the face!

 

I’ve no issue condemning Farrakhan in wider terms for his general attitudes and other statements. Remember that when I first looked at these two tweets, I didn’t even know who wrote them and so could only consider it out of context. Twitter moderators could well be in the same position (arguably they should be, seeing the content of the tweet but not the identity of the poster to help avoid some of the bias we’re talking about).

The obvious example of abuse would be to deflect legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy (for balance, just as legitimate criticism of Palestinian policy is sometimes deflected by accusations of discrimination). It obviously can be used in more legitimate ways with good intentions, though I’ve never thought simplistic terms like this (e.g. homophobia, Islamophobia etc.) are especially useful in themselves as where they could be legitimately used requires more context and explanation anyway. The ease of use of such simple loaded terms can risk words and people being dismissed as “wrong because I say so” without that deeper explanation being offered (ironically, part of the issue with how Twitter and the like operates their moderation).

Not necessarily. Again, my only definitive assertion is that the two tweets aren’t directly equivalent. My main issue with Loomer’s is the personal attack on the individual and while her religious and racial background are clearly factors in that, they’re not the be-all and end-all of it. Just like Farrakhan though, a wider reading in to Loomer doesn’t make me look any more favourably on her tweet either.

No, I’m not saying that. Offense is taken rather than given and “hate speech” is an even more messy term than antisemitism. It is my personal belief that Loomer intended to insult and offend her target, which is perfectly legal but also perfectly within Twitters remit to remove from their platform.

No, you’ve misunderstood my point here. I’m saying that we all individually have subconscious bias we need to manage but that is very different to a company implementing an active policy of discrimination. Even if it could somehow be proven that individual moderation decisions by Twitter employees were influenced by bias, that still wouldn’t prove the company has an active policy of discriminating against any defined groups of users.

I don’t respond to violence and it isn’t a way to change opinions. You might be able to use it to force someone to say they agree with you but that wouldn’t make you any more right. I can’t help wondering that the frustration that led to the idea crossing your mind stems from an inability to actually support the underlying accusation against Twitter with any evidence.

 

Twitter calls themselves a free speech platform and also says they can suspend any account for any reason. According to the post and link I gave you.
So take that to mean whatever one wants. It's conflicting.

Not making an excuse for Farrakhan, but he didn't directly call Jews 'termites' At least by the pick in your OP.

Hurtful, insensitive tweets, posts, sayings are always in bad if directed as a point to demean or insult others no matter who it is.

Does Omar believe in Sharia? A muslim isn't automatically a Sharia believer. Just like a Christian isn't an automatic believer in OT rules for people to live their lives.
Then Loomer went on to post bald face lies about female genitals.

As I said, has twitter warned Loomer previously?
Didn't you say you never heard of Loomer until this incident? How do you know the relationship she and twitter had going?

 

Twitter has the right to ban anyone. This isn't a 'free speech" issue. The gov't isn't banning anyone. A company is. Get a grip.

 

Female Gentile Mutilation has nothing to do with religion

How about you use freaking wikipedia and read that the Egyptians did this 800 years before Mohammed appeared on the scene, subsequently the Christians and Jews do or did this too. Hence it's a cultural thing that is done by whoever lives in that region.

I find the tweet I put up amusing, yes.

 

Willing for willing minds.

I can't pry your mind open - it's an inside job.

 

You can yell all you want, Antiduopolist, but you simply cannot carry your point successfully.

 

I shall not!
It was always an inside job.
There is indeed an NPS, and free speech must be honored within it.

INCREDIBLY chilling to see liberals so eager to destroy the Constitution.

 

What.