Katie Hopkins Sacked

ianh · 20 Jun 2020 at 19:56

Colonel_Klinck said:
LOL I love twitter for some of the take downs.

That kind of helps prove a point I made earlier. Laughing at "horrible" people is a far better way of stripping them of any "power" they might hold over others, rather than banning them which only ever increases it.

ianh said:
How about this for a bit of rational, common sense logic - let them stay on the platform, let them say horrible things, let everyone see what horrible people they are and let everyone laugh at them or ignore them and watch them fall away due to the lack of Press reporting starving them of PR and clout.

SexyGreyFox · 20 Jun 2020 at 20:15

ianh said:
How about this for a bit of rational, common sense logic - let them stay on the platform, let them say horrible things, let everyone see what horrible people they are and let everyone laugh at them or ignore them

Did you actually think about this before you posted?
You do know that 1000s upon 1000s share her posts because they agree with her which makes them a little bit more dangerous?

sityeuropa · 20 Jun 2020 at 23:01

She is on Parler now (Twitter competitor). I can see the monopoly of Twitter coming to an end. If you disagree with someone you should be able to tell them why their views are stupid / wrong / what they stand for.

ebilcake · 20 Jun 2020 at 23:24

I didn't follow her at all however, getting banned because some people started a petition is just insane, I'm sure Black Mirror had an episode similar to this. :eek:

Crpwned · 20 Jun 2020 at 23:27

sityeuropa said:
She is on Parler now (Twitter competitor). I can see the monopoly of Twitter coming to an end. If you disagree with someone you should be able to tell them why their views are stupid / wrong / what they stand for.

Haha yet another right wing echo chamber for them to shout and congratulate each other in a safe space for them.
Twitter will not be worried in the slightest with these fringe sites I imagine.

ianh · 20 Jun 2020 at 23:33

SexyGreyFox said:
You do know that 1000s upon 1000s share her posts because they agree with her which makes them a little bit more dangerous?

So you're kind of proving the second half of my quote -

ianh said:
How about this for a bit of rational, common sense logic - let them stay on the platform, let them say horrible things, let everyone see what horrible people they are and let everyone laugh at them or ignore them and watch them fall away due to the lack of Press reporting starving them of PR and clout. Unless that is you are scared that, if people should hear what they say, they might agree with them?

I think the quote is “When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”

If you think that what they say might be "dangerous" then you are giving them power, whereas if people point and laugh at them, it takes that power away. Yes some people would retweet her comments and that's the risk we take if we still want to be able to speak freely, we have to take the rough with the smooth and point out the bad when we see it so that everyone can see it too. I mean you can't fight what you can't see and just because she's off twitter doesn't mean she's gone away!

For example she's still on other SM and still spouting the same things in a nice echo chamber of her fans but apparently those on twitter don't seem to care about that. They just want to be blissfully unaware of what she's still saying, meaning this ban is them effectively sticking their fingers in their ears and they're just so very happy with the feeling of "we got her kicked off", a feeling which seems far more important to them rather than actually standing up and fighting what she said.

"Dangerous" - Personally I wouldn't call anything she said (that I've read) "dangerous". I think that's an exaggeration as I don't think it's been proven anywhere that someone has been "incited to violence" after reading her tweets, which would mean she'd also broken the law.

Nitefly · 20 Jun 2020 at 23:39

ianh said:
So you're kind of proving the second half of my quote -

If you think that what they say might be "dangerous" then you are giving them power, whereas if people point and laugh at them, it takes that power away. Yes some people would retweet her comments and that's the risk we take if we still want to be able to speak freely, we have to take the rough with the smooth and point out the bad when we see it so that everyone can see it too. I mean you can't fight what you can't see and just because she's off twitter doesn't mean she's gone away!

For example she's still on other SM and still spouting the same things in a nice echo chamber of her fans but apparently those on twitter don't seem to care about that. They just want to be blissfully unaware of what she's still saying, meaning this ban is them effectively sticking their fingers in their ears and they're just so very happy with the feeling of "we got her kicked off", a feeling which seems far more important to them rather than actually standing up and fighting what she said.

"Dangerous" - Personally I wouldn't call anything she said (that I've read) "dangerous". I think that's an exaggeration as I don't think it's been proven anywhere that someone has been "incited to violence" after reading her tweets, which would mean she'd also broken the law.

Do you remember this story?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....bout-immigrations-full-text-10202351.html?amp

ianh · 21 Jun 2020 at 01:04

Nitefly said:
Do you remember this story?

Yes, and whilst it's a horrible thing to call people it is not "dangerous" which specifically means 'able or likely to cause harm or injury' because, if it was, then she would have broken UK law (incitement to violence) and would have been arrested and convicted (the police consistently say her tweets break no law, distasteful as they may be). Plus there have been no cases of violence carried out with her Sun column cited in the court case as the reason either.

Personally I think staying factual is a far better tool for shining a light on what people say and do, rather than resorting to hyperbole and over-exaggerating. Plus imagine all her fans now salivating over people calling her "dangerous", rather than being deflated when people simply pointing out all her mistakes during her research and laughing at her instead, it gives them no "power".

Nitefly · 21 Jun 2020 at 01:18

ianh said:
Yes, and whilst it's a horrible thing to call people it is not "dangerous" which specifically means 'able or likely to cause harm or injury' because, if it was, then she would have broken UK law (incitement to violence) and would have been arrested and convicted (the police consistently say her tweets break no law, distasteful as they may be). Plus there have been no cases of violence carried out with her Sun column cited in the court case as the reason either.

Personally I think staying factual is a far better tool for shining a light on what people say and do, rather than resorting to hyperbole and over-exaggerating. Plus imagine all her fans now salivating over people calling her "dangerous", rather than being deflated when people simply pointing out all her mistakes during her research and laughing at her instead, it gives them no "power".

I may be mistaken but I don't think the underlined part is technically correct? As in, I don't think being "dangerous" in this context has any other legal meaning beyond its common use meaning?

In any case, I don't think that her actions need to be criminal for her to be dangerous.

Mrwong · 21 Jun 2020 at 11:02

She has just as much right say what she thinks.
Personally the left media are trying to impose left views suggesting there are no alternatives. Sometimes a mixture of left and right helps people decide what should be done.

JRS · 21 Jun 2020 at 11:04

Mrwong said:
She has just as much right say what she thinks.
Personally the left media are trying to impose left views suggesting there are no alternatives. Sometimes a mixture of left and right helps people decide what should be done.

Sure. But she doesn't have the absolute right to have a Twitter account if she's not going to abide by the rules in place on the platform.

Barks · 21 Jun 2020 at 11:22

I followed her for entertainment initially but then realised she truly is vile

Mrwong · 21 Jun 2020 at 11:25

JRS said:
Sure. But she doesn't have the absolute right to have a Twitter account if she's not going to abide by the rules in place on the platform.

Well so many others break the rules or Cause indirect actions. BLM and the riots should they also be banned.

Hedge · 21 Jun 2020 at 11:36

Mrwong said:
Well so many others break the rules or Cause indirect actions. BLM and the riots should they also be banned.

So many others don't have the same level of influence and followers. It's easy to moderate individuals like her instead of the entire twitter population.

JRS · 21 Jun 2020 at 11:40

Mrwong said:
Well so many others break the rules or Cause indirect actions. BLM and the riots should they also be banned.

Yes, and many get suspended or banned. But funnily enough, the most visible rule-breakers on Twitter tend to be from the political right. Perhaps their passion outweighs their good sense.

Hell, the *most* visible rule-breaker on the platform could be argued to be Trump. He's not been banned yet. Maybe in the interest of fairness to Katie Hopkins he should be?

james.miller · 21 Jun 2020 at 11:53

Mrwong said:
She has just as much right say what she thinks.
Personally the left media are trying to impose left views suggesting there are no alternatives. Sometimes a mixture of left and right helps people decide what should be done.

Unfortunately, yes she does. However fortunately that doesnt give her the right to a twitter account and while she might have the right to say want she wants...there are ways and means of doing so. She's absolutely vile and I wouldn't miss her one bit if she was shipped off to a desert island for the rest of eternity.

Mr Jack · 21 Jun 2020 at 13:20

sityeuropa said:
She is on Parler now (Twitter competitor). I can see the monopoly of Twitter coming to an end.

Parler is tiny, and is likely to remain so. It's an echo chamber for the angry right so why would it appeal to celebrities, companies, organisations, etc. from the mainstream?

Roar87 · 21 Jun 2020 at 13:22

As opposed to Twitter which is a left wing echo chamber?

foster grant · 21 Jun 2020 at 13:30

james.miller said:
Unfortunately, yes she does. However fortunately that doesnt give her the right to a twitter account and while she might have the right to say want she wants...there are ways and means of doing so. She's absolutely vile and I wouldn't miss her one bit if she was shipped off to a desert island for the rest of eternity.

This.

sityeuropa · 21 Jun 2020 at 13:35

Well she got banned for saying 'Hung like a baboon' retaliating to a threat. Right to ban over that? I don't quite get the offence.