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.
Katie Hopkins Sacked
- Thread starter something daft already!!
- Start date
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.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,394
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
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?
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2014
- Posts
- 1,774
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
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.
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?
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 May 2012
- Posts
- 6,270
- Location
- North London
This.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2014
- Posts
- 1,774
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.