Katie Hopkins Sacked

V F said:
BBC, Sky News, CNN etc etc spend a lot of their time trawling through twitter and facebook for all this junk.

This isn't about disagreeing. It's about uncontrolled press that can whip up outrage from social media endlessly hiding behind free speech that whips up hatred and outrage.

I love how people like you with your big brushes thinks that I get news from twitter or facebook. What a joke. I wouldn't trust them to tell me today is Monday.

I stopped watching news a long time ago so I don't even get worked up the way you seem to think but I do see the drivel that comes from twitter/facebook posted on these very forums. Which is amusing at times.

Nobody should be taking their place. They should be controlled. We don't really need the press. The press has outlived their usefulness including the mainstream news. They're a cesspit everyone of them.

They're no longer news channels anymore. That is long gone. Opinionated journalism and news is not a good outcome that it has become now.
Click to expand...

Why is it everybody frothing on about 'whipping up outrage' is completely unaware of how they come across as being outraged?

You made the comparison of Twitter and the media, not me, which would lead me to believe that the two are somehow comparable in your eyes otherwise why bring it up? I don't believe that is an unreasonable assumption for me to have made.

"They should be controlled" is amongst the hottest takes I have seen in a while.

Frankly, the reading I'm getting from you is that you are incapable of tolerating viewpoints you do not agree with and lack the ability to just ignore news that doesn't agree with your worldview. You are the very whipped up outrage you seem to be railing against.

Might I suggest reading Reuters for news?
 
Kaite Hopkins want's this though. She has no career apart from being highlighted for whatever crap she has said this time. Now that she has been banned, she gets a lot more spotlight for the next few weeks than her usual posting crap on twitter.
If everyone made the conscious effort to just ignore her, I'm sure the troll will wither away.
 
MikeTheNative said:
Kaite Hopkins want's this though. She has no career apart from being highlighted for whatever crap she has said this time. Now that she has been banned, she gets a lot more spotlight for the next few weeks than her usual posting crap on twitter.
If everyone made the conscious effort to just ignore her, I'm sure the troll will wither away.
Click to expand...

Milo Yiannopoulous suffered a massive financial collapse after he got booted off mainstream sites and was pushed onto the minor player sites willing to accept him. So, yeah, she'll have a couple of weeks of extra coverage but that's not a career. Her career is based on being "controversial" but for that to bring you any income you need to have lots of people talking about your "controversial views", otherwise you're just an irrelevant little troll. Away from places she can generate outrage, she'll shrivel away.
 
Mr Jack said:
Milo Yiannopoulous suffered a massive financial collapse after he got booted off mainstream sites and was pushed onto the minor player sites willing to accept him. So, yeah, she'll have a couple of weeks of extra coverage but that's not a career. Her career is based on being "controversial" but for that to bring you any income you need to have lots of people talking about your "controversial views", otherwise you're just an irrelevant little troll. Away from places she can generate outrage, she'll shrivel away.
Click to expand...

Here's to hoping that your right.
 
The problem is a lot of you are referring to 'The last straw that broke the camels back'.

In this specific instance, what was the 'The last straw that broke the camels back' ???? and did this last straw that got triggered warrant the ban?

I would put to you that it didn't? Even if you hate her, can you honestly say the latest infraction warranted the last straw?
 
Jono8 said:
This is true.

However, she does not have the right to say whatever she wants on Twitter's servers.

Just like you don't have the right to swear or mention competitors on here.

She is welcome to start up her own website and spew rubbish if she wants to.
Click to expand...

I think forums are much better than twitter, you get banned for swearing , threatening violence and getting making personal attacks, you don't get banned for having a contrary opinion.

KH is very unsavoury, but reading the 'tweets that got her banned', they aren't attacking anyone, they are said fairly politely, no violence, no personal attacks, she is just voicing a contrary opinion.. I'm sure she may may have said more fractious things over her time on twitter (forgive me for not wanting to find them) but the articles reporting on why she got booted don't go over those.

For example, we've had threads about Markus Rashford, and some people did voice opinions that parents maybe should play a part in this, and yet that didn't end in people getting banned, it just had people piling on against that opinion which is fair play.
 
sityeuropa said:
The problem is a lot of you are referring to 'The last straw that broke the camels back'.

In this specific instance, what was the 'The last straw that broke the camels back' ???? and did this last straw that got triggered warrant the ban?

I would put to you that it didn't? Even if you hate her, can you honestly say the latest infraction warranted the last straw?
Click to expand...

Are you saying you don't know what the latest infraction was but you're confident it didn't warrant the ban?
 
Surveyor said:
Are you saying you don't know what the latest infraction was but you're confident it didn't warrant the ban?
Click to expand...

I know what it is, I was using rhetorical questions.

Jono8 said:
Well look them up. She is a vile woman. If I owned a website, I wouldn't provide her with any free services either.
Click to expand...

Do quote them and please advise what is bannable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sityeuropa said:
The problem is a lot of you are referring to 'The last straw that broke the camels back'.

In this specific instance, what was the 'The last straw that broke the camels back' ???? and did this last straw that got triggered warrant the ban?

I would put to you that it didn't? Even if you hate her, can you honestly say the latest infraction warranted the last straw?
Click to expand...

The whole point of the "straw that broke the camel's back" is that the straw itself did not break the camel's back. It's not major, it's not big, it's just another straw. Hopkins was banned for her long, and awful, record not for these particular tweets.
 
Mr Jack said:
The whole point of the "straw that broke the camel's back" is that the straw itself did not break the camel's back. It's not major, it's not big, it's just another straw. Hopkins was banned for her long, and awful, record not for these particular tweets.
Click to expand...

So why was she posting up until a few days ago? This last straw must have been the deal breaker? If so care to tell us all why it was classed as a last straw.

Look you can hate her and I understand why people do but at least have some integrity to admit this latest infraction was not legitimate; instead of being spiteful and "oh well I hate her who cares, deserved it anyway meh"
 
sityeuropa said:
Do quote them and please advise what is bannable.
Click to expand...

She was banned for contravening their hateful conduct policy.

Regardless, what is bannable is whatever twitter wants it to be within the law.

There is no law protecting ****** people from being refused use of a website they were using for free.

She could just , you know, just stop being so horrible.
 
sityeuropa said:
So why was she posting up until a few days ago? This last straw must have been the deal breaker? If so care to tell us all why it was classed as a last straw.
Click to expand...

No, the last straw is not the deal breaker; it is simply the last straw. That's the whole point of the metaphor. There's nothing about the last straw to make it stand out.

Look you can hate her and I understand why people do but at least have the moral fortitude to admit this latest infraction was not legitimate.
Click to expand...

Her prior actions are sufficient to ban her; the latest infraction (whatever it was; Twitter haven't specified) is simply the last straw.
 
Jono8 said:
She was banned for contravening their hateful conduct policy.

Regardless, what is bannable is whatever twitter wants it to be within the law.

There is no law protecting ****** people from being refused use of a website they were using for free.
Click to expand...

Cop out mate. What was specifically the hateful content? Enlighten us.

Mr Jack said:
No, the last straw is not the deal breaker; it is simply the last straw. That's the whole point of the metaphor. There's nothing about the last straw to make it stand out.



Her prior actions are sufficient to ban her; the latest infraction (whatever it was; Twitter haven't specified) is simply the last straw.
Click to expand...

Are you OK? You are saying it does not matter of the content of the last straw, the last straw is the last straw.

So if I say '"Good morning all" and Twitter say "HEY buddy, that is quite enough, you are having a straw for that".

You are saying content does not matter?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sityeuropa said:
So why was she posting up until a few days ago? This last straw must have been the deal breaker? If so care to tell us all why it was classed as a last straw.

Look you can hate her and I understand why people do but at least have the moral fortitude to admit this latest infraction was not legitimate.
Click to expand...

It doesn't need to be legitimate, they can remove anyone for any reason that they wish or no reason at all. Twitter is not a state/government and therefore offers no jurisprudence.

Which returns to the matter of living in a capitalist society, go elsewhere, Twitter doesn't owe her or anyone else a platform.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom