You're not looking very hard. There's multiple people in the thread on here who spat their dummies out.
Katie Hopkins Sacked
- Thread starter something daft already!!
- Start date
You're not looking very hard. There's multiple people in the thread on here who spat their dummies out.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,711
There are and they all seem to be people irritated with Twitter banning her and/or who like to invoke the terms 'SJW' and 'outrage culture.' Everybody else seems to think 'good riddance, move on.'
I'm sorry mate, but you're assuming people have the intellectual capacity to weigh up arguments on pure merit and the bottom line is they don't by and large.
And that is easily my most authoritarian opinion by a country mile
I can't help but think you have some blinkers on. Either that or mushy peas stuck to your eyelids.
I appreciate your point, but I would respectfully disagree (maybe because I have little patience for people who in spite of always being given the benefit of the doubt, are repeatedly horrid, always lie and reject reality) . Give them chances to come around sure, but ultimately some people are a lost cause and Twitter must have decided that was the case with her.
The thing which makes it even more difficult with her, is that im not even sure she believes half the **** she writes. She is just a bad faith agitator who thrives off and makes a living off of courting controversy.
As has already been requested, give some examples.
Or, if you'd rather not, try mushy peas with your fry up and we can have a fiver on whether or not you like it
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,394
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
How does she make a living out of it?
Same way all these toxic people do like TR. If their profile and followers are high enough they get to go on TV, radio, write columns which they then get paid for. She also gets lots of donations from America and South Africa. In fact since she lost her LBC talkshow and Daily Mail column and her libel case she says 50% of her income comes from foreign donations,. At her peak of her "fame" she was worth £2.9m. Not bad for being an evil, racist witch.
I suspect after losing Twitter her profile will drop and her donations will dry up.
I'd assume that being invited onto commentary programmes makes some sort of living, but honestly I don't know why they'd pay her for it.
Then again I don't know why people pay Theresa May £100k to speak at lectures either, the world is filled with mysteries.
Pfft Cameron charges £120,000 per hour. May is small fry.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,394
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Blimey.
As has already been requested, give some examples.
Or, if you'd rather not, try mushy peas with your fry up and we can have a fiver on whether or not you like it
Two prime examples are doobedo and omnomnom.
And can we up the stakes? I'd rather eat your snots that mushy peas! They're the devil. Only exceeded by Pease pudding which is the super devil.
Yeap, I agree completely as I don't think you'll ever change everyone's mind, thats just not realistic.
I'm sure people said the same about the 200+ KKK members Daryl Davis converted/de-radicalised. I don't like to lump people into groups like "all racists must be thickos" etc (using my words not yours) because I don't think thats the case, but I think that refusing to even have the discussion in the first place isn't the best way to deal with this as it effectively "writes people off" who might otherwise be willing to at least listen, as Davis has shown. Again you'll not change everyone's mind but even changing one is better than none.
I asked before if any post suddenly triggered this action and you said it didn't. That it was a pattern of behaviour. So I made an example of a pattern of behaviour.
Some folks like to have it both ways if they don't like the person
How many people have been deradicalised via Twitter than vice versa?
That's a very fair point, but I would perhaps lean to the well trodden argument that people tend to stay in their lane and only take in the views that they agree with or feel comfortable with, if that makes sense? I think what you're saying comes from a good place because it comes across that you trust people to be open minded and be open to differing viewpoints and take them on board for their own merit and make their own decisions. That kind of positivity is much needed in this negatively charged political atmosphere and I'll admit I'm guilty of being on the wrong side of it a lot of the time. I'm a bit of a pessimist in that regard and always fear that people are led most by the narrative that scares the most.
Smashing car by the way, RS6 bro
Are those safe to post - I thought you had to declare that kind of thing with Royal Mail
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
I spent some time at lunchtime today watching some of her recent interviews, and whilst far from an erudite speaker, she does have the benefit of a certain self deprecating sense of humour, which is rather appealing. Whilst the left make fallacious excuses for anything that is obviously bad about mass uncontrolled immigration, and many crimes committed by immigrants, the likes of Ms. Hopkins will have a huge audience amongst those that have strongly contrary views.
Her undoubtedly vulgar phrase "Hung like a baboon" seems to have generated a lot of outrage considering it is something taken directly from Black Adder, a series popularly quoted and enthused over on forums such as this To be totally honest I regularly meet total strangers that come out with far more virulent racial comments than Hopkins, and I have yet to see anyone tackle them face to face over it, despite there often being others unknown to them in earshot. It appears her ilk are mainly hunted by keyboard warriors. Whilst she certainly has the platforms and power to enrage, she is no Powell and her audience is unlikely to have the clout or the intelligence to generally enact her policies. She's just a controversial lightweight that I have to admit finding somewhat amusing at times, at others rather embarrassing.
Her undoubtedly vulgar phrase "Hung like a baboon" seems to have generated a lot of outrage considering it is something taken directly from Black Adder, a series popularly quoted and enthused over on forums such as this To be totally honest I regularly meet total strangers that come out with far more virulent racial comments than Hopkins, and I have yet to see anyone tackle them face to face over it, despite there often being others unknown to them in earshot. It appears her ilk are mainly hunted by keyboard warriors. Whilst she certainly has the platforms and power to enrage, she is no Powell and her audience is unlikely to have the clout or the intelligence to generally enact her policies. She's just a controversial lightweight that I have to admit finding somewhat amusing at times, at others rather embarrassing.
LOL, I think I'm probably too pessimistic at times. Hell I think banning people just hides the problem rather than fights it, which sounds pretty pessimistic to me!
Absolutely no idea!
While I think an actual face to face conversation will have a far greater chance at changing someone's mind than a post on Twitter alone would have, I'd have to say any "echo chamber" would be great for radicalising someone, which is why I think people need to see opposing views, to help shatter that echo chamber, rather than banning them which prevents them seeing opposing views. In the end I feel that banning someone will probably do far more to further radicalise someone than staying on the platform would, where they can be exposed to different ideas.
Of course staying on the platform means nothing if the people giving you an opposing view are just screaming "racist" at you all day long, that isn't what I mean by an "opposing viewpoint".
Anyway, Twitter made their choice. They no longer host her and she can now say all the horrible stuff on other SM without being fought on it, what a "win" that is.