Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   Remember the rule about news headlines that end in a question mark?   ( arstechnica.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Project Veritas, CNN, Twitter, O'Keefe, Conservatism, Project Veritas video, James O'Keefe, Twitter employees  
•       •       •

6327 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Jan 2018 at 9:19 AM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



64 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2018-01-13 08:23:09 AM  
No?
 
2018-01-13 08:39:51 AM  
Upward Inflection | Family Guy [HD]
Youtube tqNhEzrWQpY
 
2018-01-13 09:07:35 AM  
¿Por Que Tan Serio?
 
2018-01-13 09:09:40 AM  
The Goddess Veritas should file a defamation of character suit against O'Keefe.
 
2018-01-13 09:24:05 AM  
FTFA: Twitter engineer Steven Pierre's comment that Twitter was working on software to "ban a way of talking." The strong implication is that the "way of talking" Pierre wants to ban is conservative political speech. But if you actually watch the full video, that's clearly not what Pierre meant.
"Whether it's positive or negative doesn't look for content," he said. "It's more like if somebody's being aggressive or not. Somebody's just cursing at somebody."
In other words, Pierre was describing a project to filter out trolling and harassment
.

Well banning aggressive language and cursing does kinda target conservatives more than liberals I guess.
 
2018-01-13 09:27:07 AM  
O'Queef
 
2018-01-13 09:27:15 AM  
The generic "Ban a way of talking" could mean anything, but when you have a conspiracy theory to drive, it doesn't matter.

Although making the full video available so that the point could be rebutted is a bit stupid. But then again, Project Veritas doesn't seem like it's especially intelligent.
 
2018-01-13 09:27:16 AM  
The headline didn't end in a question mark.
 
2018-01-13 09:31:12 AM  
Who gives a fark? Twitter is a private company. They can do whatever they want. Why do conservatives hate the free market?
 
2018-01-13 09:32:18 AM  
I love these self owns. Twitter talks about somehow mitigating trolls, aggressive and harassing activity and they immediately pipe up with "That's us! We're the terrible toxic mess on this site!" Or when James Damore's (the idiot from the google memo) lawyer said there was a violent anti-James Damore culture at google cause they circulated a Nazi-punching meme. If you're first reaction to a depiction of a Nazi is "Hey, that's me!" then that is a problem.
 
2018-01-13 09:32:28 AM  
Should I?  I mean, might it take away from the definitive stance a simple pronouncement makes rather than allow me to ponder upon the various implications the story may hold for all those players that contribute the various components to this story, and their several points of view to comprehend its full meaning?

Nah,  just tell me... hey the funny pages!
 
2018-01-13 09:33:18 AM  

buster_v: Who gives a fark? Twitter is a private company. They can do whatever they want. Why do conservatives hate the free market?


Because it's not THEIR free market!
 
2018-01-13 09:34:19 AM  
But O'Keefe is a political activist

No, he's a convicted criminal for entering a Federal building under a false ID and tampering with phone equipment.Also a lying liar painting a picture that the "conservatives" are victims.
 
2018-01-13 09:35:16 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-01-13 09:36:59 AM  
In the presence of too much information critical thinking breaks down.

The Information Age has made us dumber.  Remember this next time your teenager is pouring through their Twitter account and asks you what time it is or today's date.
 
2018-01-13 09:38:36 AM  

Anastacya: Although making the full video available so that the point could be rebutted is a bit stupid. But then again, Project Veritas doesn't seem like it's especially intelligent.


I think that's part of their shtick. They start with the edited video and develop the talking points around it. When they get their mob whipped up people start pointing out it was edited. So they release the full thing and outright lie that their editing didn't change the message. So it established the paper thin veneer of plausibility that they're after, and since the group they're talking to isn't going to bother watching the full video, it doesn't matter, they already received their talking points and are running with it. Project Veritas isn't amount making an argument or providing evidence of malfeasance or whatever bullshiat they state. They are solely focused and whipping up a mob to attack a group they don't like.
 
2018-01-13 09:39:31 AM  
Even if O'Keefe did uncover a nefarious scheme  to silence the conservative message (which he didn't), after all his other lies, creative editing and illegal acts, there is no reason to believe him.  Henny Penny screamed about the sky falling too many times.
 
2018-01-13 09:42:20 AM  
Here's a question: what if Twitter DID decide to suppress conservative speech? Isn't Twitter a privately owned operation? Are conservatives owed a platform by this private business?

Why don't conservatives just start their own flaccid right-wing version of it, like they did with Conservapedia and "The Half Hour Comedy Hour"?
 
2018-01-13 09:46:16 AM  

Commander Lysdexic: FTFA: Twitter engineer Steven Pierre's comment that Twitter was working on software to "ban a way of talking." The strong implication is that the "way of talking" Pierre wants to ban is conservative political speech. But if you actually watch the full video, that's clearly not what Pierre meant.
"Whether it's positive or negative doesn't look for content," he said. "It's more like if somebody's being aggressive or not. Somebody's just cursing at somebody."
In other words, Pierre was describing a project to filter out trolling and harassment.

Well banning aggressive language and cursing does kinda target conservatives more than liberals I guess.


You'd be surprised at how many "liberals" use aggressive language against people they don't like.

/I'm wondering if the now-famous Hillary Clinton "Delete Your Account" tweet to Donald Trump would be banned for "aggressive language".
 
2018-01-13 09:47:34 AM  

clowncar on fire: Should I?  I mean, might it take away from the definitive stance a simple pronouncement makes rather than allow me to ponder upon the various implications the story may hold for all those players that contribute the various components to this story, and their several points of view to comprehend its full meaning?

Nah,  just tell me... hey the funny pages!


It's farking O'Keefe.  Noted criminal, dildo boat guy, and serial liar.  There's no "several points of view" here.
 
2018-01-13 09:48:17 AM  

Gyrfalcon: buster_v: Who gives a fark? Twitter is a private company. They can do whatever they want. Why do conservatives hate the free market?

Because it's not THEIR free market!


MY free market is fair and just.

THE free market is socialism, and so unfair to me.
 
2018-01-13 09:50:07 AM  

IlGreven: /I'm wondering if the now-famous Hillary Clinton "Delete Your Account" tweet to Donald Trump would be banned for "aggressive language".


No you're not.
 
2018-01-13 09:50:37 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-01-13 09:52:54 AM  

Muta: Even if O'Keefe did uncover a nefarious scheme  to silence the conservative message (which he didn't), after all his other lies, creative editing and illegal acts, there is no reason to believe him.  Henny Penny screamed about the sky falling too many times.


Exactly.  If this farker made a video saying the sky is blue and water is wet, I'd still double-check with Wikipedia at a minimum.
 
2018-01-13 09:56:49 AM  
Twitter's a private company. They can do whatever they fark they want with their platform and censor any speech they like. You do not have first amendment rights on Twitter; it is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship.

If you don't like it, start your own social media website where your speech will not be censored.
 
2018-01-13 10:00:16 AM  
A engineer...
 
2018-01-13 10:04:53 AM  
No, twitter is just making a bot that finds and blocks hateful posts that rely on bullying and harassing to respond to opinions other than their own.  I can understand the confusion, because that is 90 percent of the arguments the right relies on whenever someone brings up facts or reason to a debate.
 
2018-01-13 10:05:01 AM  

HMS_Blinkin: clowncar on fire: Should I?  I mean, might it take away from the definitive stance a simple pronouncement makes rather than allow me to ponder upon the various implications the story may hold for all those players that contribute the various components to this story, and their several points of view to comprehend its full meaning?

Nah,  just tell me... hey the funny pages!

It's farking O'Keefe.  Noted criminal, dildo boat guy, and serial liar.  There's no "several points of view" here.


Meh.  I was answering the vague statement of whether a headline should end in a question mark.  To be honest, I was in the middle of letting the dogs out for a bathroom break and hadn't quite got around to reading the article.
 
2018-01-13 10:05:16 AM  

Bowen: A engineer...


so not a grammaratician?
 
2018-01-13 10:08:12 AM  

TheOmni: I think that's part of their shtick. They start with the edited video and develop the talking points around it. When they get their mob whipped up people start pointing out it was edited. So they release the full thing and outright lie that their editing didn't change the message. So it established the paper thin veneer of plausibility that they're after, and since the group they're talking to isn't going to bother watching the full video, it doesn't matter, they already received their talking points and are running with it. Project Veritas isn't amount making an argument or providing evidence of malfeasance or whatever bullshiat they state. They are solely focused and whipping up a mob to attack a group they don't like.


This tactic is nothing new.  Jean-Paul Satre identified it in his work Anti-Semite and Jew

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-01-13 10:08:22 AM  

clowncar on fire: In the presence of too much information critical thinking breaks down.

The Information Age has made us dumber.  Remember this next time your teenager is pouring poring through their Twitter account and asks you what time it is or today's date.

 
2018-01-13 10:09:14 AM  

Barricaded Gunman: Here's a question: what if Twitter DID decide to suppress conservative speech? Isn't Twitter a privately owned operation? Are conservatives owed a platform by this private business?

Why don't conservatives just start their own flaccid right-wing version of it,


Oh, you mean "Facebook"?
 
2018-01-13 10:12:26 AM  

Barricaded Gunman: Here's a question: what if Twitter DID decide to suppress conservative speech? Isn't Twitter a privately owned operation? Are conservatives owed a platform by this private business?

Why don't conservatives just start their own flaccid right-wing version of it, like they did with Conservapedia and "The Half Hour Comedy Hour"?


healthy.bestglam.netView Full Size
healthy.bestglam.netView Full Size


It's called 'Gab.ai'.
 
2018-01-13 10:17:12 AM  
I look forward to Twitter's actions against the people who used this aggressive language.

Then this Twitter threat: "If Katie Roiphe actually publishes that article she can consider her career over." Meanwhile the very people who were up in arms about possible online harassment of the list organizers, went online to call Roiphe "pro-rape," "human scum," "a ghoul," a "biatch," "the definition of basura," a "bag of garbage," and "a misogynistic bottom-feeder." That's another thing with ideological fanatics: Irony tends to elude them.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/​2​018/01/andrew-sullivan-time-to-resist-​excesses-of-metoo.html
 
2018-01-13 10:17:20 AM  
Twitter is a privately held company and can do whatever the hell it wants.  If conservatives want to change this they will have to... wait for it... REGULATE. They will have to impose rules upon that privately held company.

fark O'LiarLiar of the flaming pants.
 
2018-01-13 10:17:48 AM  
Nobody has beaten O'Keefe into a bloody pulp yet? I find that disappointing. There has to be one liberal out there who doesn't give a fark about incarceration, and just wants to go down in history as the person who rearranged O'Keefe's facial features.

The main problem with being progressive is that we don't have anywhere near enough violent crazies who don't care about consequences or responsibility in order to balance things out with the conservatives, who seem to be mostly  violent crazies who don't care about consequences or responsibility.
 
2018-01-13 10:25:08 AM  
Conservatives, those accounts with American Flag profile pics and MAGA in the info where the posts are originating in Russia.
 
2018-01-13 10:33:06 AM  
Republicans always lie.
 
2018-01-13 10:35:25 AM  

WilderKWight: Nobody has beaten O'Keefe into a bloody pulp yet? I find that disappointing. There has to be one liberal out there who doesn't give a fark about incarceration, and just wants to go down in history as the person who rearranged O'Keefe's facial features.


You see, in some circles these kinds of calls for political violence could be considered terrorist activity. I'm pretty sure I'm speaking for the silent majority here when I say this kind of inflammatory talk should not be considered acceptable on Fark.com.
 
2018-01-13 10:56:26 AM  
"Look at me," cried the bartender, punching the old-timey manual cash register, "I'm givin' out diapers!"
 
2018-01-13 11:02:34 AM  

Muta: This tactic is nothing new.  Jean-Paul Satre identified it in his work Anti-Semite and Jew

[img.fark.net image 415x267]


Damn, that's an amazing quote I've never seen before, and thanks for sharing it.

Pretty much nails my experience with Trumpanzees: spite & bile right out of the gate, a lot of hand-waving and vitriol, them immediate disconnect and non-responsiveness when countered with facts, shored up with their obvious impatience that we're still discussing anything.

Right click, Save.
 
2018-01-13 11:08:01 AM  

Shaggy_C: I'm pretty sure I'm speaking for the silent majority here


Whereas I'M pretty sure you've never done anything of the kind.
 
2018-01-13 11:13:45 AM  

Shaggy_C: WilderKWight: Nobody has beaten O'Keefe into a bloody pulp yet? I find that disappointing. There has to be one liberal out there who doesn't give a fark about incarceration, and just wants to go down in history as the person who rearranged O'Keefe's facial features.

You see, in some circles these kinds of calls for political violence could be considered terrorist activity. I'm pretty sure I'm speaking for the silent majority here when I say this kind of inflammatory talk should not be considered acceptable on Fark.com.


Here's your Silent Majority.
upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size
 
2018-01-13 11:13:55 AM  

MrFrode: I look forward to Twitter's actions against the people who used this aggressive language.

Then this Twitter threat: "If Katie Roiphe actually publishes that article she can consider her career over." Meanwhile the very people who were up in arms about possible online harassment of the list organizers, went online to call Roiphe "pro-rape," "human scum," "a ghoul," a "biatch," "the definition of basura," a "bag of garbage," and "a misogynistic bottom-feeder." That's another thing with ideological fanatics: Irony tends to elude them.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2​018/01/andrew-sullivan-time-to-resist-​excesses-of-metoo.html


lolwut
 
2018-01-13 11:28:20 AM  

Shaggy_C: WilderKWight: Nobody has beaten O'Keefe into a bloody pulp yet? I find that disappointing. There has to be one liberal out there who doesn't give a fark about incarceration, and just wants to go down in history as the person who rearranged O'Keefe's facial features.

You see, in some circles these kinds of calls for political violence could be considered terrorist activity. I'm pretty sure I'm speaking for the silent majority here when I say this kind of inflammatory talk should not be considered acceptable on Fark.com.


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-01-13 11:35:57 AM  

Barricaded Gunman: Here's a question: what if Twitter DID decide to suppress conservative speech? Isn't Twitter a privately owned operation? Are conservatives owed a platform by this private business?

Why don't conservatives just start their own flaccid right-wing version of it, like they did with Conservapedia and "The Half Hour Comedy Hour"?


Just pop over to Voat, Gab or /r/the_donald and post something they don't agree with. Free speech to these twatwaffles just means you're free to agree. Anything else and "yer violatin' muh freezed peach".
 
2018-01-13 11:37:33 AM  

Barricaded Gunman: Muta: This tactic is nothing new.  Jean-Paul Satre identified it in his work Anti-Semite and Jew

[img.fark.net image 415x267]

Damn, that's an amazing quote I've never seen before, and thanks for sharing it.

Pretty much nails my experience with Trumpanzees: spite & bile right out of the gate, a lot of hand-waving and vitriol, them immediate disconnect and non-responsiveness when countered with facts, shored up with their obvious impatience that we're still discussing anything.

Right click, Save.


The whole book paints a very accurate picture of the Alt-Right and it was written 70 some years ago.  It is only 120 pages and worth the read.

That quote changed how I interact with them on line.  Instead of responding with three well cited paragraphs explaining how their point was incorrect, I started responding with question designed to make them write the 3 paragraphs.  I would also use their language against them. One way I do that is when they start complaining about how the 'antifa' is trying to restrict free speech, I respond with, "wow, you sound like an SJW".  They hate that.  You just have to stay detached from the argument and make them do the work.  It be becomes quite fun.
 
2018-01-13 11:40:28 AM  

spooky.action: Barricaded Gunman: Here's a question: what if Twitter DID decide to suppress conservative speech? Isn't Twitter a privately owned operation? Are conservatives owed a platform by this private business?

Why don't conservatives just start their own flaccid right-wing version of it, like they did with Conservapedia and "The Half Hour Comedy Hour"?

Just pop over to Voat, Gab or /r/the_donald and post something they don't agree with. Free speech to these twatwaffles just means you're free to agree. Anything else and "yer violatin' muh freezed peach".


Not so sure about Voat- back when Reddit and R_TD were having their disagreement the mods of R_TD tried to pick up and move to Voat.  That worked fine since Voat is full of assholes until R_TD started deleting and instanbanning anyone critical of his Orange Highness.

The folks at Voat then gave them the boot, since that's not ok at Voat.

R_TD- too big of assholes for Voat.  Let that sink in for a minute.
 
2018-01-13 11:51:26 AM  

Glockenspiel Hero: spooky.action: Barricaded Gunman: Here's a question: what if Twitter DID decide to suppress conservative speech? Isn't Twitter a privately owned operation? Are conservatives owed a platform by this private business?

Why don't conservatives just start their own flaccid right-wing version of it, like they did with Conservapedia and "The Half Hour Comedy Hour"?

Just pop over to Voat, Gab or /r/the_donald and post something they don't agree with. Free speech to these twatwaffles just means you're free to agree. Anything else and "yer violatin' muh freezed peach".

Not so sure about Voat- back when Reddit and R_TD were having their disagreement the mods of R_TD tried to pick up and move to Voat.  That worked fine since Voat is full of assholes until R_TD started deleting and instanbanning anyone critical of his Orange Highness.

The folks at Voat then gave them the boot, since that's not ok at Voat.

R_TD- too big of assholes for Voat.  Let that sink in for a minute.


Wow. I need like a flow chart or something to keep up. I'm out of the loop.
 
2018-01-13 12:42:34 PM  

Voiceofreason01: img.fark.net


That's pretty rich; how do you think that person would react if they saw someone posting on Stormfront about how they wish that there were more violent right-wingers out there willing to bloody up some Jews? Probably with appalled horror, the same way I feel when I see people here calling for violence against people they don't like. This isn't the first thread I've seen this in and frankly I don't like the way this community is evolving. It's one thing to bicker with oneanother (that's what the Politics tab is for, after all) but it's quite another to sink to their level. We on the left are better than that.
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report