What Can Be Done About Twitface?

[ToraToraTora]

https://news.sky.com/story/twitter-under-fresh-pressure-to-remove-racist-content-sooner-after-labour-frontbencher-david-lammy-reveals-abuse-12042261
I think the Home sec has done the right thing in condemning this awful abuse and supporting Mr Lammy but surely this cesspit needs a rocket up it's April.

[Mamyalynne]

Get you.

[Mozz71]

Personally, I think the 'so rule' is utter claptrap, said when you want to shut someone down regardess as to what follows the first word. It makes you feel as if you have the moral high ground, whereas in my opinion, it makes you look arrogant and quite petty.

[andy-hughes]

Mozz - // Personally, I think the 'so rule' is utter claptrap, said when you want to shut someone down regardess as to what follows the first word. It makes you feel as if you have the moral high ground, whereas in my opinion, it makes you look arrogant and quite petty. //

I never want to 'shut anyone down' as you put it - but thanks for your input.

I'm off to consider an entire personality change in view of your stinging rebuke.

[ummmm]

It's not your job to point it out, Andy.

[andy-hughes]

ummmm - // It's not your job to point it out, Andy. //

It's not a 'job' at all.

It's a response - it's what we all do.

It's what you did at 20.06, it's what I'm doing now, it's how the site works.

If you don't like my posts, any or all of them, feel free to ignore them - that's what I do with posts I don't want to engage with.

Isn't free speech a wonderful thing ...

[ToraToraTora]

I like the so rule, it shows up idiots who deliberately try and saddle you with an opinion then berate you for it.

[andy-hughes]

Thanks TTT.

One in favour, one against, and one pointing out that it's 'not my job'.

Sounds reasonable.

[Mozz71]

//I'm off to consider an entire personality change in view of your stinging rebuke.//

Will the next one be likeable? ;-)

[Jackdaw33]

Absolute poppycock. When 'so' is used as a substitute for 'thus' or 'therefore' it is perfectly legitimate. I do take TTT's point though: "You don't like black pudding? So you're a racist."

[andy-hughes]

Mozz - // //I'm off to consider an entire personality change in view of your stinging rebuke.//

Will the next one be likeable? ;-) //

Likeable for you? I doubt it!!

But then I probably care slightly less than you do, so don't let it concern you.

[andy-hughes]

Jackdaw - // Absolute poppycock. When 'so' is used as a substitute for 'thus' or 'therefore' it is perfectly legitimate. //

You are absolutely right, no argument at all.

But when it's used as a preamble to state that a poster has said something they have not said, and then criticise them for what they have not said, that is not legitimate, perfectly or otherwise.

[naomi24]

AH, //unprovable accusations//

And there you have it. A finger on the zapper remedies all those embarrassing moments. Whoosh! And there they are …. gone! Just one snag with that though. I don’t lie.

//I know you know how the system works, I also know you don't approve of how it works.

That disapproval manifests itself in occasional oblique digs at the moderating system//

You’re wrong. I approve of how it works when it isn’t abused - and my criticism of that is never oblique.

//…to which I await a reply with interest..//

You’ve got it.

THECORBYLOON at 15:17 Thu, I don’t believe so.

[tomus42]

//Personally, I think the 'so rule' is utter claptrap, said when you want to shut someone down regardess as to what follows the first word.//

Correct Mozz. It's a silly get out clause from an argument that's not going very well for 'one'. We all know it though, so that's ok - whenever it gets invoked we recognise it as a surrender.

[tomus42]

TTT //I am the very epitome of a conservative, it's you that needs to learn what that means.//

Well said ttt, but I fear you are dealing there with the kind of dimwits there that are immune from sensible discussion and give reasonable right wingers a bad name.

[ummmm]

Andy needs to read his answers on this thread alone before telling someone "If you don't like my posts, any or all of them, feel free to ignore them - that's what I do with posts I don't want to engage with."

If you don't like it, don't read it but you won't know you don't like it until you've read it.....unless it's posted on Twitter...then read it and blame the person posting guff, not the original post.

Strange...

[sanmac]

Unfortunately, Ummmm, the twitface is here to stay.

[jno]

sanmac's question was perfectly reasonable and would have been exactly the same without the "so": is it just the fact that Twitter is bigger than AB that means insults are okay on one but not on the other?

It didn't get answered, it just drew off-topic, kneejerk responses about the rules of debate.

[royfromaus]

andy-hughes
I never want to 'shut anyone down' as you put it - but thanks for your input.
____________________________



When I have stopped laughing, I'm off to bed.

[THECORBYLOON]

NAOMI, where do you get the idea there are "presiding" Mods?

I don't know the thread you refer to but there could have been any number of Mods deleting posts in it.

While you're entitled to your opinions, they are not the deciding factors regarding what is or is not acceptable.

Mods begin the deletion action but the EDs decide to re-instate posts or no and there's no point blaming Mods if the EDs agree with the deletions.