So when I started this thread I wasn't aware of the changing dynamic between the right and left wing in recent years. The way that conservatism seems to increasingly occupy the libertarian space, with socialists accused of being authoritarian and preventing free speech. Twitter's all in a lather today because that horrible gimp, @Nero has been banned. Obviously, he's a tool and his teenage acolytes seem like a genuinely horrible bunch. Is it wrong that he no longer has a platform for his trolling? Is it better that horrible stuff is said out in the open? Or is this banning a good thing? I have to admit, I don't like the way that the left is getting portrayed in all this bickering. Both online and on university campuses. I've always considered myself a left-leaning liberal but when I see people being shouted down for voicing unpopular opinions it feels a little as though I'm playing for the wrong team. Thoughts, redcafe?
Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
Banning @Nero is a pointless exercise which only makes him a martyr. And this is coming from someone who sees political correctness as a good thing overall. He's now just increased his fan base and will probably be back on twitter eventually.
On the flip side though, we shouldn't forget the fact that Leslie Jones has had a stream of racist and sexist abuse directed at her and was constantly harrassed to the point where she had to leave twitter.
On the flip side though, we shouldn't forget the fact that Leslie Jones has had a stream of racist and sexist abuse directed at her and was constantly harrassed to the point where she had to leave twitter.
I think Milo was made an example of for simply saying some mean things on top of some horrible stuff others tweeted at Leslie Jones. I can't remember what his previous bans were for but this move seems overly harsh. Saying someone looks like a man is mean but is it mean enough for a permaban? That was the worst of his comments aimed at Leslie from what I've seen. Twitter is heading in a direction where true freedom of speech can be curtailed by those who claim it to be hate speech.
In the words of Trump's wife "if you don't want to read mean comments, simply ignore them and stop reading twitter."
In the words of Trump's wife "if you don't want to read mean comments, simply ignore them and stop reading twitter."
Yeah, it's the martyrdom that bothers me.
The abuse was grim and very difficult to manage. I'm not sure what the solution is/was but this is not a good outcome for anyone. I hate the way stuff like this gives so much ammunition to the right.
That's how I feel. I'm "left" for most, if not all main issues, but I find myself getting more and more annoyed with that side these days, and find the way things seem to be going a bit ridiculous.
Hasn't the left always had a bit of a minority lunatic fringe though, for want of a better term? Maybe now they just get a louder voice because of social media.
I'm more amazed that so many people still seem so wilfully ignorant of the fact that a private corporation like Twitter's right to ban people who abuse their platform, has absolutely nothing to do with "free speech" whatsoever.
Now, if people are being arrested...??
Now, if people are being arrested...??
I think a lot of people are feeling like that, I have certainly had discussions with friends and relatives on the left that are shocked at the direction "their team" has taken. When you see people being prevented from speaking at campuses because it's supposed to be a "safe space" for the students and we must stop all of this "hate speech". You wonder why these people ever went to university, god forbid you should ever hear an opinion that is contrary to your own. It feels like we want to turn public discourse into one huge echo chamber where dissenting voices are immediately silenced. It's positively Orwellian.
Absolutely. The Freedom of Speech argument carries no water here. Unfortunately, the decision to gag anybody on such a popular platform does come across as unnecessarily censorious. Like I said, it's the ammunition it gives these cnuts that bothers me most of all.
I guess so. I'm of an age where I remember stick in the mud uber-conservatives like Mary Whitehouse were the type of person who would speak out about what we should and shouldn't be able to see/hear on the media. Seems like the opposite is true now. Which is strange.
I know what you mean, and I do think the left is becoming more censorious in a misguided attempt to fight the rise of hideous right wing populism, it's just that things like Twitter bannings for personal abuse (which can presumably be justified by their terms of use) don't bother me nearly as much as things like non platforming in academia.
I honestly feel that public discourse has been steered into a point where we're led to assume that free speech is under massive threat; it's incredible that people now feel that clowns like Nero should be allowed the luxury of harassment in the guise of free speech. Because of a noble concept - which shouldn't really be regarded as monolithic or apt for all occasions - we end up lamenting the silencing of publicity hounds like Nero, because they're using that concept to justify their idiocy and spotlight-grabbing. Why should people like him get to have a public voice when their motivations are, at 'best', hatred and, at worst, publicity by any means? F*ck him, and them.
I'm of a similar age, but bored at work, I was minded to read a bit more on Wiki. I remember she became a parody at the end, but this made me chuckle. Geoffrey Robertson QC shredding her in a case she brought against Gay News back in the day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Whitehouse
Had never heard of him before, but can we ban him even harder?
I like how Caf member @Nero will be getting loads of alerts.
Yeah, sounds like a man whose priorities are his heartfelt convictions.
I quite like him 
I've always thought he was quite entertaining. I listened to his interview with Douglas Murray the other week and I thought it was an interesting discussion:
I've always thought he was quite entertaining. I listened to his interview with Douglas Murray the other week and I thought it was an interesting discussion:I quite like him
I like him too, mainly because he's not afraid to say outrageous things, have a discourse on issues many on the left shy away from now and supports freedom of speech. He goes from well reasoned arguments to pants on head retarded at times. He genuinely thinks lesbians are women who have never had a good dicking and it's not a real sexuality.
So, this is not a hypothetical anymore:
In Kashmir, all newspapers have been shut down and internet access is intermittent. Anyone* sharing graphic photos/videos (TBH the bar for 'graphic' seemed to be set quite low) of violence in Kashmir is getting lifetime bans on facebook. I can safely say I have seen more graphic videos from other parts of the world on fb, but those aren't as likely to anger a large government. There are also no problems with posts from some Indians demanding a higher kill count (sample: what is our army's batting score? 45, soon we will get the half-century).
Given that social media is genuinely the only way to get information out quickly, do you not think facebook (and twitter's) unique market-dominating position means that they can't hide behind the private-corporation excuse?
*sorry, not anyone, it seems to be random.
Last edited:
He's a smart, articulate bloke. But a total prick. Says a load of hateful, offensive stuff because it gets him more of the attention he craves. There are some reasonable ideas in amongst all the ludicrous stuff, to be fair. I actually think he doesn't even believe a lot of his own rhetoric. But hey, so long as he gets more followers...
I'm more morely amazed that people read Twitter, but I'm an old cnut.
It's like going into a pub and just asking everyone what they reckon.
Did he tweet at people saying they should be raped? I've not really followed this at all but saw a screengrab earlier of him saying that to a woman, if real then it's hard to believe he lasted as long as he did.
EDIT - Actually, just checked and the screengrab was of a follower of his using his name, rather than him.
Last edited:
I had already stalked his profile, thought the person on twitter being mentioned here was also a cafe member. Could only read half a dozen posts though, as I don't have newbie access, and there wasn't that much right wingery on it.
Milo is fabulous though and he exposes a hell of a lot that's wrong with the left and where is seems to be heading. His message is clear if you think something he's said is wrong debate him on the matter, prove him wrong and he will gladly accept it. He does overstep the mark at times but on the serious stuff he seems to know what he's talking about.
Personally never heard of @Nero until this week. Sounds like a dick from his tweets though, but again not enough to have a carpet ban.
Having said that I think I saw him on 10 o'clock live years back trying to put forward the case why gay marriage shouldn't be legal. He seems a weird old chap
Having said that I think I saw him on 10 o'clock live years back trying to put forward the case why gay marriage shouldn't be legal. He seems a weird old chap
No he won't. He's as entrenched as anyone whose identity is wrapped up in their politics. Like I said, I think that even he doesn't think a lot of what he claims is actually true. He just likes being provocative.This.
It's the same with people who are bigoted towards a race or religion and hide behind the free speech banner.
How can anyone like him. He wums for a living. Though I agree with what he has to say but the way he says it is infuriating.
That said, i think twitter is headed to a reddit style civil war. Their "saftey council" idea is full of shit. They will end up losing a lot of their users if they went on like this.
My issue with it is that he's still (apparently) a writer for Breitbart (some right wing website) so he still has a platform where people can find him. This will just boost the traffic to his articles for a few weeks and make people like you and me (generally left wing people) feel like we might be on the "wrong team". There's plenty of idiots on Twitter but he's only made news by being banned. This has got him more attention than a 1,000 angry tweets could.
Why does one bother you and the other doesn't? They're both pretty much the same in that they don't have any legal obligation to give anyone a platform.
Sorry to be uninformed but what's the story with this nero guy?
Alan Pardew weighs in on the matter.
I'd not heard of this guy till this week and still haven't looked into him, just going on what people have said about him here. But hypothetically, is there a danger, when someone is saying something that is diametrically opposed to what you believe, or especially when people repeatedly espouse such views, that it's easier to assume these views are not sincerely held? Rather than believing people can really believe things that seem so impossibly abhorrent? Isn't that assuming there's a fundamental link between intellect and mainstream or liberal views? That nobody intelligent could be so extremely conservative or bigoted?
Or is there a particular reason why you don't think he actually believes all of what he says?
I'm going to look into him a bit more later if I have time, I might watch that clip posted on here with Douglas Murray.
Goes to twitter to blame someone of playing victim. Gets banned and whats the first thing he does? Play victim.
I formed my opinion on him after listening to a very long interview on the Joe Rogan podcast, a week or two back. Worth a listen if you're interested. He loves to go on offensive rants about minorities and is blatantly thrilled whenever he manages to shock the interviewer.
At one point he started saying wheelchair users are terrible people because they increase costs for property developers but reached a point where he lost all the courage of his conviction and said "ok, I'm going too far now, aren't I?" and laughed. I also suspect he lays on the "self-hating gay" shtick a bit thick because it goes down so well with the neckbeards who idolise him online. In more reflectige moments he lets slip that prejudice against gay people does actually bother him.
There's nothing particularly special or interesting about him as a personality. Just a smart, articulate, super-bitchy gay man. We've all met people like him. What makes him kind of intriguing is hearing right wing rhetoric coming from someone you would usually expect to be coming from the other end of the political spectrum.
Now I can't work out whether I can be bothered to listen to him or not. Feels like you've painted such a clear picture I hardly need to.
But I am in the mood to listen to right wing nutters for some reason.
I forgot to mention the misogyny. He hates women. Obviously got some fairly serious mummy issues.
Loath to give the twat more exposure but you should check out the podcast. It's an interesting listen if you've any interest in this new "alt-right" movement that seems to be giving Donald Trump some wind beneath his wings.
Loath to give the twat more exposure but you should check out the podcast. It's an interesting listen if you've any interest in this new "alt-right" movement that seems to be giving Donald Trump some wind beneath his wings.
I totally agree. I can't really side with a lot of the stuff that happens in the name of the left, especially not with the direction the regressive left is moving, it all smells too much like thought policing to me. These people would do well to remember that free speech goes both ways and can't just be revoked if you don't agree with something someone else says, no matter how strongly you do.
Yeah im interested, I'll give it a listen.