You know @WarChiefZeke I think you're the one who is equally biased. When Al Franken was revealed as someone who molested women, he left the Senate- he was forced out by his fellow Democrats. When Trump said he liked to grab women by their private parts, the Republicans barely even commented after he took office. It's like they lost their sense of morality and their spine at the same time.
They also didn't comment when a man grabbed a woman by her breasts on a plane and said, It's okay because the President said he did it all the time.
Where is the outrage against the President for that? Nowhere to be found on the right.
Never been a fan of Farrakhan myself. Anti-Semitism displays ignorance and bigotry no matter who expresses it. Being a supporter of black rights doesn't mean you're inherently free from any given form of bigotry. I think as Americans we tend to think of racism as a "white people thing," because racism from whites has caused so much more violence and discrimination in this country than racism from other races. But it's not a one-to-one thing. Bigotry is pretty universal, and it goes in lots of directions. Vladek Spiegalman, a Holocaust survivor whose life served as the basis for his son's graphic novel Maus, was not above making racist statements about blacks, much to his son and daughter-in-law's consternation.
As for the Twitter issue: I simply don't trust any private corporation to host a truly neutral free speech platform without any form of government oversight or limitations on its power. Alex Jones was one of the last people who deserved widespread attention (the man is a crackpot who encourages the harassment of the victims of gun violence, which I personally think should be illegal), but I don't think an unelected, for-profit entity like Twitter, whose only loyalty is to their own material interests, should make that decision.
I don't know where exactly the cutoff should be, but once a social media platform reaches a certain size, it's no longer just a company providing a service; it's a platform for free speech, and that company's actions become directly relevant to the public interest. There are valid reasons to ban an individual from a platform, but we need to make sure that banishment and demonetization are based on neutrally-enforced rules, and not on the whims of executives or the pressures of public outcry alone.
Oh, and I bring it up because my posts are about my topic, which is the mass political censorship by all the biggest tech giants according to their insane far left ideology and to the celebration of their political peers.
I agree with you about how much power Twitter should have to influence access to a free speech platform (little at most, and ideally none), but I fail to see how the occasional ban for a rule-breaking user who happens to be a conservative constitutes "mass political censorship," and I've seen zero evidence that the biggest tech giants (which ones?) subscribe to any "far left" ideas (which ones?).
In fact, I've seen the same things happen to liberals on Twitter. Right-wing Twitter trolls have successfully gotten their political enemies banned from the platform by organizing false reports en masse to Twitter authorities (you attack a liberal target until you provoke a response, then get your buddies to report that response so the target gets banned instead of you). Liberals have also been removed from the platform for strictly political reasons; Twitter bans are hardly exclusive to conservative figures.
What prominent liberal has been permanently banned from Twitter and for what? I'd honestly love to know. It's not like I don't look for examples, either. But in total honesty I can't name one off the top of my head that ever received a permanent suspension, for anything.
As for evidence of far left ideals, off the top of my head I would say the way in which James Demore was treated and more importantly the policies he outlined is a good example of it. The leaked Google memo The Good Censor is also important, as is the Google execs response to it in a Forbes article. His article itself, explaining his own words, is the most damning evidence of a political agenda if you ask me. When you are using phrases like "the internet was a place where the dark started to eclipse the light"...man, you just sound like an ideologue. And Google doesn't want to censor people! No, of course not. According to him, they are just grappling with the question of how to remove "toxic speech" and "trolls".
In fact, I've seen the same things happen to liberals on Twitter. Right-wing Twitter trolls have successfully gotten their political enemies banned from the platform by organizing false reports en masse to Twitter authorities (you attack a liberal target until you provoke a response, then get your buddies to report that response so the target gets banned instead of you). Liberals have also been removed from the platform for strictly political reasons; Twitter bans are hardly exclusive to conservative figures.
What prominent liberal has been permanently banned from Twitter and for what? I'd honestly love to know. It's not like I don't look for examples, either. But in total honesty I can't name one off the top of my head that ever received a permanent suspension, for anything.
As for evidence of far left ideals, off the top of my head I would say the way in which James Demore was treated and more importantly the policies he outlined is a good example of it. The leaked Google memo The Good Censor is also important, as is the Google execs response to it in a Reuters article. His article itself, explaining his own words, is the most damning evidence of a political agenda if you ask me. When you are using phrases like "the internet has become a place where the dark started to eclipse the light"...man, you just sound like an ideologue.
You must have missed this, then: Twitter has purged left-wing accounts with no explanation https://www.wired.co.uk/article/twitter-political-account-ban-us-mid-term-elections Dozens of activists linked to the Occupy movement are up in arms after their accounts were suspended by Twitter Twitter accounts run by activists linked to the Occupy movement have been suspended after the social network continued its attempted crackdown on bots and fake accounts. Around 80 activists with a collective following of five million people are thought to have had their accounts suspended.
Why Republicans Weren't The Only Ones Shadow Banned On Twitter https://www.forbes.com/sites/fruzsinaeordogh/2018/07/31/why-republicans-werent-the-only-ones-shadow-banned-on-twitter/#19846535434b When Vice published a story last week about Republican political figures apparently being “shadow banned” on Twitter, conservatives seized on the story because it fed their persecution complex. “See, it’s not just the media and Hollywood that hate us, social media platforms do too!” sums up their arguments. The problem with this argument is 1) shadow banning doesn’t exist in the way they think it does and 2) many others who are not conservative have been “shadow banned.” As Twitter explained in a blog post clarifying the matter, they do not “shadow ban,” just make it harder (but not impossible!) to find the content from people that they think are too troll-like, abusive or have been muted or blocked by many others. This means the users in question are not viewable in search or hidden under the quality filter and if you want to see their content you have to go directly to their Twitter page. The other people affected by such “shadow banning” in the past include Democrats, as mentioned in the Twitter blog post, other progressives, transgender users, Black Lives Matter activists, feminists, socialists and users that participated in culture-jamming campaigns against ISIL. The reason for all types of people on the political spectrum, and the folks using hashtags like #OpISIS, #OpIceISIS or spreading ISIS-chan, is because of a massively shared blocklist… that even ISIL contributed to 2015. That massive blocklist is so prevalent today, it is even used by Hollywood celebrities.
You know who else isn't banned? Donald Trump. In September 2017, Twitter responded to calls to suspend Donald Trump's account, clarifying that they will not do so as his tweets are "newsworthy".
You know @WarChiefZeke I think you're the one who is equally biased. When Al Franken was revealed as someone who molested women, he left the Senate- he was forced out by his fellow Democrats. When Trump said he liked to grab women by their private parts, the Republicans barely even commented after he took office. It's like they lost their sense of morality and their spine at the same time.
They also didn't comment when a man grabbed a woman by her breasts on a plane and said, It's okay because the President said he did it all the time.
Where is the outrage against the President for that? Nowhere to be found on the right.
My rule is, if it's consensual and legal, it's not my business. Trump's comments were both and he said so on the tape. Frankens was neither. Nor was there any room for doubt on Franken's part, what with the pictures and everything. Obviously if he had been caught on tape saying he was doing so without their consent, not only would he not be President, he'd probably also be in jail.
And there still is hundreds of sealed legal settlements regarding sexual harassment by members of Congress and there has been for many years. I have a feeling no party has ever wanted to unseal them because you would see quite a bit of both in there. But it's really quite nasty if you think about it.
Trump's sexual conduct has nothing to do with why the Cohen revelations are important. The problem from the get-go was that the secret payments were an in-kind illegal contribution to the campaign deliberately engaged in to deceive the electorate. I have made this explicitly clear fron the first day this story broke. I don't care in the least that he cheated on his wife. But CLEARLY Trump cared a great deal about people knowing, or the hush money would have never been paid. The act itself is an admission they thought it would negatively influence his electoral chances, otherwise there is no reason for it to take place.
You know @WarChiefZeke I think you're the one who is equally biased. When Al Franken was revealed as someone who molested women, he left the Senate- he was forced out by his fellow Democrats. When Trump said he liked to grab women by their private parts, the Republicans barely even commented after he took office. It's like they lost their sense of morality and their spine at the same time.
They also didn't comment when a man grabbed a woman by her breasts on a plane and said, It's okay because the President said he did it all the time.
Where is the outrage against the President for that? Nowhere to be found on the right.
My rule is, if it's consensual and legal, it's not my business. Trump's comments were both and he said so on the tape. Frankens was neither. Nor was there any room for doubt on Franken's part, what with the pictures and everything. Obviously if he had been caught on tape saying he was doing so without their consent, not only would he not be President, he'd probably also be in jail.
And there still is hundreds of sealed legal settlements regarding sexual harassment by members of Congress and there has been for many years. I have a feeling no party has ever wanted to unseal them because you would see quite a bit of both in there. But it's really quite nasty if you think about it.
Actually, Trump made it clear that he got away with it because he was famous. I suppose it's an honor to be sexually assaulted by a famous person. Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Bush: Whatever you want. Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.
In fact, I've seen the same things happen to liberals on Twitter. Right-wing Twitter trolls have successfully gotten their political enemies banned from the platform by organizing false reports en masse to Twitter authorities (you attack a liberal target until you provoke a response, then get your buddies to report that response so the target gets banned instead of you). Liberals have also been removed from the platform for strictly political reasons; Twitter bans are hardly exclusive to conservative figures.
What prominent liberal has been permanently banned from Twitter and for what? I'd honestly love to know. It's not like I don't look for examples, either. But in total honesty I can't name one off the top of my head that ever received a permanent suspension, for anything.
As for evidence of far left ideals, off the top of my head I would say the way in which James Demore was treated and more importantly the policies he outlined is a good example of it. The leaked Google memo The Good Censor is also important, as is the Google execs response to it in a Reuters article. His article itself, explaining his own words, is the most damning evidence of a political agenda if you ask me. When you are using phrases like "the internet has become a place where the dark started to eclipse the light"...man, you just sound like an ideologue.
You must have missed this, then: Twitter has purged left-wing accounts with no explanation https://www.wired.co.uk/article/twitter-political-account-ban-us-mid-term-elections Dozens of activists linked to the Occupy movement are up in arms after their accounts were suspended by Twitter Twitter accounts run by activists linked to the Occupy movement have been suspended after the social network continued its attempted crackdown on bots and fake accounts. Around 80 activists with a collective following of five million people are thought to have had their accounts suspended.
Why Republicans Weren't The Only Ones Shadow Banned On Twitter https://www.forbes.com/sites/fruzsinaeordogh/2018/07/31/why-republicans-werent-the-only-ones-shadow-banned-on-twitter/#19846535434b When Vice published a story last week about Republican political figures apparently being “shadow banned” on Twitter, conservatives seized on the story because it fed their persecution complex. “See, it’s not just the media and Hollywood that hate us, social media platforms do too!” sums up their arguments. The problem with this argument is 1) shadow banning doesn’t exist in the way they think it does and 2) many others who are not conservative have been “shadow banned.” As Twitter explained in a blog post clarifying the matter, they do not “shadow ban,” just make it harder (but not impossible!) to find the content from people that they think are too troll-like, abusive or have been muted or blocked by many others. This means the users in question are not viewable in search or hidden under the quality filter and if you want to see their content you have to go directly to their Twitter page. The other people affected by such “shadow banning” in the past include Democrats, as mentioned in the Twitter blog post, other progressives, transgender users, Black Lives Matter activists, feminists, socialists and users that participated in culture-jamming campaigns against ISIL. The reason for all types of people on the political spectrum, and the folks using hashtags like #OpISIS, #OpIceISIS or spreading ISIS-chan, is because of a massively shared blocklist… that even ISIL contributed to 2015. That massive blocklist is so prevalent today, it is even used by Hollywood celebrities.
You know who else isn't banned? Donald Trump. In September 2017, Twitter responded to calls to suspend Donald Trump's account, clarifying that they will not do so as his tweets are "newsworthy".
Ehhh, i'm not sure banning bot accounts for being bots as described in the first link meets our criteria here. Automated content is detectable and gets deleted, that's just how it is. It doesn't say anything about content and the explanation is pretty politically neutral.
I don't know, I just think it's feasible that an old Occupy Wall Street Page might just have a script running that tweets out articles and headlines or something.
And it's funny because they took a tougher stance on automated activity because of the "Russian bot" scare of the far left.
You also can't prove shadow banning, as mentioned in the second link, so there really is no evidence one way or another about who is actually affected by it, left wing or right wing. You don't get a notification or any sort of notice when that happens. Which is why I don't mention shadow banning, by the way, and only objective, clear examples of action being taken. What someone is convinced of as shadow banning might just be their dying popularity or a particularly bad post.
Ehhh, i'm not sure banning bot accounts for being bots as described in the first link meets our criteria here. Automated content is detectable and gets deleted, that's just how it is. It doesn't say anything about content and the explanation is pretty politically neutral.
And it's funny because they took a tougher stance on automated activity because of the "Russian bot" scare of the far left.
You also can't prove shadow banning, as mentioned in the second link, so there really is no evidence one way or another about who is actually affected by it, left wing or right wing. You don't get a notification or any sort of notice when that happens. Which is why I don't mention shadow banning, by the way, and only objective, clear examples of action being taken. What someone is convinced of as shadow banning might just be their dying popularity or a particularly bad post.
But they weren't bots. And neither was Sargon of Akkad. He got banned once, and his second, permanent ban is entirely in line with Twitter's usual way of handling it. They tell you what general category you broke in your Terms of Service, but they don't tell you which post in particular or the person's name.
Almost everything he talks about is political. He's a member of UKIP and does promotional work for them on his channel as well. He also documents crazy events in the far left world of academia and elsewhere, mostly as a critic of social justice ideology from a left wing perspective.
So why was he banned from Patreon?
Sorry, I am not familiar with him in the slightest and had to do a quick google search to ask those questions.
There must have been some breach in the TOS that he did and it wouldn’t have been just for his political leanings.
Granted, he may have had a microscope on him and the slightest muck up could have had him banned, espcially after the Anita intimidation tactic he pulled (from wiki) but there was something besides “right-leaning.”
That’s the excuse people use when doing other stupid shit. You can be right leaning and have informative opinions without being a douche about it.
And if this is such a huge issue, nothing is stopping a right-leaning company from starting another Twitter-like site for “right-leaning” banter. You can call it Ritter. There you go. Sinclair Media can have that for free.
We've been over the Access Hollywood tape before (the transcript is here), and you have to twist Trump's words and make some incredibly ludicrous assumptions about women in order to interpret it innocently.
Trump: You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
Bush: Whatever you want.
Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.
He specifically says he doesn't wait for consent; he just does it. He explicitly says that being a "star" lets him do "anything." In order to interpret this as consensual, you have to make two clearly false assumptions:
1. Trump can instantaneously detect whether a woman is interested in him, and does not need to "wait" before finding it out. 2. Any woman would willingly consent to Trump doing "anything" to them, including grabbing them by the pussy.
Are there any women here who would consent to Trump doing "anything" to you, because he was a star?
He's also made a joke that has become an almost right of passage on the alt-right, which is to tell a woman they aren't at risk of rape because they are too ugly. In fact, in the Daily Wire piece that was posted about the Kavanaugh accusers awhile back, I briefly skimmed the comment section and found DOZENS of comments along the line of "there is no way these old hags were raped, looked at how unattractive they are".
He perfectly predicted the spin on that statement which is why he said it, which is that him saying "I wouldn't rape you" has essentially become the equivalent of him saying that he would. The pathological lies spread about anyone not considered a social justice advocate is pretty predictable at this point. They just HAVE to be evil amirite
@WarChiefZeke there's no spin required to make that statement hateful - as @jjstraka34 explained it's the inclusion of the word "even" that turns it from a social experiment to see whether a neutral statement would be spun into a different meaning for political ends into a clearly misogynistic statement.
Before posting I did watch the entire video you linked. There were some interesting points made in that, but ultimately it turned into a justification for an insult on the basis that a particular individual deserved it. I'm not commenting on whether that was true or not, but I will say that I'm certain that Sargon knew that the insult would be taken as a general slur on women (and not specific to the MP) and intended that to be the case.
While it would be a defensible position to say he wasn't willing to apologize to her, it's troubling that he wasn't willing to apologize for the generalized insult to women. The reason for that though was signalled in the video. Even though it was his own video and clearly very carefully put together in order to support his point of view, some of the statements made in it were troubling. For instance he referred to women having too much power and being the reason men were struggling for success in today's world. I accept that things are much more equal than they used to be and therefore the relative position of men vs women has worsened, but to suggest that things have turned round so far that women are now dominating society seems pretty ludicrous to me (he did also make points about the need to consider men's issues as well as women's and I agree with that - the goal should be equal treatment and opportunity).
Incidentally, I do appreciate having you posting on this thread, as it helps avoid the potential danger of becoming an 'echo chamber'. On this occasion I don't think you've picked the right ground to fight on, but I'll look forward to you telling me why I'm wrong .
We've been over the Access Hollywood tape before (the transcript is here), and you have to twist Trump's words and make some incredibly ludicrous assumptions about women in order to interpret it innocently.
Trump: You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
Bush: Whatever you want.
Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.
He specifically says he doesn't wait for consent; he just does it. He explicitly says that being a "star" lets him do "anything." In order to interpret this as consensual, you have to make two clearly false assumptions:
1. Trump can instantaneously detect whether a woman is interested in him, and does not need to "wait" before finding it out. 2. Any woman would willingly consent to Trump doing "anything" to them, including grabbing them by the pussy.
Are there any women here who would consent to Trump doing "anything" to you, because he was a star?
Normal human behavior in my mind has always been this: Person A attempts romantic or sexual gesture towards Person B, normally guided by social cues and the like, and Person B then either accepts it or rejects it and says no. When they say no Person A is required to stop, otherwise it becomes assault.
In most cases, most people in normal circumstances don't go "may I kiss or otherwise initiate sexual contact with you?" before doing so, maybe some people did that, but I never met them. Maybe that is the norm now, but it certainly wasn't when I was a kid not too long ago.
I really don't see the importance in your last statement.
We've been over the Access Hollywood tape before (the transcript is here), and you have to twist Trump's words and make some incredibly ludicrous assumptions about women in order to interpret it innocently.
Trump: You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
Bush: Whatever you want.
Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.
He specifically says he doesn't wait for consent; he just does it. He explicitly says that being a "star" lets him do "anything." In order to interpret this as consensual, you have to make two clearly false assumptions:
1. Trump can instantaneously detect whether a woman is interested in him, and does not need to "wait" before finding it out. 2. Any woman would willingly consent to Trump doing "anything" to them, including grabbing them by the pussy.
Are there any women here who would consent to Trump doing "anything" to you, because he was a star?
One of the only glaring problems with this thread is that there aren't that many women around to answer this question. Far less than 10% of it's participants are women, unless I have totally misjudged who people actually are.
He's also made a joke that has become an almost right of passage on the alt-right, which is to tell a woman they aren't at risk of rape because they are too ugly. In fact, in the Daily Wire piece that was posted about the Kavanaugh accusers awhile back, I briefly skimmed the comment section and found DOZENS of comments along the line of "there is no way these old hags were raped, looked at how unattractive they are".
He perfectly predicted the spin on that statement which is why he said it, which is that him saying "I wouldn't rape you" has essentially become the equivalent of him saying that he would. The pathological lies spread about anyone not considered a social justice advocate is pretty predictable at this point. They just HAVE to be evil amirite
@WarChiefZeke there's no spin required to make that statement hateful - as @jjstraka34 explained it's the inclusion of the word "even" that turns it from a social experiment to see whether a neutral statement would be spun into a different meaning for political ends into a clearly misogynistic statement.
That's an important word then if this all rests on it! What is implied by the word even? This is some high level semantics here. "Even" seems to me like a pretty neutral term on it's own. "Even" coming after the world "wouldn't" sounds to me like it is meant to emphasize the point. But what new information does it add to the statement?
@jjstraka34: It's just a function of the demographic. Gamers are evenly divided between the sexes, but RPG gamers skew male, so gaming fora like these tend to be male-dominated. I don't know about participants in this thread, but I remember seeing a poll (@JuliusBorisov might know which thread I'm talking about) that found the percentage of women on the site to be well north of 10%.
A ) - Russia isnt a conspiracy theory. It's an active investigation. For the 73rd time: Absence of evidence isnt evidence of absence. In the current context, evidence isnt revealed during an active investigation. I'll wait for Mueller's report to come out (which will be predictably blocked or redacted, and which the alt-right will support over "national security"). TBH, I dont know why people act like we have enough information to render a judgement (innocent or guilty) when we dont have much of the actual information. Maybe we should wait before we exonerate him?
B ) - Campaign finance laws are of middling importance. What's not of middling importance is the ability to demonstrate that the sitting president knowingly and intentionally broke laws these laws. It's kind of a big deal. Not shooting someone on 5th avenue. I'd also say not worth of beginning impeachment, either. Still, pretty damn swampy if you ask me.
C ) - Access Hollywood. The contortions it takes to try to justify this kind of blows my mind.
Normal human behavior in my mind has always been this: Person A attempts romantic or sexual gesture towards Person B, normally guided by social cues and the like, and Person B then either accepts it or rejects it and says no. When they say no Person A is required to stop, otherwise it becomes assault.
In most cases, most people in normal circumstances don't go "may I kiss or otherwise initiate sexual contact with you?" before doing so, maybe some people did that, but I never met them. Maybe that is the norm now, but it certainly wasn't when I was a kid not too long ago.
Like this. You're inserting context that he's been given plenty of social ques to know that this kind of advance is wanted. The actual statement implies he doesn NEED those ques because he'a famous and rich.
It's assault. Has been for a long time. Maybe in the past (when American was great?), women werent taken seriously if they objected to it, but it was still assault.
We've been over the Access Hollywood tape before (the transcript is here), and you have to twist Trump's words and make some incredibly ludicrous assumptions about women in order to interpret it innocently.
Trump: You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
Bush: Whatever you want.
Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.
He specifically says he doesn't wait for consent; he just does it. He explicitly says that being a "star" lets him do "anything." In order to interpret this as consensual, you have to make two clearly false assumptions:
1. Trump can instantaneously detect whether a woman is interested in him, and does not need to "wait" before finding it out. 2. Any woman would willingly consent to Trump doing "anything" to them, including grabbing them by the pussy.
Are there any women here who would consent to Trump doing "anything" to you, because he was a star?
One of the only glaring problems with this thread is that there aren't that many women around to answer this question. Far less than 10% of it's participants are women, unless I have totally misjudged who people actually are.
Well, I'm a woman. And yeah, I would certainly object to it. In fact, star or not, he'd be in a world of serious hurt if he tried that sexist crap on me. But he'd never try it on me, because I'd be "ugly" to him because I am overweight. That's just calling it like it is.
I don't know if it's true that women just let him do it, star or not. I think they are taken off guard and don't know how to react to being grabbed like that. Instead of smacking his head off, or kneeing him in the groin (like I would), they just freeze, letting him think he got away with it. They probably didn't sue him because of his reputation of being excessively litigious, and it's expensive to sue. And with the cops, sad to say, there's a "He said/she said" to it all, so they had to live with being assaulted by him.
In fact, I've seen the same things happen to liberals on Twitter. Right-wing Twitter trolls have successfully gotten their political enemies banned from the platform by organizing false reports en masse to Twitter authorities (you attack a liberal target until you provoke a response, then get your buddies to report that response so the target gets banned instead of you). Liberals have also been removed from the platform for strictly political reasons; Twitter bans are hardly exclusive to conservative figures.
What prominent liberal has been permanently banned from Twitter and for what? I'd honestly love to know. It's not like I don't look for examples, either. But in total honesty I can't name one off the top of my head that ever received a permanent suspension, for anything.
As for evidence of far left ideals, off the top of my head I would say the way in which James Demore was treated and more importantly the policies he outlined is a good example of it. The leaked Google memo The Good Censor is also important, as is the Google execs response to it in a Reuters article. His article itself, explaining his own words, is the most damning evidence of a political agenda if you ask me. When you are using phrases like "the internet has become a place where the dark started to eclipse the light"...man, you just sound like an ideologue.
You must have missed this, then: Twitter has purged left-wing accounts with no explanation https://www.wired.co.uk/article/twitter-political-account-ban-us-mid-term-elections Dozens of activists linked to the Occupy movement are up in arms after their accounts were suspended by Twitter Twitter accounts run by activists linked to the Occupy movement have been suspended after the social network continued its attempted crackdown on bots and fake accounts. Around 80 activists with a collective following of five million people are thought to have had their accounts suspended.
Why Republicans Weren't The Only Ones Shadow Banned On Twitter https://www.forbes.com/sites/fruzsinaeordogh/2018/07/31/why-republicans-werent-the-only-ones-shadow-banned-on-twitter/#19846535434b When Vice published a story last week about Republican political figures apparently being “shadow banned” on Twitter, conservatives seized on the story because it fed their persecution complex. “See, it’s not just the media and Hollywood that hate us, social media platforms do too!” sums up their arguments. The problem with this argument is 1) shadow banning doesn’t exist in the way they think it does and 2) many others who are not conservative have been “shadow banned.” As Twitter explained in a blog post clarifying the matter, they do not “shadow ban,” just make it harder (but not impossible!) to find the content from people that they think are too troll-like, abusive or have been muted or blocked by many others. This means the users in question are not viewable in search or hidden under the quality filter and if you want to see their content you have to go directly to their Twitter page. The other people affected by such “shadow banning” in the past include Democrats, as mentioned in the Twitter blog post, other progressives, transgender users, Black Lives Matter activists, feminists, socialists and users that participated in culture-jamming campaigns against ISIL. The reason for all types of people on the political spectrum, and the folks using hashtags like #OpISIS, #OpIceISIS or spreading ISIS-chan, is because of a massively shared blocklist… that even ISIL contributed to 2015. That massive blocklist is so prevalent today, it is even used by Hollywood celebrities.
You know who else isn't banned? Donald Trump. In September 2017, Twitter responded to calls to suspend Donald Trump's account, clarifying that they will not do so as his tweets are "newsworthy".
Ehhh, i'm not sure banning bot accounts for being bots as described in the first link meets our criteria here. Automated content is detectable and gets deleted, that's just how it is. It doesn't say anything about content and the explanation is pretty politically neutral.
I don't know, I just think it's feasible that an old Occupy Wall Street Page might just have a script running that tweets out articles and headlines or something.
And it's funny because they took a tougher stance on automated activity because of the "Russian bot" scare of the far left.
You also can't prove shadow banning, as mentioned in the second link, so there really is no evidence one way or another about who is actually affected by it, left wing or right wing. You don't get a notification or any sort of notice when that happens. Which is why I don't mention shadow banning, by the way, and only objective, clear examples of action being taken. What someone is convinced of as shadow banning might just be their dying popularity or a particularly bad post.
Have you ever considered, then, that this is the same thing that happened to Sargon? That he did or said something that got him banned and said ban was for the right reason(s)?
Normal human behavior in my mind has always been this: Person A attempts romantic or sexual gesture towards Person B, normally guided by social cues and the like, and Person B then either accepts it or rejects it and says no. When they say no Person A is required to stop, otherwise it becomes assault.
In most cases, most people in normal circumstances don't go "may I kiss or otherwise initiate sexual contact with you?" before doing so, maybe some people did that, but I never met them. Maybe that is the norm now, but it certainly wasn't when I was a kid not too long ago.
Like this. You're inserting context that he's been given plenty of social ques to know that this kind of advance is wanted. The actual statement implies he doesn NEED those ques because he'a famous and rich.
It's assault. Has been for a long time. Maybe in the past (when American was great?), women werent taken seriously if they objected to it, but it was still assault.
You're spanning galaxies with that logical leap bud.
Person A walks up to Person B and, in the exact words of the tape, "just starts kissing them". Person B then consents, "lets him do it", in the exact words of the tape, that there is not assault.
The main argument seems to be that nobody can imagine someone consenting to sexual activity with Trump. Which is not an argument so much as a statement of opinion.
He's also made a joke that has become an almost right of passage on the alt-right, which is to tell a woman they aren't at risk of rape because they are too ugly. In fact, in the Daily Wire piece that was posted about the Kavanaugh accusers awhile back, I briefly skimmed the comment section and found DOZENS of comments along the line of "there is no way these old hags were raped, looked at how unattractive they are".
He perfectly predicted the spin on that statement which is why he said it, which is that him saying "I wouldn't rape you" has essentially become the equivalent of him saying that he would. The pathological lies spread about anyone not considered a social justice advocate is pretty predictable at this point. They just HAVE to be evil amirite
@WarChiefZeke there's no spin required to make that statement hateful - as @jjstraka34 explained it's the inclusion of the word "even" that turns it from a social experiment to see whether a neutral statement would be spun into a different meaning for political ends into a clearly misogynistic statement.
That's an important word then if this all rests on it! What is implied by the word even? This is some high level semantics here. "Even" seems to me like a pretty neutral term on it's own. "Even" coming after the world "wouldn't" sounds to me like it is meant to emphasize the point. But what new information does it add to the statement?
Even if this is 100% true, what is the purpose of going out of your way to tell someone you wouldn't rape them?? That seems to me to be no different than approaching a random stranger and saying "don't worry, I won't murder you". If someone did that, you would immediately become concerned that they might, in fact, have opposite intentions. Because these are just unspoken assumptions of a civilized society. They don't need to be communicated.
He's also made a joke that has become an almost right of passage on the alt-right, which is to tell a woman they aren't at risk of rape because they are too ugly. In fact, in the Daily Wire piece that was posted about the Kavanaugh accusers awhile back, I briefly skimmed the comment section and found DOZENS of comments along the line of "there is no way these old hags were raped, looked at how unattractive they are".
He perfectly predicted the spin on that statement which is why he said it, which is that him saying "I wouldn't rape you" has essentially become the equivalent of him saying that he would. The pathological lies spread about anyone not considered a social justice advocate is pretty predictable at this point. They just HAVE to be evil amirite
@WarChiefZeke there's no spin required to make that statement hateful - as @jjstraka34 explained it's the inclusion of the word "even" that turns it from a social experiment to see whether a neutral statement would be spun into a different meaning for political ends into a clearly misogynistic statement.
That's an important word then if this all rests on it! What is implied by the word even? This is some high level semantics here. "Even" seems to me like a pretty neutral term on it's own. "Even" coming after the world "wouldn't" sounds to me like it is meant to emphasize the point. But what new information does it add to the statement?
With the word 'even' in there, he is stating that he would rape someone, just not her for that reason.\ So yes, it is a very important word in the statement.
Person A walks up to Person B and, in the exact words of the tape, "just starts kissing them". Person B then consents, "lets him do it", in the exact words of the tape, that there is not assault.
The main argument seems to be that nobody can imagine someone consenting to sexual activity with Trump. Which is not an argument so much as a statement of opinion.
That's not my argument at all.
Go ahead and try that. See if you arent charged with sexual harrassment and assault. You're assuming every woman he's ever done that too has consented. Unfortunately - even if a women refuses consent - by not asking her first, you still assaulted her when you kissed and grabbed her genitals.
It's not a logical leap, you're making assumptions to fit your argument. Hence the logical contortions.
Also, to be 100% clear: "Let's him do it" isnt necessarily consent either. Perhaps she feels she has no better or other option. We dont know that, so we can neither assume she did or didnt have another option. Fundamentally, that damages the argument that he was always getting consent when he said "Let's him do it"
(Of course, his context also completely de-legitimizes that argument).
Normal human behavior in my mind has always been this: Person A attempts romantic or sexual gesture towards Person B, normally guided by social cues and the like, and Person B then either accepts it or rejects it and says no. When they say no Person A is required to stop, otherwise it becomes assault.
In most cases, most people in normal circumstances don't go "may I kiss or otherwise initiate sexual contact with you?" before doing so, maybe some people did that, but I never met them. Maybe that is the norm now, but it certainly wasn't when I was a kid not too long ago.
Like this. You're inserting context that he's been given plenty of social ques to know that this kind of advance is wanted. The actual statement implies he doesn NEED those ques because he'a famous and rich.
It's assault. Has been for a long time. Maybe in the past (when American was great?), women werent taken seriously if they objected to it, but it was still assault.
You're spanning galaxies with that logical leap bud.
Person A walks up to Person B and, in the exact words of the tape, "just starts kissing them". Person B then consents, "lets him do it", in the exact words of the tape, that there is not assault.
The main argument seems to be that nobody can imagine someone consenting to sexual activity with Trump. Which is not an argument so much as a statement of opinion.
Stormy Daniels consented. There are more than a dozen other women on the record saying they didn't. Just because everyone had forgotten about it doesn't mean they disappeared, nor does it change the fact Trump explicitly promised he was going to sue them during the campaign and never followed through.
Also, to be 100% clear: "Let's him do it" isnt necessarily consent either. Perhaps she feels she has no better or other option. We dont know that, so we can neither assume she did or didnt have another option. Fundamentally, that damages the argument that he was always getting consent when he said "Let's him do it"
(Of course, his context also completely de-legitimizes that argument).
This is all pure assumption which is exactly my point. You are assuming they didn't "really" consent and that really they were actually scared with no other options, with zero evidence. You are correct that it isn't "necessarily" consent- if there is was any evidence for that story.
Just like with the word "even", people can't just start adding mountains of baseless conjecture wherever a gap is found and expected it to be taken as fact.
Jesus Christ I never realized Trump made those comments on the Howard Stern show. Somehow in the information flow that honestly escaped my notice. Probably because the focus is on the tape which is defend able.
I'm not trying to rag on you guys, but man, you had a slam dunk in terms of evidence there and I stumble on it myself.
@WarChiefZeke "Just like with the word "even", people can't just start adding mountains of baseless conjecture wherever a gap is found and expected it to be taken as fact."
1. Its called grammar. Just a single word, even a single SYMBOL, can COMPLETELY change the entire meaning of a sentence. 2. Sexual assault isn't predicated on being told "no". If you were not given consent in the first place, or didn't wait for it to be given, it is ASSAULT. Plain and simple.
The mental gymnastics needed here to put the spin on straight up rules of grammar, word meanings, and definitions of common terms is ASTOUNDING.
This is all pure assumption which is exactly my point. You are assuming they didn't "really" consent and that really they were actually scared with no other options, with zero evidence. You are correct that it isn't "necessarily" consent- if there is was any evidence for that story.
Just like with the word "even", people can't just start adding mountains of baseless conjecture wherever a gap is found and expected it to be taken as fact.
Time out. Honest question - are you actually arguing in good faith here? I literally just said the following:
Also, to be 100% clear: "Let's him do it" isnt necessarily consent either. Perhaps she feels she has no better or other option. We dont know that, so we can neither assume she did or didnt have another option.
That is me explicitly saying that no assumption was made here. I was merely pointing out an example of a situation in which someone could "let him do it", and it'd not be consent. For clarity's sake, the "other option" could simply be consenting because she wanted his advances.
You can quibble with the order of my sentences if you want, but the absolutely point I'm making is that one cannot assume he was getting consent or not - and your argument is underpinned with the assumption that he may have gotten consent.
Jesus Christ I never realized Trump made those comments on the Howard Stern show. Somehow in the information flow that honestly escaped my notice. Probably because the focus is on the tape which is defend able.
I'm not trying to rag on you guys, but man, you had a slam dunk in terms of evidence there and I stumble on it myself.
I take back my comments on Trump.
Edit - I cant figure out what this is in response to : P
I know he's said some weird stuff in Howard Stern's show, but none of it ever seemed as significant as the Access Hollywood tape.
@WarChiefZeke "Just like with the word "even", people can't just start adding mountains of baseless conjecture wherever a gap is found and expected it to be taken as fact."
1. Its called grammar. Just a single word, even a single SYMBOL, can COMPLETELY change the entire meaning of a sentence.
This is true. But how, exactly, does the word "even'' imply a proclivity towards rape, except for the particular target, or how does it imply any reason in particular, since none are stated, for why they wouldn't do it? My interpretation still appears to be the reasonable one, and the one he attests to.
This is such a tangential subject to what my point originally was, but what is an internet forum if not a place to dissect minutiae.
Jesus Christ I never realized Trump made those comments on the Howard Stern show. Somehow in the information flow that honestly escaped my notice. Probably because the focus is on the tape which is defend able.
I'm not trying to rag on you guys, but man, you had a slam dunk in terms of evidence there and I stumble on it myself.
I take back my comments on Trump.
Edit - I cant figure out what this is in response to : P
I know he's said some weird stuff in Howard Stern's show, but none of it ever seemed as significant as the Access Hollywood tape.
Apparently he admitted to walking in on naked girls dressing and bothering them. On purpose. Clearly and unequivocally sexual harassment, I don't know if it fits the legal definition of assault, but it might as well.
Apparently he admitted to walking in on naked girls dressing and bothering them. On purpose. Clearly and unequivocally sexual harassment, I don't know if it fits the legal definition of assault, but it might as well.
I didn't know about it either.
Got you. I think this was in reference to his pageants, right?
I seem to recall (but I may be 100% mistaken) that he had pageants with underage women too. I feel like I remember the context of that comment being that he was walking in and seeing 15 and 16 year olds naked. I might be totally wrong on that part.
Comments
They also didn't comment when a man grabbed a woman by her breasts on a plane and said, It's okay because the President said he did it all the time.
Where is the outrage against the President for that? Nowhere to be found on the right.
What prominent liberal has been permanently banned from Twitter and for what? I'd honestly love to know. It's not like I don't look for examples, either. But in total honesty I can't name one off the top of my head that ever received a permanent suspension, for anything.
As for evidence of far left ideals, off the top of my head I would say the way in which James Demore was treated and more importantly the policies he outlined is a good example of it. The leaked Google memo The Good Censor is also important, as is the Google execs response to it in a Forbes article. His article itself, explaining his own words, is the most damning evidence of a political agenda if you ask me. When you are using phrases like "the internet was a place where the dark started to eclipse the light"...man, you just sound like an ideologue. And Google doesn't want to censor people! No, of course not. According to him, they are just grappling with the question of how to remove "toxic speech" and "trolls".
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2018/10/10/no-google-isnt-trying-to-censor-the-web/#1120ac4a182b
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/twitter-political-account-ban-us-mid-term-elections
Dozens of activists linked to the Occupy movement are up in arms after their accounts were suspended by Twitter
Twitter accounts run by activists linked to the Occupy movement have been suspended after the social network continued its attempted crackdown on bots and fake accounts. Around 80 activists with a collective following of five million people are thought to have had their accounts suspended.
Why Republicans Weren't The Only Ones Shadow Banned On Twitter
https://www.forbes.com/sites/fruzsinaeordogh/2018/07/31/why-republicans-werent-the-only-ones-shadow-banned-on-twitter/#19846535434b
When Vice published a story last week about Republican political figures apparently being “shadow banned” on Twitter, conservatives seized on the story because it fed their persecution complex. “See, it’s not just the media and Hollywood that hate us, social media platforms do too!” sums up their arguments. The problem with this argument is 1) shadow banning doesn’t exist in the way they think it does and 2) many others who are not conservative have been “shadow banned.”
As Twitter explained in a blog post clarifying the matter, they do not “shadow ban,” just make it harder (but not impossible!) to find the content from people that they think are too troll-like, abusive or have been muted or blocked by many others. This means the users in question are not viewable in search or hidden under the quality filter and if you want to see their content you have to go directly to their Twitter page.
The other people affected by such “shadow banning” in the past include Democrats, as mentioned in the Twitter blog post, other progressives, transgender users, Black Lives Matter activists, feminists, socialists and users that participated in culture-jamming campaigns against ISIL. The reason for all types of people on the political spectrum, and the folks using hashtags like #OpISIS, #OpIceISIS or spreading ISIS-chan, is because of a massively shared blocklist… that even ISIL contributed to 2015. That massive blocklist is so prevalent today, it is even used by Hollywood celebrities.
You know who else isn't banned? Donald Trump.
In September 2017, Twitter responded to calls to suspend Donald Trump's account, clarifying that they will not do so as his tweets are "newsworthy".
And there still is hundreds of sealed legal settlements regarding sexual harassment by members of Congress and there has been for many years. I have a feeling no party has ever wanted to unseal them because you would see quite a bit of both in there. But it's really quite nasty if you think about it.
Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
Bush: Whatever you want.
Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.
That does not say it was consensual.
Ehhh, i'm not sure banning bot accounts for being bots as described in the first link meets our criteria here. Automated content is detectable and gets deleted, that's just how it is. It doesn't say anything about content and the explanation is pretty politically neutral.
I don't know, I just think it's feasible that an old Occupy Wall Street Page might just have a script running that tweets out articles and headlines or something.
And it's funny because they took a tougher stance on automated activity because of the "Russian bot" scare of the far left.
You also can't prove shadow banning, as mentioned in the second link, so there really is no evidence one way or another about who is actually affected by it, left wing or right wing. You don't get a notification or any sort of notice when that happens. Which is why I don't mention shadow banning, by the way, and only objective, clear examples of action being taken. What someone is convinced of as shadow banning might just be their dying popularity or a particularly bad post.
Sorry, I am not familiar with him in the slightest and had to do a quick google search to ask those questions.
There must have been some breach in the TOS that he did and it wouldn’t have been just for his political leanings.
Granted, he may have had a microscope on him and the slightest muck up could have had him banned, espcially after the Anita intimidation tactic he pulled (from wiki) but there was something besides “right-leaning.”
That’s the excuse people use when doing other stupid shit. You can be right leaning and have informative opinions without being a douche about it.
And if this is such a huge issue, nothing is stopping a right-leaning company from starting another Twitter-like site for “right-leaning” banter. You can call it Ritter. There you go. Sinclair Media can have that for free.
1. Trump can instantaneously detect whether a woman is interested in him, and does not need to "wait" before finding it out.
2. Any woman would willingly consent to Trump doing "anything" to them, including grabbing them by the pussy.
Are there any women here who would consent to Trump doing "anything" to you, because he was a star?
Before posting I did watch the entire video you linked. There were some interesting points made in that, but ultimately it turned into a justification for an insult on the basis that a particular individual deserved it. I'm not commenting on whether that was true or not, but I will say that I'm certain that Sargon knew that the insult would be taken as a general slur on women (and not specific to the MP) and intended that to be the case.
While it would be a defensible position to say he wasn't willing to apologize to her, it's troubling that he wasn't willing to apologize for the generalized insult to women. The reason for that though was signalled in the video. Even though it was his own video and clearly very carefully put together in order to support his point of view, some of the statements made in it were troubling. For instance he referred to women having too much power and being the reason men were struggling for success in today's world. I accept that things are much more equal than they used to be and therefore the relative position of men vs women has worsened, but to suggest that things have turned round so far that women are now dominating society seems pretty ludicrous to me (he did also make points about the need to consider men's issues as well as women's and I agree with that - the goal should be equal treatment and opportunity).
Incidentally, I do appreciate having you posting on this thread, as it helps avoid the potential danger of becoming an 'echo chamber'. On this occasion I don't think you've picked the right ground to fight on, but I'll look forward to you telling me why I'm wrong
1. Trump can instantaneously detect whether a woman is interested in him, and does not need to "wait" before finding it out.
2. Any woman would willingly consent to Trump doing "anything" to them, including grabbing them by the pussy.
Are there any women here who would consent to Trump doing "anything" to you, because he was a star?
Normal human behavior in my mind has always been this: Person A attempts romantic or sexual gesture towards Person B, normally guided by social cues and the like, and Person B then either accepts it or rejects it and says no. When they say no Person A is required to stop, otherwise it becomes assault.
In most cases, most people in normal circumstances don't go "may I kiss or otherwise initiate sexual contact with you?" before doing so, maybe some people did that, but I never met them. Maybe that is the norm now, but it certainly wasn't when I was a kid not too long ago.
I really don't see the importance in your last statement.
1. Trump can instantaneously detect whether a woman is interested in him, and does not need to "wait" before finding it out.
2. Any woman would willingly consent to Trump doing "anything" to them, including grabbing them by the pussy.
Are there any women here who would consent to Trump doing "anything" to you, because he was a star?
One of the only glaring problems with this thread is that there aren't that many women around to answer this question. Far less than 10% of it's participants are women, unless I have totally misjudged who people actually are.
That's an important word then if this all rests on it! What is implied by the word even? This is some high level semantics here. "Even" seems to me like a pretty neutral term on it's own. "Even" coming after the world "wouldn't" sounds to me like it is meant to emphasize the point. But what new information does it add to the statement?
B ) - Campaign finance laws are of middling importance. What's not of middling importance is the ability to demonstrate that the sitting president knowingly and intentionally broke laws these laws. It's kind of a big deal. Not shooting someone on 5th avenue. I'd also say not worth of beginning impeachment, either. Still, pretty damn swampy if you ask me.
C ) - Access Hollywood. The contortions it takes to try to justify this kind of blows my mind. Like this. You're inserting context that he's been given plenty of social ques to know that this kind of advance is wanted. The actual statement implies he doesn NEED those ques because he'a famous and rich.
It's assault. Has been for a long time. Maybe in the past (when American was great?), women werent taken seriously if they objected to it, but it was still assault.
Well, I'm a woman. And yeah, I would certainly object to it. In fact, star or not, he'd be in a world of serious hurt if he tried that sexist crap on me. But he'd never try it on me, because I'd be "ugly" to him because I am overweight. That's just calling it like it is.
I don't know if it's true that women just let him do it, star or not. I think they are taken off guard and don't know how to react to being grabbed like that. Instead of smacking his head off, or kneeing him in the groin (like I would), they just freeze, letting him think he got away with it. They probably didn't sue him because of his reputation of being excessively litigious, and it's expensive to sue. And with the cops, sad to say, there's a "He said/she said" to it all, so they had to live with being assaulted by him.
You're spanning galaxies with that logical leap bud.
Person A walks up to Person B and, in the exact words of the tape, "just starts kissing them". Person B then consents, "lets him do it", in the exact words of the tape, that there is not assault.
The main argument seems to be that nobody can imagine someone consenting to sexual activity with Trump. Which is not an argument so much as a statement of opinion.
So yes, it is a very important word in the statement.
Go ahead and try that. See if you arent charged with sexual harrassment and assault. You're assuming every woman he's ever done that too has consented. Unfortunately - even if a women refuses consent - by not asking her first, you still assaulted her when you kissed and grabbed her genitals.
It's not a logical leap, you're making assumptions to fit your argument. Hence the logical contortions.
Also, to be 100% clear: "Let's him do it" isnt necessarily consent either. Perhaps she feels she has no better or other option. We dont know that, so we can neither assume she did or didnt have another option. Fundamentally, that damages the argument that he was always getting consent when he said "Let's him do it"
(Of course, his context also completely de-legitimizes that argument).
This is all pure assumption which is exactly my point. You are assuming they didn't "really" consent and that really they were actually scared with no other options, with zero evidence. You are correct that it isn't "necessarily" consent- if there is was any evidence for that story.
Just like with the word "even", people can't just start adding mountains of baseless conjecture wherever a gap is found and expected it to be taken as fact.
I'm not trying to rag on you guys, but man, you had a slam dunk in terms of evidence there and I stumble on it myself.
I take back my comments on Trump.
1. Its called grammar. Just a single word, even a single SYMBOL, can COMPLETELY change the entire meaning of a sentence.
2. Sexual assault isn't predicated on being told "no". If you were not given consent in the first place, or didn't wait for it to be given, it is ASSAULT. Plain and simple.
The mental gymnastics needed here to put the spin on straight up rules of grammar, word meanings, and definitions of common terms is ASTOUNDING.
You can quibble with the order of my sentences if you want, but the absolutely point I'm making is that one cannot assume he was getting consent or not - and your argument is underpinned with the assumption that he may have gotten consent.
Edit - I cant figure out what this is in response to : P
I know he's said some weird stuff in Howard Stern's show, but none of it ever seemed as significant as the Access Hollywood tape.
This is such a tangential subject to what my point originally was, but what is an internet forum if not a place to dissect minutiae.
Apparently he admitted to walking in on naked girls dressing and bothering them. On purpose. Clearly and unequivocally sexual harassment, I don't know if it fits the legal definition of assault, but it might as well.
I didn't know about it either.
I seem to recall (but I may be 100% mistaken) that he had pageants with underage women too. I feel like I remember the context of that comment being that he was walking in and seeing 15 and 16 year olds naked. I might be totally wrong on that part.