Are lesbians real?

It is not a fallacy. There is one thing you have to understand. The decision to silence him did not come from the 'bottom'. We, the people, do not have the power to ban people of social media outlets. The decision to silence him came from the top.

If the economical and political top establishment does not want you to hear what he has to say then maybe, just maybe, you should hear it anyways.

Or maybe you just want to live in an authoritarian regime where you are not allowed to say anything negative of the nazi party like in ye olde germany. Yeah, you fags definitely want that.

What's it like being a fanboy?

Not who you're responding to, but Jesus Christ you're presumptuous and defensive. Look, I agree with a lot of what Milo says, but a lot of other stuff he says it is grandiose, attention-grabbing horseshit. You should't assume that OP is an SJW just for questioning something Milo said - you Milo fanboys are something else, I swear. You do realize he has absolutely no background in psychology or science whatsoever, no?

Yes - I realize you put the caveat of "if his research is correct" and all that, but the tone of your post speaks volumes.

In any event, let's look at what Milo actually said:

"On a serious point, there aren't really any lesbians"

He then follows up by saying:

"I don't entirely believe in lesbians... There are, of course, a small, a tiny proportion, of, you know, the dungaree-wearing types, you know, with the short haircuts, your gender studies professors, who probably will never see a penis - more out of lack of options than preference." From everything he states in that video, it is pretty clear that he believes that "actual lesbians" are a myth, and that most women who claim they are are doing so for social reasons rather than the fact that they are genuinely sexually attracted to women and not to men. It's a grandiose statement which may be true in certain cases, but would be ludicrous to apply to all.

That's a far cry from "I know there are some women who are actual lesbians," which is what you stated he said. So let's keep this this "intellectually honest" - part of which lies in refraining from making accusations about people's political beliefs with insufficient data. It will be interesting (and telling) to see if you consider me an SJW as well.

Twitter is not part of the government, but a private establishment that reserves the right to ban anyone who breaks their rules (rules that they themselves wear). Milo is not being POLITICALLY silenced, he still has freedom of speech - but a private organization chose not to offer him a platform, which has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Free speech just means the government can't jail you for criticizing the government, it doesn't mean websites cannot ban dissenting opinions.

I am an atheist liberal. If you think I am a fan of his then you are retarded.

I did not care for him until all this shit happened. If history is a good guide then the moment a man is silenced by the elite is the moment you know that man was speaking the truth you did not want to hear.

Now I've seen more of his stuff and he is pretty good. Too bad he is a christian, literally makes him a retard.

>If history is a good guide then the moment a man is silenced by the elite is the moment you know that man was speaking the truth you did not want to hear.
This presumes the man is question is speaking the truth. Harmful lies are just as threatening to the establishment, if not moreso, than harmful truths are.

All social media outlets and big tech companies in general are closely tied to the government and honestly they are just little bitches that have to bend down the moment the government needs something.

If you need a good example then look at how the US government caught the guy running a torrent website.

If the government had found out that apple had that information and apple had not given it to them then you know you would have seen the headlines

>The new Apple CEO misteriously also gets cancer and dies this morning. Cause confirmed as suicide.

No. Not a man. A dick. They crave dick.

Men pay hookers, buy blow-dolls, whatever.
A woman is happy with a huge dildo - it's all what it takes.

Other than his batshit crazy religious beliefs (christianity) what harmful lie is he telling?

Just as I said, now I've seen his hour long debates and he was always the one taking the calm stand against the opponents who would just shout at him and call him a rapist woman hater, which he obviously is not.

Ok, we feel the same way.

Do you have any evidence that the government told Twitter to ban Milo? As far as I know, Milo was not directly involved in illegal activities or anything that was a threat to national security, and those are usually the only cases when the government demands website/ISP logs.

>If history is a good guide then the moment a man is silenced by the elite is the moment you know that man was speaking the truth you did not want to hear.

You're giving atheist liberals a bad name. That's an illogical application of history. The "elite" didn't silence Milo - the head of Twitter banned him because he considered what Milo was doing was harassment by proxy, in that his words incited his followers to attack an individual. Whether or not this is true is debatable, but it's not "silencing someone because he speaks the TRUTH!!!" It has nothing to do with truth and everything to do with private company policy and consumer pressure. Your statement that I greentexted does not apply.

Also what this guy said:

>what harmful lie is he telling?
You're the one claiming that the establishment sees what he says as harmful. However, that does not mean what he says is true.

First, you are assuming that the government is the only elite and that is wrong.

The CEO who was supposedly the one who directly mandated the ban is a fucking billionaire trillionaire quadrillionaire owner of the moon and sun. We all know that, you know that.

Furthermore, there is a video related to this incident that carefully examines Twitter's guidelines and proves that none of Milo's actions violated any of these guidelines.

His ban was literally just a decision someone at the top made. There was no rule broken.

>the head of Twitter banned him

Yeah and the head of Twitter is a billionaire with special interests.

That categorizes him as the elite. That categorizes him as part of the establishment. Even if it is only the twitter establishment.

Do you know what you are talking about? Do not pretend that the CEO of twitter is saint gift from god who knows only good. We all know he had malicious motives, which are probably to send a message to anyone who ever moves too out of line.

>carefully examines Twitter's guidelines and proves that none of Milo's actions violated any of these guidelines.
The website owners are the only ones who can interpret the websites rules, they're the ones who make the final decision in any case. The guidelines are just to give an idea of what is or isn't acceptable behavior. The owners/admins have to reserve that right for cases where someone "technically" isn't violating any of the rules as written, yet is engaging in behavior harmful to the site and/or its users.

>Do you know what you are talking about? Do not pretend that the CEO of twitter is saint gift from god who knows only good. We all know he had malicious motives, which are probably to send a message to anyone who ever moves too out of line.
That's something you have to accept in a free market economy. Do you think people should have to go through morality indoctrination camps before they're allowed to own major social media sites?

>The guidelines are just to give an idea of what is or isn't acceptable behavior.

By saying this you are tacitly agreeing with my points.

The general message coming from this story is that twitter's guidelines are lies. They are a strawman (not in the fallacy sense) put on the field specifically to trick newcomers into thinking that twitter is all about free speech, when actually Twitter's head will be quick to silence any non-conforming voices.

You are agreeing with that when you say what you just said, and that is my point.

Milo's voice was non conforming and the billionaires at the top thought he was too dangerous for their site. That could (COULD) mean that his words are actually more valuable than we have been giving him credit for.

>Do you think people should have to go through morality indoctrination camps before they're allowed to own major social media sites?

No but I do think that safety guidelines should mean something.

If twitter had updated their guidelines and then told him "Hey there buddy, now what you do is against our laws so if you do it again you go bye bye" then that would be understandable.

But no. he literally got banned immediately. No notice. The establishment used all their power to silence a single voice very few people cared about.

You have to understand that Milo is a not fucking rockstar. He does not have 70 million followers. What he said barely mattered, but now out of nowhere it mattered so much that the guys at the top had to shut him down.

Do you not think that is fishy?

>Do you not think that is fishy?

No, because I don't have paranoia.

>They are a strawman (not in the fallacy sense) put on the field specifically to trick newcomers into thinking that twitter is all about free speech, when actually Twitter's head will be quick to silence any non-conforming voices.
When has twitter actually claimed to be "all about free speech"?

>That could (COULD) mean that his words are actually more valuable than we have been giving him credit for.
It could, but it doesn't directly imply that. Again, Galileo fallacy. All it says is that the people in charge of Twitter don't like what he's been doing. A pedophile who advocates the rape of children and someone who leaks documents exposing government corruption are both likely to be arrested, but it doesn't mean that the words of both are equally valuable.

Then you are the definition of useful idiot.

Good job. I am not telling you to be paranoid, I am just telling you to inform yourself about who Milo was and what he was doing.

In short:
>Milo attacked her on her bad performance as an actress
Perfectly valid, criticism should be accepted. He also did so respectuflly (no cursing or whatever)
>She answers back with fire and homophobic slurs (calling him a gay uncle tom)
He then answers back with fire (calling her a man)
>Then he gets banned.

When did he get out of line? If anything Leslie attacked him unfairly before he ever did, by calling him a gay uncle tom.

Milo may not be a top tier celebrity, but he's still a celebrity, and his career is built around going out of his way to provoke people. Acting like he's some nobody that Twitter banned just to make an example of is disingenuous.

>homophobic slurs (calling him a gay uncle tom)
What exact words did she use? "Gay uncle tom" isn't a homophobic slur, because it doesn't imply him being gay is itself a bad thing.

>When has twitter actually claimed to be "all about free speech"?

Here is a direct quote
>We believe in freedom of expression

From support.twitter.com/articles/18311

This just proves you are an absolute ignorant who is blindly defending someone for no reason.

You are really fucking stupid.

>Yeah and the head of Twitter is a billionaire with special interests.

Special interests in protecting his investment (Twitter) so he stays a billionaire? Yes. And if users are outraged by someones actions, as many users were with Milo, he is going to take action against that individual to protect his business interest, whether right or wrong.

>That categorizes him as the elite. That categorizes him as part of the establishment. Even if it is only the twitter establishment.

What? First you say he's part of the "establishment" - which establishment? Is every billionaire automatically inherently evil and working for one particular, illuminati-like "establishment?" How do you then explain billionaires who are critical of government policy and pro wealth redistribution? And what do you even mean by "even if it's just the Twitter establishment?" My point is that the only similarity all billionaires share is the fact that they are billionaires - that's it. Anything else is just speculation for which you have no evidence for. Intellectual honesty - come on.

>Do you know what you are talking about?

Do you? I think I'm demonstrating that you don't.

>Do not pretend that the CEO of twitter is saint gift from god who knows only good.

Never once did I say, pretend, or even imply that.

>We all know he had malicious motives, which are probably to send a message to anyone who ever moves too out of line.

No, we don't. How ignorant is it to begin a statement like that - especially a statement that is, again, based purely upon speculation with no evidence. I don't presume to "know" anything about the CEO of Twitter's motives, and you shouldn't either. But the circumstance and evidence suggests that he's motivated primarily by protecting his investment, just like any business owner. Whatever "political agenda" he has beyond that is speculation. And your subsequent assertion that he's banning Milo for speaking the truth is even more presumptuous.

She is saying that he is betraying the supposed monolith of homosexuals, which then implies that he is a bad homosexual.

Even if you do not believe that she is directly attacking his homosexuality, you have to accept that she was throwing shade at him.

>If twitter had updated their guidelines and then told him "Hey there buddy, now what you do is against our laws so if you do it again you go bye bye" then that would be understandable.

Are you aware that Milo had his twitter account suspended and reinstated twice before being permabanned? It happened during Gamergate. He knew exactly what the guidelines were, and this was his third strike.

Learn a bit more about the situation before commenting next time.

>We believe in freedom of expression
And right after that they point out how they think there are some cases in which freedom of expression should be limited. You're only looking at part of what they say and basically taking it out of context.

None of his comments were against the safety guidelines.

He was not breaking any rules and yet he was banned.

Okay, but I don't consider that a "homosexual slur". It's not saying that it's wrong to be gay, or even expressing that idea, it's saying that she considers him to hold attitudes which are against the interest of gay people.

Okay, lets be fair. here is the entire quote:

>We believe in freedom of expression and in speaking truth to power, but that means little as an underlying philosophy if voices are silenced because people are afraid to speak up. In order to ensure that people feel safe expressing diverse opinions and beliefs, we do not tolerate behavior that crosses the line into abuse, including behavior that harasses, intimidates, or uses fear to silence another user’s voice.

They say that free speech should be limited if and only if said free spech is being used to intimidate and use fear to silence other people.

When did Milo intimidate her? When did he make threats against her person in any way?

Leslie is a bigger celebrity that Milo, she is the 'power' in that quote and Milo is the one 'speaking truth to power'.

What about the previous cases where his account was suspended? Was he breaking any rules in those cases? And even if he wasn't, he should have known by now that his actions were something the Twitter admins or whoever didn't consider acceptable.

That is why I said that you do not have to consider it a homo slur. She was still throwing fire at him.

Though if you ask me calling someone a bad homosexual is fucking homophobic. I mean, imagine if a christian said

>You can be a homosexual as long as you do not marry because marriage is saint. If you marry then you are a bad homosexual!

You would see that stance as homophobic. First because homosexuals are not a monolith. They are real people with their tastes and goals in life, you fucking homophobe.

I have not been following before this incident so I don't know.

However, his past actions have nothing to do with his actions today (or a few days ago). He did 'bad things' and was punished, then he was given back his place and we suppose that his wrongdoings were forgiven.

Then he gets the banhammer after he personally auto censors himself in order to not break the rules.

>Leslie is a bigger celebrity that Milo, she is the 'power' in that quote and Milo is the one 'speaking truth to power'.
'Power' in this context isn't really about interactions between two individuals, it's about society as a whole. Both, as celebrities, have far more power than the average person. And neither was realistically in any position to deprive the other of the ability to speak. Now, if someone was some nobody and a member of a marginalized minority, those who opposed what they said could have made credible threats in order to silence them. That's the situation that Twitter is talking about, and the issue between Milo and Leslie really isn't in the same category.

Why are you guys arguing over a nignog and a faggot?

What, specifically, did Leslie think made Milo a "bad homosexual"? If, for example, a homosexual thought that gays should be forbidden from marrying, or should be denied the right to vote, or should not be allowed to adopt, I would consider them a gay uncle tom and a homophobe. One being gay does not mean they cannot be homophobic. Sure, gays aren't a monolith, but you can't twist words and say a gay person who opposes gay rights is actually defending the right of gay people to not have rights.

The "rules" in this case were in regards to an anti-harassment policy. While he did not outright break them, his case was unique because of the massive amount of followers he had - followers who were easily incited by his comments and attacked a target in droves. He knew about this, as was the case in his first two suspensions. He did it anyway. He was banned.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I AM saying you're wrong in your ridiculous assertion that this is some free speech conspiracy of "silencing" someone who dares to tell "the truth." Your narrative lacks credibility and you should analyze your thinking on this issue.

Because free speech is being directly attacked as we speak. And as the peom says:

>first they came for the conservative homosexuals, and I did not speak out. Because I was not a conservative homosexual

But Milo wants the right to vote, marry and live peacefully.

He simply is not PC and that is enough to categorize him as a bad homosexual. A gay uncle tom, if you will. Because homosexuals are supposed to be PC!

Kanye West and Taylor Swift have a twitter fight right now. Fans attacking the other left and right.

I have not seen either Kanye or Taylor get banned.

This was clearly a targetted attack.

lol you're just committing logical fallacy after logical fallacy in this thread.

Each case is unique and must be looked upon as such. In any event, I doubt there are thousands of Taylor Swift fans flooding Kanyes feed with racial slurs comparing him with a gorilla and uploading photos of his face with their semen on it. But nice attempt at an analogy.

>Each case is unique and must be looked upon as such. In any event, I doubt there are thousands of Taylor Swift fans flooding Kanyes feed with racial slurs comparing him with a gorilla and uploading photos of his face with their semen on it. But nice attempt at an analogy.

If your point is that Milo made his fans do that shit then I would simply point out that Milo tweeted at her DAYS after that shit went down.

Milo did not create the bandwagon, he barely jumped on it. And even in that analogy he failed at doing so because not once did he say anything racist or that incited hatred against women in general.

The facts that tumblr has told you about this story are wrong. I urge to look at Leslie's twitter feed and see WHEN those things were said to her. Then look at when Milo tweeted.

As far as I know, Milo did not invent time travel.

What is the evolutionary advantage of fellating black penises?

He did not start the attack against Leslie. But after he threw his hat into the ring, his followers mobilized, and that's when the her feed was inundated with the most attacks. That's when he was banned. And again, this had happened twice before with him.

Again, I'M NOT saying it's right that he was banned. I am saying that your conspiracy analysis is ridiculous.

It is not a conspiracy attack. The billionaire CEO of twitter literally had him removed.

It was not the safety team that twitter has. It was an action from one man at the top who had special interests.

Why can't Twitter get this upset when I get banned from Veeky Forums?

>not being a SJW
I bet you don't even have superpowers.

I was really disappointed that Breitbart the site remained when Breitbart the man died.

>super justice warriors

Nigga, I think you got the acronym wrong. Lets just say it does not mean what you think it means.

My powers increase every time you trigger them.

> is it scientifically true that lesbians don't exist?
As defined how? What characteristic or criterion do we use to measure that x woman is lesbian?

To scientifically prove something, you must have a measurable criterion unique to lesbians.

Currently, we only have the Kinsey scale, which measures sexual orientation through self identification. I identify sexually as an attack helicopter, but the Air Force still won't let me fuck their Apaches.

That shit is below 1%
About 3.3%
Source: Williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu.

>It was not the safety team that twitter has. It was an action from one man at the top who had special interests.

Is it true that the safety team was never consulted? In any event, yes, he has special interests - protecting his business. He made the decision because the userbase of twitter would likely have been more upset had he not done anything. From the beginning, you framed this as "shutting someone down because the spoke the truth, and the truth is dangerous." And that's not the case. That's the point I've been making all along.

Define "PC". The issue with Milo, as I understand it, isn't his views, but the fact that he goes out of the way to create controversy and provoke people.

Twitter literally exists for the sake of that man's "special interests". If you don't like the way they're running the site, find a different one.

>As defined how? What characteristic or criterion do we use to measure that x woman is lesbian?

For men they can just show them gay porn and measure their penis:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_plethysmograph
They have something like this for women but apparently it sucks:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaginal_photoplethysmograph

I think even the one for men is very unreliable, causing a lot of false positives. I read something along the line of if that test was used to measure sexual orientation, most men would be pedophiles.

gay doesn't exist
not when everyone is a closet faggot

wishful thinking doesn't eliminate bothersome ideas either

>with 'mental gymnastics', anything is justified
thanks for exemplifying this!

>LOL i said fallacy again
>another argumen WON by me B)
>case closed

Mental gymnastics isn't even required. The site rules have no legally binding power, admins can ban users for whatever they want, or no reason at all.

>most men would be pedophiles
All men are pedophiles; most are capable of a modicum of restraint to not rape little girls

Men who rape adult women clearly lack restraint as well. If all men are pedophiles, who do rapists not also rape little girls?

>Some E-celeb with a big mouth gets banned from twitter
>ISIS posting little kids getting executed is A-OK

>responding to /pol/-tier conspiracies

> said the sjwtard

Because evil isnt black and white.
Also opportunity.
Look at where men get raped, women get raped, boys get raped and little girls get raped.

>If all men are pedophiles
citation needed