He didn't. Antagonising the people of Liverpool is practically the entire content of Old Holborn's twitter account, the one that got him in trouble at least. It wasn't just an isolated comment or "joke". It went way beyond that.
So what, do you think that 'antagonising the people of Liverpool' be made a criminal offence?
So what, do you think that 'antagonising the people of Liverpool' be made a criminal offence?
Your veering away from the subject to give the impression the people of Liverpool feel they have the right to be a special case. attack is the best form of defence as they say.
The fact is they have insulted something the people of Liverpool feel very strongly about.
The idiot posters/twitters know what their doing when they post the insulting remarks and the people of Liverpool know what they are doing so it's pretty simple really, no need to make it complicated. if they want a reaction then they should not start crying when they get a reaction, That's what happens in the real world so i don't see why the feel it's any different just because they spout their abuse on the Internet.
Your veering away from the subject to give the impression the people of Liverpool feel they have the right to be a special case. attack is the best form of defence as they say.
The fact is they have insulted something the people of Liverpool feel very strongly about.
The idiot posters/twitters know what their doing when they post the insulting remarks and the people of Liverpool know what they are doing so it's pretty simple really, no need to make it complicated. if they want a reaction then they should not start crying when they get a reaction, That's what happens in the real world so i don't see why the feel it's any different just because they spout their abuse on the Internet.
Nope not really. All you are saying is that it is OK to threaten someone if they say something you don't like.
No one should ever be threatened just for saying something.
If they say something that is not true or that is illegal, then there are laws to help protect against defamation and slander.
Nope not really. All you are saying is that it is OK to threaten someone if they say something you don't like.
No one should ever be threatened just for saying something.
If they say something that is not true or that is illegal, then there are laws to help protect against defamation and slander.
What am saying is if anyone mocks something/anyone whoever and wherever they come from who has suffered or feels strongly about something tragic in the pub or in their company anywhere then they will get a reaction, why do you think that reaction should be debating the right and wrongs, i certainly wouldn't be defending them by saying sir i don't agree with what you say but i will defend to the death your right to say it .
If he got a good hiding i would tell him he was an idiot and completely out of order, as far as the person who did it goes, i am not saying it's ok to threaten someone who has insulted you i am saying i understand in special circumstances why he reacted this way.
As far as someone should not be threatened for what they say goes, that is laughable.
go out tonight anywhere in the country and insult a few people and when they get upset tell them all it's freedom of speech and see what happens in the real world.
All these realities seem to be forgotten by some people as soon as they get behind a keyboard.
Listening to that guy on "The Tonight" programme it would seem he had an answer for everything, but yet wasn't brave enough to show his face.
Just shows what a hypocrite he is!!
This reminds me of what goes on in the Politics forum. There are some posters who take every opportunity to knock state services or call for benefits to be either severely reduced or abolished altogether.
However, I have noticed that such individuals are found to be posting during standard working hours which might indicate that they are in receipt of working age state benefits (ESA, JSA) or are retired and are in receipt of state retirement benefits.
It is possible that they have remarkably lenient employers or that they are already millionaires with free time on their hands but my guess is that they're mostly in the former category and are thus hypocrites of the highest order.
What am saying is if anyone mocks something/anyone whoever and wherever they come from who has suffered or feels strongly about something tragic in the pub or in their company anywhere then they will get a reaction, why do you think that reaction should be debating the right and wrongs, i certainly wouldn't be defending them by saying sir i don't agree with what you say but i will defend to the death your right to say it .
If he got a good hiding i would tell him he was an idiot and completely out of order, as far as the person who did it goes, i am not saying it's ok to threaten someone who has insulted you i am saying i understand in special circumstances why he reacted this way.
As far as someone should not be threatened for what they say goes, that is laughable.
go out tonight anywhere in the country and insult a few people and when they get upset tell them all it's freedom of speech and see what happens in the real world.
All these realities seem to be forgotten by some people as soon as they get behind a keyboard.
So just because people would hit someone for mocking them in real life that means people shouldn't do it online?
Why should someone who can beat someone else up, get to say something (and I mean do the mocking) yet someone who can't beat someone up can't mock people unless they are prepared to get beaten up?
I'm not supporting mocking btw, but one person's mocking, is another person's satire.
Listening to that guy on "The Tonight" programme it would seem he had an answer for everything, but yet wasn't brave enough to show his face.
Just shows what a hypocrite he is!!
You'd be wrong, the problem is the hypocrisy on the other side. Womens groups and such professional victim groups are more than happy to form mobs to out/get people in trouble/harass and even try to get content/accounts taken down just because someone dares to disagree with them. The honest truth is many of these people really do think that anyone daring to disagree with them is an attack on them, so they hide behind false victimhood, many times exaggerating the supposed "trolling" with selective evidence, aka bigging up a few minor incidents for the purpose of justifying their own bad behavior.
In fact the playbook is so desirable there are cases like the one involving meg lanker simmons a feminist blogger decided that to attack something she didn't like required her to actually fake some rape threats at herself so she could use this professional victimhood position to attack whatever she didn't like without having to face scrutiny. Luckily in that case she was caught, but it just goes to show, its not the simple hysteria that shows like "tonight" seem to favor.
In fact i'm sure tonight knows if they took a less sympathetic position to these supposed victims, they would face massive internet wrath from the supposed "victims", mob style and would face a campaign of harrassment trying to get people fired or whatever.
This issue is just over done. The truth is this, there was a time with more sexism, part of this sexism included a special status for women, men were expected to behave gentlemanly ..why, because women weren't considered equals, part of special treatment is based on that consideration, and women seem to have forgotten this. Now women are considered equal, and have to face the barbs and stings that men do, yet they still expect special treatment, and thats the problem. Many men face that kind of harrassment and worse, they just shrug it off, they don't make it more than it is and try to exploit it so they can shut down discussion by labeling everyone who disagrees with them as troll.
And yes constantly equating trolls with bullies is nonsense. If you think about this much of this is like blasphemy, whats a militant atheist to a religion anyways? They would consider a militant atheist a troll. They would seek to silence him based on portraying themselves as victim, because they do not wish to argue based on the merits. Bullies have real power, like the church, like feminist groups, they go after people in real life, whether their life or their jobs, a few lulz on the net is not comparable.
Games journalist ryan perez was basically hounded out of his job by the usual suspects based on just a few innocuous twitter postings about felicia day, apparently he wasn't allowed to question her legitimacy at all, thats a real world consequence, not some "feelings" hurt over trolling. In dongle gate adria richards overheard some guys making a dongle joke at a tech conference, she posted this to cause trouble, got everyone fired, this is real world consequence, not an idle threat or just feelings hurt. Yet some how, she's part of the "victim" group? Sorry, it just doesn't add up, but you know very well tonight would never do a show on this not just because it isn't in them but because even if it was they'd be scared to death of the supposedly powerless victims.
The question which side is the troll should be reconsidered.
In fact even newsnight was part of this recently. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0dZIQZIfkg
They promoted using a script to block "trolls" without doing basic research, which would have showed them that the script basically spent its time auto flagging accounts of many people who are just people who happen to disagree with the scripts author.
You'd be wrong, the problem is the hypocrisy on the other side. Womens groups and such professional victim groups are more than happy to form mobs to out/get people in trouble/harass and even try to get content/accounts taken down just because someone dares to disagree with them. The honest truth is many of these people really do think that anyone daring to disagree with them is an attack on them, so they hide behind false victimhood, many times exaggerating the supposed "trolling" with selective evidence, aka bigging up a few minor incidents for the purpose of justifying their own bad behavior.
In fact the playbook is so desirable there are cases like the one involving meg lanker simmons a feminist blogger decided that to attack something she didn't like required her to actually fake some rape threats at herself so she could use this professional victimhood position to attack whatever she didn't like without having to face scrutiny. Luckily in that case she was caught, but it just goes to show, its not the simple hysteria that shows like "tonight" seem to favor.
In fact i'm sure tonight knows if they took a less sympathetic position to these supposed victims, they would face massive internet wrath from the supposed "victims", mob style and would face a campaign of harrassment trying to get people fired or whatever.
This issue is just over done. The truth is this, there was a time with more sexism, part of this sexism included a special status for women, men were expected to behave gentlemanly ..why, because women weren't considered equals, part of special treatment is based on that consideration, and women seem to have forgotten this. Now women are considered equal, and have to face the barbs and stings that men do, yet they still expect special treatment, and thats the problem. Many men face that kind of harrassment and worse, they just shrug it off, they don't make it more than it is and try to exploit it so they can shut down discussion by labeling everyone who disagrees with them as troll.
And yes constantly equating trolls with bullies is nonsense. If you think about this much of this is like blasphemy, whats a militant atheist to a religion anyways? They would consider a militant atheist a troll. They would seek to silence him based on portraying themselves as victim, because they do not wish to argue based on the merits. Bullies have real power, like the church, like feminist groups, they go after people in real life, whether their life or their jobs, a few lulz on the net is not comparable.
Games journalist ryan perez was basically hounded out of his job by the usual suspects based on just a few innocuous twitter postings about felicia day, apparently he wasn't allowed to question her legitimacy at all, thats a real world consequence, not some "feelings" hurt over trolling. In dongle gate adria richards overheard some guys making a dongle joke at a tech conference, she posted this to cause trouble, got everyone fired, this is real world consequence, not an idle threat or just feelings hurt. Yet some how, she's part of the "victim" group? Sorry, it just doesn't add up, but you know very well tonight would never do a show on this not just because it isn't in them but because even if it was they'd be scared to death of the supposedly powerless victims.
The question which side is the troll should be reconsidered.
In fact even newsnight was part of this recently. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0dZIQZIfkg
They promoted using a script to block "trolls" without doing basic research, which would have showed them that the script basically spent its time auto flagging accounts of many people who are just people who happen to disagree with the scripts author.
sadly some people think im disagree with there pov makes you a troll. when it does not we do not have to agree with you with other people think do we as we are not the borg.
we should all hold our point of view and should not care if others disagree with it.
Even if you were a qualified psych, you haven't met this person so can't talk about them the way you do.
You are already showing your bias by saying he is attacking the 'poor' people of Liverpool. The victim mentality of Liverpudlians is a valid thing to attack.
So you accept death threats just for speaking out?
Well so does he, yet you consider him ill.
And threatening people with death is not holding someone to account.
I don't know why people use Twitter, it is horrible in design. Who wants lots of texts from people spouting rubbish half the time?
How do you find either the first twit posted or at least a twit by keyword?
Did anyone read the one to Katie Hopkins (by another twitter user not Old H)? I sure that user would be banned.
Funniest thing about Old Holborn was his constant dismissal of wage slaves, always implying that he was wealthy and didn't need to work and it turned out he was working for a recruitment agency, looking for the very wage slaves that he decried.
sadly some people think im disagree with there pov makes you a troll. when it does not we do not have to agree with you with other people think do we as we are not the borg.
we should all hold our point of view and should not care if others disagree with it.
On a related note, the poster woman (at least for video games) of this hysteria anita sarkeesian ... just was revealed as a fraud.
Comments
...:D
So what, do you think that 'antagonising the people of Liverpool' be made a criminal offence?
https://twitter.com/OHwinsAgain
I don't know why people use Twitter, it is horrible in design. Who wants lots of texts from people spouting rubbish half the time?
How do you find either the first twit posted or at least a twit by keyword?
Did anyone read the one to Katie Hopkins (by another twitter user not Old H)? I sure that user would be banned.
Your veering away from the subject to give the impression the people of Liverpool feel they have the right to be a special case. attack is the best form of defence as they say.
The fact is they have insulted something the people of Liverpool feel very strongly about.
The idiot posters/twitters know what their doing when they post the insulting remarks and the people of Liverpool know what they are doing so it's pretty simple really, no need to make it complicated. if they want a reaction then they should not start crying when they get a reaction, That's what happens in the real world so i don't see why the feel it's any different just because they spout their abuse on the Internet.
Nope not really. All you are saying is that it is OK to threaten someone if they say something you don't like.
No one should ever be threatened just for saying something.
If they say something that is not true or that is illegal, then there are laws to help protect against defamation and slander.
Constant equating to trolls with bullies is just bollocks.
What am saying is if anyone mocks something/anyone whoever and wherever they come from who has suffered or feels strongly about something tragic in the pub or in their company anywhere then they will get a reaction, why do you think that reaction should be debating the right and wrongs, i certainly wouldn't be defending them by saying sir i don't agree with what you say but i will defend to the death your right to say it .
If he got a good hiding i would tell him he was an idiot and completely out of order, as far as the person who did it goes, i am not saying it's ok to threaten someone who has insulted you i am saying i understand in special circumstances why he reacted this way.
As far as someone should not be threatened for what they say goes, that is laughable.
go out tonight anywhere in the country and insult a few people and when they get upset tell them all it's freedom of speech and see what happens in the real world.
All these realities seem to be forgotten by some people as soon as they get behind a keyboard.
Ask me anything.
This reminds me of what goes on in the Politics forum. There are some posters who take every opportunity to knock state services or call for benefits to be either severely reduced or abolished altogether.
However, I have noticed that such individuals are found to be posting during standard working hours which might indicate that they are in receipt of working age state benefits (ESA, JSA) or are retired and are in receipt of state retirement benefits.
It is possible that they have remarkably lenient employers or that they are already millionaires with free time on their hands but my guess is that they're mostly in the former category and are thus hypocrites of the highest order.
So just because people would hit someone for mocking them in real life that means people shouldn't do it online?
Why should someone who can beat someone else up, get to say something (and I mean do the mocking) yet someone who can't beat someone up can't mock people unless they are prepared to get beaten up?
I'm not supporting mocking btw, but one person's mocking, is another person's satire.
Nothing anyone says should require violence.
Either use the law, or reasoned argument.
You'd be wrong, the problem is the hypocrisy on the other side. Womens groups and such professional victim groups are more than happy to form mobs to out/get people in trouble/harass and even try to get content/accounts taken down just because someone dares to disagree with them. The honest truth is many of these people really do think that anyone daring to disagree with them is an attack on them, so they hide behind false victimhood, many times exaggerating the supposed "trolling" with selective evidence, aka bigging up a few minor incidents for the purpose of justifying their own bad behavior.
In fact the playbook is so desirable there are cases like the one involving meg lanker simmons a feminist blogger decided that to attack something she didn't like required her to actually fake some rape threats at herself so she could use this professional victimhood position to attack whatever she didn't like without having to face scrutiny. Luckily in that case she was caught, but it just goes to show, its not the simple hysteria that shows like "tonight" seem to favor.
In fact i'm sure tonight knows if they took a less sympathetic position to these supposed victims, they would face massive internet wrath from the supposed "victims", mob style and would face a campaign of harrassment trying to get people fired or whatever.
This issue is just over done. The truth is this, there was a time with more sexism, part of this sexism included a special status for women, men were expected to behave gentlemanly ..why, because women weren't considered equals, part of special treatment is based on that consideration, and women seem to have forgotten this. Now women are considered equal, and have to face the barbs and stings that men do, yet they still expect special treatment, and thats the problem. Many men face that kind of harrassment and worse, they just shrug it off, they don't make it more than it is and try to exploit it so they can shut down discussion by labeling everyone who disagrees with them as troll.
And yes constantly equating trolls with bullies is nonsense. If you think about this much of this is like blasphemy, whats a militant atheist to a religion anyways? They would consider a militant atheist a troll. They would seek to silence him based on portraying themselves as victim, because they do not wish to argue based on the merits. Bullies have real power, like the church, like feminist groups, they go after people in real life, whether their life or their jobs, a few lulz on the net is not comparable.
Games journalist ryan perez was basically hounded out of his job by the usual suspects based on just a few innocuous twitter postings about felicia day, apparently he wasn't allowed to question her legitimacy at all, thats a real world consequence, not some "feelings" hurt over trolling. In dongle gate adria richards overheard some guys making a dongle joke at a tech conference, she posted this to cause trouble, got everyone fired, this is real world consequence, not an idle threat or just feelings hurt. Yet some how, she's part of the "victim" group? Sorry, it just doesn't add up, but you know very well tonight would never do a show on this not just because it isn't in them but because even if it was they'd be scared to death of the supposedly powerless victims.
The question which side is the troll should be reconsidered.
In fact even newsnight was part of this recently.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0dZIQZIfkg
They promoted using a script to block "trolls" without doing basic research, which would have showed them that the script basically spent its time auto flagging accounts of many people who are just people who happen to disagree with the scripts author.
they can hunt in 'packs' or some have multiple 'sock' puppet accounts...... either way, put them on ignore.
hopefully they'll get bored and die quietly somewhere.......
sadly some people think im disagree with there pov makes you a troll. when it does not we do not have to agree with you with other people think do we as we are not the borg.
we should all hold our point of view and should not care if others disagree with it.
I'm from Liverpool, there is no victim mentality
Funniest thing about Old Holborn was his constant dismissal of wage slaves, always implying that he was wealthy and didn't need to work and it turned out he was working for a recruitment agency, looking for the very wage slaves that he decried.
On a related note, the poster woman (at least for video games) of this hysteria anita sarkeesian ... just was revealed as a fraud.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw