Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Twitsorm

My Twitter account has been suspended. As far as I can remember, I didn’t violate any of the rules. The people who reported me though – and bragged about it – they violate the rules all the time. They’ve threatened me, they’ve lied about me, they’ve accused me of rape, rape apology apologising for rape apology and non-specific abuse of women. I haven’t done any of those things.

I guess some people are offended by descriptions of my cat’s activities and my pointing out certain types of injustice, ignorance and fucktanglery. The Slymepit will be running short of cookies issued to the people who complained about me.

I expect it will blow over. I’ve done nothing wrong and perhaps my account will be reinstated. But I’m sick of it. I’m sick of bullying. I’m sick of being the target of abuse when all I’m trying to do is help people who are abused.

Yeah, boo fucking hoo, but I get to complain sometimes.

12 comments:

  1. I complained about you, of course, as you know. I had long ago asked you to stop @ing me and you refused, point blank, even though I blocked you. The problem then for me is that your @s kept popping up in Tweeteck, which doesn't honour blocks.

    It reached a bit of a frenzy yesterday when you @d me 10 or 12 times. Twitter is fairly clear - unwanted @s from someone who's blocked can be considered a breach of their terms and conditions of use and they sent you an email reminding you of that. You simply ignored the email and carried on @ing me.

    I don't know if anyone else complained about you to Twitter but that doesn't really matter does it. There doesn't need to have been any concerted effort or complaints from multiple users for Twitter to have quite reasonably decided you were deliberately harassing me.

    Which is ironic because the blockbot crowd hide behind a claim that what they're doing is protecting people from harassment. Can you see that?

    This perpetual casting of the whole drama as being about a good side, fighting for social justice, and a bad side full of - oh, any term of abuse Billingham wishes to hurl around - is simply silly, unnuanced, and of course false. It isn't cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians.

    It will blow over, you will get back on to Twitter and you won't @ me any more, which is all I'd asked from you so many months ago.

    If you'd ever like to discuss these issues further, calmly, in longer form and without starting from the premise that the world is so easily divided between all that's good and everything that's evil then by all means pop along to my G+ account and we can have a chat. I know you can't be stupid so I'm prepared to believe a constructive dialogue is possible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I use Tweetdeck and the *only* thing I'll ever see after blocking someone is their nick coming up in conversations they've been included in. Plus TweetDeck has a mute option that effectively removes any remaining stuff. Just sayin'.

      Delete
  2. David, you are lying again.

    Twitter did not send me an email instructing me not to @ you. They said that someone had complained that I'd violated their rules. They didn't say which rule. Which is probably for the best since there is no rule about @ing people who have blocked you or even people who ask you not to. I read the links to the rules they sent me very carefully and there is simply no such rule, so your clam that Twitter is fairly clear on this matter is yet another of your lies.

    Certainly you aren't the only one who has complained about me in the last couple of days. Whether you instigated this or whether people are following your example is unclear and - as you said - unimportant. But one thing certainly is clear: I haven't violated a single one of Twitter's rules. Ever.

    David, you don't get to come here and claim that I'm harassing you. You don't get to come here and complain about the block bot: a thing I have absolutely nothing to do with. Take your obsession with that service elsewhere.

    But since you're here, let's be explicit. My original argument with you is that you're a rape apologist. You think that unless an act falls under what you believe is the legal definition (and there really isn't such a thing, in the form you cast it) of rape, then it's not rape. This means - in your mind - that women who are too drunk to consent to sex are not raped. These are things that you have said. Quite explicitly. When I insisted that non-consensual sex is rape regardless of whether you personally decide it falls under some fictional legal definition of rape, you called me sanctimonious and blocked me. You called me all sorts of names, too. I don't mind being called names. I call people names all the time. But I don't call them names because they favour the rights of women not to be raped above the rights of idiots like you to pretend that rape isn't rape.

    So I'll say again: do not fucking come here acting as though you're the injured party. You are a rape apologist and therefore a terrible, terrible human being. You've silenced me because I annoy you. Perhaps this is partly about the barely-believable tweetdeck nonsense (how mild an inconvenience could there possibly be?) but I think we both know that's a lame excuse. You're a bully and you wanted a cookie from your fellow bullies. I hope you got the cookie. It might stop your self-satisfied posturing for a few days while you preen yourself.

    Do not fucking come here and tell me what I think or from what premise I am starting. Do not insist that I ought to engage you calmly or that I'm somehow wrong if I talk to you in anger. I am angry with you and rightly so. Not for the complaining to Twitter, that's your right and doesn't bother me much. It's more pathetic than annoying. I'm angry about your blithering, self-obsessed, hateful attitude and your po-faced condemnation of bad things that genuinely happen to real people as some sort of arbitrary, abstract fucking debate.

    Fuck you, David. Congratulations on shutting up a voice that disagrees with you. You've made the world a very slightly worse place for people you don't seem to care about and presumably you're proud about that.

    If you'd like a polite discussion about what you dismiss as 'the drama' then you can do exactly this: FUCK OFF. There is no polite way to argue with people like you and if there were, I wouldn't want to be the one to do it. Tell me again that drunk sex by your fucked-up insistence is not rape. And then we'll talk about why I am not calm.

    You and your fellow rape apologists hurt everyone. I apparently left some messages you could simply have ignored. Let's leave it to history to decide which is the greater evil, shall we? And by all means, David, please, please, please do fuck all the way off.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Actually, I haven't said anything like that and this is what I was trying to get at when I mentioned nuance. In the context of a discussion about consent and alcohol I pointed out that in the country we both live the law does not hold that anyone who has drunk any alcohol cannot consent: rather it leaves it to the court to decide whether an individual was too drunk to consent (unless it's an open and shut case of insensibility or obviously severe impairment).

    In my view that nuanced approach strikes the right balance in a difficult situation, demanding that judgement is exercised rather than a blind application of an indefensible rule.

    As for your protestations about not violating any of Twitter's rules... Well you clearly did. That's why your account was suspended.

    ReplyDelete
  4. David.... didn't I say you should fuck off? And yet here you are. It's almost as though you're a complete hypocrite, guilty of the exact thing you accused me of.

    You've misrepresented here your own misguided, dangerous and horrible opinion about consent. I don't intend to argue with you further because you and your opinion are both disgusting. But seriously, you're coming here to lie about what you said?

    Don't.

    Go and get your cookies from the other creepy fucks who share your disgusting views.

    "As for your protestations about not violating any of Twitter's rules... Well you clearly did. That's why your account was suspended."

    OK, so your oblivious fallacy aside, which rule was it that I violated? You haven't told me. Twitter hasn't told me. I have received no emails explaining what rules I violated. You yourself haven't told me what rules I violated. There is no rule against mentioning people who have blocked you, as you well know. If there were, no doubt you'd be quoting it at me chapter and verse.

    I haven't violated rules. I've been complained about.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes you've been complained about - by me for sure; and of course Twitter feels you were contravening their acceptable use policies. Continuing to deny that rather obvious fact is a bit strange given that your account has been suspended, by Twitter.

    And I haven't 'misrepresented' my views...my views are as I've described them here and you won't find anywhere where I've expressed them in a substantially different way. Really, you won't.

    I don't understand why you need this demonising silliness that has to rely upon a rather oblique relationship with fact. It isn't helpful, not at all. And to be serious for a moment, do you ever stop to think what huge damage you do to various causes and principles by behaving in such a strange way?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David, you keep coming back here when I've asked you not to. This is the exact thing you say you complained to Twitter that I was doing. Apparently it's OK when you do it, but is somehow harassment when I do it. If you say so. But you're not welcome, David. I don't think you're harassing me but I don't want to talk to you any more. You can post here if you want. I probably won't delete it. But please don't.

      But this is the last time I'll respond to you: your comments on drunk sex were and continue to be awful. The legal definition of rape is not the only basis people should use to decide whether to have sex with someone. Your rape apology works along those lines. You want the question of whether a sexual encounter is rape to be worked out by the courts. My approach is different. I make sure it isn't rape first. I make sure there's agreement and proper capacity to make an agreement to sex before it'll happen. If I'm in any doubt, I won't have sex. I'm not that desperate. I can wait.

      Remember, David, that you said I was sanctimonious for thinking that way.

      And yet your claimed 'nuance' is about men defending themselves from being *convicted* of rape. I'm more concerned about our learning not to do anything that might feel like rape to someone else in the first place. You, apparently, are not. Is it really so difficult to not have sex with someone you suspect might have their judgement impaired? Not according to you, apparently. To me it is very easy indeed.

      Don't come here glibly suggesting that I somehow - in an unspecified way - harm 'various causes' especially without explaining what causes or why. If there's any high ground to be had, I plainly occupy it. If there isn't, you can just fuck off anyway. As I keep asking you to.

      Delete
  6. "But they do it! WAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!"

    http://i.imgur.com/TBmvKfD.jpg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Victor.

      Helpful as always.

      Delete
  7. He is lying as well, Tweetdeck has a better "mute" option than the standard Twitter client. Removes people from all searches and timeline interactions. Given he is a "techy" I'm happy to call him a liar, but if he wants to correct and point out he is just incompetent then I'm happy to accept it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete