Those following Bad Company through my Twitter account may have noticed me promoting a few links to another blog I've set up, entitled High Noon.
Some of you may be asking: does this mean Bad Company is going to become defunct? Isn't it just a few months old? And defunct so soon, after your last blog ran up more than a thousand posts? I want answers, damn it! Now!
Well, here's the thing. Answers don't give you everlasting satisfaction. Sometimes you need to brace yourself for disappointment. Now think about it. Imagine your favorite TV show. You've been through it all. The ups, the downs, the crazy coincidences, and then: Bang! They tell you what it's all about. Would you be happy? Does it make sense? How come it all ended in a church?
Actually, I ripped most of that last little bit off in its entirety. If you're hip like I am, you'll know from where. Also, it's kind of BS.
Where was I again? Oh, yes. That's right. Answers.
Well, simply put, Bad Company will not be shutting down in any way, shape, or form. High Noon is what I consider to be Canada's answer to Twtitchy. It's a blog about Twitter, as if anyone actually needed it.
It doesn't mean that Twitter shall never again be mentioned on these not-so-humble pages. From time to time, Twitter shall probably merit some kind of mention. But for the most part, expect all the Twitter talk to be relegated to High Noon, while Bad Company shall focus largely on the issues and ideas themselves.
...And don't worry. I will think of something better to use as a background there. All in good time, dear readers.
Showing posts with label Twitter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Twitter. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Spam... For #CdnPoli, It's What's For Dinner
Last night, the Canadian political Twitterverse exploded with indication -- from conservatives, at least -- over what appeared to be a censorship campaign against a Twitter account the Ethical Oil Institute has been using to promote its boycott of Lush Cosmetics.
Personally, I've never been that big a believer in boycotting critics of the oilsands. Boycotting them may hurt their business for a short period of time, but frankly I see it as just vengeful. A boycott may change someone's behaviour, but it doesn't change their mind. For supporters of the oilsands, the latter should be much more important than the former.
Now, with that aside, onto the censorship.
After a long Twitter conversation with Alheli Picazo, the alleged perpetrator of the censorship, I've personally come to the opinion that the entire affair is actually a mutual misunderstanding between Picazo and EOI. And I think it would be a good time to address what are some very important concepts.
Obviously, Twitter is still an emerging medium. Accordingly, it can often be difficult to classify the kind of interactions that take place over it. Take, for example, the belief popular amongst left-wing Tweeters that anyone who disagrees with them is a troll. It's almost certain that some of them are disingenuous in this -- it's simply a cheap shortcut to discount opinions of people who disagree with them. Others may believe it more genuinely, even if it's comically false.
But that's just one example. What's more important to the issue is how we understand what is or is not spam.
A quick case in point also involves Picazo, and took place a few weeks ago. Picazo recommended that her followers flag a pro-motion 312 Twitter account (Motion 312 is Conservative MP Stephen Woodsworth's motion to debate abortion). At that particular point, after quickly reviewing that account's feed, I actually agreed with her. The account was Tweeting identical messages over and over. Clearly an automated account in my view. So I agreed with her. Reporting that particular account for spam was just the right thing to do. Anyone who wants to support Motion 312 should come down here and debate like the rest of us.
As of the writing of this blogpost, the @BloodLushAlerts Twitter account has been suspended, so it's hard to see whether or not it was similarly sending identical Tweets. What does remain to be seen is that the user of the account responded to Picazo's suggestion that her followers report it for spam. She then reiterated her suggestion that it be reported for spam.
On its face, it may look bad. But I think there may be a better explanation for this than Picazo being censorious.
For one thing, Picazo seems to be operating with a different definition of spam than the rest of us. She defines "hardcore trolling" as spam. In her view, if someone is uninterested in any kind of actual dialogue -- and no hardcore troll really is -- then they're a spammer.
Does she have an argument? Absolutely she does. But did @BloodLushAlerts try to engage Picazo in dialogue? As a matter of fact, yes. Yes, they did. But this also led to a huge misunderstanding. In my view, I see it like this: Alheli Picazo misunderstood the intentions of the @BloodLushAlerts Twitter account, and recommended that her followers report it for spam. The operator of the account then misunderstood Picazo, and from there Picazo merely interrupted.
So what does my argument have in its favour? For one thing, history: in my view, Picazo was entirely right about the Motion 312 account -- as would anyone who received an unwanted "Truth About Tim" or "Queen's Park Update" Tweet, and reported the associated account for spam. For another thing, it has human nature on its side: both Picazo and the @BloodLushAlerts operator are human, and humans sometimes overreact.
Misusing Twitter's spam reporting procedures to censor other Tweeters has been a hot topic lately. Sheila Gunn Reid has been a victim of it. Others have as well. Mostly they tend to be conservatives, but Kikki Planet is fairly left-leaning, and she was victimized as well during the recent Alberta election.
I surmise that in this heated environment a lot of people -- including, at first, myself -- simply assumed that Picazo was maliciously censoring people. After a conversation with Picazo, I no longer believe that to be true.
As I understand it, Picazo still blogs at Rabble.ca. I'd say that the Twitterverse would benefit from hearing Picazo make her case for her definition of spam at greater lengths. I'd encourage her to make use of her soapbox there to tell her side of this story more publicly, and make her case for her definition of spam.
So far she seems to disagree with me about both things -- I consider trolling to be a problem separate from spamming, and that it should be handled in different ways -- but I genuinely think that she has a lot to add to this conversation.
Personally, I've never been that big a believer in boycotting critics of the oilsands. Boycotting them may hurt their business for a short period of time, but frankly I see it as just vengeful. A boycott may change someone's behaviour, but it doesn't change their mind. For supporters of the oilsands, the latter should be much more important than the former.
Now, with that aside, onto the censorship.
After a long Twitter conversation with Alheli Picazo, the alleged perpetrator of the censorship, I've personally come to the opinion that the entire affair is actually a mutual misunderstanding between Picazo and EOI. And I think it would be a good time to address what are some very important concepts.
Obviously, Twitter is still an emerging medium. Accordingly, it can often be difficult to classify the kind of interactions that take place over it. Take, for example, the belief popular amongst left-wing Tweeters that anyone who disagrees with them is a troll. It's almost certain that some of them are disingenuous in this -- it's simply a cheap shortcut to discount opinions of people who disagree with them. Others may believe it more genuinely, even if it's comically false.
But that's just one example. What's more important to the issue is how we understand what is or is not spam.
A quick case in point also involves Picazo, and took place a few weeks ago. Picazo recommended that her followers flag a pro-motion 312 Twitter account (Motion 312 is Conservative MP Stephen Woodsworth's motion to debate abortion). At that particular point, after quickly reviewing that account's feed, I actually agreed with her. The account was Tweeting identical messages over and over. Clearly an automated account in my view. So I agreed with her. Reporting that particular account for spam was just the right thing to do. Anyone who wants to support Motion 312 should come down here and debate like the rest of us.
As of the writing of this blogpost, the @BloodLushAlerts Twitter account has been suspended, so it's hard to see whether or not it was similarly sending identical Tweets. What does remain to be seen is that the user of the account responded to Picazo's suggestion that her followers report it for spam. She then reiterated her suggestion that it be reported for spam.
On its face, it may look bad. But I think there may be a better explanation for this than Picazo being censorious.
For one thing, Picazo seems to be operating with a different definition of spam than the rest of us. She defines "hardcore trolling" as spam. In her view, if someone is uninterested in any kind of actual dialogue -- and no hardcore troll really is -- then they're a spammer.
Does she have an argument? Absolutely she does. But did @BloodLushAlerts try to engage Picazo in dialogue? As a matter of fact, yes. Yes, they did. But this also led to a huge misunderstanding. In my view, I see it like this: Alheli Picazo misunderstood the intentions of the @BloodLushAlerts Twitter account, and recommended that her followers report it for spam. The operator of the account then misunderstood Picazo, and from there Picazo merely interrupted.
So what does my argument have in its favour? For one thing, history: in my view, Picazo was entirely right about the Motion 312 account -- as would anyone who received an unwanted "Truth About Tim" or "Queen's Park Update" Tweet, and reported the associated account for spam. For another thing, it has human nature on its side: both Picazo and the @BloodLushAlerts operator are human, and humans sometimes overreact.
Misusing Twitter's spam reporting procedures to censor other Tweeters has been a hot topic lately. Sheila Gunn Reid has been a victim of it. Others have as well. Mostly they tend to be conservatives, but Kikki Planet is fairly left-leaning, and she was victimized as well during the recent Alberta election.
I surmise that in this heated environment a lot of people -- including, at first, myself -- simply assumed that Picazo was maliciously censoring people. After a conversation with Picazo, I no longer believe that to be true.
As I understand it, Picazo still blogs at Rabble.ca. I'd say that the Twitterverse would benefit from hearing Picazo make her case for her definition of spam at greater lengths. I'd encourage her to make use of her soapbox there to tell her side of this story more publicly, and make her case for her definition of spam.
So far she seems to disagree with me about both things -- I consider trolling to be a problem separate from spamming, and that it should be handled in different ways -- but I genuinely think that she has a lot to add to this conversation.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
A Mean Town Getting As Mean as the Hateful Left Wants it to Be
In a column in the Toronto Star, Tim Harper attempts to put Vikileaks -- the Twitter account that broadcasted portions of the affidavits from Public Safety Minister Vic Toews' divorce proceedings -- in perspective.
His conclusion is a simple one: a mean town -- Ottawa -- just getting meaner. And it could be as simple as that.
Or not. There could be more.
What was Vikileaks about, really?
In reality, it wasn't about privacy. It certainly wasn't about giving Toews any kind of just desert. The latter of these two propositions is not only patently absurd, but patently insane. The purpose of the "lawful access" bill was never to make the information sought public.
Rather, it was about political tribalism. Full stop.
The parading of Toews' divorce in public wasn't by any means spontaneous. There have been those on the far left who have been both longing and eager to refer to Toews' divorce as a means on doing with politics as they have always wanted: making it personal. Deeply personal.
German philosopher George Wilhelm Fredrich Hegel considered pre-historical human society to be inherently tribal -- a time when competing tribes sought to conquer or destroy one another. At that time societies didn't triumph over each other by advancing beyond each other in scientific or social pursuits, but with what Hegel described as "superior strength, superior ruthlessness, and superior cruelty."
Make no mistake about it, there are those among the left -- in Canada and around teh world -- who intend to triumph over their adversaries using these precise means.
They're easy to identify if you look hard enough. They are the ones who, faced with a complex public debate, rush not to attack their adversaries' ideas, but to attack them personally. They're the ones who hunger to destroy their opponents, not merely as political actors, but as people.
They aren't that hard to find. I could even name names.
That the IP address used to operate the Vikileaks Twitter account was traced not only to a House of Commons IP address, but to one routinely used to make pro-NDP wikipedia edits, is of little surprise. (It also raises some serious questions about how the NDP have been making use of HoC resources, but that's a question many in the media prefer not to ask; the NDP would prefer not to answer.)
As individuals like John Gormley have made it crystal clear, the NDP has spent decades peddling the idea that they're morally superior to their opponents. Over the years, this has fed a culture of hate- and contempt-based politics that has dwelled just under the surface of many NDPers.
Embracing that toxic political culture has emboldened some of them to think that it's morally permissible to do virtually anything to an opponent. In their eyes, cruelty and ruthelessness are no longer vices -- rather, they believe these are virtues, and even some of those who pretend to be benign political actors are often inexorably drawn to those who employ the most ruthless, cruel, and hateful tactics against their opponents.
It's hard to accept many of them as benign politicos considering the amount of admiration they show for some of these people.
This kind of tribalism pre-dated modern history, and was supposed to have been abolished by the advent of civil society. Make no mistake about it, it's civil society that's at stake in these sorts of matters.
A civil society that accepts or tolerates this kind of politicized cruelty is one that has turned its back on what its historical legacy was purported to be. It's not just a step backward for political discourse, but potentially a step backward for civil society as a whole.
The NDP's complicity in this latest episode is undeniable. Don't think the NDP doesn't know which of their staffers is responsible for Vikileaks. At the very least, some of them know. The kind of politico who commits acts of cruelty like Vikileaks is hungry for the recognition of their peers, particularly those of their peers who they know to share their own simmering hatred.
Moreover, these individuals have embraced these kinds of acts with a fervour that is simply Pavlovian in nature. They have become adept at ignoring, justifying, defending, or simply rationalizing these kinds of acts.
Unless those of their peers who truly do value a benign and constructive politics finds the will to stand up to them and ensure they pay the penalty for their actions, it will continue unabated. But don't hold your breath waiting for the Canadian left to do what is right.
They've shown time and time again that they either lack the will or lack the courage to stand up to the villains in their midst. Either that, or a third alternative: they simply enjoy it.
Vic Towes himself is no angel. Because there are serious issues at stake in the lawful access bill -- which I support in principle, but I've also been looking to the amendment process to temper some of its overeaches -- his declaration that opponents either stand with the government, or stand with child pornographers was not only uncalled for, but a disservice to the business of governing.
More than that, it, too, was cruel.
But two wrongs don't make a right. And it doesn't help that this is a wrong the left has just been itching to commit. Nor was it the only one. When John Baird made an "it gets better" video, the left leaped at the opportunity to use his sexuality as a battering ram with which to attack him personally.
And while fellow conservatives can stop Toews' acts of cruelty, only fellow left-wingers can put a stop to the cruelty of Vikileaks. Whether or not they will is up to them to decide: are their demagogic ambitions more important than the health of civil society?
That's the real question.
His conclusion is a simple one: a mean town -- Ottawa -- just getting meaner. And it could be as simple as that.
Or not. There could be more.
What was Vikileaks about, really?
In reality, it wasn't about privacy. It certainly wasn't about giving Toews any kind of just desert. The latter of these two propositions is not only patently absurd, but patently insane. The purpose of the "lawful access" bill was never to make the information sought public.
Rather, it was about political tribalism. Full stop.
The parading of Toews' divorce in public wasn't by any means spontaneous. There have been those on the far left who have been both longing and eager to refer to Toews' divorce as a means on doing with politics as they have always wanted: making it personal. Deeply personal.
German philosopher George Wilhelm Fredrich Hegel considered pre-historical human society to be inherently tribal -- a time when competing tribes sought to conquer or destroy one another. At that time societies didn't triumph over each other by advancing beyond each other in scientific or social pursuits, but with what Hegel described as "superior strength, superior ruthlessness, and superior cruelty."
Make no mistake about it, there are those among the left -- in Canada and around teh world -- who intend to triumph over their adversaries using these precise means.
They're easy to identify if you look hard enough. They are the ones who, faced with a complex public debate, rush not to attack their adversaries' ideas, but to attack them personally. They're the ones who hunger to destroy their opponents, not merely as political actors, but as people.
They aren't that hard to find. I could even name names.
That the IP address used to operate the Vikileaks Twitter account was traced not only to a House of Commons IP address, but to one routinely used to make pro-NDP wikipedia edits, is of little surprise. (It also raises some serious questions about how the NDP have been making use of HoC resources, but that's a question many in the media prefer not to ask; the NDP would prefer not to answer.)
As individuals like John Gormley have made it crystal clear, the NDP has spent decades peddling the idea that they're morally superior to their opponents. Over the years, this has fed a culture of hate- and contempt-based politics that has dwelled just under the surface of many NDPers.
Embracing that toxic political culture has emboldened some of them to think that it's morally permissible to do virtually anything to an opponent. In their eyes, cruelty and ruthelessness are no longer vices -- rather, they believe these are virtues, and even some of those who pretend to be benign political actors are often inexorably drawn to those who employ the most ruthless, cruel, and hateful tactics against their opponents.
It's hard to accept many of them as benign politicos considering the amount of admiration they show for some of these people.
This kind of tribalism pre-dated modern history, and was supposed to have been abolished by the advent of civil society. Make no mistake about it, it's civil society that's at stake in these sorts of matters.
A civil society that accepts or tolerates this kind of politicized cruelty is one that has turned its back on what its historical legacy was purported to be. It's not just a step backward for political discourse, but potentially a step backward for civil society as a whole.
The NDP's complicity in this latest episode is undeniable. Don't think the NDP doesn't know which of their staffers is responsible for Vikileaks. At the very least, some of them know. The kind of politico who commits acts of cruelty like Vikileaks is hungry for the recognition of their peers, particularly those of their peers who they know to share their own simmering hatred.
Moreover, these individuals have embraced these kinds of acts with a fervour that is simply Pavlovian in nature. They have become adept at ignoring, justifying, defending, or simply rationalizing these kinds of acts.
Unless those of their peers who truly do value a benign and constructive politics finds the will to stand up to them and ensure they pay the penalty for their actions, it will continue unabated. But don't hold your breath waiting for the Canadian left to do what is right.
They've shown time and time again that they either lack the will or lack the courage to stand up to the villains in their midst. Either that, or a third alternative: they simply enjoy it.
Vic Towes himself is no angel. Because there are serious issues at stake in the lawful access bill -- which I support in principle, but I've also been looking to the amendment process to temper some of its overeaches -- his declaration that opponents either stand with the government, or stand with child pornographers was not only uncalled for, but a disservice to the business of governing.
More than that, it, too, was cruel.
But two wrongs don't make a right. And it doesn't help that this is a wrong the left has just been itching to commit. Nor was it the only one. When John Baird made an "it gets better" video, the left leaped at the opportunity to use his sexuality as a battering ram with which to attack him personally.
And while fellow conservatives can stop Toews' acts of cruelty, only fellow left-wingers can put a stop to the cruelty of Vikileaks. Whether or not they will is up to them to decide: are their demagogic ambitions more important than the health of civil society?
That's the real question.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
The Far Left's Vision for the RCAF
Make no mistake about it, the far-left has a vision for the Canadian Forces.
What is that vision? I'm glad you asked. It's this:
This isn't to say that they actively want Canadian servicemen and servicewomen dead. Athough some of them have taken certain glee in attacking their grieving family members after they're already dead.
No, they just have all sorts of crazy ideas that end up with Canadian servicemen and servicewomen dead. And for all the times it's happened before -- such as with Sea King helicopter crashes -- these people just never, ever, ever learn their lesson.
Take Graham Chivers, who tweets as @DeepGreenDesign, and fancies himself a genius engineer. He's one of the many fools fighting tooth and nail against the purchase of CF-35 fighter jets for the Royal Canadian Air Force, thus relegating our pilots to fly their existing CF-18s long after they become flying death traps.
Chivers recently took to the Twitterwaves to assure people that the CF-18 could, in fact, be maintained "indefinitely". No, he actually said that. Really:
This can, of course, immediately be dismissed as false with anyone holding so much as a modicum of knowledge about aviation, fighter jets, or even basic engineering. No aircraft's airframe can withstand the stresses of supersonic flight indefinitely. That's one of the most basic facts regarding these kinds of aircrafts.
Chivers -- who claims to have designed them -- doesn't know this. In fact, he seems to think that he's such an engineering genius that he could retrofit our CF-18s with "electronics and software" that would extend the operational lifetime of the airframe indefinitely:
Whatever software and electronics increase the strength, durability, and thermal resistence of titanium infinitely is a secret likely only known to Chivers. Now there are only two reasons I can think of for this, and they are as follows:
1. Because Graham Chivers is a genius, and only he knows about them.
Or:
2. They don't actually exist.
Now which do you actually think the answer is? And, if Graham Chivers were ever to become the engineer responsible for maintaining Canada's fleet of military aircraft, how long do you think it would be before the flag-draped coffin would again be a regular peacetime phenomenon in Canada?
It wouldn't be long at all. And this is one of the best reasons for the government to ignore individuals, self-annointed experts like Chivers, and go ahead with the F-35 purchase as quickly as it can be done. To put the decision in the hands of people like this -- as it was done in 1993 -- is not only to invite disaster, but actually to make it inevitable.
One thing is for certain: Graham Chivers is no genius. He's a self-glorifying tool who tweets with all the intellect of a spambot. And whether he intends it or not, his vision for the RCAF -- the far-left's vision for the RCAF -- is dead pilots. It could be nothing else.
What is that vision? I'm glad you asked. It's this:
This isn't to say that they actively want Canadian servicemen and servicewomen dead. Athough some of them have taken certain glee in attacking their grieving family members after they're already dead.
No, they just have all sorts of crazy ideas that end up with Canadian servicemen and servicewomen dead. And for all the times it's happened before -- such as with Sea King helicopter crashes -- these people just never, ever, ever learn their lesson.
Take Graham Chivers, who tweets as @DeepGreenDesign, and fancies himself a genius engineer. He's one of the many fools fighting tooth and nail against the purchase of CF-35 fighter jets for the Royal Canadian Air Force, thus relegating our pilots to fly their existing CF-18s long after they become flying death traps.
Chivers recently took to the Twitterwaves to assure people that the CF-18 could, in fact, be maintained "indefinitely". No, he actually said that. Really:
This can, of course, immediately be dismissed as false with anyone holding so much as a modicum of knowledge about aviation, fighter jets, or even basic engineering. No aircraft's airframe can withstand the stresses of supersonic flight indefinitely. That's one of the most basic facts regarding these kinds of aircrafts.
Chivers -- who claims to have designed them -- doesn't know this. In fact, he seems to think that he's such an engineering genius that he could retrofit our CF-18s with "electronics and software" that would extend the operational lifetime of the airframe indefinitely:
Whatever software and electronics increase the strength, durability, and thermal resistence of titanium infinitely is a secret likely only known to Chivers. Now there are only two reasons I can think of for this, and they are as follows:
1. Because Graham Chivers is a genius, and only he knows about them.
Or:
2. They don't actually exist.
Now which do you actually think the answer is? And, if Graham Chivers were ever to become the engineer responsible for maintaining Canada's fleet of military aircraft, how long do you think it would be before the flag-draped coffin would again be a regular peacetime phenomenon in Canada?
It wouldn't be long at all. And this is one of the best reasons for the government to ignore individuals, self-annointed experts like Chivers, and go ahead with the F-35 purchase as quickly as it can be done. To put the decision in the hands of people like this -- as it was done in 1993 -- is not only to invite disaster, but actually to make it inevitable.
One thing is for certain: Graham Chivers is no genius. He's a self-glorifying tool who tweets with all the intellect of a spambot. And whether he intends it or not, his vision for the RCAF -- the far-left's vision for the RCAF -- is dead pilots. It could be nothing else.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
There is Something Deeply, Deeply Wrong With These People
Previously on Bad Company, I told you all about Twitterthug and varmint-at-large @ConBGone and her campaign of intimidation against opponents of the Long Gun Registry.
For a time, it seemed like this individual had, gratefully, excused herself from Twitter.
Sadly, no. @ConBGone has, unfortunately, resurfaced on Twitter, and hasn't learned a damn thing from her experience. Rather, instead of attempting to excuse her foul behaviour at all, she's resorted to pointing the finger at other people:
It's the typical response of a shoolyard bully: @ConBGone is trying to pretend her behaviour isn't what's wrong, what's wrong is that someone would draw attention to it. Just like every schoolyard bully who blames their victim for telling a teacher, rather than accept responsibility for their own actions. Which tells you everything you need to know about @ConBGone's progress through the process of growing up.
She's not alone in this regard by any means.
Scuttlebut has it that @ConBGone has even established a stalking horse Twitter account, @GunNutz. Speculation holds that @ConBGone established the account to try to make the anti-LGR lobby look bad... but who would put any stock in @ConBGone's Twitter activities when she's already revealed herself to be nothing more than a petty thug?
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
How the Left Intends to Wage War for the Long-Gun Registry
Since the very beginning, proponents of the long gun registry have relied overwhelmingly on three things to win what they view as a war to save this demagogic and symbolic institution.
They rely on emotional blackmail: they accuse those who want to dismantle the long gun registry of being indifferent to the suffering of the victims of L'Ecole Polytechnique and Dawson College. They accuse them of being indifferent to domestic abuse.
They rely on fear-mongering: they insist that the long gun registry is the first step in dismantling all measures of gun control in Canada.
They rely on distorting the facts: they note that the registry was logged into thousands of times a day, although the onboard computers police have in their cruisers automatically access the LGR when they make any kind of inquiry.
Now, they have another tactic: intimidating their opponents.
This tale revolves around the activities of @ConBGone, a far-left Twitter troll who despises conservatives to her very core. Like almost all of these far-left trolls, she apparently believes that no rules of any kind apply to her. So when she had the opportunity to post the name and address of a long gun registry opponent, she did so with glee.
As with virtually all of these zaelots, @ConBGone wasn't particularly responsive to criticism of her targeting of this individual. In fact, she set out to make it seem as if those who objected were the ones with a problem:
Moreover, when called out by several Twitter users for this blatant thuggery, @ConBGone made it clear that her intention was to intimidate opponents of the LGR into silence:
Fortunately, the precise offending Tweet has been deleted. Concerned bystanders immediately reported @ConBGone's activity to Twitter, and she hasn't Tweeted since. Speculation holds that Twitter has frozen her account prior to deleting it.
Fortunately, not all LGR proponents have gone quite as far off the deep end in their actions. But @ConBGone's actions are a reminder of just how far many of them are willing to go.
Unfortunately, actions like @ConBGone's have been taken before. Consistently, those who commit these kinds of acts have consistently refused to take any responsibility for them. Some have gone to remarkable lengths to escape the implications of their behaviour.
Fortunately, those witnessing these acts of bullying and intimidation aren't staying silent about them any longer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)