Beamer wrote on Jul 21, 2016, 07:43:
Orogogus wrote on Jul 21, 2016, 04:33:
Redmask wrote on Jul 20, 2016, 23:34:
The tweets were not photoshopped, there is no evidence to support that claim and in fact its quite the opposite if you look at her twitter history.
What does that mean? I don't see them in the Twitter history. As yuastnav said, these tweets don't show up on Google, unlike anything else that's been retweeted -- everything gets amplified by aggregators and sites made to follow Twitter. And the one on the right has supposedly been retweeted 785 times and favorited or liked 4,000 times, yet nothing. The evidence seems clear to me that Beamer's correct.
And, for the record, I'm not saying she didn't say other bad things. As Quboid said, you can say "Milo deserved this" without saying "Leslie is a wonderful, perfect human being."
But "the other guy did something, too! Why aren't they banned!" has never been a valid defense. You can't walk into a courtroom, and kids can't even argue to their parents, that other people are doing something without being caught so therefore they can't be punished.
You’re supposed to know to act like a human being and not a total jerk without someone telling you whether you’re liable to get caught or not. If you act like a jerk and you get banned, you don’t get to say you just wished the site treated everyone the same. You acted like a jerk and you got banned. That’s a you problem, not an everyone else problem.
What he was specifically banned for appears to be posting fake tweets from her.
I now understand why some people are OK with the whole Hillary situation. Rules shouldn't be applied equally to everyone because reasons. In fact you CAN walk into a courtroom and say "people are doing something so I should be allowed also". It's called "precedent".
LOL dude you are too funny.