Azealia Banks comes for Zayn's Malik's throat...

  • Eli_jah

    Posts: 1391

    May 12, 2016 3:21 AM GMT
    and loses a major UK festival show as a result. I still like her even though everyone has disowned this chick, but losing career opportunities over Twitter? Really?

    http://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/may/11/azealia-banks-axed-uk-music-festival-zayn-malik-twitter
  • Eli_jah

    Posts: 1391

    May 12, 2016 3:22 AM GMT
    Azealia apologizes to Sarah Palin over "rape" comments

    http://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/apr/06/azealia-banks-apologises-to-sarah-palin-twitter
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2016 5:22 AM GMT
    She ignant and about as likable and ugly as a cold sore. With any luck she'll die of a drug overdose.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 12, 2016 6:44 AM GMT
    I don't know there are still people who defend her. I guess superfans will always follow their idol even if she lead them to the gutter.
    It's obvious she's vile, talented maybe, but vile and violent. Too many incidents already proving that.
    And lots of people before her have been losing jobs from their own twitter rage with much less offensive remarks. What happened to her was not an overreaction nor undeserved.
  • Fireworkz

    Posts: 606

    May 12, 2016 2:07 PM GMT
    I like Azealia's music. I don't listen to what people say on Twitter so not fully aware of what's going on.
    She says some good things as well as some bad stuff.

    Zayn's first single is boring. Hopefully he'll bring out better music as I want to like what he is up to.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 13, 2016 11:45 PM GMT
    Turns out her twitter account got suspended. Some said that she tried to make another account but got suspended again.
    I dont know if I like that she got suspended that much, but what makes me excited is how lots of people celebrate her suspension with hashtag #AzeliaGotSuspendedParty LOL!!! icon_twisted.gif

    https://twitter.com/hashtag/AzealiaGotSuspendedParty?src=hash
  • gkai

    Posts: 32

    May 14, 2016 10:12 PM GMT
    I don't think people should get into trouble over words.
  • Fireworkz

    Posts: 606

    May 14, 2016 10:20 PM GMT
    I remember someone saying that the UK doesn't have freedom of speech. Evidently nor does Twitter.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2016 10:23 PM GMT
    Fireworkz saidI remember someone saying that the UK doesn't have freedom of speech. Evidently nor does Twitter.

    Twitter certainly doesn't.
  • gkai

    Posts: 32

    May 14, 2016 11:04 PM GMT
    If I was in charge death threats and slander wouldn't be crimes either.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2016 11:10 PM GMT
    Ronar2 said
    Fireworkz saidI remember someone saying that the UK doesn't have freedom of speech. Evidently nor does Twitter.

    Twitter certainly doesn't.


    "Hate language referring to sex, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation will get you banned from the site."

    Neither does RJ. Fact of the matter is neither Twitter or RJ are obligated to offer freedom of speech. We are all on these sites at the largess of the site OWNERS. Want to spout whatever you want? Get your own site.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2016 11:14 PM GMT
    gkai saidI don't think people should get into trouble over words.


    Dear god grow up. Words have meaning. Irresponsible use of them has consequences, whether it's getting you punched in the mouth in the schoolyard, sued in a court of law, or banned from a web site.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2016 11:24 PM GMT
    Not4u said
    Ronar2 said
    Fireworkz saidI remember someone saying that the UK doesn't have freedom of speech. Evidently nor does Twitter.

    Twitter certainly doesn't.


    "Hate language referring to sex, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation will get you banned from the site."

    Neither does RJ. Fact of the matter is neither Twitter or RJ are obligated to offer freedom of speech. We are all on these sites at the largess of the site OWNERS. Want to spout whatever you want? Get your own site.

    Well, i agree. I don't consider hate speech should be protected. Though a lot of people today have decided to broaden the definition of hate speech.
    If it's a direct and blatant verbal attack then yeah it should have consequences.
    What Azealia said was no doubt hate speech. But probably more like blatant personal attack, almost like harassment. That's where I draw the line. She threw personal insults. Based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.
    She can point out racism with respectful manner but she didn't do that most of the time. She's way over the line. Heck I would even respect someone's opinion if they don't agree with same sex marriage. As long as they don't throw insults and slurs. That would be different.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 14, 2016 11:35 PM GMT
    gkai saidIf I was in charge death threats and slander wouldn't be crimes either.

    I don't think slander is a crime. Death threats is very serious though, and it is a crime.
  • interesting

    Posts: 573

    May 15, 2016 2:33 AM GMT
    gkai saidI don't think people should get into trouble over words.


    I don't know about this, I mean have you tried yelling fire in a crowded room and see the reaction? Don't think the cop see it the same way. Or stand in a full movie theater and yell gunman, just words...
  • gkai

    Posts: 32

    May 15, 2016 11:07 AM GMT
    Not4u said
    gkai saidI don't think people should get into trouble over words.


    Dear god grow up. Words have meaning. Irresponsible use of them has consequences, whether it's getting you punched in the mouth in the schoolyard, sued in a court of law, or banned from a web site.


    But words can't make people do anything. I'm not a bully or go around being verbally abusive so it's not like I'm defending my own behavior. If a person attacks someone else because they don't like what they say or do, that's on them for not controlling themselves. Is violence more understandable than words? I think if people take such offense to what others say, it's ultimately their problem. My other problem is that many people can't be trusted to react rationally or fairly regarding what "hate speech" is. Inevitably some situations get taken more seriously than others, depending on how much of a hot topic it is. It just complicates things really.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2016 5:30 AM GMT
    gkai said
    Not4u said
    gkai saidI don't think people should get into trouble over words.


    Dear god grow up. Words have meaning. Irresponsible use of them has consequences, whether it's getting you punched in the mouth in the schoolyard, sued in a court of law, or banned from a web site.


    But words can't make people do anything. I'm not a bully or go around being verbally abusive so it's not like I'm defending my own behavior. If a person attacks someone else because they don't like what they say or do, that's on them for not controlling themselves. Is violence more understandable than words? I think if people take such offense to what others say, it's ultimately their problem. My other problem is that many people can't be trusted to react rationally or fairly regarding what "hate speech" is. Inevitably some situations get taken more seriously than others, depending on how much of a hot topic it is. It just complicates things really.

    Disagree.
    Words have power. It has the power to abuse a person. Abuse does not come only from physical force.
    More people need to be educated about emotional and verbal abuse. It can happen to kids, at school, at home, and many relationships suffer from emotional abuse, with abusive words.
  • gkai

    Posts: 32

    May 16, 2016 11:38 AM GMT
    Ronar2 said
    gkai said
    Not4u said
    gkai saidI don't think people should get into trouble over words.


    Dear god grow up. Words have meaning. Irresponsible use of them has consequences, whether it's getting you punched in the mouth in the schoolyard, sued in a court of law, or banned from a web site.


    But words can't make people do anything. I'm not a bully or go around being verbally abusive so it's not like I'm defending my own behavior. If a person attacks someone else because they don't like what they say or do, that's on them for not controlling themselves. Is violence more understandable than words? I think if people take such offense to what others say, it's ultimately their problem. My other problem is that many people can't be trusted to react rationally or fairly regarding what "hate speech" is. Inevitably some situations get taken more seriously than others, depending on how much of a hot topic it is. It just complicates things really.

    Disagree.
    Words have power. It has the power to abuse a person. Abuse does not come only from physical force.
    More people need to be educated about emotional and verbal abuse. It can happen to kids, at school, at home, and many relationships suffer from emotional abuse, with abusive words.


    But words don't really have power unless people give it power. That's why some people don't get worked up over bullying or nasty behavior. I'm not defending abusive behavior, but I don't think people should get into legal trouble over being pricks. I read about a woman in her 20's who threw acid in a 10 year old boys face after he made fun of her disabled brother several different times. Even though it's understandable why she would be so defensive, she was still wrong to do that, yet there are people that would condone what she did because the boy was being nasty to begin with. Another thing is that many people are very selective about what bullying is. The idea is that bullying and verbal abuse is wrong, not just wrong for certain people. They don't care if it's a bad person being bullied. Look up Mary Bale and how she was harassed and sent death threats because she hurt someone's pet cat. She "deserved" it apparently.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2016 11:59 AM GMT
    gkai said
    Ronar2 said
    gkai said
    Not4u said
    gkai saidI don't think people should get into trouble over words.


    Dear god grow up. Words have meaning. Irresponsible use of them has consequences, whether it's getting you punched in the mouth in the schoolyard, sued in a court of law, or banned from a web site.


    But words can't make people do anything. I'm not a bully or go around being verbally abusive so it's not like I'm defending my own behavior. If a person attacks someone else because they don't like what they say or do, that's on them for not controlling themselves. Is violence more understandable than words? I think if people take such offense to what others say, it's ultimately their problem. My other problem is that many people can't be trusted to react rationally or fairly regarding what "hate speech" is. Inevitably some situations get taken more seriously than others, depending on how much of a hot topic it is. It just complicates things really.

    Disagree.
    Words have power. It has the power to abuse a person. Abuse does not come only from physical force.
    More people need to be educated about emotional and verbal abuse. It can happen to kids, at school, at home, and many relationships suffer from emotional abuse, with abusive words.


    But words don't really have power unless people give it power. That's why some people don't get worked up over bullying or nasty behavior. I'm not defending abusive behavior, but I don't think people should get into legal trouble over being pricks. I read about a woman in her 20's who threw acid in a 10 year old boys face after he made fun of her disabled brother several different times. Even though it's understandable why she would be so defensive, she was still wrong to do that, yet there are people that would condone what she did because the boy was being nasty to begin with. Another thing is that many people are very selective about what bullying is. The idea is that bullying and verbal abuse is wrong, not just wrong for certain people. They don't care if it's a bad person being bullied. Look up Mary Bale and how she was harassed and sent death threats because she hurt someone's pet cat. She "deserved" it apparently.

    Well, you are in a way defending nasty behavior, at least in terms of verbal abuse. Whoever give power to words, it still has power.
    And bullies should understand the principle of how intentions operate, meaning they have no control over how people perceive their abusive actions. They can't just say, "toughen up, pussy boy!" after abusing the boy.
    If there's no repercussion, bullying and abuse will be hard to stop.
    And no, I wasn't talking about throwing acid to their face. Of course, that's wrong. There's a fine line between standing up to abusive behavior and what that woman did.
  • gkai

    Posts: 32

    May 16, 2016 12:13 PM GMT

    "Well, you are in a way defending nasty behavior, at least in terms of verbal abuse. Whoever give power to words, it still has power.
    And bullies should understand the principle of how intentions operate, meaning they have no control over how people perceive their abusive actions. They can't just say, "toughen up, pussy boy!" after abusing the boy.
    If there's no repercussion, bullying and abuse will be hard to stop.
    And no, I wasn't talking about throwing acid to their face. Of course, that's wrong. There's a fine line between standing up to abusive behavior and what that woman did."

    I'm not defending verbal abuse, I don't think people should do it. I also never said people shouldn't stand up to bullying. I stand up to people who I think are wrong all the time and challenge what they say. I'm against having laws that will imprison people for it, since a lot of anti bullying people think you should get into legal trouble for words. Punishment was never a deterrent. Plus many people I see complaining about bullying are guilty of it themselves.

    I don't think it should be anyone'e business to get together and make up what is okay to say and what isn't, or what tone it's okay to say it in or not, and that's what a lot of this stuff boils down to. And because many people have a very reactionary and emotional response to these situations, I've also noticed that they often focus on the most typical wrong doers, for lack of a better word, meanwhile people who are more sneaky, passive aggressive and manipulative slither under the radar because they don't attract the same attention. I've seen more incidents than I can count where someone is wrongfully labeled the wrongdoer just because they were loud and aggressive, while the person they "bullied" gets completely ignored, even though they were actually the sinister one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2016 12:31 PM GMT
    gkai said

    I'm not defending verbal abuse, I don't think people should do it. I also never said people shouldn't stand up to bullying. I stand up to people who I think are wrong all the time and challenge what they say. I'm against having laws that will imprison people for it, since a lot of anti bullying people think you should get into legal trouble for words. Punishment was never a deterrent. Plus many people I see complaining about bullying are guilty of it themselves.

    No one gets imprisoned for verbal abuse. At least not in US. But you could get repercussion in other form. Like being shunned socially by society. A parent who often verbally abuse children could lose custody in a divorce battle if proven, and people wouldn't think too highly of them if they find that about that parent.
    And employee could get fired for yelling racial slurs or bigotry to other co-workers. That's most likely the repercussion that could happen.

    gkai said
    I don't think it should be anyone'e business to get together and make up what is okay to say and what isn't, or what tone it's okay to say it in or not, and that's what a lot of this stuff boils down to. And because many people have a very reactionary and emotional response to these situations, I've also noticed that they often focus on the most typical wrong doers, for lack of a better word, meanwhile people who are more sneaky, passive aggressive and manipulative slither under the radar because they don't attract the same attention. I've seen more incidents than I can count where someone is wrongfully labeled the wrongdoer just because they were loud and aggressive, while the person they "bullied" gets completely ignored, even though they were actually the sinister one.

    Then it would be someone's job to determine the line. I still think it has to be done. Verbal abuse is dangerous and frankly it shows someone's character. or lack there of.
  • gkai

    Posts: 32

    May 16, 2016 1:21 PM GMT
    I don't have a problem with people getting fired from a job because getting fired isn't a freedom of speech issue. But I have a problem with people being contradictory and inconsistent, and although you might not go to prison in the US for insulting people, there are people who petition for that sort of world, and here in Europe, in some places you can go to prison over words, as well as sued. I also don't think being verbally abusive has to say anything bad about a person's character. Otherwise good people can say very nasty things sometimes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2016 1:39 PM GMT
    gkai saidI don't have a problem with people getting fired from a job because getting fired isn't a freedom of speech issue. But I have a problem with people being contradictory and inconsistent, and although you might not go to prison in the US for insulting people, there are people who petition for that sort of world, and here in Europe, in some places you can go to prison over words, as well as sued. I also don't think being verbally abusive has to say anything bad about a person's character. Otherwise good people can say very nasty things sometimes.

    Getting fired is pretty much what happened to Azealia Banks.
    That's what I said about repercussion.
    About freedom of speech, I guess people can say whatever they want, but it should be known that every word has consequences. I guess that can apply to any action. And I don't think being verbally abusive can always be defended freedom of speech. A mother cannot say to her kid she's unworthy, a slut, and ugly and say it's freedom of speech. that's crazy.
    True, in Europe, like in France, you can be prosecuted for giving anti-semitic slur to a person, like what happened to John Galliano.
    It does say something about a person's character, it says someone is abusive, he may not be a bad person, but it shows that he or she is insensitive in a way to other person's feeling and feel comfortable about hurting other person. Though it's possible that it's a one time slip up, but it's still not right, and repercussion can be warranted, to show the abusive behavior is not tolerable.
  • gkai

    Posts: 32

    May 16, 2016 2:29 PM GMT
    When I mentioned people still being good despite saying nasty things, I was talking more about the motive behind it. I saw an online conversation between a supposed psychologist and a teenager girl a while ago. I knew the girl through facebook and long story short, the girl accused the psychologist of being snobby and rude, and started stalking her to some degree, calling her names, making new profiles after the psychologist blocked her a few times. In this situation, many people would see the teenager as the wrongdoer. But to me, the psychologist was the one who was really poisonous. She didn't resort to any name calling or loud mouth comments, but she was very much bating the girl, provoking her, saying how unstable and pathetic she was. If she was a psychologist, shouldn't she know better than to bait a person online who, by her own admission, is likely a disturbed person? By online standards, the teen girl was the one guilty of bullying because of her language and the fact she kept coming back, but what about context? Does that not mean anything? For all the name calling she did, it was the cunty psychologist I had the biggest problem with.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2016 2:43 PM GMT
    gkai saidWhen I mentioned people still being good despite saying nasty things, I was talking more about the motive behind it. I saw an online conversation between a supposed psychologist and a teenager girl a while ago. I knew the girl through facebook and long story short, the girl accused the psychologist of being snobby and rude, and started stalking her to some degree, calling her names, making new profiles after the psychologist blocked her a few times. In this situation, many people would see the teenager as the wrongdoer. But to me, the psychologist was the one who was really poisonous. She didn't resort to any name calling or loud mouth comments, but she was very much bating the girl, provoking her, saying how unstable and pathetic she was. If she was a psychologist, shouldn't she know better than to bait a person online who, by her own admission, is likely a disturbed person? By online standards, the teen girl was the one guilty of bullying because of her language and the fact she kept coming back, but what about context? Does that not mean anything? For all the name calling she did, it was the cunty psychologist I had the biggest problem with.

    There's always a context in every case.
    You said the motive behind it, but isn't the motive is most likely to hurt other. To knock them down. Even if she's mentally ill. I dont know about that case about the mentally-illed girl you know and her psychiatrist. But her psychiatrists are people too. You are not required to take crap from anyone. They shouldn't get harassed.
    Beside why are they talking online. As far as I know, patients are not supposed to socialize on social media with their psychiatrist online.
    But in principle, abusive behavior shouldn't be tolerated, and giving repercussion is a good way to curtail it. And every case can be determined with proper context. Your examples on this thread has been about abusive behavior with different contexts, and guess what, they're still abusive. There are good reasons to curtail abusive behavior, rather than, "ah it's ok". And not giving repercussion to that behavior always says that. But again, with context.