...no....
No you fucking don't
>>27609578
who?
>>27609587
IDW MLP staff
>>27609599
its been established theyre all SJWs. SJWs inherently believe their opinions are the only correct ones and that no one else should have one.
>>27609578
You have the right to be wrong, you don't have the right not to be called out for being wrong.
Oh hey, I'm pretty sure most of your progressive buddies preach that very same sentiment even if they don't like hearing it themselves.
Eh, given how mebberson gave us those Mini's designs, I'm fine with giving her more slack than others
>>27609578
The cost of free speech is debate because if you are silencing others then it is not free speech.
sauce
https://twitter.com/amymebberson/status/741145923947003905
>>27609578
You have the right to express what you think.
I also have the right to express what I think of your expression.
>>27609578
>caring about an artist's opinions or politics outside of their work
Stop trying to force drama.
>>27609578
pathetic.
>>27609578
>I have the right to shout in a canyon and not make an echo
No, you have the right to plug your ears and not hear the echo.
I don't care about "SJWs," nor do I like jumping down people's throats, nor does any of this even matter, but anytime I see a statement like this I HAVE to believe that somewhere inside the person's mind they know it's absurd.
Debate is not something you "invite," it's something that just happens when people state opinions in a public venue, which is what twitter is. That's the entire point of it - it's social media. You have tools you can use to tailor your circle to your liking - such as the ability to block people - so just use them and be done with it. Don't act like it's a self-evident truth of social interaction that you can say whatever you want in a public place and nobody can react to it unless they completely agree with you.
You have the right to say whatever you want, and everyone else has that exact same right. If you don't want to see people's reactions to what you say, then don't say it.
I feel like a moron for even typing this out because none of it's insightful, it's just common sense, but that's the point - she has to know on some level that what she's saying is silly.
Maybe she had a bad day, I dunno. What sucks is that people who are in a good mood and a rational state of mind don't say stupid things like this, so she's obviously mad already, and now she's just stuck a "kick me" sign on her own back.
My favorite part about things like this is that they don't involve me in any capacity. Still, sometimes it's fun to watch someone throw a shitfit, I just always keep my distance.
>>27609578
How come the good IDW artist have such shit personalities in this fandom?
>>27609578
>2016
>rights
only racists believe in rights.
>>27609578
>I have the right to express what I think
>you don't
???
>>27609578
comics aren't canon anyway, so who gives a shit?
>>27610148
A lot of artists have a huge ego.
We just have to deal with it...
>>27609610
Ehh. At least she is not the kind of SJW who jumps on the "GiveElsaACarpetMuncher" bandwagoon.
Jeremy Whitley on the other hand...
Hands up: Who else wants this guys comics to drop harder than a baby?
Not surprised Mebberson is acting like an ass who wants to dish it out but can't take it again. She's unpleasant to be around in real life, social media is probably worse.
>>27609578
To be fair, if she's expressing something on her own turf, she has every right to do so without having people jump in and say "No, you're wrong."
If, however, she's deliberately challenging other people's views, then she has NO right to excuse herself of the same thing.
>>27610378
I seem to recall hearing that the comics might end up being dropped entirely.
>>27609578
It's funny because by saying that, she is essentially inviting debate.
>>27610387
No fun allowed egotistic faggots are the worse in this fandom. Heard some shit about her, so I rather avoid the chick IRL.
Actually she does. You don't get to terrorise people for using social media.
>>27609578
So how did she fuck up the comic stories?
I read that Princess Luna slumber party one with the OC who can make x-ray vision and they kill a innocent sky whale who wasn't hurting anyone. Even as a moonfag I didn't enjoy it.
>>27610652
This. She's still wrong if she thinks her opinions shouldn't elicit a reaction, but on the other hands it's her right to blatantly ignore said reaction.
The biggest fault of internet is to have convinced people that everyone should be listening to their ideas and beliefs.
>>27610392
>on her own turf
she doesnt own the internet.
>>27610655
>Princess Luna slumber party one with the OC who can make x-ray vision and they kill a innocent sky whale who wasn't hurting anyone
wut?
>>27610658
She does however own her twitter account. She is free to say whatever she wants there. By your logic you should not be allowed to speak your mind in anywhere but your own property.
>>27609578
It sounds like you're both being retarded.
If she expects a public announcement on twitter to not elicit response we from the public she's deluded.
If anon expects that his fanboy complaints are going to be individually addressed by someone with an actual fucking job to do, then anon is clueless as to how much work is involved in comics.
>>27610699
youre missing the point. she wants to say whatever she wants, but she doesnt want anyone to have an opinion on what she says, in literally the most public place on the planet. its absurd. if you want to say whatever the fuck you want anywhere that anyone can heat, youre going to hear some shit back. the only thing she has a right to is blocking people she doesnt like hearing from in her little bubble, but those people can still say whatever the fuck they want about it in their own bubbles.
>>27610709
And she's still entitled to just ignore you without responding.
>>27610714
i dont think you understand what "without inviting debate" means. no one has that right.
>m-muh SJW
>m-muh something that isn't in the comic but if you have autism, 80 IQ and you're 12 just like me you will be able to see it
>m-muh imaginary friends from other forums
Yes, you can't say a single word about comics without underage butthurt retards spamming their retarded bullshit.
She's 100% right.
>>27610719
No, it means "Stop your babbling I'm not interested either way".
>>27610719
You guys can debate all you want, but she has every right to not get involved in said debate.
>>27610396
I have mixed feelings about this, although the good news would be the fact that there would be that much less bullshit to interfere with the "canon".
>>27609655
Are there any more of these concept drawings for the minis? This is cute as fuck. Hasbro sure fucked it up by sticking those stupid face cutiemarks on them.
>>27610722
>I have the right to express what I think without inviting debate. End of story.
ill break it down for you.
>I have the right to express what I think
i can say what i wish, which i can.
>without inviting debate
youre not allowed to put forth a counterargument for anything i say.
>End of story.
this is just to emphasis how you have no right to put forth a counterargument. after you read this, you should just leave if you dont agree with me.
now, how reality works is much like what were doing right now. you said something, i replied. sure, you can hide my posts and never respond to me again, which is what she does when she blocks, but ill still have responded to what you said because you do not have the right to say shit without inviting debate in a public place. neither does she.
>>27610746
No pal, ypou can whine all you want. She doesn't want to be part of the debate. That's all.
Fucking grow up. Just because shit in a picture boom triggers your autism doesn't mean you have a right to be listened to.
>>27610751
>Fucking grow up
ironic coming from someone defending someones right to do the virtual equivalent of plugging their ears and screaming.
>doesn't mean you have a right to be listened to
so now youre saying i DONT have the right to express what i think? you sort of flip-flopped arguments, friend.
>>27609578
>This is what the IDW comics writers actually believe
No moron.
1) Amy Meberson has never written for IDW. She's an artist you fool.
2) Amy Mebberson hasn't done MLP interiors for over two years
3) She works directly for Hasbro designing MLP merchandise now (EG minis, Flurry Heart book, etc)
>>27610714
>>27610731
>>27610751
Nobody is saying she has to acknowlege them, you retarded niggers, they're saying she's an idiot for thinking she can spout stupid shit and expect people on the internet to not try and debate it.
She can block all she wants, she can ignore everyone, but that doesn't mean people aren't allowed to try and debate shit just because she said so.
It's like waving your dick in a lion's face then acting surprised when it bites it off and starts using it as a chew toy.
>>27610759
Not that Anon, but there's a difference between expressing yourself and being listened to.
>>27610759
Wow, no, it the virtual and real equivalent of just ignoring you. You fucking child.
You have the right to express what you think. She has the right to ignore you and not be drawn into a pointless debate. How can't you grasp that...?
>>27610763
No, I'm pretty sure she's not saying YOU can't talk about it.
She's saying SHE doesn't want to talk to YOU about it.
>>27610746
>you do not have the right to say shit without inviting debate in a public place.
Oh yes, you do. Debate involves two people willingly arguing, if one of the actors isn't interested in debating there's not much point in going on, unless you're desperately trying to cram your opinion into other's throat (again, due to this 'unwarranted selfimportance shit' internet pulls onto every single one of us).
Remember the old adagio? When you see a post/thread you don't like in here, you can simply hide it if it really triggers you. Nobody is waiting to hear your (or mine, or someone else) opinion on it, and nobody's life decisions will change due to it.
It's a fucking bunch of characters and strings on the internet, not real life. If you can't stand the sight of it, get out of said site.
>>27610337
Why are so many artists batshit insane, anyway? I know the "tormented artist" thing has a history, Van Gogh and all that, but you'd think it wouldn't extend to everyone with more than a twelve-year-old's level of artistic skill. It seems like 99% of them are either egotistical control freaks or or suffering from severe depression.
>>27610769
people who are afraid of debate are people who dont want their ideals challenged. they arent comfortable with their ability to defend said ideals, and so they keep it from becoming an issue in the first place by simply shutting out any neigh-say.
>you fucking child
just throwing it out there, even if i were a child it wouldnt change the merit of my arguments.
>You have the right to express what you think. She has the right to ignore you and not be drawn into a pointless debate
i never said she didnt. i feel like youre not actually reading my posts, otherwise youd have seen that. you can make a post on here in this fabulous public place, and then hide every single response you get. you dont see it, but your ideals are still being debated by people who saw it.
your post invited debate merely by existing in a public place. its a simple concept. you dont have to participate in said debates, but they still exist. therefore, no, you cant speak your mind in the open and not invite debate.
>>27610781
above response goes for you too, friend.
>>27610778
If she shits something out onto the internet, on social media like twitter or whatever, it's going to invite debate. There is no right anywhere guaranteeing anyone freedom from that.
She doesn't have to talk to me or anyone else about it. Like I said, she can ignore the entire world if she wants to, but she still wouldn't be able to spout her ideas and not invite debate.
>>27610781
This is essentially correct. And so it actually goes something like:
>"I am not debating with you."
"I never said this was a debate. You are expressing your belief, which is fine. Now I am expressing my belief that you are wrong. We could leave it at that but your need to reply back to me conveys that you'd like a debate."
>"I AM NOT DEBATING WITH YOU!"
There you have the internet.
>>27610798
Tell you what, we could probably go on and on and on and still not agree on anything. I'm still convinced she's right, you're not, that's ok, the fun part of life it's exactly this: opinions may differ, live and let live since none of us is part of anything bigger or more important.
Have a pony and a good day, it's still been a pleasure debating with you
>>27610817
>I'm still convinced she's right, you're not
how about a friendly challenge then. anyone who thinks shes correct, i challenge you to make a post in this thread that does not invite debate.
>opinion
in this case its not a matter of opinion. its a fact.
>>27610769
She hasn't stopped at claiming she has the right to speak without /engaging in/ debate. If that was the case, most of us wouldn't care. What she said was that she has the right to say anything without /inviting/ debate, which is a completely different matter. That means she can say anything and people won't even try to argue with her, and furthermore, they won't argue with each other over what she said either. That means she can tweet "I am an Aztec deity over 30,000 feet tall" and nobody is permitted to question the validity of it. And that kind of statement is phenomenally stupid.If there's a way to use italics on 4chan, somebody let me know. It'd be nice to be able to emphasize words and phrases without looking like I'm writing shipfics about the English dictionary.
>>27610798
So?
Not one part of this means she is duty bound to debates you.
She doesn't want to debate. She doesn't care enough too debate. She knows its pointless to argue with people who are stubborn idiots.
What you don't seem to be grasping is that she's saying "I don't want to debate yoiu guys"
Not "you are not permitted to debate this" just that she has no interest or desire too debate you.
>>27610801
You also don't grasp this.
She isn't demanding that no one discuss her ideas.
She's saying she does not want to debate them with you.
Look at it this way.
All she was ts is to put an idea out on twitter without it seeming like she always adds "COME AT ME BRO"
How is that so hard?
She's not inviting YOU to DEBATE HER.
>>27610821
You are so fucking retarded...
>>27610828
this post sums up the argument going on in this thread.
and this board doesnt have italics. i usually use 'apostrophes' for emphasis.
>>27610828
Oh, great so it all comes down to fucking semantics. Brilliant.
Its fucking obvious she meant she doesn't want to engage in debate.
Seriously, fucking obvious.
If you're triggered that she's trying to stifle debate, then well done for being a fucking moron. Its god damned obvious what she's saying.
"I don't want to be involved I. as debate."
Fucking idiots.
>>27610845
"I DONT WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN THE DEBATE."
Fucking typos.
>>27610829
read >>27610828 carefully, you fucking illiterate simpleton.
>>27610845
>semantics
its not fucking semantics. the two ideas are very clearly worded differently. stop damage controlling her retarded misuse of the english language.
>I have the right to say things in public
>you do not have the right to say things in response
No one can seriously be this stupid, can they?
>>27610866
The issue here isn't her misusing, its you misunderstanding.
Seriously, if you can only take a sentence literally and can't infer meaning then never has this accusation ever been truer on 4 chan.
You are fucking autistic.
Its obvious that she isn't saying I AM LORD OF OPINIONS NONE MAY DEBATE MY OPINIONS and is instead saying I DONT WANT TO ENGAGE IN DEBATE
Fucking autistic moron.
>>27610871
I don't know pal, how do you manage?
She is inviting debate. She doesn't have to have it, but she is inviting it.
It's like an awkward date. She invited Mr. Opinion to dinner because she's really into him, but his friend Mr. Debate overheard and asked to come along. She now feels obligated because he's Mr. Opinion's friend and he guilt-tripped her that he's been feeling lonely lately. So now the night is spent with Mr. Debate trying to make small talk while she stays silent, hating how the date is going and staring at Mr. Opinion lovingly. She really wishes Mr. Debate would just shut up and go away, but the two are nearly inseparable. Oh, if only she knew Mr. Opinion was actually gay!
Stay tuned next week for the conclusion to this dramatic soap opera!
>this thread
Apparently there are different ways to interpret "(to) invite debate". As a non-native speaker, I wouldn't know.
Anyways instead of ripping each others head off over semantics, maybe someone should ask her to clarify which of the two interpretations she actually meant. I'd do it, but I don't have a twitter account.
k
Let's take a look at the tweets that immediately preceded it, shall we?
>>27610902
Sounds like she doesn't want to engage in a debate.
I don't see the issue.
>>27610902
>"The only reason you disagree with me is because you're not kissing my ass already."
>>27610829
You don't seem to grasp the fact that while she doesn't have to take up the debate, her spouting shit is in itself an invitation of it.
She doesn't have to debate with anyone. She can avoid it, block everyone that dares bring up points against her, that's absolutely her choice. But that doesn't change the fact that throwing your opinions out into the public sphere is going to invite dissenters wanting to debate shit.
>>27610880
He's the autist and you're the one reaching for hidden meanings in a salty twitter message.
Right.
>>27610911
>Twitter is a hug box safe space
This is news to you how?
>>27610880
>The issue here isn't her misusing, its you misunderstanding
stopped there. its literally her misusing words and you misinterpreting them to mean what you "assume" she intended to say.
>I can speak my mind without inviting debate
does not, in any stretch of the definitions used, mean the same thing as
>I can speak my mind without debating anyone
>>27610902
Seems overly reactive, but at the same time people actively searching for tweets opposing their political opinion as would probably be required to find that tweet if they're not following her (considering it was only retweeted once) is pretty stupid too.
>>27610906
Then she probably shouldn't have tweeted that phrase to the world, on a public forum like twitter
by the way, I have the right to post this on 4chan, but you do not have the right to reply to it
this is not up for debate
>>27610924
let's see who retweeted it
oh god
>>27610926
i have to reply or youll succeed at my challenge.
>>27610930
>unfriendly black hottie
Oh my lord
>>27610932
DIDN'T YOU SEE MY POST SHITLORD?
I SAID YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEBATE MY OPINION!!!
>>27610920
Oh great, another moron who doesn't grasp that she doesn't want to engage in debate....
>>27610923
I like her am reserving my right to ignore an autistic moron.
Your post literally proves your autism. I'm no longer mad, I just pity you.
>>27610926
Posts like yours make me wish they euthanized the retarded.
>>27610845
We have no obligation to assume people mean better than what they actually say. Amy claims to be a professional. If she wants us to understand her, she's old enough to have learned that she should communicate properly.
>>27609578
>Reading the comics
>>27610939
Which would be unreasonable if that's remotely what she was saying. Learn to read.
>>27610940
At some point you have to realize he's just humoring you.
Your entire post gets the tumblr stamp of approval.
>>27610943
>Its never my fault for being retarded.
>>27610940
She doesn't have to.
But she's still inviting debate, and there still isn't a right protecting her from that.It's pretty clear what's going on now, though.
>>27610880Linguist here
Different Anon here. While I share your interpretation of what Mebberson said, I don't believe the other Anon's interpretation is stupid. His interpretation is based on the fact that "you cannot /not/ invite a debate with your opinions", which, obviously, is true. Therefore, based on this, her statement would be false. This is actually the most natural interpretation to have.
>>27610954
I'm not the one claiming that a word's definition should be ignored if it might make a comic artist look bad. That little bit of mental instability is all yours.
>>27610947
let's see.
She said
"I have the right to express what I think without inviting debate. End of story."
HE said
"I have the right to post this on 4chan" and "YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEBATE MY OPINION!"
The jury finds the defendant guilty, on the basis that the ideas are nearly Identical.
Luckily for you, I hear you're on the Stanford swim team, so the sentence should be pretty light.
>>27610962
Yes, it is. She used the term inviting debate to infer inviting debate WITH HER.
Anyone who can't see that is a fucking moron.
>>27610974
And she doesn't have the right to not be debated for her opinions on a public forum.
Sure she has the right to plug her ears and go "nah nah nah I can't hear you!" but she doesn't have the right to say that you aren't allowed to talk back at her
That's like someone standing on the streetcorner yelling about how everyone around them is an idiot, and then getting upset when they notice
>>27610974
>implying you know better than her the meaning behind her words
>>27610940
>Your post literally proves your autism
you mean because i actually take peoples words to mean what they actually mean? is having a working vocabulary autistic now? are you actually defending illiteracy?
i think youre just upset that after people repeatedly pointed out
HEY LOOK, INVITING DEBATE MEANS NO ONE CAN REPLY AT ALL
HEY, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THE SAME THING AS HER NOT REPLYING TO THE DEBATES, IT LITERALLY MEANS NO ONE CAN DISPUTE HER CLAIMS
DO YOU UNDERSTAND? ITS TWO DIFFERENT IDEAS. LIKE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MEANINGS.
YOU DO UNDERSTAND? AND YOU STILL DEFEND THIS IDEA?
ARE YOU SURE?
REALLY?
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOH YOU THOUGHT IT MEANT SOMETHING ELSE AND NOW ITS MY FAULT. KEK
feel pity if you wish, ive been laughing through this entire thread. actual damage control is a rare sight, and you defending your misinterpretations has been golden. go read a dictionary sometime and work on that reading comprehension, friend.
>>27610974
>she meant this thing she never said and you're a moron if you think otherwise
>also, Flat Earthers know the earth is round and anyone who can't see that is clinically retarded
>it's not what they say, but it's what they MEAN
>>27610974
>he used the term inviting debate to infer inviting debate WITH HER
but where is your evidence?
until you get some, it can only be accurately interpreted at face value.
>>27609578
For all intensive purposes, free speech only applies toward government intervention. Twitter, being a privately owned entity, is responsible for the distribution and regulation of rights bestowed on users within its domain.
Actively seeking conflict with another user who does not wish to participate, in a persistent manner, is tantamount to harassment which is against Twitter's rules. So yes, yes she does in this particular case.
>>27611011
>intensive purposes
JUST
>>27610982
>>27610983
>>27610990
>>27610994
Fucking Morons All.
>>27611011
and yet here we are debating it. i guess her wish didnt come true.
also read >>27610828
>>27611011
>intensive purposes
you were THIS CLOSE
>>27611030
That's right, just yell some more and you'll be in the right.
>>27611030
i commend you for staying in a thread you were so thoroughly destroyed in, and even having the balls to still call those who proved you wrong so many times the morons.
>>27611040
The problem is that I'm apparently the only functioning human being in a thread of autists.
>>27611011For all intents and purposes is the usual form of the phrase meaning in every practical sense. For all intensive purposes is a fairly common eggcorn derived from the original phrase.
>>27611041
>Proven wrong.
Nothing has been done of the sort.
All we have is dumb cunts debating semantics.
See here,>>27611044
And honestly, kill yourself.
>>27611022
>>27611034
Irregardless of your meem arrow implications, which I'd like to say are a diamond dozen :^)
>>27611031
>and yet here we are debating it
Thank you, Captain Literal.
Yes, we are here. Not there. There would be Twitter, which is where she has the right to refuse and report [unsolicited opinions] she doesn't care to read. Here is not Twitter, and therefore is not subject to the same rules and rights users there would have.
>>27611044
youre apparently the only human being who think words are there to be interpreted and have no meaning.
>>27611050
>semantics
nope.
>>27611051
a new challenger who doesnt understand the difference between invite debate and not participate in debate appears. the challenge is ongoing.
>>27611051
So, you're saying we should drag this to Twitter and watch as nothing happens to any of us, because her rights exist only in her head, and twitter doesn't give a fuck that people send other people @mentions?
>>27611030
Sure, anon. Whatever you say.
>>27611056
Words do have no intrinsic meaning.
They are entirely a fiction made through consensus.
And yes, this is all a matter of semantics. You are one of the most stubborn morons I've ever encountered here. The fact people actually seem to side with your sheer idiocy makes me despair for humankind.
>mfw half of the thread white knighting stupid entitled slut, that can't handle any opinions except blind praise
What have /mlp/ become? I hope it's just summerfags.
>>27611071
>frogposting
>>27611056
Before I go though, if people only ever say exactly what they mean, how's do you explain sarcasm, puns or wordplay? How do younexplsin lies, half truths and deceptions? How do you explain politicians and rhetoric?
No anon, of course you are correct. Words only ever mean their literal interpretation. There is never under any circumstance room for interpretation.
Enjoy your autism.
>>27611070
>And yes, this is all a matter of semantics
since her phrase has a very clear and precise meaning, its not semantics. the only way you could even attempt to make it about semantics is using your own interpretation outside of the literal meaning behind the sentence.
>>27611086
was she being sarcastic, punny, using wordplay, telling a half lie, half truth, deception, or rhetoric?
if not, your point is moot.
>>27611086
Have another (You) before you go, friend. And don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.
>>27611056
I see the literally spelled out title of "Captain Literal" went over your head. So let's literally define invite:
make a formal or polite request for (something, especially an application for a job or opinions on a particular topic) from someone.
I'm pretty sure one can make a statement, whether fact or fiction, without inherently invoking any of those parameters.
>>27611058
And literal retards with deficient reading skills get one complimentary (You) :^)
>>27611030
>>27611050
>>27611070
>>27611086
I see you've reached the "shit on the board, knock over the pieces, and strut around acting like you won" stage.
When it comes to discussion of public statements, the actual words said are not just little details- they are everything. They define the content of the statement, and by extension, its meaning and validity. Behaving as though they don't exist will not help you. This is not a case of sarcasm or humor or wordplay- the tone is serious and the meaning is crystal clear. This is merely a case of someone making an idiotic statement and someone else pretending they didn't. Your willful ignorance is the reason people are no longer listening.
>>27611094
Wow, I knew this would be your response.
I really do pity you. That nuance and polysemic meanings are totally beyond your comprehension. There must be so much you miss out on.
Your entire pathetic life is moot.
>>27611100
>People never say one thing but mean another
>Because I'm autistic
I fixed that post for you.
>>27611074
Fuck you, I have the right to post whatever I want, you don't have the right to debate it, because I say I don't want you to, shitlord.
>>27611099
>inviting: attractive in a way that makes you want to do something, go somewhere, be near someone, etc.
>attractive in a way that makes you want to do something
attracting a rebuttal based on your statement. i believe that fits the parameters of "inviting debate." however, youre on the train that she didnt mean what she said, she meant what she didnt say, so really it doesnt matter what was said does it?
if you really wanted to stick it to all of us dirty literals, you would just go ask her if she meant what she said, or if she a stupid faggot who doesnt understand basic meanings.
>>27611106
i knew you werent actually leaving. i guess we both win.
>>27611117
Its amazing how butthurt people are over a fucking obvious misinterpretation.
>>27611114
>if people say something stupid, they automatically meant it in a way that wasnt stupid
that must be really convenient for people who often say stupid shit like you do ^:)
>>27609578
True, especially if you are a public figure. No matter how innocuous the thing you say is.
You could say, "Gee, it sure is nice outside today," or, "Kittens are cute!" It doesn't matter. Hordes of idiots will still descend upon you en masse, ready to debate you, explain just how full of shit your statement is, and provide a detailed list of why you are an asshole. They will continue to do this until you block them.
Fuck the Internet.
>>27611121
>I don't wish to attract a rebuttal based on my statements
So by your own definition she's saying she doesn't want to engage in a debate.
Not that no one is permitted to debate it, but that she doesn't want to be part of the debate.
Fuck me, took you long enough.
>>27611130
Fuck you you fucking wrong cunt, it's goddamn hot outside and the sun is a giant asshole in the sky.
>>27611122
It's fucking amazing how you sucking on her crusty cunt all over, tirelessly defending her stupid bullshit against all anons calling her out on it. I hope she at least sends you her tits photo for the effort.
>>27611106
>entire pathetic life is moot
that's convenient, because a "moot point" actually means "open to debate"
>>27611128
See, you are capable of inferring meaning. Noe is it really such a stretch that a stupid person used an imperfect word to convey their precise feelings? Isn't that JUST possible, being such a smart person as you claim, you don't really mean to infer absolute infallibility...?
>>27611121
>i believe that fits the parameters of "inviting debate."
Right, which since it took place on Twitter means she has the right to disallow "debate" in a case where it might be considered or lead to harassment. On Twitter. This is not Twitter, so of course the right doesn't apply here.
>however, youre on the train that she didnt mean what she said, she meant what she didnt say,
Not at all, I fully believe she meant what she said and fully agree that she is afforded that right in that domain.
>>27611114
We've done this bit already. I put together a new list of reasons your argument doesn't work, you don't address any of them, you repeat the word "semantics" and call me autistic. I'm not going to further elaborate my point so you can cover your ears and call me wrong again. You announced your exit from the thread about 30 posts ago, are you leaving or not? Just turn off the broken record, keep your word, and go.
>>27611158
I know the truth hurts buddy. I hope you learn to cope.
>>27611158
Gotta work for dat pussay, he's not gonna leave until fair maiden is safe and sound from those rude bigots.
>>27611136
>So by your own definition she's saying she doesn't want to engage in a debate
do you not understand what a rebuttal is? are you seriously going to continue arguing in a circle in a sad attempt at damage controlling? not even for yourself, but for the blatantly stupid claim made by someone else?
i mean, youre welcome to it, but youre still wrong.
>>27611151
dont say stupid shit you dont mean, anon. the fact of the matter is no one has gone to ask her if she meant what they keep claiming she meant, rather than what she actually said.
go do it.
>>27611152
even if she blocks me, her post simply existing where i can see it has invited me to debate her claims. my rebuttal doesnt even need to take place on twitter for me to refute her claims, as youre witnessing right now. see this? this is debate, based on her expressing what she thinks. shes not even here. do you understand?
>I fully believe she meant what she said
oh good, then hopefully when you realize what she said was stupid youll stop defending her.
seriously, go read >>27610828
its like you guys literally can not see a difference.
>>27610902
You know, I think she is baiting for fun.
>>27611176
We see the difference in definitions. We also understand that sometimes people say one thing but mean another.
I guess ypou don't get it and never will. Your loss I guess.
>>27611163
You're clearly never going to be done with this. I, however, am. Have your last word if you must, but if you get another reply, know that I'm not the one writing it.
Nothing personnel, kid.
>>27611183
>sometimes people say one thing but mean another
sometimes means not always. as i said, go ask. until you get evidence that your claim is correct, it can only be interpreted at face value.
>I fully believe she meant what she said
>>27611186
You assume I give a shit. You want to prove me wrong, you get evidence. Fact is that your argument of "get evidence" works both ways.
>>27609578
I hope she gets raped violently.
i, too, am actually gonna go pass out. its been fun, truly. enjoy the continued debate that she invited by expressing what she thinks.
to clarify, by pass out, i mean im going to close my browser and lay in my bed until i fall asleep. i dont need people asking what i meant by that. ^:)
>>27611196
it really doesnt when i have literal meaning on my side, and you have personal interpretation on yours. the only person who can verify your personal interpretation is the person who said it. until then, its taken at face value.
>>27611152
>she has the right to disallow "debate"
She is insofar as she's directly involved in it, i.e. having someone debate her directly, and no one is arguing against that. She can block people, ignore them, pretend they don't exist, whatever, and that is absolutely her right.
But inviting debate is something else entirely. Anybody posting their opinions online is inviting debate, it's whether or not they partake that is their prerogative.
>>27611213
>literal meaning
But just one post ago you agreed that people sometimes don't always say what they mean. Did you not mean that literally...?
Or are you saying that she's incapable of making a mistake...?
>Your personal interpretation
And yours anon, and yours
>>27611176
>even if she blocks me, her post simply existing where i can see it has invited me to debate her claims.
ITT the death of reading comprehension.
What was her post if not DISinviting non-followers from dogpiling her twitter feed?
>>27611224
She has the right insofar*
>>27611233
Well it was obviously and literaly saying no one has any right to ever debate anything she ever says anywhere on the internet.
>>27611176
>my rebuttal doesnt even need to take place on twitter
Here's the thing: that right she's referring to is literally the right of a Twitter user, and not just by blocking. Harassment is against Twitter's rules, a user declaring they do not want debate regarding a tweet and somebody engaging them or others in it anyway would be considered harassment, ergo it would be in violation of the Twitter user's rights. And since the context of the tweet was about responses to a tweet, this is entirely centric on Twitter. Not 4chan, not any other "public forum". The unfortunate knee-jerk reactionaries in this thread were merely played into OP's click-bait tier drama mongering sensationalization.
>>27611224
See above: the entire conversation was contained to Twitter. Going against a user's request, even without directly involving them, could potentially be seen as antagonistic.
>>27611250
That ISN'T a right of a Twitter user though.
Replying to somebody that you don't follow is NOT considered harassment, get real. If it was, there wouldn't be an option to do it on Twitter in the first place. And if she didn't want people to be able to reply, she could set herself to private.
>>27611250
"OP's click-bait tier drama mongering sensationalization."
Did we read the same OP?
The one that has 5 words and a subject line?
Your description of the OP is literally longer than the OP.
>>27611250
Whether or not it's seen as antagonistic, against the Terms of Use, or anything like that is not the point. The point is that anybody that posts their opinions online is inherently inviting debate.
>>27611267
Did you even read what he said could be considered harassment?
>>27611276
So let's say a newspaper had the headline NIGGERS ATTACK
I would be wrong to call it a racially insensitive use of hyperbole because I used too many words...?
>>27611280
No, they aren't.
They may INSPIRE debate but they don't necessarily INVITE it.
If I say "I like turtles" it's not the same as saying "Turtles are objectively superior to cats, anyone who thinks different, come at me."
>>27611283
Yeah I did
and it's funny
because behavior that's "aimed to silence another user's voice" (like, telling people they can't debate your opinion because you say so) is actually against Twitter's policies.
https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311
>>27611300
Great stuff. I'm sure if you reported her then Twitter would see how a single post directed at no person in particular was silencing a users voice.
>>27611267
Protection from harassment is one of the rights, and nice to see you need to capitalize whole words to add emphasis.
If a person explicitely says don't bother them about this shit, bothering them about this shit or inciting others into bothering them about this shit would be as stated by Twitter's rules considered harassment.
>>27611276
>Misinformation in the subject line
>Emphasising a thing that the vast majority of the board unanimously hates
>Image with no context to mislead intent
Sounds pretty click-baity to me, pham.
>>27611280
>or anything like that is not the point
It's entirely the point, since Twitter has rules against harassment and this exact situation on Twitter would be considered harassment. You and the other two guys I've been "debating" at least are taking the statement at the most basic and general interpretation as though you fully intend to be indignant about it like it actually affects you in any way.
As has been reiterated so many times already in this thread, we are not on Twitter so you have no reason to be upset.
>>27611300
>pic related
is what you're doing by leaving out the tidbits about abuse and intimidation. No part of her statement was intimidating or abusive in any way. Like saying somebody should be arrested for naming the laws they are protected under. GG, no re
>>27611305
it's as much harassment, as replying to her is
>>27611336
>I'm being harassed by a comment not directed at me personally
No, you aren't.
>>27611332
in order
1. Replying to her is not harassment. Nowhere in Twitter's terms of service does it suggest such a thing.
2. "Misinformation in the subject line"
You mean the phrase "This is what the IDW comics writers actually believe"?
Because, she is both on IDW comics, and that's clearly what she actually believes, so try again.
3. No it doesn't. You go find me some piece of literature from Twitter that shows that "this exact situation on Twitter would be considered harassment" because I sure as hell haven't found any. Burden of proof is on you for that one.
4. "No part of her statement was intimidating"
Trying to prevent people from disagreeing with you on the grounds that you have some kind of authority, is intimidating them.
>>27611339
exactly
that's the point
>>27611366
Go on then.
Report her. See how far it goes.
>>27611371
What the fuck do you think you're saying?
She isn't harassing you you fucking moron.
>>27611382
That's the point
Nobody is harassing anyone in either scenario
get decides if we do it
>>27611385
>Please dont talk to me about this
>People proceed to spam incessantly
>Someone makes a post directed at no one
>Some random cunt is triggered
Yeah, these are 100% the same thing.
I swear people here get stupider.
>>27611396
do it
>>27611396
Fuck off.
>>27611396
Either do it or don't.
>>27611401
And we're back to the original point of the thread
if you don't want someone to talk to you about your opinions that you post on Twitter
DON'T POST YOUR OPINIONS ON TWITTER
>>27611396
Do it
>>27611396
Fuck this I'll do it myself
>>27611414
Or ask not to get any responses. Because that's how Twitter works.
>>27611427
done
now we wait
>>27611451
>implying you won't be ignored
>>27611366#
>1. Replying to her is not harassment. Nowhere in Twitter's terms of service does it suggest such a thing.
>>27611300#
>if the reported behavior is one-sided [...]
So a user declaring they do not want debate means any intent for debate being sent to them would be one-sided and certainly not "just replying".
>2. [...] You mean the phrase "This is what the IDW comics writers actually believe"? Because, she is both on IDW comics, and that's clearly what she actually believes, so try again.
a) She's not a writer for IDW
b) Her views are not representative of any of the other staffs' whatsoever, and misrepresenting it lends more and more credence toward the OP's intention to stir shit
>3. No it doesn't. You go find me [...]
Disregarding that I linked the posted screenshot of the rules and defined the situation within said rules, let's e.g. an IRL type of example: if a woman at work tells a male coworker to stop trying to talk a certain way with her and he persisted; Sexual Harassment.
>*4. Trying to prevent people from disagreeing with you on the grounds that you have some kind of authority, is intimidating them
Again, reciting your rights isn't breaking the law. Are you saying people should be arrested for declaring they don't want someone to commit a crime against them?
*le edit :^)
>>27609578
This post just makes me sick. Good thing I never gave a fuck about the comics, and now have less reason to than before even.
I really wonder what made Hasbro / IDW go "yo ponies are popular with the kids these days let's make comics" and then these utter hacks like Ted Anderson and this bitch come along and they go "yeah you'll do, you do those comics". Like what the fuck, they have to see that no comics would actually resonate better than this shoddily written, terrible looking, agenda driven SJW drivel these people produce.
I mean who actually buys this? I bet it's less people than there are people who send them angry twitter messages. That should kinda give them an idea, no...?
>>27611517
The MLP comics sold extremely well at first, but from what I hear, that's changed.
You get to say what you want. People get to say what they want in return. Ideally, you do not have to participate in what follows from what you say, but as a medium, Twitter is kinda built for that sort of thing by default: it takes extra thought to separate a reply from an @-mention, and doing so is the decision of the person replying, not the person initiating the opinion.
It's reasonable for her to ask for the behavior to change, but I don't think it will happen, as it's kind of baked into the Twitter model pretty deeply.
That said, if you walk around with your fingers in your ears all the time in public, people are not going to put up with your shit for very long.
>pulling a EFN by using the block button for stupid reasons
>Ego stroking
>refusing to debate with people with your "opinions" on a public website unless you eat her ass
She may don't HAVE to debate, but freedom of speech do not mean freedom of consequence. That's not gonna stop people from telling her why her "opinions" are bullshit.
At this rate, she may as well just lock her Twitter and he in her own little safespace if it triggers her this much like any other feminist faggot you see on that website. Her attitude reminds me of Leekfish.
>>27611724
Fucking this.
>>27611772
A pro should probably take a second to proofread their very small tweet for obvious typos that completely invalidate an already flimsy "pro" status.
>>27611765
>>27611772
So where the fuck does she draw the line between the two?
>>27611772
This is the point where we bombard her about self-proclaiming she is a pro because some shoddy plastic selling company hired her.
>>27611772
>fansplaining
Oh my god, the SJW rabbit hole just tumbles down into a world of made up words that bounce off of each other like neutrons and create chaos in the galaxy known as the English language.
>>27611772
>Fansplaining
>>27610234
>I have the right to express what I think.... >WITHOUT Being called out for it
>She doesn't
>>27609578
>caring about the twitter opinions of people of literally no importance
pretty pathetic desu
>>27610378
>Ehh. At least she is not the kind of SJW who jumps on the "GiveElsaACarpetMuncher" bandwagoon.
The thing about that and things like that is it's probably going to happen eventually. I can see the sense of wanting to get it out of the way-- that's not really what these people want, but that doesn't mean what they want has no use. Once you get past the first instance of something, and usually second and third, or the first *good* example, people calm down a good bit about wanting it to exist and persist. (Yes there are calls for Representation even in established things, but those wax and wane, and they can often be put to bed for years by one or two new good examples in a year).
>>27610845
Why state it as a right in a confrontational way ("end of discussion") unless you want other people to stop infringing on that right? If it's a right to say something or not say something, why imply it's being infringed on by the fucking Internet?
It would be obvious if she said "I have the right to not debate people" or "I have the right to ignore your arguments". It would even be clear enough (to me) if she said "I have the right to not invite debate", but she said she has the right to say *whatever's on her mind* while at the *same time* not inviting debate. That suggests a certain reading. If that's intended, well, she's a writer. It's completely her fault if she wrote so shitty we couldn't understand it.
Really though, anything a person of note says in public implicitly invites debate. That's how our culture is. If that's not what she intends, fine, but she can't just change people's perceptions.
>>27609599
That is a really cute couple. You can feel the love in the air
>>27611772
A message for Amy Mebberson.
Tone is easy to misinterpret through text. Therefore there is no reliable way to explain without being perceived as condescending. Without explaining, or fansplaining as you so childishly call it, how can we communicate our reasons at all? I suppose you would like us to just say "this is good" or "this is bad" without explaining what we think was done wrong or how to improve it, because anything else would be telling you how to do your job, yes? And then you'd dismiss the bad ones because they weren't constructive enough. In order to give genuine constructive criticism of anything- and let me give this statement the emphasis it deserves- WE ARE REQUIRED TO TELL YOU HOW TO DO YOUR JOB.
This made-up word as you've defined it has no applicability, Mebberson, because anyone who deems criticism invalid based on the tone they perceive it to have is not behaving as a professional.
And this is why I don't support IDW anymore.
>>27616382
Amy Mebberson isn't IDW, she works for Disney and Hasbro directly.
>>27609578
Yeah she does. One can't help but invite disagreement, but debate implies going to great lengths to argue your case against someone, which you're not really obligated to do and it might not be worth your time. Case in point, I will now leave this thread and not come back.
>>27611051
>Irregardless
>>27610378
>GiveElsaACarpetMuncher bandwagon
Wait... Oh god. I actually searched that up. Really fucking saddening that this is a real thing.
>>27617272
>many fans already view “Frozen” as a coming-out story, so it’s perfect to make Elsa the first LGBT Disney character
STOP TURNING INNOCENT STORIES INTO FUCKING PROPAGANDA BULLSHIT REEEEEEEEEEEEEE
seriously, its like when that group of faggots kept insisting dr suess's "horton hears a who" was some jab at abortion. these people need to fucking hang themselves.
>>27609578
So basically, she's suggesting that she can say she loves Hitler and thinks the Holocaust didn't go far enough, and nobody should call her on it. Cool.
>>27617337hitlerdidnothingwrong
>>27611772
>Fansplaining
and nothing of value was lost.
