Twitter's rules say they can remove your verified status at any time for violating their ToS. It's pretty obvious that Milo has violated their ToS many, many times, so he's not verified anymore. Don't know what the big deal about that is.
If he has - and I think he has based on one particular tweet where he said someone 'deserved to be harassed' - then he should be banned or suspended. Not 'unverified'. Not given a link to the ToS without at least one specific incident.
Conversely, the person whose previously doxxed him - also violating the Twitter ToS - should be punished too.
Twitter just need to have a concrete set of rules (objective not subjective) and enforce it consistently regardless of politics or celebrity status.
I would say that the big deal is, if that is the policy, then verification does not represent "verification" so much as "you play by the rules"... As has been said elsewhere, just because Milo violated some policies, he didn't stop being Milo.
I don't agree with everything Milo spouts - but I don't dislike the guy, if only for his honesty (wears his biases openly on his sleeve) and doesn't-give-a-shit attitude.
If he broke their TOS he should be banned. Verification is saying "This person is the person they claim to be." Removing the verification is stupid and petty. Milo didn't stop being Milo.
Verified was originally sold as twitter saying the account belonged to a verified person or business. We could trust it was that person or organization and not some fake account.
This isn't true anymore and they should rename it to something else. The other part is that their are apparently some advertising requirements associated with verified for businesses.
It's a big deal once you can easily predict who is punished for ToS violations, and who gets to skate, by checking to see who has the right political views and/or friends at Twitter.
Well, to be fair to the author Übermensch is a term coined by Nietzsche in Thus Spake Zarathustra.
While it was coopted by the Nazis, the meaning as conveyed by Nazis was very different from how Nietzsche used it.
The Nazis felt that they were the Übermensch. It wasn't something to achieve or become. They also thought of it in racial terms, whereas Nietzsche's formulation couldn't be further from something as shallow as race.
Nietzsche was also a staunch and very vocal critic of National Socialism and anti-semitism.
To be critical of the OP, though, he does seem to refer to the concept of Übermensch as meaning "superior man" which is closer to the shallow interpretation of the Nazis rather than the way that Nietzsche used it. He clearly intended it as meaning "intensely human" or "over man" where 'over' is a spacial pun on life's position with reference to death. And presented it as a contrast to Christians who are obsessed with what happens after we stop being human in the after life.
Anyway, as an admirer of Nietzsche's writings I felt compelled to add context as Übermensch is not Nazi terminology and I would hope that's not how he intended its use.
That's why I said "popularized by," not "invented by." The Nazis co-opted a lot of things that weren't theirs, but they're now known for being used by the Nazis. The swastika is a good example: definitely not invented by the Nazis, but popularized and pretty much taken over by the Nazis.
Oh come on. "Übermensch" is a concept from Nietzsche, a goal for humans to achieve. Yes, Nazis tried to appropriate this term for their twisted ideology. But this is HN, I think we can expect more from ourselves here than just pattern-matching things like "referenced by Nazis -> Hitlery -> Evil" (though I won't object the "Uber = Evil" patternmatch). Nietzsche had ideas worth discussing, and the evolution towards becoming superhumans is not an inherently evil thing.
To be generous to the OP I didn’t see any nazi-like methods proposed. I could be wrong here, but I don’t think the Nazis were that interested in breeding high IQ individuals - they certainly had no idea about genetics.
No, they wanted low IQ individuals who would believe that rot about being the master race, and do what they were told.
But the problem isn't just with the Nazis. The problem is with Nietzsche. The Ubermensch is superior to other humans, and can re-define morality as he (or she) sees fit. That will almost always work out badly for the other humans...
> The problem is with Nietzsche. The Ubermensch is superior to other humans, and can re-define morality as he (or she) sees fit.
I'm not sure that's an accurate interpretation of Nietzsche use of the word. Yes, Nietzsche advocated defining our own values. However, this is contrasted with an alternative of allowing others to define values for us.
He felt rationality leads to values which benefit humanity as a whole. Again contrasted with Christian values which are ostensibly focused on benefiting man after death rather than in life and in practice benefit the few while victimizing the herd that follows those values thoughtlessly.
He advocated living an intensely human existence (übermensch) rather than a mindless, animal existence. And through that rising above a fixation on death ("going under") and shifting to a fixation on life ("rising over" or über). By doing so, we lead authentic lives that allow us to project our unique and individual contributions into the human experience to the benefit of all man kind.
For a practical example, think of Shakespeare, Socrates, Plato, Marie Curie, or Martin Luther King. They fought against group think, forged their own path, and projected themselves so forcefully that their ideas and creations dominate our discourse even today. And most would argue for the betterment of humanity. And they did so by being intensely authentic human beings.
He would not and, in fact, did not advocate any sense of the word as being literally superior to other human beings. He was horrified by Nazism, denounced National Socialism, and cursed anti-semitism.
Becoming übermensch is a state of being attainable by every man and woman equally. And while it is a more authentic state of being, it was not remotely indicative of a social caste or order. I think Nietzsche would say every great moral or intellectual advancement mankind has had stemmed from men and women who defined their own values, pursued them intensely, and projected those values into society.
But if everybody's defining their own values, then a bunch of people are going to define their values very selfishly. That's (unfortunately) human nature. One could argue that Ashley Madison (to use a current example) with their slogan "Life is short, have an affair" is living this just as much as Martin Luther King. Once you remove morality, then you have nothing to give any positive direction to your values, because you have no basis for defining what "positive" means, other than your own feelings and thoughts.
> He felt rationality leads to values which benefit humanity as a whole.
Other philosophers would disagree. de Sade, for example. (Yes, he was a philosopher, and his writings and actions were an expression of his philosophy.) And even human history seems to show that Nietzsche was overly optimistic on human nature on this point.
In "The Abolition of Man", C. S. Lewis argues that rationality, by itself, can never give real values. That can only come from "practical reason", not mere reason, because it has to tie reason to values and emotions. (I'm not stating it well - go read Lewis. It's really short, only a hundred pages or so, and very readable, though it does take some thought.)
> But if everybody's defining their own values, then a bunch of people are going to define their values very selfishly.
Everyone is -- unalterably -- defining their own values, and quite often those doing so consciously are doing so quite selfishly, sure. Those doing it unconsciously are often just defining their own values by uncritically internalizing some (possibly distorted and misunderstood) set of values that someone else defined (either selfishly or not.)
> Once you remove morality, then you have nothing to give any positive direction to your values, because you have no basis for defining what "positive" means, other than your own feelings and thoughts.
Arguably, "morality" is just a label for your own feelings and thoughts about what is positive and negative, and recognizing that is the first step in thinking about morality on something beyond a cargo cult level.
> Arguably, "morality" is just a label for your own feelings and thoughts about what is positive and negative, and recognizing that is the first step in thinking about morality on something beyond a cargo cult level.
No, that's not morality, at least not the feelings part - more like the opposite, in fact. Morality is what I believe is right or wrong, especially when it goes against my feelings.
> But if everybody's defining their own values, then a bunch of people are going to define their values very selfishly.
There are only two options: define morality for yourself, and own it completely, or allow someone else to define it for you.
Morality is a construct that stems solely from man. What Nietzsche condemns is accepting the morality of others like sheep instead of critically. You cannot own a moral construct until you have fully evaluated that construct and accepted its consequences yourself.
Further, he claimed that a morality based on what happens after you die is bereft of any real meaning. He advocated a morality rooted in the human condition and defined by its relation to humanity, not its relation to dead gods as defined by moral potentates.
I can’t say I am enough of an expert on Nazi theology to know what they wanted other than to say whatever it was it was not very rational nor based on an understanding of genetics.
The important part isn't the alloy. I mean, yeah, it gives them a leg up - but there's nobody willing to put in the time and money to figure out what's in their cymbals, because it's just more worth it to make your own.
The Zildjian name is more valuable than any of their cymbals. If you don't buy Zildjian cymbals, it's because they're too expensive, or it's because you don't like the sound. It's a better idea for a company to go and make a cymbal that fills one of the other niches in the market than to try to replace Zildjian.
It's sort of like Coca-Cola's secret recipe. If you wanted to put the time and effort into it, you could figure out what's in it. But why bother? Coca-Cola's success is due to the brand, not to the taste.
Lots of services limit usernames to a certain range of characters, but some don't. However, there's tons of invisible unicode characters that you can use instead, so even without this one, the problem would still exist.
Thеrе arе many cyrillic lеttеrs looking idеntically to latin lеttеrs. In previous sentence all "e" letters were cyrillic, for example. So probably the only sane way is to limit username characters to latin letters.
It's not, though. He ordered the drugs, meaning that all the needed was confirmation that it was really him that ordered the drugs - signing for the package is enough evidence. That's enough for an arrest anyways, and probably enough for probable cause.
Can we stop jerking about how the cops are the REAL criminals here? DPR was in no way a good person.
