My Turn To RANT.
By chrystalia
@chrystalia (1208)
Tucson, Arizona
November 18, 2012 9:54pm CST
This may cost me Mylot friends. Oh, well if it does.
OK-- I am beyond disgusted. And appalled. From the get go, let me say I am NOT a fan of the Kardashians--I can't fathom why someone like Kim Kardashian has 17 million Twitter followers...wait a minute. She's a TWIT. OK, now I figured that out. But yesterday---
Kim tweets that people should pray for Israel. This is a good thing, as Israel is being bombed, and has been being bombed for years, and is fighting back. Even our President supports Israel's right not to get bombed, at the moment-- though he and other leaders are beginning to waffle, and our clueless media refuses to even use the word TERRORIST when discussing HAMAS, though the state department, and the U.N., have declared HAMAS to be terrorists.
So what happens? tens of thousands of people begin attacking her, threatening her, using the vilest and most disgusting names and insults, filth that should get your online account BANNED-- hate language, like people used against Romney during the campaign. People said she should die. And called her the "B" word-- which was the politest insult on the list. And said that all Jews should die as well.
Does Kim stand up for her statement? Does she tell them to @#@$% OFF? NOPE. She turns around and tweets pray for PALESTINE, and the world-- so then she gets another flood of hate speech and threats and jibes because she is a spineless moron (which she is), and she is insincere (possibly)--
So she deletes both tweets AND APOLOGIZES FOR WHAT SHE SAID.
Seriously? Apologize for saying pray for a people under terrorist attack? Apologize for praying for the innocent people who are protecting the terrorists--because they think it's in their interest? Apologize for saying pray for everybody?
Apologize for expressing her feelings?
AND TWITTER HASN'T BANNED ANY OF THESE HATE FILLED SOCIOPATHS. Just as they didn't ban the hate filled sociopaths who tweeted assassinate Romney-- but they sure deleted those who mildly criticized Obama-- for "racism". Apparently twitter feels it's OK to endorse or condone genocide, and threats against people other than the president.
Ms. Kardashian, in my opinion, is spineless, at the least, and hypocritical. And Twitter--well---That Twitter, and Facebook for that matter, condone this sort of behavior is totally WRONG. Everyone should be able to voice their views. And once those views are voiced, you should stand behind them. And if your fans don't agree-- oh, well. That's their business. It stop being only their business when they threaten the life of other people, or spew their hate all over the web--then they become, in my opinion, a social problem. This goes for white supremacists, black supremacists, Nazis, Muslim extremists-- Twitter and Facebook have chosen to be selective in who they delete, and who they don't. To some extent, many websites are-- but I, for one, will not deal with them any longer, at all. There's no point in them having terms of service at all, if those terms of service are not enforced-- on everyone.
Am I the only person who has noticed this?
5 people like this
6 responses
@KrauseHome (36448)
• United States
5 Dec 12
Well, what about some of the stuff that is posted on Facebook? Come on, who continues to want to follow some of this stuff. Actually this is what continues to keep some people popular is shining the light on them, like "LOOK AT ME". Personally this is part of the problem with online stuff, and especially some Social media. Makes you almost wish things like this were not allowed, and we could go back to a more private world.
@chrystalia (1208)
• Tucson, Arizona
6 Dec 12
Yep, facebook is just as bad--and selective about what they leave up and what they take down. If you're going to have terms, you should enforce them on everyone, not just a few people. For me, this (meaning cyberspace) is the world--I don't mind the public part, mostly, but I do mind when things aren't dealt with--here at Mylot, when something violates the terms, it's gone, end of story--and that should be the case everywhere.
@mariaperalta (19073)
• Mexico
19 Nov 12
I agree with you. These stars thank they can do or even post what ever they want to.
@chrystalia (1208)
• Tucson, Arizona
19 Nov 12
What she posted was perfectly acceptable--it was the way people responded that was totally wrong. Here on mylot, if someone has written a discussion and said essentially the same thing but in more detail, and people replied the same way, admin would have made them all disappear-- and that's the way it should be. No point in terms of service that are selectively enforced.
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
19 Nov 12
I actively avoid anything concerning the Kardashians so I did not know about this. I'm not surprised, though. The media and social media are so biased and have such an aggressive agenda that free speech has been seriously compromised. I have never respected KK and so I can't say I've lost respect for her but the amount of disgust I feel when confronted with her name has increased.
If I still had a Twitter account I would delete it. I joined it to see what it was all about and soon saw that it had no relevance for me. In fact, the whole concept reminds me of a flock of sheep running where they are herded.
@chrystalia (1208)
• Tucson, Arizona
19 Nov 12
yep-- Twitter brings the word "sheeple" to a whole new level. It just sickened me to see that amount of hate out there, and the few people who tried to be reasonable were treated to the same hate vomit. And of course twitter did nothing-- what else is new?
I avoid the kardashians as well-- can't figure out what the appeal is with seeing the dirty laundry of the rich and famous-- but when I saw the article on Fox I had to check it out, because I do keep an eye on what the sheeple are up to--to me, people that would casually say the kinds of things that were saying are a danger to the rest of us.
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
3 Dec 12
Because I don't trust Facebook or Twitter, I've never joined; so I can't comment about them. All I know is that too many people have made fools of themselves on these sites.
@JenInTN (27514)
• United States
19 Nov 12
That is pretty shady for sure. If you make a comment that you believe in..well..why not stand by it against adversary? No one is going to support everything. It surprises me that Twitter would let that kind of abuse happen too. I wonder if the reaction would be as strong if it were a person like me or you that stated it?
@chrystalia (1208)
• Tucson, Arizona
19 Nov 12
I was watching the Twitter feed the week before the election, and Facebook too-- thousands of people threatening to riot and assassinate Romney and Ryan if Obama didn't win the election. Over 50,000 tweets like that--before election day--and yet all those people still have Twitter and Facebook accounts, and people who threaten Obama don't. And the extreme racism against Romney, and Ryan-- and absolute hate speech--What's up with that? Why can blacks and Hispanics say disgusting, vicious and threatening things against white people, but a white person is vilified for doing the same thing? Go figure. What I found especially heinous about this was all the people who were saying the Jews deserve to be exterminated-- they're vermin, and other things-- all over Twitter,Facebook and Reddit-- and that kardashian should die with them-- and THEY still have their accounts.
And to apologize? Seriously? It will be a cold day before I apologize for expressing an opinion-- quite the opposite. If you or I spoke like that, our Twitter and Facebook accounts would be gone in a heartbeat, probably.
@natliegleb (5175)
• India
19 Nov 12
everyone gets a chance to rant or sure and i agree its a way of expressing in facebook and twitter for sure and i support your views
@chrystalia (1208)
• Tucson, Arizona
19 Nov 12
yep-- it's one thing to rant, it's another thing entirely to practice hate speech-- and nothing upsets me more than websites that make all these terms of service, and never enforce them equally, on everyone. How are we supposed to have a productive internet, a safe internet, and a free internet if websites don't police themselves? If they don't enforce the rules, the U.N. or someone will decide to impose rules, and then what happens to the internet?