Snowflake shoe0nhead / June Lapine / June La Porta & Armoured Skeptic / Gregory "Greg" Fluhrer - A poor man's Boxxy: rejected by Vaush, disowned by /pol/ for burning coal, sleeps in a dog's bed surrounded by trash, and her ex-boyfriend.

  • Thread starter Thread starter HG 400
  • Start date Start date
McSneaks said:
Nowhere in the history of anything has anything ever said that you have the RIGHT to make ME listen to YOU, lmao. In what world would it be a right to force me to have to listen to you? That's ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Right of Reply does not mean you have to listen to, read, or even hear/see the person's reply. Your block can absolutely remove their content from your feed.
McSneaks said:
And you can absolutely type whatever angry, whining drivel you wan to until Twitter regardless of which person blocked you. Much like "free speech" doesn't mean "no consequence", "reply" doesn't mean "hold my ears open and scream at me".
Click to expand...
While much of this is error-carried-forward from the previously noted gross conceptual error you have about what Right of Reply means, it is not about addressing the person talking mad shit, it is about addressing the mad shit they were talking.

Again, if you don't wish to engage, you can shut your eyes and cover your ears without issue as far as Right of Reply is concerned. Block away, when that's all it does. It's when you want to gouge other people's eyes and cut out someone else's tongue that you're overstepping. And that's how Twitter's implementation of blocking works.
 
  • Autistic
  • Like
Reactions: goo'dup, whathefuck and Chi-com Soldier
Sneeds_Sniggerly said:
The main thing with Shoe being a blocking retard is that once again she flip-flopped on an old thing and I doubt she's blocking people that just call her a cunt. I'm sure if you asked her about her wigs she's block you lol.
Click to expand...
A thing I've noticed is that she will retweet someone and then block them.

Maybe it's just so many of her followers talk shit to/about her, whenever they tweet something that comes to her attention and she looks back over their account history, she inevitably finds something she doesn't like.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: MasonicTelevision and Gamercat
Kahr CW9 said:
She got sucked into this giant revolving bullshit thing that turned her into an old, bald, lonely, emotionally stunted, semen bloated clown.
Click to expand...
FTFY.
Ironically, for a semi-popular ethot, she hasn't taken as much dick (As far as we know) as one would think shes capable of given her e-celeb status.

Kahr CW9 said:
Her nudes are out there, and more embarrassingly, none of us have saved them.
Click to expand...
Big oof.

Shoe is such a pedantic basket case that even her nudes are tainted by sadness and failure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Snack Cracker, Flying Whale, MintandRue and 4 others
If June isn't fat by age 30, she'll likely never be fat. There's no such thing as a "fast metabolism" for anyone over age 25. People in shape past that age are actively maintaining their weight.

Emily Ratajkowski is a good example. People think because she's been the same size for 15 years, it must be natural. But each year, she has to work harder to maintain her fame. The same goes for June and any other woman.
 
  • Agree
  • Disagree
Reactions: Lurky McLurkzorz, Woke Blue Muttlema and Flying Whale
F71DAFE5-FE3B-4444-A601-24935E0E890B.jpeg9E08EF6F-D26C-460A-BECE-D6733021DDB7.jpeg4B76B2D3-94F0-4242-BAB6-0A82458DC012.jpeg42266BC6-0196-4412-B80F-E32B276DA323.jpegD0148E89-4848-460B-B802-2C55357C7315.jpeg

Real Labor Day
43127169-3CB0-4CAC-93AD-2E309A53E151.jpeg

Shoe’s ideal type
DF122DF5-DBE8-4071-AD68-9923E9E33E5C.jpeg

Shoe's job
010C9929-DBBD-4BD3-A123-B28598B1717C.jpeg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Lunacy
Reactions: Woke Blue Muttlema, Snack Cracker, Johnny Salami and 4 others
  • Like
  • DRINK!
  • Agree
Reactions: Lurky McLurkzorz, Woke Blue Muttlema, MasonicTelevision and 5 others
Jack Awful said:
Blocking someone isn't a violation of free speech, it's just a bitch move when not done when absolutely necessary.

I remember back in the day everyone used to laugh at Steve Shives for blocking thousands he'd never even interacted with like a massive pussy but now everyone does it.

Speaking of Steve Shives everyone asked how he went from reasonable to an SJW cuck, but it turns out he was just par for the course.
Click to expand...

Raven of the Burning God said:
Blocking per se isn't necessarily a violation of freedom of speech, but blocking as Twitter has implemented it, where it violates Right of Reply, is a violation of free speech.

And, preemptively, yes, I'm aware that Twitter violating freedom of speech is not a violation of the US First Amendment. Just because a NGO is violating human rights doesn't mean it's A-OK and there's no problem to discuss.

It's also not even considered a best practice for user controls to alert a blocked user that they've been blocked.
Click to expand...

free speech is impacted when the platform itself decides to selectively ban or otherwise punish users for posting content that is not in violation of the law, especially when the rationale behind it is politically or ideologically motivated. but a user blocking someone else is literally just that person deciding "i dont want to interact with you" and it's a complete non-issue, arguing about free speech in this context is fucking retarded.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Subhuman Leftist, Oh piss off!, Another Sperg on the Net and 7 others
DumbDude42 said:
a user blocking someone else is literally just that person deciding "i dont want to interact with you" and it's a complete non-issue, arguing about free speech in this context is fucking retarded.
Click to expand...
If blocking is implemented in such a way that all that happens is the blocking user doesn't have to interact with the user they've blocked and no one but the blocking user is affected, sure.
That isn't how twitter implements blocking.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
  • Agree
Reactions: goo'dup, ronpw, ChampFantana and 1 other person
DumbDude42 said:
free speech is impacted when the platform itself decides to selectively ban or otherwise punish users for posting content that is not in violation of the law, especially when the rationale behind it is politically or ideologically motivated. but a user blocking someone else is literally just that person deciding "i dont want to interact with you" and it's a complete non-issue, arguing about free speech in this context is fucking retarded.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about users blocking other users, not the platform itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back