641–650 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's no different than BLM members burning down cities. There's this sort of thing on both sides which don't represent the larger group. Also, FWIW, I don't support anything remotely close to storming building, but people on the left certainly are quick to blame when I've watched exact same thing happen over the last year or two.
Tu quoque doesn’t change what Trump did.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You may be reading too much into what I wrote. My standard here is simply that I think if a website is literally organizing something which explicitly, literally, supports violent overthrow of the government, then I'm going to yield to the legal system to enforce whatever laws exist to properly regulate that speech. I don't have a strong opinion beyond that since I am not a lawyer. My point is that if the mechanism t…
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but in the US, the current standard for free speech (Brandenburg v Ohio) holds that literally advocating for violent overthrow of the government is constitutionally-protected free speech . The bar that you have to hit is incitement to "imminent lawless action." This standard of free speech is much higher than most of the rest of the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's impossible to say. The fact that the capitol got stormed the same day as the democrats won control means it's impossible to disaggregate. It might be a cynical move by Facebook but is it also a cynical move by Betsy Devos? What difference did democrat control make to her?
Resign in the last 2 weeks of his presidency when their jobs don't really matter, make the transition process marginally more complicated by leaving, avoid having to take a stand on the 25th amendment, and they can start trying to rehabilitate their images by pretending they were shocked by the administration they've been a part of for 3.9 years
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not sure what the other options are? You've seen it. Which is worse, censorship of people calling for the violent otherthrow of the democratically elected government. OR what we've seen this week - people literally overthrowing the democratically elected government of the US. Oh and by the way- when the MAGA hat wearers have taken over, sure as hell they aren't going to be defending your right to equivocate be…
> people literally overthrowing the democratically elected government of the US. The hysterics in this thread are pretty rich.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your bookshelf doesn’t analyze your reading habits and recommend other books specifically to drag you deeper into the rabbit hole of extremism. Your bookshelf doesn’t allow you to instantly connect with thousands of likeminded people to incubate terrorist plots.
> drag you deeper into the rabbit hole of extremism This is what banning /r/the_donald and now /r/donaldtrump did. It doesn't stop the users from believing what they believe, it just further isolates them in an echo changer while simultaneously reinforcing the belief that the liberal media is "out to get them".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a man who is a known fraud, morally bankrupt in business and personal life, and who has shown himself to be incompetent in office. Are you talking about donald trump or joe biden? > People who voted for Donald Trump should be ashamed of their vote. Using your logic, those who voted for corrupt biden should be ashamed as well. > That said, reading what people are saying in an effort to understand and to de-radicaliz…
Virtually no one who voted for Biden is excited about him. They're just voting out Trump. The false equivalency narrative you're spewing is tiresome. Trump's record is an unprecedented disaster. There is no equivalent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Somehow, we seem to be forgetting how free speech benefits us all In normal times, I would agree. Philosophies and ideals like this effectively discourage people from taking action. That makes a lot of sense during times of peace when our asses aren't actively on the line. However, these are not normal times. We are facing a threat that might just overwhelm our society and rob us of our way of life. We must act now…
So you're okay giving someone else the power to declare something "a threat" and sacrificing your rights to neutralize it? China is perfectly happy to declare all kinds of opinions threats to their way of life and disallow them from being spread. What's different? You are not thinking it through . An imperfect analogy to help make the point: You can't put a backdoor in encryption "just for the good guys" because ther…
"Encryption" is not a place or a thing. It's a fact of nature. It's a mathematical truth. Anyone can take advantage of it once it's been discovered and disseminated. That cat cannot go back in the bag.
The US government is a unique thing that we risk losing control of if we don't act now to defend it. Social media platforms are single things or entities that can revert policies once a situation de-escalates.
I imagine that a lot of the people making these calls at these companies would like not to have to do it this way but feel they have no choice. I believe they would be happy to resume business as usual when they're not worried that a violent movement will overthrow their government. Until then, could you really see yourself sitting by, doing nothing, and hoping for the best while watching these maniacs use your platform to organize their movement?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You may be reading too much into what I wrote. My standard here is simply that I think if a website is literally organizing something which explicitly, literally, supports violent overthrow of the government, then I'm going to yield to the legal system to enforce whatever laws exist to properly regulate that speech. I don't have a strong opinion beyond that since I am not a lawyer. My point is that if the mechanism t…
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but in the US, the current standard for free speech (Brandenburg v Ohio) holds that literally advocating for violent overthrow of the government is constitutionally-protected free speech . The bar that you have to hit is incitement to "imminent lawless action." This standard of free speech is much higher than most of the rest of the world.
You know what scares the shit out of me, to use your phrasing? The people on that site murdering me or overthrowing the government, so that they seize power and elections end or become irrelevant. “The free Internet” has value, but it’s not the only thing that has value. When it conflicts with other values, then there has to be a nuanced resolution.
Were you scared of the women’s March murdering you after they “stormed” the capitol? https://twitter.com/EgSophie/status/1048634940169048064?s=20
To anyone not invested emotionally in this conversation, it's clear that your point isn't making a valid point. They are not equivalent actions.
You're pretending they are to try to lend cover to the truly harmful action that just took place.
We can call a spade a spade without pretending that everything else is also a spade.
To be clear, I am directly saying that you are arguing in bad faith.
I hope it is clear that this is not an attack on you as a person. I am attacking your idea directly, not you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dems imported millions of immigrants whose communities always vote left. Its like an escape hatch in a democracy to win elections
Immigrants can't vote. Only citizens can vote.