Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

871–880 of 1001 posts

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#871

Post by arolihas »

jtxxwl wrote: post #841
triceratops wrote: post #819

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> tell me how the right could possibly believe anything else. On the one hand we have only the word of a known liar and his band of sycophants. On the other we have the sworn testimony and/or judgments of literally thousands of election officials and judges, including from states with Republican legislatures (Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona). Maybe the "right" should get out of their bubble and join everyone else.

I don't think you read my comment. We have much more than the word of Trump and his "sycophants". We know, and no one disputes, that the left and some individuals on the right want Trump out of power very badly. We don't need Trump to tell us that, they have said so themselves, loudly, for the past 5 years. We also know, and no one disputes, that the election officials in a number of key areas have their jobs because…

Wow you have means, motive, and opportunity. Now all you need is this pesky little thing called evidence of any such fraud occurring. It’s a big roadblock though, understandably, no one has managed to produce anything of note that could be accepted in court or any reputable investigation.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#872

Post by CyberRabbi »

seppin wrote: post #857
CyberRabbi wrote: post #794

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are they not equivalent? Both were organized protests intended on occupying the capitol for the sake of airing out their political grievances. What truly harmful action took place that was caused by the protestors? Be specific. The only difference that in can see is that during the 1/6/21 event, the police were called in. They attacked and killed 4 protestors.

Maybe you don't know that 60 Capital Police were seriously injured, 15 remain in the hospital, and one is confirmed dead from the attack. Maybe you don't know that of the 4 rioters that died, one had a heart attack (unconfirmed), one was shot and the others were trampled (by the mob). Maybe you didn't know that congresspeople from both sides of the isle hid in closets and under desks, terrified and afraid for their l…

You’re making a lot of assumptions about me for someone claiming I’m arguing in bad faith.

Maybe you don’t know that the police officer who died, died as a result of a blood clot. Not as a direct result of any action by the protestors.

Those police were doing crowd control. If they were not deployed there would have been no on-duty injuries. Was law enforcement deployed on the women’s March protestors?

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#873

Post by arolihas »

triceratops wrote: post #843
jtxxwl wrote: post #841

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you read my comment. We have much more than the word of Trump and his "sycophants". We know, and no one disputes, that the left and some individuals on the right want Trump out of power very badly. We don't need Trump to tell us that, they have said so themselves, loudly, for the past 5 years. We also know, and no one disputes, that the election officials in a number of key areas have their jobs because…

> We have much more than the word of Trump and his "sycophants". Prove it in court or shut up. Seriously, it's that simple. Don't spam us with links and tell us to "look at the evidence". That's what the courts are for. If Trump is so certain that he's right, he should say all he's saying under oath. Surely he's brave enough to do that right? You can choose to believe in shadowy conspiracies of "Democrat officials" a…

To be fair if you put Trump under oath he’d get himself charged for perjury by the evil democrats. Really the only thing he could’ve done is incite a mob (this may be too sarcastic for HNs taste but screw it, HN has no taste upvoting baseless right wing conspiracy garbage)

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#874

Post by viridian »

Tokkemon wrote: post #533
umvi wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the right, you have people who storm the US fucking Capitol building while they are confirming the next POTUS. Could you directly address that time back in June when armed BLM protestors stormed Capitol Hill in Seattle and kicked out all the police for a month?[0] Why does that event get a pass in the context of this conversation? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone

It's not the most important government building in the entire nation. Don't be stupid, this is not at all comparable.

Why should we consider it a tragedy that people were occupying this building? I certainly don't see any reason to, just like I didn't see any reason to consider the occupation of the two police stations (and destruction of one) a tragedy.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#875

Post by sdwa »

stale2002 wrote: post #811
sdwa wrote: post #807

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the government banning something is meaningful because they have the monopoly on violence. Reddit admins banning a sub and reddit mods banning a user is the exact same thing, it's just moderation of a private forum. Forcing private companies to publish pro-genocide speech, for example, is anti-freedom, not pro. If we're going to force reddit to publish pro-holocaust speech then all moderation everywhere must be b…

> is meaningful because they have the monopoly on violence. Yes, they are more effectively able to censor it. Correct, thats my point. > is the exact same thing I described specifically what the difference is. The difference between them is that one is more effective than the other. Do you at all recognize how different methods of censorship can be more or less effective than others? For example, would you seriously…

>I described specifically what the difference is. The difference between them is that one is more effective than the other. Do you at all recognize how different methods of censorship can be more or less effective than others?

Of course some censorship is more effective than others, but the idea that banning a subreddit is morally wrong because it's somehow "more effective" (by some metric) than banning a user (which apparently is OK?) makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

>For example, would you seriously argue that every single grocery store in the world, banning all people who want to raise their taxes, is the same thing as a random person kicking a friend out of their house?

Reddit doesn't have a global monopoly on internet forums though. Websites like the Daily Stormer still exist. Your analogy is not really applicable to this case. And even if Daily Stormer didn't exist, private individuals have never been legally obliged to signal boost and publish hate speech at any point since the US was founded that I am aware of. That would, ironically, violate the 1st amendment.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#876

Post by claudiawerner »

kr99x wrote: post #549
legulere wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No right is absolute, because there are areas where exercising one right might infringe on another right. Everyone has a right to their life, which is one of the most sacrosanct rights, but in self-defence you might still rightfully kill someone else. Those intersections of rights are always a fine line to walk on and you have to be careful so it is not abused. Just putting one right above the other can never be the…

I'm going to skip over defamation for now, both because I'm not a lawyer and because it's slightly more complicated. You can tell that's different because nobody preemptively censors defamation - it's a suit brought after-the-fact and then argued. Skipping it... No. If "real danger Democracy can be lost" is your measuring stick, then whatever "Democracy" you have in charge is free to defend itself against any speech…

>I'm going to skip over defamation for now

Would child porn, trademarks, advertising regulation, nutrition labels, and threatening letters be more interesting examples?

> But because power corrupts, we cannot afford to give out the power to prevent speech because it is too easily abused.

Why can the same argument not be made for, say, food regulation? Or in most countries, for some weapons regulation. All of these could be easily abused to some very powerful, political ends, yet they very rarely, if ever, are. Most abuse of such laws actually comes from companies skirting them.

>the power to jail you for speaking counter to what it believes is right.

Nobody is arguing for that - that the government should be an arbiter of truth. Instead, the argument is that the principle of an absolute right - which cannot ever be overridden - is insufficiently justified. I have some scholarly work from philosophers of law cited in this comment if you're interested in this point of view: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23136757

Ultimately, I do agree with you - but not on the basis that free speech should supercede all other rights, but because the (capitalist) state cannot be trusted, and has a worse track record with censorship over other kinds of regulation. This is because I do not have faith in the populace to decide such regulation.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#877

Post by courtf »

ufmace wrote: post #726
forserious wrote: post #686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said this above. You are arguing in bad faith. "basically" is doing a lot of work in your argument. No one is compelled by this. It is clear that they are two completely separate events. One was dangerous. The other was not. Again, I'll say it directly to avoid confusion. You are arguing in bad faith.

You're right, the women's march protests were far more dangerous. At the recent "storming", all of the representatives were evacuated, and nobody was directly threatened. The one women who came a little too close to breaking into where some VIPs were was shot in the neck and died. Meanwhile, the media and law enforcement approved of the women's march protestors. They were free to roam around the capitol and physicall…

> nobody was directly threatened

next sentence:

> one women who came a little too close to breaking into where some VIPs were was shot in the neck and died

the shot heard round the trailer park!

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#878

Post by jtxxwl »

arolihas wrote: post #802
jtxxwl wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Their sources include the content of speeches made by the President of the United States, news anchors and journalists of conversatively-biased news, and perhaps most importantly, peers they trust liking and sharing those same speeches and articles with them as a stamp of acceptance. Their sources also include the statements and behaviors of news anchors and journalists and politicians and political activists and ot…

The onus is on your side to show how this election was stolen. All of your rhetoric about the left hating trump is not evidence of any fraud. One could’ve said the same things about Hillary Clinton in 2016, who’s been reviled by the right for decades.

Where the onus lies is dependent on who you are and what your goals are. If you occupy an elected office, and you want people to believe that you were elected legitimately, then the onus is on you to convince the people of that, if they are skeptical. The burden of proof is not on them to convince themselves that you were elected legitimately.

If you're arguing in a court case that the election was conducted illegitimately and should be overturned, then yes of course you are correct that the onus is on you to make your case, and there will be a somewhat high standard of evidence required.

If you're trying to convince some random person one way or another, then of course the onus is on you to provide arguments, and the standard of evidence is basically whatever can be convincing to your audience.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#879

Post by beerandt »

arolihas wrote: post #869
beerandt wrote: post #846

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elections are not criminal proceedings. Even civil suits only require a "preponderance of evidence." But elections are not court actions. The results (not the overturning ) of elections must be believed to be fair with almost certainly, especially by the losing side.

I know elections aren’t court proceedings. But if you believe the results are unfair, then you’re implying some crime took place, namely fraud. You can prove that in court with a preponderance of evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt, but Lin Wood and Rudy Giuliani haven’t managed to do either. > The results (not the overturning) of elections must be believed to be fair with almost certainly, especially by the losing…

That a crime occured does not require you to first convict a criminal.

And an election that was not properly conducted does not require that a crime be committed.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#880

Post by ng12 »

camel_Snake wrote: post #817
ng12 wrote: post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The protesters left peacefully after a few hours. The senate isn't holy ground, nor are the people inside it divine. They work for us, after all. All things considered the events left me pretty unscathed.

incompetence does not overwrite intent. They were gathered there and committed political violence for a specific reason - to halt the peaceful transfer of power to the next administration. And they left after a lockdown was already in-force and they were removed from the premises by force.

What was the intent? Do you know or are you assuming?

I think if their goal was to actually take control of the capitol things would have gone much differently. I find it hard to believe this was anything but a protest.

Post reply on HN