The man just incited an insurrection against Congress. This wasn't a hard decision.
Apparently it was a hard decision cause they only suspended him for 12 hours initially.
Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
501–510 of 1001 posts
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#502Yes, I think this is actually it. After he basically commanded them to "Stop the Steal", I said that Facebook and Twitter would ban him. I also said that nuclear war was also on the table. If he is so unAmerican that he would actually tell his mob to attack the Capitol buildings, he really doesn't care about America at all. Being as petulant as he is, nuclear war is very much on the table. That's how crazy this situa…
> I also said that nuclear war was also on the table. I think since he cowered so hard during his concession, he's done playing tough guy. He'll hand out medals and pardons and then run away. I can't believe how much like "Animal Farm" this whole thing played out. Almost verbatim with the constant attempts to scapegoat Snowball/Antifa. Although given that 80% of republicans think the election was stolen (and 40% of t…
I keep saying, Trump is not the problem, he is the symptom.
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#503Is it just my perception, or is their actual justification using the 2 quoted tweets kinda weak? Interpreting his boycott of an event as a call to violence seems like a huge stretch. It seems like they wanted to shoehorn a justification using his 2 latest tweets when the actual reason goes back further.
No, those are what reality-based analysis looks like. You don't just pretend your principles control the world, you look at the way the world actually works. Words are never in a vacuum. The way they are interpreted matters. And it's false to claim you can't control how people are going to interpret what you say. Especially not when you've spent years training particular subgroups to interpret things exactly the way…
A devout pro-life person could use this exact justification to claim pro-choice people are promoting baby killing.
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#504This has been an embarrassing incident to those in power because it made them look weak. But calling a populist movement with millions of supporters, terrorists is very short sighted. It will only accelerate the fire. The left soon will control all three branches of government, after an election that many people question, has been simultaneously advocating for censorship of its political adversaries, more draconian c…
What part of attempting to block a Constitutionally mandated process through the use of force is not a terrorist act?
What's the line between a protest and terrorism?
As far as I can tell based on the 24 hour news cycle it's whether you personally agree with the protestors/terrorists.
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#505[deleted]
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#506Does anybody have a solution to the bigger underlying question of de-platforming and censorship on online platforms? As far as I can tell, there are two general viewpoints: a) Censorship is bad, free speech is good. You should counter bad arguments with better arguments. b) There are types of speech, which are proven to lead to violence in the long-run. Also, some things can be proven as untrue. Lies are bad. I have…
in response to (a). I think too much censorship is bad, but there is some amount of censorship in every country in the world.
We do censor speech in the USA. IMO we could go a little further without being at all "Orwellian".
Many countries with very high levels of freedom from government intervention and freedom to vote and express themselves (mostly in Europe) have much stricter views on what constitutes speech that should be censored around hate speech and overly nationalistic speech.
FWIW, while many of those countries take a stricter stance on hate speech, most of them also have a much _less_ strict stance than the USA on other forms of free expression, like nudity and swear words.
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#507Is it just my perception, or is their actual justification using the 2 quoted tweets kinda weak? Interpreting his boycott of an event as a call to violence seems like a huge stretch. It seems like they wanted to shoehorn a justification using his 2 latest tweets when the actual reason goes back further.
The two quoted tweets are - quite reasonably - being parsed in the context of related social media activity elsewhere, some of which is far more worrying.
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#508I am loving people who don't understand that they are literally supporting billionaires while claiming to be anti-corporate resistance. Definition of Liberal used to be: "Willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas. Relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise." I am still a…
>I am loving people who don't understand that they are literally supporting billionaires while claiming to be anti-corporate resistance.
The billionaire in question is Trump, isn't it?
>Definition of Liberal used to be: "Willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas. Relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise."
Well this just comes back to the paradox of tolerance. I consider myself a liberal (in the British or non-American sense) and in my opinion fascism should not be tolerated.
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#509Yes, I think this is actually it. After he basically commanded them to "Stop the Steal", I said that Facebook and Twitter would ban him. I also said that nuclear war was also on the table. If he is so unAmerican that he would actually tell his mob to attack the Capitol buildings, he really doesn't care about America at all. Being as petulant as he is, nuclear war is very much on the table. That's how crazy this situa…
I don't think the term "unamerican" should be used seriously. It has no strict definition and is often used to encourage an "Us vs Them" mentality and brings to mind the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. I believe tribalism is a vestigial trait most harmful to modern humanity and it should be discouraged whenever possible. We have changed our environment faster than evolution can keep up, so we are going to have to use our…
I am a Brit, but respect the usage of "unAmerican". To me, the equivalents on this side of the pond are expressions such as, "That's just not cricket", or, "Do have a care", or "Steady on, now."
These are idioms that express a culture, they are not intended to define rigidly some rules, but rather express a sentiment about shared and almost undefinable values.
Re: Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump
#510This ban seems to heavily take advantage of the current moment, as it's obvious that he has tweeted worse things in the past. It's strange that they picked such a poor way to justify the ban when they could have made a significantly stronger case, and in doing so could have convinced millions more people that they are trying their best to apply policies evenly. For example, I have a hard time imagining why they chose…
The environment has changed. Previously theoretic risks are now manifest, demonstrated, and cognizable. Actual riots, insurrection, disruption of government, assaults on law enforcement, damage to government buildings, theft of government property, violence, and deaths, have occurred. The instigator is unrepentent and non-credible in what are at best tepid disavowals. The totality of context has changed. If "he has t…
I agree with the action and disagree with their justification.
Because of the weakness of their justification, this could be further gasoline on the fire for his 74 million supporters. I frequently find myself having to argue with said supporters, and I can't argue that this justification makes sense other than to say... well they should have banned him before hand.
It feels like they were looking for almost anything remotely shitty that Trump said to ban him. More specifically, they are looking for a reason to ban him based on saying anything not in support of the next administration, because of his supporters storming the capital. I can see the chain of logic here, I just think it's a little weak and being selectively enforced.
Edited: to make more sense hopefully.