581–590 of 1001 posts
> The type of person that stormed the capitol will perceive this as an escalation. Who cares? The type of person that stormed the Capitol has shown they are impervious to reality. Time to stop the appeasement.
This 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…
I think the logic isn't that hard. Person says bad things to whip up a mob - Twitter unsure to take him seriously or literally. Mob actually materializes and several people die - Twitter sure they now have to take him literally
Angry groups of protesters and resulting deaths are not a thing that started happening this week. Twitter are pathetic and have taken a stand once the writing was on the wall.
This 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…
[flagged]
Does 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 any other instance, censorship should be (is?) inconstitutional.
This 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…
I do, though, flinch at your use of language when you refer in the second paragraph to "the left", as if it is some rigidly defined thing or set of attitudes. That seems to me like a set-up for binary politics; an us or them thing.
My active involvement with political things has always been issue-based, often to do with local affairs - roads, planning, preservation or redevelopment of areas/historic buildings. These things have never been, at local level, "left or right", and I have found such labels, especially when applied before the subjects have been discussed/examined, to be unhelpful.
FWIW, I prefer issues to be debated on merit, rather than their labelling broadly as left or right, and this is largely because of experience of such debates at the local level - where it really does matter to people.
edited for a typo - correcting "beenn" to "beem". More may follow.
Does 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…
> You should counter bad arguments with better arguments We've witnessed the fallacy of this argument. It assumes a level of rationality that has been proven to be unreasonable to assume. The problem isn't that "better" arguments aren't reaching people. Rather, we have watched people exercise an incredible ability to discard overwhelming evidence and embrace narratives that have literally zero evidence to support the…
Freedom of speech exists to protect the rights of minorities: the opinions of the majority are tautologically safe to speak. It's unpopular opinions which need protection, and nothing is more unpopular than an inconvenient truth.
I find This whole "incitement to violence is bad" thing to be nonsensical. Political speech is practically always incitement to violence: According to Weber, the state is a "human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory." [1] And political discussions are about what the state should do (executive decisions, laws, etc), that is, in which cases…
Yes, but also for a somewhat different reason than you give.
What happens when a party gets elected, has control all the levers of government for the next four years, and enacts a law that some people object to? Well, the objectors may march around the legislature chanting "we won't stand for this!". What could they mean, since they have no power to do anything until at least the next election?
Such protests happen frequently, by people of all ideologies. Implicit in these protests is the idea that even when a party has control of all parts of government, they still are sensitive to public opinion, just as absolute monarchs are, since there is always the possibility that the people will revolt - either violently, or by lower-level forms of civil disobedience.
One major justification for democracy is that it minimizes the chance of civil war, by having the election result mimic the result of a civil war (in which numbers on each side presumably count for a lot), at far less cost. But sensible democratically-elected leaders realize that an election victory does not perfectly mimic the result of civil war (or of less violent forms of struggle), and that even if it did, it may be that their opponents will not judge their chances of success realistically.