Earlier quoted context omitted.
4 people died.
An unarmed protester was gunned down by police.
[deleted]
Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”
911–920 of 1001 posts
Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”
#912Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Whatever they call it, this is censorship. By definition it is not. Only governments can censor. This is just a private entity making a decision. You have the right to say what you want, but I don't have to let you into my living room to say it.
Not true at all. Censorship is any type of redaction or restriction, no matter who performs it. You are confusing censorship with a breach of the first amendment.
"Censorship" comes from the roman word, censor, which was an office of the Roman government in charge of regulating morality.
IOW, censorship has always specifically meant government restrictions speech. It is only recently that censorship has been broadened to include no-governmental actors, and that broadening is not universally accepted.
Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”
#913Earlier quoted context omitted.
Urging supporters to go to the capital “peacefully” using that explicit qualifier. You still have a point, but be transparent about it.
Just because he followed up with "peacefully" later doesn't negate him saying 'fight like hell'. I mean, most of the problematic things Trump has said have been followed/preceded by things intended to make them look less problematic. I wasn't intentionally leaving anything out though, I took that quote directly from the Times.
The Times intentionally left that out. Notwithstanding earlier inflammatory language, this is the exact quote:
“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today.”
You may believe that the word “patriotically” was a dog-whistle, but none of the headlines characterized the statement correctly.
Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”
#914Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”
#915Earlier quoted context omitted.
Deplatforming works. A few people follow to other sites, but most don't. It also becomes harder to attract new cultists if one is shut out of major services. https://gnet-research.org/2020/05/11/weighing-the-value-and-...
If Deplatforming works, I can't wait for the right to start deplatforming leftists!
[deleted]
Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”
#916The way people blindly defend this simplified notion of Free Speech makes it seem as though they believe it is some kind of universally guaranteed right that is like a law of physics. No, we enjoy this luxury of debating the ethics of free speech because we live in a society that permits it. Right now, that society faces an imminent threat from violent insurrectionists. We need to prevent them from organizing and car…
I appreciate your point and I don’t have anything to add to the conversation but your italics comes across as condescending.
Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”
#917Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
[deleted]
Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”
#918Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it seems the seditionists in congress who are also still claiming voter fraud without evidence (like Cruz or Hawley) just want to keep the Trump base very very pissed off, and very very motivated. Or they want to keep the crazies on their side, rather than being turned on suddenly the way the insufficiently strident (e.g.,.most visibly recently, Pence) have often been. Still had the effect of contributing to radica…
A lot can happen in 4 years time for an obese elderly man with a history of heart problems, a covid-19 infection, a terrible diet, and a very stressful travel schedule. The odds that Donny dies of natural causes before 2024 are not nothing. Trying to position yourself as the inheritor of his base is a savvy political move (despite my personal horror at such a callous idea).
If he's impeached and convicted he's prohibited from holding office again.
Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”
#919Earlier quoted context omitted.
Approximately 22% of the USA voted for Trump this election.
voter turnout * share = .667 * .469 = 0.312823 or did you count in people not eligible to vote? like kids and foreigners?
Yes, they said "1/2 of America" so I replied with the actual percentage of "America".
Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”
#920Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
No. When it comes to elections, the burden of proof should always be on those conducting the election that it was done fairly and transparently. Especially if rules weren't followed to the letter of the law. Moreso where procedures were changed by someone other than the legislature.
So, you're asking your opponents to prove a negative. That's not how election law (or common sense) works. You want to contest the result, it's up to you to provide the evidence strong enough to uphold your objections.