621–630 of 1001 posts
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…
> 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.
> 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.
I would be very careful. There needs to be just the right amount of punishment. The goal is to get on board those who voted for Trump yet do not support the storming of the Capitol.
> 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.
Rhetoric like this is why they stormed the capitol.
There are a lot of people hurting in America. It’s a terrible precedent to prioritise people threatening insurrection.
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…
Everyone reads Trump's nonsense. There's an exponential dropoff in the count of people who read replies.
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…
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 it will have some negative 2nd/3rd order effects. that they haven't yet realized. This is correct. The type of person that stormed the capitol will perceive this as an escalation. I’m sure that’s not what we need, but I’m also sure that there is no good way out of this mess.
One can argue that this type of person would potentially perceive any action (or inaction) as an escalation. That doesn't mean that action shouldn't be taken.
But now with an election legitimacy challenge in their home country, from a group considered as "fringe" by the dominant political and media establishment, they would not only NOT enable the protests, but they would act as the censors and suppressor of that protests.
So if inciting "anarchy and riots" is bad here, why it is good elsewhere? And if supporting "right of the people to protest" against the whole system and its legitimacy is good elsewhere, why is it bad here???
We don’t have to imagine. #BLM incited many riots which killed many people, what action did Twitter take there?
It is accurate to say BLM incited riots? I'll counter with this: BLM organized protests which were peaceful and then bad actors incited riots. What happened on the Capitol was not peaceful from the outset--people came up, climbed the wall, broke through the entryway, took a podium, etc.--they started it.
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 hate to be the one to say this but political motivated violence will be on the rise sharply.