Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump” • Hacker News Board

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#931

Post by mam2 » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 1:14 AM UTC

Traster wrote: post #51

slg wrote: post #13

The cynic in me can't help but notice that all these platforms are suddenly growing a backbone now that we know Democrats will control both the executive and legislative branches.

I think it's impossible to say. The fact that the capitol got stormed the same day as the democrats won control means it's impossible to disaggregate. It might be a cynical move by Facebook but is it also a cynical move by Betsy Devos? What difference did democrat control make to her?

>> i think its impossible to say.

Lol

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#932

Post by arolihas » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 1:20 AM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #920

beerandt wrote: post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s not even how any knowledge in the real world works! These people frustrate me to no end.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#933

Post by arolihas » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 1:24 AM UTC

jtxxwl wrote: post #929

arolihas wrote: post #900

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So literally nothing can change your mind at this point unless the results happened to show trump won, got it.

If we agree to flip a coin for $20, and you obstruct my view while you're tossing the coin, you can be sure you're not going to get my $20 no matter what you say afterward, unless you have earned quite a lot of my trust beforehand. Of course if it comes up the right way for me, I will be happy to take your money. Do you think that's unreasonable? There is far too much opportunity for the election workers to cheat for…

So you think hundreds of thousands of ballots were out of view and somehow swapped with fake ballots giving Biden the win during the counting process. And that this coordinated fraud got past everybody because an election official was watching from too far away, say 20 feet instead of 6 feet. And no hard evidence of this conspiracy anywhere exists, but it totally happened. Is this your position?

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#934

Post by Tokkemon » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 1:26 AM UTC

viridian wrote: post #874

Tokkemon wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The symbolism is what's important. This building, the largest and tallest and most ornate of all the government buildings in DC, is the beating heart of the US government. To take it over is to strike at the very heart of the government, and to have one branch taken over by instigation by the other branch, it is horrific. Because the consequences are a collapse of this society. With no functioning US Government, the United States cease to be united. It's an existential symbol, and that's why terrorists attempted to target it on 9/11 and why terrorists targeted it this week.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#935

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 1:26 AM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #918

Balgair wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> If he's impeached and convicted he's prohibited from holding office again.

Technically, that's not necessarily true: if he is convicted the punishment can consist of any combination of removal and bar from holding future office. In theory, he could be removed but not barred on conviction, though that seems improbable and, AFAIK, every actual conviction in an impeachment trial (most such trials have been of federal judges) has resulted in both removal and bar.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#936

Post by Tokkemon » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 1:28 AM UTC

MarcellusDrum wrote: post #886

Tokkemon wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally, yes, it has on the whole.

Less right-wing extreme, yes, but it is not filled with left-wing extremists. As someone that has literally never been in the US and consider himself very left-leaning, the leftist echo chamber that reddit has become disgusts me. Posts that just say "Trump should be impeached" gets literally 50k+ upvotes. Any attempt to show any wrongdoing by a Dem gets downvoted and banned.

You're not wrong. Fortunately, left-leaning circle jerks rarely kill people or incite violence so I think society tolerates them much more. It's not like the USA has a real violent left-wing like there would be in the communist revolutions of yore.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#937

Post by lenkite » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 1:34 AM UTC

Balgair wrote: post #453

dragonwriter wrote: post #363

Earlier 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).

I suspect Kamala Harris will likely be the President starting from 2022 and till 2029.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#938

Post by minikites » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 1:40 AM UTC

minikites wrote: post #847

throwaway45349 wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is not enough people in the world to moderate social media.

Then it shouldn't exist in this form. Either create a social network structured in such a way that it can be moderated (not my job to figure how) or make them illegal.

I realize I probably didn't make this clear, I don't want to ban user-generated content from the internet, merely that you need to show some proactive moderation and that there needs to be meaningful consequences for inaction. Hate speech is not the same as free speech and these are private services that should be held to a minimum standard in the same way restaurants have to pass a health inspection.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#939

Post by snowflake_ptr » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 2:17 AM UTC

vsssk wrote: post #809

snowflake_ptr wrote: post #764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter whether the containers were "hidden" or not as long as they were counted without observers present. This is pedantry to the point of intentionally avoiding the point. You didn't read the other sources I linked, which contain sworn statements from two observers, as well as articles published by several news stations stating that observers (and news) were told to go home because they were done for the…

> It doesn't matter whether the containers were "hidden" Then don't write hidden? Just write 'ballots'. Or write 'ballots that were sealed because the counting stopped, but then re-opened when the counting resumed'. > You didn't read the other sources I linked, which contain sworn statements from two observers, as well as articles published by several news stations stating that observers (and news) were told to go ho…

> The source that you cited contradicted your claim of 'hidden ballots'. You are a liar.

This is false. You need to also look up the definition of "liar" - it exclusively refers to intentional deception. I did not intentionally deceive you - I just thought that they were hidden when they were not.

You're zero for two while acting in the most malicious way possible. Perhaps try taking a step back and not only looking up words before you use them, but stop assuming the worst about people who disagree with you.

Re: Reddit bans subreddit group “r/DonaldTrump”

#940

Post by jtxxwl » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 2:19 AM UTC

arolihas wrote: post #901

jtxxwl wrote: post #897

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I were arguing in court, you would be absolutely right. The only thing you are missing is this pesky little thing called me arguing in court. I don't have any reason to believe it would be possible to prove in a court that election fraud took place at this point, outside of confessions. That doesn't mean it didn't take place, or that it isn't reasonable to believe it took place.

It turns out there are places outside of court that care about actual evidence. Like in science, history, or reputable journalism. I know you don’t care about that though, so I wish you good luck in life.

I listed clear, undisputed evidence that the local election officials and workers had the means, motive, and opportunity to cheat in the election. While it is not a smoking gun, it definitively establishes that the known facts are consistent with the assertion, and it is relevant to any honest treatment of the topic.

Honest historians and journalists would note that it's completely plausible and reasonable to believe that substantial election fraud occurred, even if it could not be proven sufficiently in court to nullify the results. If they were honest in covering the election, they would not force the words "no evidence" or "without evidence" into every sentence, as though a smoking gun is the only good reason to believe anyone has ever done anything.