571–580 of 1001 posts
For the CIA, it's leftists and for DHS, it's people of color.
People on both sides will be labeled "domestic terrorists" when convenient.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Five years ago civil society was in general agreement that racism was bad and that we should respect the democratic process instead of seeking to violently overthrow it. Of course there were people who disagreed but they were at the margins and their voices were isolated to a few forums most people never heard of. A demagogue came along and used mass media platforms to destabilize the norms of civil society and give…
There is no going back. It is because the “winning” side is actively doing their best to demonize everyone who doesn’t fit into their mold. So much for reconciling differences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A large portion of extremists are not willing to discuss the results of the election even with other Republicans. People were calling Pence a traitor, boycotting Fox, etc. Those people are not willing to talk to or listen to anyone who's supposedly on their side but has a different opinion. What makes you think they will listen to the "other side"?
I understand what you're saying, but in my limited experience, it appears it isn't exactly what information is being presented so much as How it is presented. Often I see some with a differing opinion begin along the lines of: "You're an idiot Trumper, you're killing the planet!!" How about begin with a question to engage? For example: " why is it you think climate change doesn't exist? From the studies I've seen, I…
My example of climate change was merely a "for instance" rather than for the topic of the example to become part of the discussion.
Point being, silencing one side doesn't work if the alleged reason is their ideas are so wrong they are too dangerous to be read unless you can properly show what you claim is "right".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please remove the blinkers. Dozens of murderous world leaders that regularly espouse violence are still on Twitter but Trump is eliminated. BLM leaders who explicitly called for violence, arson and looting were never "fact-checked". Not until they started openly talking about murdering whites. Face it - this is because the Twitter CEO actively dislikes Trump and has little to do with any sort of violent speech.
Cite even one example of a BLM leader explicitly (or even implicitly) calling for violence, arson, and looting. Go ahead, I'll wait. You won't find anyone, because it didn't happen. OTOH, the Proud Boys did explicitly call for violence, arson, and looting during the BLM rights, and their leader admitted as much in a live television interview.
https://twitter.com/MarinaMedvin/status/1299930096472657920
https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-leader-if-change-doesnt-ha...
https://therightscoop.com/portland-black-lives-matter-leader...
Regarding whites should be "wiped out" https://www.dailywire.com/news/blm-leader-says-whites-sub-hu...
Black Lives Matter leader justifies rioting in interview with Tomi Lahren: https://www.foxnews.com/media/black-lives-matter-president-r...
“When the fires were burning, and people were chanting, I just felt liberated for a brief moment, and I felt for one of the only times in my life that the government had no control over me," said Newsome.
Now replace Newsome by a Trump supporter. Suddenly it needs "suppression".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I very rarely hear this hope expressed and I struggle to believe it—can you elaborate?
I don't doubt that so many people on the right are hurting. Their constant accusations of being called the "fly-over states" is totally true. There is endless rural decay, industry is gone. When life is difficult like that, it is very easy to pine for a time gone past when things were better. But now it's gotten so bad that people are desperate. COVID-19 has made it much worse, and people don't want to follow restric…
Someone brought an interesting perspective in another thread and I can't shake it off. The other side keeps deplatforming them. Their legal cases are rejected. The mainstream media refuses to take them seriously. We're not even listening to them, because it's science and they're *ists if they disagree. We're not debating anymore. We just assume we're right. We are slowly squeezing a significant segment of the populat…
What is “the other route”? They are being deplatformed because their speech is violent and damaging—in many cases it’s literal incitement to violence. Their legal cases are being rejected because they have no legal merit. The mainstream media refuse to take them seriously because they have again and again shown themselves to be bad faith actors, peddlers of unsubstantiated conspiracy, outright liars, and so on. I don…
5 people died. 50 officers were wounded, some seriously enough that they are still in the hospital.
Multiple protestors had zip ties and other means of restraint on them, knives, and guns, and on their social media profiles were promoting violence against legislators.
This wasn't protesting. It was terrorism. And these terrorist attacks were organized and coordinated on Parler and other social media.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/capitol-rio...
Someone brought an interesting perspective in another thread and I can't shake it off. The other side keeps deplatforming them. Their legal cases are rejected. The mainstream media refuses to take them seriously. We're not even listening to them, because it's science and they're *ists if they disagree. We're not debating anymore. We just assume we're right. We are slowly squeezing a significant segment of the populat…
The media reports on facts, with proof, because their reputation sort of hinges on it. Retractions don't make them look good. These people don't live in the realm of facts. So the best that can be done for them is to print their opinion with the actual evidence next to it. It's not the medias fault if that evidence totally disproves whatever they thought.
Someone brought an interesting perspective in another thread and I can't shake it off. The other side keeps deplatforming them. Their legal cases are rejected. The mainstream media refuses to take them seriously. We're not even listening to them, because it's science and they're *ists if they disagree. We're not debating anymore. We just assume we're right. We are slowly squeezing a significant segment of the populat…
De-platforming extremists is not the same as limiting dialogue or public debate.
I think of it like this - the crazy person on the street corner yelling at everyone that the world is going to end for years on end is not taken seriously be anyone. They could be right, sure, but that's not really a conversation worth engaging in.
These sites are full of users who are shouting crazy conspiracy theories and promoting them like crazy. The worst of them are grifting, and lots of them are victims of human psychology and circumstance.
I haven't seen any reasonable take from one of these communities be discarded or ignored. A lot of the issue comes down to how the reasonable ideas are mixed with the toxic ones.
At some point it's just toxic, though. How many lawsuits are required to show the election was legitimate? There have been so many already. How many claims of voter fraud have to be investigated, when each new claim isn't real? How many times does congress need to investigate Hillary's emails?
For the people in these communities it seems as though the only outcome they will except is the one they have predetermined. Along the way they will kill people, commit acts of sedition and treason, send bombs to democratically elected officials, and more.
There is no reason to continue debating with them. The debates on those issues are over. When a petulant child argues with you about the color of the sky, how long do you entertain their claim that it's red, not blue?
Furthermore, there are plenty of outlets for civil discourse all over the internet and other mediums. Why should we be upset when these private companies remove these toxic groups from their platforms? It's not like the platforms want less users. They want a stable country of laws, which the groups on these platforms are trying (intentionally or otherwise) to undermine.
At some point the adults in the room need to say "enough." That's what is happening now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, that is what reddit, twitter and Hacker News reinforce constantly. It's either because it's true, or because the other side has been repeatedly discouraged from adding their two cents in those communities. I've been seeing the world through this lens for so long that I can't tell. I find it somewhat implausible that half the population is dumb, racist and all those other labels. It seems much more likely that I…
I appreciate your honesty and I will attempt to explain, briefly, so you might understand better. 1. Most people on the right are against abortion for the reason that it is against their particular religion, which declares it as murder and murder is wrong. But, the others don't care at all about a woman's right to choose, they just don't want their tax dollars paying for that choice instead of other things they want.…
At a certain point, just take the hit. I’m sorry, but one side has more moral politics than the other. I don’t see how this is a debate at this point, and I’m honestly frustrated that people like you keep asking us to have the debate. If anything, it’s the right that keeps crying that they’ve been deplatformed when they’re doing it to themselves by having horrific opinions.
AND the right doesn’t even argue in good faith! Like they just make stuff up. For instance, about ANTIFA being behind the attempted coup on Wednesday. You want us to argue with that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s slightly more complicated than that. First, the position of the plaintiffs of those cases is that the actions of the “other half” have effectively disenfranchised them. If disenfranchisement is the issue at hand, it follows that one should investigate when someone claims to have been disenfranchised. Second, every case that I’ve followed up on has been denied on the grounds of standing. My understanding is that…
There is no evidence.