Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
[flagged]
No post body was provided.
Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban
281–290 of 366 posts
Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Weird. Members of The Proud Boys (in fact, people they publicly list as their leadership) have been arrested multiple times in my town for drawing weapons (paintbull guns, pepper spray, baseball bats, guns) at protests, firing shots at protests, shooting people at protests. Don't go on about Antifa as some armed organized group and act like the Proud Boys are "just a bunch of friends disappointed in the direction of…
No post body was provided.
Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
He didn't pack the court. He got 3 judges in 4 years because he was lucky. * One because the elected Republicans fought to deny Obama the nomination * One because an existing Republican judge died * And one because a Democratic judge was selfish enough to not quit ahead despite first having cancer in 1999.
> * One because an existing Republican judge died retired
I believe they were referring to Scalia who died.
Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The women of his country already saw what one term of Trump did to the rights they thought they had." I see very little connection between anything that might be deemed "unacceptable" speech by Trump and the imminent overturn of Roe . Other than the fact that he got elected.
That's kind of how it works, though, innit: wannabe autocrat demagogue gets a bullhorn, uses it to leverage power via populist rhetoric, then shoves activist justices onto the bench — who, surprise, do their activist thing... That's the "very little connection" you're missing.
No post body was provided.
Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban
#285Is there just a different set of free speech rules for the rich and powerful? If I incited violence on the platform, I doubt Elon or Dorsey would be letting me come back after a ban.
If anything, the stand for speech went the opposite direction in this case.
“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”
Compare this "incitement to violence" against public posts calling for assassination of trump which were neither removed or resulted in bans.
Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just as Dorsey was influenced by that abstract force you mention as 'illiberal consensus' because of fear of different factors (political, employee/stakeholders, financial consequences). Dorsey is now influenced by the likely new owner of Twitter because of fear of different factors (stakeholders, financial consequences), he wants the deal to go through he will not go on the record and contradict the person he is sel…
> Dorsey is now influenced by the likely new owner of Twitter because of fear of different factors (stakeholders, financial consequences), he wants the deal to go through he will not go on the record and contradict the person he is selling to. I don't know if you did this intentionally, but there's some rhetorical sleight-of-hand here that prevents it from cohering logically. This isn't a case of "not contradicting"…
I meant to say this:
- Back then Jack, active CEO, enacted this ban.
- Now Musk goes out and says he would revert.
- Even in the wild case (I personally think it is not the case) which Jack fervently would still believe that the ban should go on, why do it? why add drama to a business deal and say "no, Musk is wrong"? that would just sour the whole business deal that he would benefit from. Or why would anyone be antagonistic to someone on the other side of the table, this applies to any other business deal not just this.
- Reporters or anybody would naturally question Jack, hey the new owner is saying this do you want to go on the record about why the new owner is against something that happened on your command? Paraphrasing: "Yes, I agree with him now, lets move on". Very diplomatic and 'correct' answer from his part.
Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once again... Where did I say that Twitter doesn't have that right?
> If you believe in free speech you should have absolutely condemned Twitter You advocated condemning Twitter for exercising their free speech rights. But you're right I missed the first part of your comment where you acknowledged Twitter had the right to ban anyone based on their speech.
No post body was provided.
Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
His entire platform was "say shit to piss people off." It's what got him elected, and what allowed him to pack SCOTUS. That's not even hyperbole, their campaign tried very hard to replicate this success in 2020.
He didn't pack the court. He got 3 judges in 4 years because he was lucky. * One because the elected Republicans fought to deny Obama the nomination * One because an existing Republican judge died * And one because a Democratic judge was selfish enough to not quit ahead despite first having cancer in 1999.
You've missed out Kennedy (strategically retired) and counted Scalia twice (died during Obama's term.) Kennedy wasn't anything to do with "luck" and I'd dispute that Scalia was either - he could probably have died a year earlier and McConnell would still have blocked the seat.
Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban
#289Earlier quoted context omitted.
His entire platform was "say shit to piss people off." It's what got him elected, and what allowed him to pack SCOTUS. That's not even hyperbole, their campaign tried very hard to replicate this success in 2020.
OK, that's more indirect than I understood the point to be: you're saying that he used unacceptable speech to get elected, and that resulted in the imminent overturn of Roe . I have to say that I'm very uncomfortable limiting any kind of speech on the grounds that it may get the wrong person elected. If someone says something hateful and gets elected, that's just one of the flaws of democracy. But I haven't heard of…
> the Constitution is certainly not clear on the point. So even though I don't want Roe overturned, it's basically the system working as designed.
Anything that's not clear in the Constitution is fair game, then?
Re: Jack Dorsey says he agrees with reversing Trump's Twitter ban
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
Context matters. The LGBTQ+ community is not known for having weapons and for bringing those to the table during debates. It is not known for committing violence either. This contrasts severely with the crowd that Trump was addressing at the time. Their spaces were filled with calls to weaponization, civil wars and conspiracies against the system itself. The messages were written after people had made threats and ref…
When we're talking about bans on social media, context doesn't matter. How many stories have you read of someone trying to argue and explain context to overturn a ban, only to have the appeal rejected? (And if it is overturned, it's only because strings were pulled.) When someone gets banned, a reason might be given, but context never is.
If I have a weapon in my hand and yell "I will kill you" at someone, this is a threat.
If I you give me a teddy bear with a pun that I hate on it and I tell you "I will kill you" with a smile on my face, that's not a threat.
It depends on the context.
The first person would go to jail. The second person would not.
Analyzing the context of any situation is why we have a legal system with judges and juries.