291–300 of 366 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of those phrases is told to groups of people that regularly worships guns in public. The other is not. Context counts for a lot.
One of those communications is aimed at people that regularly riot. Context counts for a lot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you and responders have missed is the 1st Amendment is totally and entirely inapplicable to Twitter. There is a misunderstanding here of the Amendment. It only applies to federal, state, and local government actors. This is a broad category that includes not only lawmakers and elected officials, but also public schools and universities, courts, and police officers. It does not include private citizens, businesse…
Belief in free speech is an ideology. The US Constitution's first amendment is a restriction against the US government in passing laws restricting speech. The two are not the same thing.
There is nothing more tyrannical than restricting speech, which is something the Founders recognized quite well, given their own situation with the English king as well as that of their recent ancestors fleeing their European homelands for a new, tough land half a world away - it was worth the travail/travel (same root word) for that freedom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But then the entire business model becomes even less viable than it already is. Twitter and other social media have to rely on outsourced overworked and underpaid reviewers who will never have the time or training understand context (regularly receiving veiled threats[1] and not having anyone act on them made me quit twitter) and make thousands of decisions per hour. It doesn't scale any other way. [1]: https://www.u…
How does that relate to having a small subset of users to whom the rules don't apply?
In my experience, Twitter is indiscriminately bad at being consistent with bans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Belief in free speech is an ideology. The US Constitution's first amendment is a restriction against the US government in passing laws restricting speech. The two are not the same thing.
Belief in free speech is a fundamental prerequisite to free thought. We express all critical thinking in words - if that speech cannot be shared, then neither can the ideas. There is nothing more tyrannical than restricting speech, which is something the Founders recognized quite well, given their own situation with the English king as well as that of their recent ancestors fleeing their European homelands for a new,…
Earlier 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.
Actually, this rule, the so-called "Biden Rule" was created by Joe Biden in 1992 in explaining his refusal to "confirm any election-year Bush nominees leaned explicitly on the different standards applicable to divided government" [1]
> Were there a vacancy, Biden argued, Bush should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.” U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP) [2]
> “Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself,” he continued. “Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.” [2]
[1] https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-sid...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joe-biden-in-1992-no...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 anta…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The missing call logs say everything here don't they? To be on the phone with the police or national guard isn't going to happen on Signal.
The lack of proof is now considered proof?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
SCOTUS is not the only mechanism for preserving rights. We also have state constitutions, elected representatives, etc., and it seems like those are also (mostly) doing their part to protect bodily autonomy.
With a strong enough mandate, there could also be federal laws.
But we are in a country where not everyone agrees and the text is ambiguous, so I don't really know what you expect to happen that would be in line with democratic principles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They problem is that Trump also said he wanted the protestors to be peaceful. We don't know what he intended. For you to pretend you do is nonsense. Now, where Trump is guilt is his actions after the events started. He should have within minutes been calling for it to stop and doing all he could to get police or national guard there to help. This is where I wish the impeachment investigation would have gone, sadly th…
The missing call logs say everything here don't they? To be on the phone with the police or national guard isn't going to happen on Signal.
See: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/10/us/politics/jan-6-trump-c...
> Investigators have not uncovered evidence that any official records were tampered with or deleted, and it is well known that Mr. Trump routinely used his personal cellphone, and those of his aides, to talk with other aides, congressional allies and outside confidants, bypassing the normal channels of presidential communication.
So the J6 committee just hasnt' gotten his personal phone records yet, they only had the official Whitehouse call-logs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Removing him only removed him from your conversation. He is not silenced. Same with banning the Trump reddit forums, what this achieved was to shift them to their own platform where they, no longer hear opposing views or being challenged. And to me it seems worse than ever in their views and speech, shockingly though sometimes. Using something like the Paradox of tolerance logic is dangerous itself. People love to fi…
> Same with banning the Trump reddit forums, what this achieved was to shift them to their own platform where they, no longer hear opposing views or being challenged. And to me it seems worse than ever in their views and speech, shockingly though sometimes. There is another aspect to this - the benefit to the rest of the world from not being derailed by memetic diarrhea. Trumpism absolutely paralyzed the mainstream d…