331–340 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True enough. I voted for "not Trump." That just happened to be spelled "Biden" on the ballot. :/
In the same way, in 2016 a lot of people voted for "not-Clinton".
Never heard of him (I'm from Europe and generally uninterested in politics), now I'm really curious about what did he actually say in his podcast and in fact am listening to it already. I seriously wonder how much generally pro-dem or apolitical people are going to find themselves Trump-curious or even Trump-sympathizing after all these bans and removals. I have almost no doubt there is going to be such effect, the o…
I read things like this and it really makes me sad. I don’t agree with Steve Bannon or Rudy Giuliani on a lot of things. I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left. In fact I am skeptical of most “career politicians”. I really wish we could switch what politics is about. Currently we (meaning news channels and Twitter/internet folk) want to dunk on the other tribe and show them how wrong and stupid t…
> I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left. Just out of curiosity who is their equivalent person on the left? > Can’t we all try to find consensus and compromise? What consensus and compromise do you want when the President of the US wants to "find" the votes or when calls the rioters good people and we love you?
I remember the internet at the time used to feel like there were tons of Truthers that would argue and argue on all sorts of forums. Where did all those people go anyway?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but this one wasn’t about telling your partner they look good in that shirt. We are talking about rhetoric that lead to an insurrection on the Capitol and the death of 5 Americans. I don’t quite understand why every one of these events devolve into high reductive free speech or slippery slope arguments. What is going to take for the people start accepting some personal responsibility? From where I sit I see a gr…
> Rhetoric that led to an insurrection... A situation that some term an 'insurrection' and others term a 'riot'. Trouble is, who's right? Who has the authority to make an objective claim on this? For half-a-year before last week, those on the other side (the so-called insurrectionists and insurrectionist-adjacent) claimed that situations like the Minneapolis protests, the CHAZ, the Portland protests, the Chicago prot…
Some cops, *white* cops, felt unthreatened. Black cops describe being called the N word fifteen times, and breaking down crying from the stress after the building had been secured [1]. One officer KILLED HIMSELF after surviving this riot [2].
[1] https://nypost.com/2021/01/10/black-capitol-police-officers-...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/liebengoo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Protesting racial injustice (peacefully) is absolutely required. Claiming such protests are "violent mobs" is nothing new: https://twitter.com/BerniceKing/status/1300196044693741574/p... Also note that some of the violence was instigated by the police: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/26/opinion/blm-p... OTOH mobs in DC, Michigan were motivated by "masks=slavery" & "election fraud" both of which are comple…
Protesting electoral fraud is also absolutely required, even if I am extremely extremely sceptical that it actually happened. Some of the protests that happened in the civil rights movement were indeed violent although this has been rather aggressively whitewashed in government approved public school classes meant to teach students the way to affect real change is to stand around with signs and sing songs and have ra…
Lies and fraud implies bad faith, riots and coup being end goal.
The intent is different, so it is false equivalence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Research actually backs up that deplatforming does reduce audience sizes for an outlet. Which makes sense of you believe that some listeners will simply not have the interest in jumping over to a new platform. Repeat several times and with every platform shift the audience reduces.
I can see the benefit of deplatforming, but I don't see what the benefit of the AWS ban would be. There are plenty of cloud service providers out there, so little more than a temporary inconvenience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you considered that it's not brigading, but a broad swathe of unrelated people genuinely feeling a certain way?
A broad swathe of unrelated people systematically manipulated into feeling a certain way. This has been going on since Bush 2.0's 8 years of assault on the truth.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/twitter-bans-former-trump-advi...
We should stop pretending like this is about conservative ideology, it’s about creating an environment for violence with lies and repeated calls for violence coming from Trump associates. Nobody is calling for the deplatforming of John Kasich or Mitt Romney.
I read things like this and it really makes me sad. I don’t agree with Steve Bannon or Rudy Giuliani on a lot of things. I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left. In fact I am skeptical of most “career politicians”. I really wish we could switch what politics is about. Currently we (meaning news channels and Twitter/internet folk) want to dunk on the other tribe and show them how wrong and stupid t…
As an EU citizen, I feel this is pretty much a no-brainer. Politics based on compromises between parties, rather than single-party majorities, slows the political process down and it definitely opens the door for a whole lot of different issues, but it kinda works. Switching from extreme to extreme every 4/8 years feels like it's just going to increase political polarization until societal cohesion breaks and something bad happens.
Yes, we Europeans whine a lot about the EU and there's a shitload of things that need to be improved about it, but the last few years' circus on the other side of the Pond has convinced me that the alternative isn't that much better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both sides have media working for them. Both are bias. https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings The issue is people only ever consuming one side.
No, no, no. I literally made an account to comment on how wrong this is. Both sides are biased ignores the little matter of degree. One side is completely unmoored from reality in a way that the other simply isn’t. One side promotes conspiracy theories and lies from the top down. Both sides is a way to make yourself feel smart without critically examining on a deeper level what those biases are, how widely they’re co…
Anyone making the claim that his side is the side of truth and justice and the other side is the one of delusions and falsehoods is not looking for healing or reconciliation. He is in search of either total domination of the other side, or divorce, or worse.
The question is: do you think your side will be able to totally dominate the other side? Is it possible to totally dominate 75 million Americans who view your domination as something evil to be opposed, possibly violently?
It seems you're betting it is, and your side will pull it off.
Though I wonder: what is this confidence based upon?
Your side controls the institutions and the cities. What happens when the people outside the cities simply stop listening to what the cities and the institutions say? What happens when the media and academies and federal government can say whatever they like, but everyone outside the metropolises simply starts to ignore them and make their own rules?
This is the real problem with Balkanization: once the dialogue breaks down, everything else starts to break down after it.