Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

[oops_ur_dead]

I also just find it really sus in general that you interpret "His advocacy of illegal, state-sponsored killing is horrific. Politicians who refuse to condemn it share responsibility for the consequences." as genuinely calling people to riot and loot, whereas Trump saying "Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts." is actually a misunderstood statement calling for peace.

[Ganelon]

This is why I shouldn't read these threads. I just can't even right now.

You are expressing a biased, partisan view of the situation and saying that someone should be jailed for expressing her view. This is no different from someone on the left expressing a biased, partisan view of Trumps tweet, saying that he should be jailed for expressing his view.

This isn't fuckin North Korea. It's America. We don't put people in jail for expressing their opinion, no matter how dangerous or immoral it may be. And if it happens, it's an injustice.

A social media platform absolutely should be allowed to have a terms of service and be allowed to censor anything that they deem to have broken said terms of service. Don't like it? Don't use them. Boycott. Find a platform that allows your speech. That's the beauty of CAPITALISM

HOW can you say that a social media platform shouldn't be allowed to censor, but the government should be allowed to put people in JAIL based on what they say?? Thats the most ass backwards thinking I've ever seen. The 1st ammendment protects your speech from government retaliation. It does not dictate what corporations and companies decide to allow on their platforms. I thought conservatives were all about small government? Yet want the government to dictate to social media platforms how to operate?

If I come to sc2mafia and vote in an ongoing game that I'm not signed up for, I'm gonna get banned

Oh noes muh free speech

I also just find it really sus in general that you interpret "His advocacy of illegal, state-sponsored killing is horrific. Politicians who refuse to condemn it share responsibility for the consequences." as genuinely calling people to riot and loot, whereas Trump saying "Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts." is actually a misunderstood statement calling for peace.

I don’t think it was a misunderstood statement calling for peace. I just don’t think it ‘glorifies violence’. What’s so horrific about taking a stand against protests/riots that have gotten out of hand? I think this dichotomy of a message that’s either calling for peace or glorifying violence is the wrong lens to be viewing this post through.

I think that basically what Trump said is this, and I think this is actually true because it explains his later post on how the secret service dealt with the rioters: you have to be strong - strong as in, show the minimal amount of force necessary to dissolve this riot. This, I think, is much closer to the jist of his message.

[oops_ur_dead]

I don’t think it was a misunderstood statement calling for peace. I just don’t think it ‘glorifies violence’. What’s so horrific about taking a stand against protests/riots that have gotten out of hand? I think this dichotomy of a message that’s either calling for peace or glorifying violence is the wrong lens to be viewing this post through.

Mate I just don't see how a rational person can look at Trump's history of repeatedly doing the exact same thing over and over where he says something that could be construed as violent/calling people to action, and then goes to the press and says "whoops that's not what I meant ha ha", and not see a person who's intentionally doing that to pander to a specific group of people.

Like do you think the man is such a fucking massive dumbass that he's incapable of speaking clearly? Pretend Elizabeth Warren had said "when the looting starts the shooting starts", would you be arguing the same thing in her favour? Like you're sitting around spouting conspiracy theories about how every Democrat is in cahoots and that CNN/the Democrats/the rioters all have ulterior secret motives and messages in everything they say but, without any evidence, you absolutely refuse to believe that the Republicans are doing the same lmao. Can you find me a Democrat politician who so consistently says ambiguous things that are considered questionable by a large number of people then goes back and says "oh wait just kidding lmaoo"