Freedom of thought and speech vs morality

[rumox]

SuperJack I think everyone has said he could have worded it better. How people interpret the message is besides the point. Twitter took his message and framed it to mean specifically something.

And now that he has clarified to the people that interpreted it wrong, his message is still being framed as something it is not. They still have it quarantined.

[SuperJack]

SuperJack I think everyone has said he could have worded it better. How people interpret the message is besides the point. Twitter took his message and framed it to mean specifically something.

It's twitter's fault he posted something that has easily been read as a violent suggestion?

If Twitter hid my post about my wife, does Twitter get the blame for that also?

[SuperJack]

Twitter should unhide my post about my wife beating now because I said its about a game.

[Ganelon]

It's twitter's fault he posted something that has easily been read as a violent suggestion?

If Twitter hid my post about my wife, does Twitter get the blame for that also?

I wouldn’t say it’s easily read as a call to violence, but the issue is that Twitter then gets to decide on what the ‘proper’ interpretation of a tweet is, which is outside of the jurisdiction of the website, and effectively makes them a political group.

Think about it in this way: if you and your wife had some sort of an argument and Twitter deleted your post because they thought it contained a call to violence (everyone should beat their wives or something like that), when in fact you were just arguing with her, would that be ok for Twitter to do?

[SuperJack]

I wouldn’t say it’s easily read as a call to violence, but the issue is that Twitter then gets to decide on what the ‘proper’ interpretation of a tweet is, which is outside of the jurisdiction of the website, and effectively makes them a political group.

Think about it in this way: if you and your wife had some sort of an argument and Twitter deleted your post because they thought it contained a call to violence (everyone should beat their wives or something like that), when in fact you were just arguing with her, would that be ok for Twitter to do?

Yeh. Wife beating or violence is no joke. Those words shouldn't be spoken and an arguement is no excuse for it. Last thing I want is for people to think that doing or even saying this sort of thing is ok.

And note, Twitter didn't delete they hid it. Which I believe is better because it sets an example of what is right and what is wrong.

[Ganelon]

The issue then though is that people would think you were some kind of wife beater when you really were not. It’s character assassination. I see where you’re coming from, but this is the kind of thing that if you do, you have to be absolutely sure that you’re right about the post being a call to violence or whatever.

Personally, I don’t think people are going to start beating their wives just because of your post, but I agree that some things don’t belong on Twitter... the issue is that it’s very, very hard to regulate these things in a way that doesn’t result in Twitter pushing their own view on someone.

[rumox]

I'm peacing out of this discussion. It really is outrage culture coming to a head where people cannot think or seek answers before coming to a verdict. A persons message was just framed from a position of power to mean specifically one thing without any clarification checks, and when a clarity check does happen after the fact they ignore it and continue framing it for what it is not. Amazing.

[Ganelon]

‘You must spread some reputation around before giving it to rumox again’

[SuperJack]

The issue then though is that people would think you were some kind of wife beater when you really were not. It’s character assassination. I see where you’re coming from, but this is the kind of thing that if you do, you have to be absolutely sure that you’re right about the post being a call to violence or whatever.

Personally, I don’t think people are going to start beating their wives just because of your post, but I agree that some things don’t belong on Twitter... the issue is that it’s very, very hard to regulate these things in a way that doesn’t result in Twitter pushing their own view on someone.

I should never of posted such thing. The fact that I did means I just assassinated my own character.

You don't have to be absolutely right about if it really is a call to violence or not. If the post can easily be read as a call to violence then I see no issue in it being labeled as so.
Coming back later and arguing it means something else does not change the fact that if you sit down and just read that tweat on its own, it's definitely is changed. As Jo point should you have to go out and ask for explanations or reasonings to understand a message he posted.

And no I doubt that anyone would listen to me.
But the leader of the USA? Yeh people should be able to trust them and follow their example. Some people will listen and do what they suggest.
Because that's what happened when trump tweets his miracle cure for covid isn't it?

Twitter shouldn't have to regulate. But when the Leader of the USA is telling lies, suggesting violence and posting tweets that result in deaths it's no surprise that they step in.
It would be deeply morally wrong to allow such things to go unchecked.

[SuperJack]

I'm peacing out of this discussion. It really is outrage culture coming to a head where people cannot think or seek answers before coming to a verdict. A persons message was just framed from a position of power to mean specifically one thing without any clarification checks, and when a clarity check does happen after the fact they ignore it and continue framing it for what it is not. Amazing.

I mean when you can't trust what the leader of the USA says without an explanation or clarification it means there is something wrong.

[SuperJack]

Would also like to point to my previous point.
Just because I explained/clarifies my wife beating post does not make my original post ok. Same goes for trump.

[SuperJack]

Lol @ that moderation.

[oops_ur_dead]

Actually I'm gonna delete my last two posts because I have morals and I want to maintain civility. I was giving an illustrative example of a post that, based on a lot of people's interpretations, would have been something that deserved to get deleted or censored based on the rules of the site, even though I clarified after that I meant something different.

What people here are missing about Trump's statement (and why it was censored by Twitter) is that it was intentionally meant to be ambiguous to pander to a wider mass. Trump does this all the time, it's a concept called doublespeak which arose from the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. At the same time, he meant both the violent interpretation as well as the one he's taking now which is as a warning that looting leads to shooting. He does this specifically to appeal to the type of voters he has that actually are violent, while sowing the seeds of discord by his other interpretation because then it shifts the conversation onto arguing what he actually meant.

When Trump said that looting leads to shooting, in that context, he was jerking off all the violent types who actually wanted to see the military shoot on protesters. He was also strongly appealing to those people that actually wanted to shoot protesters. This is all extremely dangerous. Yes, obviously he posted clarification after, like he always does. That's the point.

There are so many examples of this. When he said that the second amendment people could do something about Clinton if she won. Just recently, when he retweeted this video that I mentioned, of a presenter saying "The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat": https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...55459719892993

Do you sincerely think this pattern of doing the same thing over and over, where he says one violent and inflammatory thing that gets cheered on by the violent sub-population of his supporters, right before he goes "oh no ha ha i meant something else" is an accident? This is why it's dangerous. If there's a portion of supporters, say 10%, who are looking for validation of their violent tendencies from their cult leader, and he tweets out coded messages that absolutely can be interpreted as such, it's exactly the same as if he had outright told people to go shoot protesters. Because, what you're missing because you aren't a part of those circles, is that those same people are going to argue that he only "clarified" after the fact to save face for the politically correct crowd and that he was actually telling them that they should go out and get violent.

[oops_ur_dead]

And yes, this rhetoric has had concrete effects. Hate crime has been rising in the US every year since Trump was elected: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46189391

[Exeter350]

Now lets use the Trump get out of jail free card.

Option 1) It was a joke.

Option 2) Its not what I really mean, all I really ment was that I beat her in Tekken 3. Only my clever cult people really knew what I meant. Those stupid socialist communist democrats are too stupid and are trying to rigg the election.

Nah man, I agree with your point. That's why I said it really should've been phrased better.

People in a position of power have the responsibility to moderate their speech and avoid misunderstandings.

You honestly trust that the law enforcement will be able to shoot the correct people? After killing one man and arresting a news team?

I get what you mean, and I agree.

I was really just talking about the wording in his original Tweet, not the contents.

[rumox]

Both of your examples of clarification checks are/were absurd. It is not even remotely fair to compare them to that tweet they are that outlandish lol.

It's up to us on an individual level to ensure speech is practiced efficiently whether it's speaking clearly or asking for clarification. I draw the line of speech policing when a body of power steps in and definitively tells you how you should interpret a message. It's absurd. It's been glaringly obvious for awhile now that what the users think a platform is for is so separate from the truth and it's only growing apart further as time goes by. Social media really did die in its ass the moment it got politicized with the boomer invasion of Facebook.

If people are worried about morons being manipulated by ominous vague words on the internet then perhaps vote in people that want to expand not only funding of education but the scope of it along with mental health. Being okay with a private company controlling speech in a medium unrivaled by anything else evidentially just exasperates things and personally speaking is wrong. Again it's the precedent it sets, not the content they are doing it to. The fact that it affects the political world is also very fucking concerning.

[oops_ur_dead]

Both of your examples of clarification checks are/were absurd. It is not even remotely fair to compare them to that tweet they are that outlandish lol.

It's up to us on an individual level to ensure speech is practiced efficiently whether it's speaking clearly or asking for clarification. I draw the line of speech policing when a body of power steps in and definitively tells you how you should interpret a message. It's absurd. It's been glaringly obvious for awhile now that what the users think a platform is for is so separate from the truth and it's only growing apart further as time goes by. Social media really did die in its ass the moment it got politicized with the boomer invasion of Facebook.

If people are worried about morons being manipulated by ominous vague words on the internet then perhaps vote in people that want to expand not only funding of education but the scope of it along with mental health. Being okay with a private company controlling speech in a medium unrivaled by anything else evidentially just exasperates things and personally speaking is wrong. Again it's the precedent it sets, not the content they are doing it to. The fact that it affects the political world is also very fucking concerning.

I'll put it out there that I'm ambivalent on Twitter censoring the tweet, only because I don't know if it'll backfire. I wonder if hiding the tweet accomplishes the intent of limiting the spread of encouragement of violence or if it'll just cause more people to be pissed.

I absolutely do think that Trump meant all of those possible interpretations by his tweet. It was intentionally ambiguous so that it means one thing to the violent subgroup of Trumpists, and another to the non-violent members as well as liberals who want to say Trump isn't that bad. If you have people applying the argument of "he was being sarcastic" or "he didn't mean that, he was just trying to play the media's game" to his original tweets where he says something ambiguous and potentially violent, what's to say there aren't people using those same statements towards his "clarifications"?

Do you mind addressing that point? Because I think we agree that Trump is a dumbass, he should pick his words better, or that his supporters/Americans as a whole should be smarter. But what are your thoughts on my point that Trump is intentionally choosing his words so that he can send out a violent message while maintaining plausible deniability for liberals and the media and to shift the argument towards his tone rather than the content of his message?

[rumox]

I don't have an opinion on if he is doing that consistently as I don't follow much of what he says. I can only look at this message.

If I were to assume he is double speaking, my first thought would be what does he achieve by sending out this message? I can only logically conclude this. It's a political minefield this situation and any perceived misuse of force, even if it's justifiable use of force, can dog him and his chance of re-election. Obviously that is bad for him. So by laying out the truth that rioters looting correlate with shootings, which you can look at the LA riots for evidence of this (firefighters shot at, rooftop Koreans shooting to deter looters, police and national guard shooting rioters, etc), he is looking to gain support for the potential use of force to control the situation.

Do I think he is inciting individuals to take up arms against looters? No, but I won't lie and I think he would support the notion that store owners should take up arms to protect their property and his double speak could be alluring to that.

So yeah. My thought on that if he is intentionally choosing his words to send an ulterior message, that would be the jist of that message. And quite frankly I don't have much of an issue with it. Riots are fucked no matter what spin you put on it. It's incredibly sad that it has come to this but these riots need to be stopped before more lives are ruined. If they don't want to go peacefully then unfortunately force is required, and Trump will need support for it.

[rumox]

Thing about double speaking that it's impossible to know what he is trying to gain unless he tells us himself. All we can do is speculate.

[rumox]

Wow. I just looked at his twitter and he just went balls to the wall with this glorifying violence thing. Twitter literally has to censor those posts if they want to be seen as credible with their previous decision.

[rumox]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...11221191020544

[SuperJack]

My god it would be hilarious if it wasn't real. Good luck America.

[oops_ur_dead]

I would be surprised as well if he was actually telling people to take up arms against looters, but as you mentioned, I don't think he would side against anyone doing so. But his message is meant to lend support and validation to people who do hold more violent opinions. Obviously, when he said that second amendment people could do something about Clinton, it was extremely unlikely that someone would actually be able to assassinate her. But there are lunatics who absolutely fantasize about doing so, or at least someone else doing so, and he was firing up such violent rhetoric. Same with his comments on the Unite the Right rally, when he said there are "good people on both sides". Sure, one might argue that he was talking about the people who weren't waving Nazi flags and talking about Jews replacing them. But do you think those same far-right neo-Nazis looked at that statement and came to the same conclusion, or did they see it as a coded message of support?

That's why his speech matters so much, and why focusing on what he "actually" meant is a deflection of the actual problem. It doesn't matter how you and I interpret his words, because we aren't the audience. It matters how dangerous people who he's pandering to are interpreting it, which is as a message of support sent with a wink. Because, after all, if these lunatics who would go out and get violent, commit hate crimes, etc., see these messages as support, does the argument of how normal, well-adjusted people like you and I interpret them even matter?

[Marshmallow Marshall]

My god it would be hilarious if it wasn't real. Good luck America.

This is the feeling I get when I watch (FAKE) news about America since some years =( it only got worse because there happened to be a worldwide crisis while he is president.

[yzb25]

w.r.t. twitter, I fundamentally dislike how people are approaching the matter.

All these comparisons people are drawing between twitter and sc2mafia, like twitter is just an innocent website moderating their content, are deeply mischaracterizing twitter. Twitter is so much more than a website. Twitter is an empire of information. When twitter decides to take down a "Free Palestine" account saying things bordering on anti-semitism, that's so different from a mod on sc2mafia taking a post down because they think it's offensive. Twitter, facebook and youtube have an incredible degree of power over how the modern masses attain and process information, both inside and outside America. Please stop saying stuff like "it's just a company. If you don't like the product, then don't partake in it. That's how capitalism works", as if the businesses, politicians and other public figures on Twitter have the freedom to simply emigrate to another website.

Views I'm hearing of what consitutes "freedom of speech" are too narrow-minded. People are subscribing to the absolutist view that it simply means governments controlling what people say should be forbidden. Governments controlling what we talk about isn't just bad because of the obvious stuff like rights and shit, it's bad because massive institutions of power shouldn't have the right to guide human discourse. They should not have the right to control what information we see. Morally, this is an infringement on our agency. The choices we make are determined by the information we receive, so by tampering with that information, they tamper with our agency. If an institution ends up having such power, it is the responsibility of that institution to remain neutral and not tamper in our discourse. That is why it's bad for the government to censor things, even if they're only censoring misinformation / hateful ideologies that are objectively bad for society.

Making a post hidden does not functionally mean much in the grand scheme of things. It's about the precedent this sets - that the information on their platform is theirs to do with what they please. If these social media sites want to crush a particular political perspective for the greater good, it is their god-given right to do so. This is where the shortcomings of a short-sighted interpretation of "freedom of speech" start to show. If you simply view freedom of speech as forbidding the government to make any sort of speech regulation, you may even believe the state forcing these social media companies to be neutral is an infringement of freedom of speech in itself.

I don't think there's any perfect solutions for the situation regarding twitter. But I think ideally, twitter shouldn't be able to tamper with content or accounts unless the content can be interpreted as infringing on the law, and that social media sites in general should be forced to adopt algorithms that only choose what you are shown based on a set of neutral, publically agreed upon criteria i.e. popularity and recency for example. These social media sites should be treated as virtual equivalents of the "public square" and regulated as such. It's terrible that bad people can generate speech encouraging people to do bad things, but bad people have always been able to do that.

[yzb25]

Private ownership only applies to a point. If you own a small plot of land for your house, I think it's fair enough to say you own that plot of land. However, noone can "privately own" all the land of a nation, for example. That's just feudalism. I feel the same way about these social media sites. We should not talk about the major shareholders of twitter and facebook like they actually own these things. It simply doesn't make sense for 10-15 people to possess so much power by right. It's fundamentally an absurd notion that you can be entitled to such power without strict public accountability. It makes as much sense as someone "owning" all the land of a nation.

[BananaCucho]

FWIW, they’ve sent the national guard in in Georgia and they prevented this kind of absurd rioting from happening. So it’s pretty clear to me that it would not ‘have the opposite effect’.

Has the National Guard started shooting people as you suggested they do? (I actually don't know but I feel like that would have made national news if it did)

[Ganelon]

You must spread around reputation before giving it to yzb again.

Nope, not as far as I know. It wasn’t necessary.
The mere threat of violent is apparently enough to deter those rioters. They did shoot rubber bullets in other places, though.

[oops_ur_dead]

You must spread around reputation before giving it to yzb again.

Nope, not as far as I know. It wasn’t necessary.
The mere threat of violent is apparently enough to deter those rioters. They did shoot rubber bullets in other places, though.

But why are you saying now that free speech is good when before you said that Elizabeth Warren should be in jail for saying Trump is bad 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

[oops_ur_dead]

w.r.t. twitter, I fundamentally dislike how people are approaching the matter.

All these comparisons people are drawing between twitter and sc2mafia, like twitter is just an innocent website moderating their content, are deeply mischaracterizing twitter. Twitter is so much more than a website. Twitter is an empire of information. When twitter decides to take down a "Free Palestine" account saying things bordering on anti-semitism, that's so different from a mod on sc2mafia taking a post down because they think it's offensive. Twitter, facebook and youtube have an incredible degree of power over how the modern masses attain and process information, both inside and outside America. Please stop saying stuff like "it's just a company. If you don't like the product, then don't partake in it. That's how capitalism works", as if the businesses, politicians and other public figures on Twitter have the freedom to simply emigrate to another website.

Views I'm hearing of what consitutes "freedom of speech" are too narrow-minded. People are subscribing to the absolutist view that it simply means governments controlling what people say should be forbidden. Governments controlling what we talk about isn't just bad because of the obvious stuff like rights and shit, it's bad because massive institutions of power shouldn't have the right to guide human discourse. They should not have the right to control what information we see. Morally, this is an infringement on our agency. The choices we make are determined by the information we receive, so by tampering with that information, they tamper with our agency. If an institution ends up having such power, it is the responsibility of that institution to remain neutral and not tamper in our discourse. That is why it's bad for the government to censor things, even if they're only censoring misinformation / hateful ideologies that are objectively bad for society.

Making a post hidden does not functionally mean much in the grand scheme of things. It's about the precedent this sets - that the information on their platform is theirs to do with what they please. If these social media sites want to crush a particular political perspective for the greater good, it is their god-given right to do so. This is where the shortcomings of a short-sighted interpretation of "freedom of speech" start to show. If you simply view freedom of speech as forbidding the government to make any sort of speech regulation, you may even believe the state forcing these social media companies to be neutral is an infringement of freedom of speech in itself.

I don't think there's any perfect solutions for the situation regarding twitter. But I think ideally, twitter shouldn't be able to tamper with content or accounts unless the content can be interpreted as infringing on the law, and that social media sites in general should be forced to adopt algorithms that only choose what you are shown based on a set of neutral, publically agreed upon criteria i.e. popularity and recency for example. These social media sites should be treated as virtual equivalents of the "public square" and regulated as such. It's terrible that bad people can generate speech encouraging people to do bad things, but bad people have always been able to do that.

I don't think it's as black and white as you're putting it either, though I'll admit I don't really have any practical solutions for the situation. I think that platforms like Facebook or Twitter are much different from a so-called public square in that they allow messages to have an unprecedented reach compared to even 20 years ago, along with an inherent inequality in how much an individual's message can be amplified. Keep in mind, for instance, that incitement to riot is illegal under federal law in the US. If Trump's tweet could be interpreted, even by a select few, to be an incitement to riot, does it not go against your clause of "infringing against the law"?

Back to the unprecedented reach, looking at Trump's Twitter account you'll see that he has 80 million followers. Let's say a paltry 0.1% of those followers are his supporters that interpret his tweet as being a call to commit violent acts, or at the very least, an endorsement of such. That's 80 thousand people that see his tweet as being strictly violent rhetoric, and I think 0.1% is actually a very, very conservative number. Find me a public square where you can instantly reach 80 thousand people with a violent message.

You're right that this sets dangerous precedent, but at the same time I have no idea how to solve it in a way that also protects the public good. Trump's EO certainly takes a step directly in the opposite direction, by weakening laws that protect social media sites from being liable for the content their users post, meaning that this kind of censorship will be significantly more possible in the future. And, as I've mentioned before, this is really worrying when you also consider that Trump has stacked federal courts in his favour like no other president in the past has done.

[Ganelon]

But why are you saying now that free speech is good when before you said that Elizabeth Warren should be in jail for saying Trump is bad 樂樂樂樂樂樂樂

For me, what Warren said goes beyond freedom of speech. I don’t think she was criticizing Trump as much as she was speaking in favour of the riot. Calling Trump’s message wrt the riot (which could be seen as threatening the rioters with use of force), when in fact the bigger issue was the riot itself - which had gone out of hand and would probably have seriously gone out of hand (resulting in additional deaths) - seems to me to be a criminal act, if she knew what she was doing.

[Ganelon]

Once again, the fact that people were concerned with what Trump was saying instead of the riot is absurd. He even clarified what he was saying later on.

I’m honestly not surprised Trump called the mayor a radical leftist. At first i thought that was just trump exaggerating things, but then it got me wondering why the mayor ordered the police to abandon the precinct that later burned down. The only theory I’ve been able to come up with us that the Mayor thought the people at that ‘protest’ actually protested in favour of a cause... and that they were therefore his allies lul. Really makes you wonder what kind of people get elected to office.

[oops_ur_dead]

For me, what Warren said goes beyond freedom of speech. I don’t think she was criticizing Trump as much as she was speaking in favour of the riot. Calling Trump’s message wrt the riot (which could be seen as threatening the rioters with use of force), when in fact the bigger issue was the riot itself - which had gone out of hand and would probably have seriously gone out of hand (resulting in additional deaths) - seems to me to be a criminal act, if she knew what she was doing.

Trump supporters: Yeah Trump threatened to shoot protesters but really it was just sarcasm he even pinky swore after that it wasn't what he meant

Also Trump supporters: Elizabeth Warren should go to jail because she's inciting riots by saying that Trump is racist

[oops_ur_dead]

Trump supporters: Free speech is good, people should be allowed to say what they want

Also Trump supporters: Criticizing anything the president says or does is hate speech and should be prosecuted as treason. Unless, obviously, the president is a black man

[yzb25]

I don't think it's as black and white as you're putting it either, though I'll admit I don't really have any practical solutions for the situation. I think that platforms like Facebook or Twitter are much different from a so-called public square in that they allow messages to have an unprecedented reach compared to even 20 years ago, along with an inherent inequality in how much an individual's message can be amplified. Keep in mind, for instance, that incitement to riot is illegal under federal law in the US. If Trump's tweet could be interpreted, even by a select few, to be an incitement to riot, does it not go against your clause of "infringing against the law"?

Back to the unprecedented reach, looking at Trump's Twitter account you'll see that he has 80 million followers. Let's say a paltry 0.1% of those followers are his supporters that interpret his tweet as being a call to commit violent acts, or at the very least, an endorsement of such. That's 80 thousand people that see his tweet as being strictly violent rhetoric, and I think 0.1% is actually a very, very conservative number. Find me a public square where you can instantly reach 80 thousand people with a violent message.

You're right that this sets dangerous precedent, but at the same time I have no idea how to solve it in a way that also protects the public good. Trump's EO certainly takes a step directly in the opposite direction, by weakening laws that protect social media sites from being liable for the content their users post, meaning that this kind of censorship will be significantly more possible in the future. And, as I've mentioned before, this is really worrying when you also consider that Trump has stacked federal courts in his favour like no other president in the past has done.

The public good was compromised when Trump was sworn into office. You can't fix the fact one of the most powerful men on earth is regularly indulging in subtext to stoke violent division by giving social media giants the paternal responsibility of guiding public thought. That's putting a band aid on a wound which still lets blood escape and also inflicts cancer. Twitter also is not preventing the violent sub-group of his followers from getting his message. If it starts getting regularly removed from twitter, they'll find screencaps of it elsewhere, and also get worse because massive corporations taking down their speech is going to (with good reason, frankly) feed their persecution complex. The same applies if they continue to just "hide" it with trashy little commentary.

Whether or not a tweet constitutes a threat, an incitement of violence / riot, or any other illegal activity should be handled through the legal system. It is not the domain of twitter to handle such things. Allegations of law-breaking should be settled the same way they always are - through a trial, or an appeal process, or whatever else is in place. Twitter is certainly unprecedented in the reach it can provide, but public figures who's speech reaches millions are certainly not unprecedented. We already have a legal framework to deal with this. I think the biggest pitfall of tying it to American law is it has the potential to shaft every other country on earth, but that was inevitable by virtue of twitter and facebook being American lol.

What you're saying about how hate crimes have had a notable bump since Trump was sworn in and how his victory has energized the alt right is absolutely true though. And I obviously oppose the EO. I have to refrain from sharing my view on the riots because I'm fairly sure my opinion would have to be removed by the mods, but believe me when I say the tweet outrages me lmao.

[oops_ur_dead]

The public good was compromised when Trump was sworn into office. You can't fix the fact one of the most powerful men on earth is regularly indulging in subtext to stoke violent division by giving social media giants the paternal responsibility of guiding public thought. That's putting a band aid on a wound which still lets blood escape and also inflicts cancer. Twitter also is not preventing the violent sub-group of his followers from getting his message. If it starts getting regularly removed from twitter, they'll find screencaps of it elsewhere, and also get worse because massive corporations taking down their speech is going to (with good reason, frankly) feed their persecution complex. The same applies if they continue to just "hide" it with trashy little commentary.

Whether or not a tweet constitutes a threat, an incitement of violence / riot, or any other illegal activity should be handled through the legal system. It is not the domain of twitter to handle such things. Allegations of law-breaking should be settled the same way they always are - through a trial, or an appeal process, or whatever else is in place. Twitter is certainly unprecedented in the reach it can provide, but public figures who's speech reaches millions are certainly not unprecedented. We already have a legal framework to deal with this. I think the biggest pitfall of tying it to American law is it has the potential to shaft every other country on earth, but that was inevitable by virtue of twitter and facebook being American lol.

What you're saying about how hate crimes have had a notable bump since Trump was sworn in and how his victory has energized the alt right is absolutely true though. And I obviously oppose the EO. I have to refrain from sharing my view on the riots because I'm fairly sure my opinion would have to be removed by the mods, but believe me when I say the tweet outrages me lmao.

Fully agreed with what you said, honestly, it's a systemic issue and any solutions that Twitter can do are really putting band-aids on the problem. Maybe social media is ultimately the cause, but it's tough to say. Regardless, I don't really have a practical solution in mind.

Also speak your mind regarding the riots. Personally, after watching this video, it seems that everyone still supporting the police is either blissfully unaware of what's happening or a proto-fascist bootlicker: https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreak...s_compilation/

[Ganelon]

Tbh hate crimes increasing in number after Trump was elected doesn’t necessarily mean Trump is responsible for the increase. The Democrats like playing identity politics a lot, especially when it comes to race. Would not be unthinkable that the Democrats have started radicalizing people, and that this radicalization had a direct effect on the alt-right as well. A lot of this PC culture didn’t exist in 2014.

I’m also not convinced that hate crimes really have increased in number. More blacks and Latinos voted republican in 2016 than in 2012, for instance. Don’t think that’s indicative of Trump being racist.

[rumox]

I support the police to restore order because someone has to lol. That's not to say I support the deplorable shit they have done don't get me wrong, police brutality is not okay and they should be held accountable for any transgressions they commit. There is always the other side of the coin too. I saw this and felt my gut drop. Saw this linked awhile ago too. All in all it's just a fucking mess and I think it's important to recognize how truly fucked up it is on both sides. I just hope the riots come to a peaceful end and the cop that murdered George Floyd as well as the officers standing by get the book thrown at them.

[Ganelon]

The one thing that Trump has done that might be racist in my view, or at least misguided is when he tried to get Universities to remove study visas for Chinese students. Still, that one is far from a clear indication of racism on his part.

[Ganelon]

I support the police to restore order because someone has to lol. That's not to say I support the deplorable shit they have done don't get me wrong, police brutality is not okay and they should be held accountable for any transgressions they commit. There is always the other side of the coin too. I saw this and felt my gut drop. Saw this linked awhile ago too. All in all it's just a fucking mess and I think it's important to recognize how truly fucked up it is on both sides. I just hope the riots come to a peaceful end and the cop that murdered George Floyd as well as the officers standing by get the book thrown at them.

+1, couldn’t have said it better myself.

[Ganelon]

Oh my god I would so beat the everlasting shit out of those two fucks in the first video lol. Unbelievable

[Ganelon]

Has the National Guard started shooting people as you suggested they do? (I actually don't know but I feel like that would have made national news if it did)

To clarify: I’m not, and was not, suggesting that they ‘shoot to kill’ all the rioters, or course. Only the really violent ones. Just opening fire on a crowd is absurd; you only do that if it’s absolutely necessary, and thus far it doesn’t seem to be. But I would 100% support lethal force if a particularly violent rioter tried to physically attack someone.

[Ganelon]

Her tweet:

Donald Trump is calling for violence against Black Americans. His advocacy of illegal, state-sponsored killing is horrific. Politicians who refuse to condemn it share responsibility for the consequences.

Its absurd. Trump is not doing that. Not once did he even mention race. He specifically stated he found the video disturbing and that the rioters were tarnishing the memory of George Floyd. If you watch the townhall video of that protest(the reporters name is Julio Rosas), that (what Warren said) was pretty much similar to what the rioters were saying - except it was directed at the police, not at Trump. What effect does that have other than letting the protesters know that she’s basically okay with it? I’m honestly surprised this kind of shit is happening in America. The democrats were once the centre-left in America: concerned with the working class, the gifted (but poor) and so on. Now they’re basically just Marxists lol. I’m not even a democrat, I just think it’s sad. It paints moderate leftists as social justice warriors when this is really not the case.

Coming back to this: Warrens comment is an insane rant. It is definitely biased in some form. At a time when people are rioting in Minneapolis (supposedly under the pretext of ‘fighting back against the racist American police’ or some such), she’s basically telling the protesters that what theyre doing is ok. In my view there’s only two reasons she could be saying that; she’s either really stupid or biased and really believes that Trump is ‘calling for violence against Black Americans’, in which case she’s just exercising her right to freedom of speech, or she’s doing this because she believes the protesters are somehow her allies and that supporting them is the right thing to do - which is absolutely immoral and even criminal... just that it’s tough to prove it someone is biased/dumb or immoral.
I mean what effect do you think that has on the supporters, and even on public opinion? If she were truly concerned with what was happening she would be covering both sides, as there is definitely a fuck up on the police’s part (or, more exactly, on the policemen who killed Floyd), and on the ‘rioters side’ ( if you can even call it that; they’re just rioters. These people don’t believe in anything lol, they’re just there to fuck shit up).

So the difference I’d say is that while Trump is condemning the protest, and has ACTUALLY mentioned that they’re ‘tarnishing the memory of George Floyd’, she’s simply condemning Trump, when he’s literally doing what needs to be done.

Now I don’t know if Warren is actually fully aware of what she’s doing, but the monumental difference between what Trump is saying and what Warren said about it leads me to believe that yes, she is lol.

[Ganelon]

I obviously don’t think that people should be jailed for expressing different views from me, I’m just highly skeptical when I see someone being misrepresented in that manner, at a time like this.

And tbh it’s kind of insulting of you to suggest that I’d want to jail political opponents when I’ve not a) personally attacked anyone on this thread and b) refrained from logical fallacies. Which @BananaCucho and oops did btw.
I would suggest that you refrain from that in the future because I will not respond to strawmans lol. This debate isn’t about me.

[rumox]

This guy is right leaning so there will be some bias, but the footage he shares doesn't lie. It's a complete shit show even without police present.

https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer

Insane really.

[BananaCucho]

I obviously don’t think that people should be jailed for expressing different views from me, I’m just highly skeptical when I see someone being misrepresented in that manner, at a time like this.

And tbh it’s kind of insulting of you to suggest that I’d want to jail political opponents when I’ve not a) personally attacked anyone on this thread and b) refrained from logical fallacies. Which @BananaCucho and oops did btw.
I would suggest that you refrain from that in the future because I will not respond to strawmans lol. This debate isn’t about me.

Bro I'm done arguing with you. You literally said this:

Personally, is you ask me, this just shows that some people (like Warren), should probably go to jail.

And then you defended that argument over and over

What laws is this breaking? Why does this warrant her being in jail?

I’m not aware of it breaking any laws, it’s just completely despicable for someone in her position (or indeed for anyone at all) to be doing that.

Then why say you think she should be in jail? wtf lmao

It’s immoral at best, at worst it’s dangerous. You could basically say she’s egging the rioters on.

But now I'm strawmanning? Now I'm misrepresenting your own words? Naw. There's no point even trying to reason with you. Enjoy your circlejerk.

[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

You had to have known this would happen. In fact, you should be in jail for inciting this conflict ;)

These last two are definitely strawmen, and the others are directed at me, I’m not crazy... I like you Banana but I don’t think this debate is about me lol.

[oops_ur_dead]

I obviously don’t think that people should be jailed for expressing different views from me, I’m just highly skeptical when I see someone being misrepresented in that manner, at a time like this.

And tbh it’s kind of insulting of you to suggest that I’d want to jail political opponents when I’ve not a) personally attacked anyone on this thread and b) refrained from logical fallacies. Which @BananaCucho and oops did btw.
I would suggest that you refrain from that in the future because I will not respond to strawmans lol. This debate isn’t about me.

You literally said that Warren should be in jail. That's not even a personal attack, we're just addressing an exact point you made. Are you taking that back and saying that she shouldn't be jailed for what she said, after all?

[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]

It doesn’t directly call on people to loot, but her refusing to even address the riot, coupled with the fact that what she said has nothing to do with what Trump said about the situation, makes me think she has other motives in mind, or at least did when she made that comment.

Painting his comments as some sort of racist call for the racists to attack blacks is bizarre, as race was not mentioned at all. Given that the rioters themselves supposedly rose up in response to police injustice, what she said basically lends legitimacy to their riot.

I’ll admit I am biased as I don’t really like most Democratic leaders, but you can’t deny there seems to be some sort of unwritten agreement between the Democrats and the rioters. Hell, didn’t CNN say something in their favour? And Jacob Frey seems to be somewhat supportive of them as well (or just plain ignorant), as I don’t think he would’ve let the police station burn down otherwise. That’s a statement, man. Why did they abandon that police station?

By the way, i would like for someone else to chip in, maybe I’m wrong and you weren’t actually personally attacking me, and if that turns out to be the case I’ll sincerely apologize because I don’t like invoking such defenses where they aren’t warranted.