4 ms·

I clicked your link expecting threats comparable to the above. What I mostly got were off-color jokes. Like, an example here is Rosie O'Donnell (who is absolute

I clicked your link expecting threats comparable to the above. What I mostly got were off-color jokes. Like, an example here is Rosie O'Donnell (who is absolutely an idiot when it comes to political commentary) tweeting a link to a flash game where you can push Trump off a cliff. What is the scenario where this is at all connected to reality? I could certainly see it being seen as threatening and I wouldn't shed a tear if she was banned from it, but do you think that's comparable to the kind of threat being discussed in this thread? Another example at this link is the NYC Public Theatre's presentation of Julius Caesar, which typically is a modern adaptation of Caesar where Caesar is depicted as whoever is currently in charge; and they did a production where Caesar is dressed like Trump. It's been a while since I've read Caesar, but the premise of Julius Caesar is that the conspirators who overthrow the man they believe to be a tyrant are themselves tyrannical. Caesar is not depicted well, but he's not the bad guy and the play isn't glorifying or calling for violence against Caesar, it's depicting the tragic spiral of consequences as a result of the coup against him. It's not even commentary about Trump, it's a running thing they do with whoever the contemporary leader is. They have previously done productions with an Obama-Caesar. I think they may have also had a Clinton-Caesar. Another linked example involves a music video where a robot that looks like Trump explodes. Do you think this is threatening violence against Trump? I just mention this because I'm trying to understand what possessed you to link to this to draw an equivalence. The only example given that seems at all comparable is the Big Sean lyric, and even then, I'm not sure I accept the premise that we should take a lyric from a song to be directly equivalent to an apparently straight-faced declaration of intent. Do you think you could elaborate a bit on how you believe the linked examples are equivalent to his without saying "the left"? Like, specifically, which of the linked examples do you think is most directly comparable to this, and specifically, which of the threats would you ban if you controlled YouTube and those threats were made on YouTube?

widowlark 7y ago
I'd bet my next paycheck you won't get a response.
- leereeves 7y ago
  > I'd bet my next paycheck you won't get a response. Donate that paycheck to a good charity, I just responded.
leereeves 7y ago
I have pretty strong views on free speech. I wouldn't ban any of these, and I wouldn't have banned this 14 year old either. But while I can see reason in the argument for banning her, I think such a position also calls for banning depictions of people holding up severed heads of their opponents (as in two of the cases in the link) or "joking" about smothering them with a pillow or beating them with a Louisville slugger (as in two other cases). You seem to have chosen the most "fictional" of the examples (video games, theatre) and ignored the very explicit depictions of violence and "jokes" that are nothing more than descriptions of violent acts.
- widowlark 7y ago
  >Do you think you could elaborate a bit on how you believe the linked examples are equivalent to his without saying "the left"? Like, specifically, which of the linked examples do you think is most directly comparable to this, and specifically, which of the threats would you ban if you controlled YouTube and those threats were made on YouTube? A non-response isnt a response
  - leereeves 7y ago
    What is this nonsense? First you bet I won't respond then claim I haven't? You're not discussing this in good faith. > specifically, which of the threats would you ban if you controlled YouTube and those threats were made on YouTube? I answered that. I personally wouldn't ban any of these including the 14 year old in question. > specifically, which of the linked examples do you think is most directly comparable to this I don't think any of them is "equivalent", but a policy that bans one should ban the other. I'm not in favor of "rules lawyers" constructing an elaborate system that bans some threats and depictions of violence but excuses others.
- notafraudster 7y ago
  Your intervention in the thread wasn't to argue that this girl shouldn't be deplatformed, it was to list apparently horrible instances of celebrities on the left threatening Republicans and getting away with it. I am surprised that your intended point was to say that those things all should be allowed, and so should this girl. It is deeply strange to me that you thought your original post would have conveyed this. Were you personally convinced by the strength of the article you linked that there is an epidemic of threatened violence against Republicans? I highlighted examples that I believed were being alleged to be threats. You did not clarify that you linked an article you thought was filled with nonsense examples but you wanted to talk about Kathy Griffith. Kathy Griffith seems like a stupid idiot. She did get "deplatformed" after the Trump thing, which appeared in a magazine. Most of her work since then has been talking about how she can't get booked anymore. She lost a bunch of work. This is all fairly well documented. You must know this, since you were aware enough of the wave of leftist celebrity violence incitement to have the link to the article on hand. Why did you pivot to saying I should engage more thoroughly with her case but leave out the details? But if we really want to unpack it, you've conceptually slipped from "threatening violence in a literal and direct way", which the 14 year old shithead definitely did, to "depicting violence" or "doing something everyone knows is a joke but that is arguably violent." Kathy Griffith's thing is a stupid tasteless stunt by a comedienne whose entire career is being stupid and tasteless. But I don't see even the slightest comparison between that and this. You also call attention to the "smother with a pillow" Larry Wilmore line. The "joke", such as it is -- Wilmore's show was terrible and so I am not surprised the joke was terrible too -- is that some far-right figures believed in a conspiracy that Antonin Scalia was smothered with a pillow. Antonin Scalia was not smothered with a pillow. It is difficult to argue that a joke about conspiracy theorists should be construed to otherwise be a dead serious threat. Should I take this to mean that you believe Antonin Scalia was smothered with a pillow? This might be off topic, but I think it's relevant as to your ability to adjudicate whether there is an epidemic of leftist incitement to violence against Republicans, which was your original argument, apparently in support of your position that no one should be banned for making direct and personalized death threats on social media.

widowlark 7y ago

I'd bet my next paycheck you won't get a response.

leereeves 7y ago
> I'd bet my next paycheck you won't get a response. Donate that paycheck to a good charity, I just responded.

leereeves 7y ago

I have pretty strong views on free speech. I wouldn't ban any of these, and I wouldn't have banned this 14 year old either. But while I can see reason in the argument for banning her, I think such a position also calls for banning depictions of people holding up severed heads of their opponents (as in two of the cases in the link) or "joking" about smothering them with a pillow or beating them with a Louisville slugger (as in two other cases). You seem to have chosen the most "fictional" of the examples (video games, theatre) and ignored the very explicit depictions of violence and "jokes" that are nothing more than descriptions of violent acts.

widowlark 7y ago
>Do you think you could elaborate a bit on how you believe the linked examples are equivalent to his without saying "the left"? Like, specifically, which of the linked examples do you think is most directly comparable to this, and specifically, which of the threats would you ban if you controlled YouTube and those threats were made on YouTube? A non-response isnt a response
- leereeves 7y ago
  What is this nonsense? First you bet I won't respond then claim I haven't? You're not discussing this in good faith. > specifically, which of the threats would you ban if you controlled YouTube and those threats were made on YouTube? I answered that. I personally wouldn't ban any of these including the 14 year old in question. > specifically, which of the linked examples do you think is most directly comparable to this I don't think any of them is "equivalent", but a policy that bans one should ban the other. I'm not in favor of "rules lawyers" constructing an elaborate system that bans some threats and depictions of violence but excuses others.
notafraudster 7y ago
Your intervention in the thread wasn't to argue that this girl shouldn't be deplatformed, it was to list apparently horrible instances of celebrities on the left threatening Republicans and getting away with it. I am surprised that your intended point was to say that those things all should be allowed, and so should this girl. It is deeply strange to me that you thought your original post would have conveyed this. Were you personally convinced by the strength of the article you linked that there is an epidemic of threatened violence against Republicans? I highlighted examples that I believed were being alleged to be threats. You did not clarify that you linked an article you thought was filled with nonsense examples but you wanted to talk about Kathy Griffith. Kathy Griffith seems like a stupid idiot. She did get "deplatformed" after the Trump thing, which appeared in a magazine. Most of her work since then has been talking about how she can't get booked anymore. She lost a bunch of work. This is all fairly well documented. You must know this, since you were aware enough of the wave of leftist celebrity violence incitement to have the link to the article on hand. Why did you pivot to saying I should engage more thoroughly with her case but leave out the details? But if we really want to unpack it, you've conceptually slipped from "threatening violence in a literal and direct way", which the 14 year old shithead definitely did, to "depicting violence" or "doing something everyone knows is a joke but that is arguably violent." Kathy Griffith's thing is a stupid tasteless stunt by a comedienne whose entire career is being stupid and tasteless. But I don't see even the slightest comparison between that and this. You also call attention to the "smother with a pillow" Larry Wilmore line. The "joke", such as it is -- Wilmore's show was terrible and so I am not surprised the joke was terrible too -- is that some far-right figures believed in a conspiracy that Antonin Scalia was smothered with a pillow. Antonin Scalia was not smothered with a pillow. It is difficult to argue that a joke about conspiracy theorists should be construed to otherwise be a dead serious threat. Should I take this to mean that you believe Antonin Scalia was smothered with a pillow? This might be off topic, but I think it's relevant as to your ability to adjudicate whether there is an epidemic of leftist incitement to violence against Republicans, which was your original argument, apparently in support of your position that no one should be banned for making direct and personalized death threats on social media.