3 ms·

> he literally threatened to bomb iran, When people talk about keeping violence off social networks, they mean keeping personal violent threats off social netw

> he literally threatened to bomb iran, When people talk about keeping violence off social networks, they mean keeping personal violent threats off social networks. Whether to make war or peace is a political question, one that's perfectly fair to discuss in public. You don't get to impose pacifist foreign policy on the president by conflating random threats of personal violence with the legitimate business of statecraft.

KaiserPro 7y ago
You are interpreting this as a political statement. Threatening to bomb a country is threatening violence, this is against the terms of service: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules to quote: > you may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people Like the law, it either applies equally to everyone, or its does not apply. > You don't get to impose pacifist foreign policy on the president by conflating random threats of personal violence with the legitimate business of statecraft. Again, you are reading way more into this. Either the Terms of service apply to everyone, or they do not apply. According to those terms of service, there is no different between me threatening to kill a group of people, and trump doing the same. As I said, transparency and consistency is the only way it can be implemented effectively.
- quotemstr 7y ago
  Bombing another country is a legitimate act of the state. It's no more an endorsement of "violence" than wishing for the arrest of a notorious serial killer is an act of "kidnapping". Conflating legitimate acts of the state with extralegal personal criminality is a political statement. If a site's terms of service prohibit endorsing legitimate acts of the state, that TOS is a political statement.
  - KaiserPro 7y ago
    > Bombing another country is a legitimate act of the state yes, it can be. > It's no more an endorsement of "violence" War _is_ violence. > conflating legitimate acts of the state with extralegal personal criminality Well, you're saying that I equate the president's tweets as his personal threats. That's orthogonal to extralegal. It is also irrelevant, for the reasons I'm about to lay out: The Terms of Service are the basis of a contract for using the site[1]. Unless there is a specific clause for "legitimate acts of state" then its a binary choice. Choosing not to implement them equally is a political choice. look, its perfectly possibly to not agree with a person, but insist that legal/procedural process is adhered to. The president is a person like any other, and subject to the same legal/procedural process as the rest of us. [1] well usually.
  - speedplane 7y ago
    > Bombing another country is a legitimate act of the state. You're wading into deep waters here. What makes a state's actions "legitimate"? There are a lot of theories on this. One of these theories says that a state's legitimacy and sovereignty rests in the will of the people it governs. For example, the U.S declaration of independence states in it's first paragraph "Governments ... deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed". Accordingly, if a state does a thing, and enough people ruled under that state believe it's illegitimate, then it is indeed illegitimate. Under this principle, criticizing the actions of those that govern you is not unpatriotic or "a political statement" as you say, it's an integral part of government itself.

KaiserPro 7y ago

You are interpreting this as a political statement. Threatening to bomb a country is threatening violence, this is against the terms of service: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules to quote: > you may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people Like the law, it either applies equally to everyone, or its does not apply. > You don't get to impose pacifist foreign policy on the president by conflating random threats of personal violence with the legitimate business of statecraft. Again, you are reading way more into this. Either the Terms of service apply to everyone, or they do not apply. According to those terms of service, there is no different between me threatening to kill a group of people, and trump doing the same. As I said, transparency and consistency is the only way it can be implemented effectively.

quotemstr 7y ago
Bombing another country is a legitimate act of the state. It's no more an endorsement of "violence" than wishing for the arrest of a notorious serial killer is an act of "kidnapping". Conflating legitimate acts of the state with extralegal personal criminality is a political statement. If a site's terms of service prohibit endorsing legitimate acts of the state, that TOS is a political statement.
- KaiserPro 7y ago
  > Bombing another country is a legitimate act of the state yes, it can be. > It's no more an endorsement of "violence" War _is_ violence. > conflating legitimate acts of the state with extralegal personal criminality Well, you're saying that I equate the president's tweets as his personal threats. That's orthogonal to extralegal. It is also irrelevant, for the reasons I'm about to lay out: The Terms of Service are the basis of a contract for using the site[1]. Unless there is a specific clause for "legitimate acts of state" then its a binary choice. Choosing not to implement them equally is a political choice. look, its perfectly possibly to not agree with a person, but insist that legal/procedural process is adhered to. The president is a person like any other, and subject to the same legal/procedural process as the rest of us. [1] well usually.
- speedplane 7y ago
  > Bombing another country is a legitimate act of the state. You're wading into deep waters here. What makes a state's actions "legitimate"? There are a lot of theories on this. One of these theories says that a state's legitimacy and sovereignty rests in the will of the people it governs. For example, the U.S declaration of independence states in it's first paragraph "Governments ... deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed". Accordingly, if a state does a thing, and enough people ruled under that state believe it's illegitimate, then it is indeed illegitimate. Under this principle, criticizing the actions of those that govern you is not unpatriotic or "a political statement" as you say, it's an integral part of government itself.