4 ms·
> That is infanticide. Humane infanticide. > People going around yelling about "Ralph Northam endorsing infanticide" don't care about that. They don't care abo
by AndrewUnmuted 7y ago
> That is infanticide. Humane infanticide.
> People going around yelling about "Ralph Northam endorsing infanticide" don't care about that. They don't care about the baby, and they CERTAINLY don't care about the mother.
OK, but the problem here is that Ralph Northam, in the video, does endorse infanticide. There is nothing untrue about that analysis. Sure, there may be nothing wrong with that from my or your point of view, but you are tacking on your own narrative to the video all the same. Because you and I don't care about the mother, either, no matter what you may say to the contrary.
That viral video clip is just the VA governor saying some stuff during an interview on a radio program. You and the OP both attached your own critical analysis to that video, and that's great. Platforms which actively discourage this have alterior motives beyond sharing, beyond the truth, and beyond kindness.
You know who cares the least about the mother, out of all of us? Twitter.
- markdown 7y ago> There is nothing untrue about that analysis. I disagree. "Man endorses infanticide under x conditions" is the truth, and "Man endorses infanticide" isn't. Half of the truth isn't the truth.
- BoorishBears 7y agoThis is ridiculous, no statement exists outside of context. > "If you saw someone about to murder a child, would you punch them to stop it?" > "Yes I'd punch that person" > This just in: AndrewUnmuted advocating violent assault and battery. We would never stand for a journalist making that kind of report, why? Because it's a contextomy of the worst kind that totally twists what was said, and is tantamount to a lie even if "technically" it's true. Why should Twitter encourage the spread of that lie?
- kipchak 7y agoI get and agree with the premise, but wouldn't someone punching a murderer to be fall under Defense of Another technically and not assault and battery? I think in that case saying someone was advocating assault and battery would be technically and practically untrue.
- BoorishBears 7y agoThis is great proof of the point: - You would still technically be committing the legal definition of those crimes, you just have a valid defense, under the rights afforded by defense of others - You could aways weasel out by saying you're referring to the physical acts, not the legal definitions of those terms Once you start arbitrarily shedding context, it becomes easier and easier to flat out lie, using the "truth", then weasel your way out once held to task for it.
- vokep 7y agoBecause it gives twitter, not you or I, the sole power of deciding what is a lie and not. Its a power that can be used benevolently, but strongly begs human nature to use it in a corrupt way.
- BoorishBears 7y agoTwitter already has sole power of deciding what exists on their platform... there's no freedom of speech. They don't need the excuse or the train of action: we don't like that => but it's true => label as lie => removed as lie. They're allowed to go: we don't like that => removed.
- cameronbrown 7y agoLegally, sure. Morally? Possibly not. I'm still very uncomfortable with companies (and governments) having so much power over what people see. This 'Twitter decides the truth' is 1984-bound.
- BoorishBears 7y agoI have no idea what you're talking about. Their ability to remove a post has nothing to do with morality. Morally they have no obligation to support hate speech and that alone already excludes them from supporting free speech.