8 ms·

You're conflating a few issues. Facebook is being boycotted ostensibly for failing to combat hate speech, whereas your comment is mostly written as a argument t

by tomp 6y ago

You're conflating a few issues. Facebook is being boycotted ostensibly for failing to combat hate speech, whereas your comment is mostly written as a argument to censor fake news. Classical mote-and-bailey fallacy. Twitter deleting bots claiming that Obama was born in Africa? Fine. Twitter tagging Trump's warning that any squatters in Washington DC will be treated according to law as "promoting violence against specific groups" or "abusive"? That's quite transparent political bias. Sure, you probably wrote your comment because you oppose Trump on political views and you support Twitter acting against promoting those views, but at least be transparent about it; don't claim that tech giants are just trying to protect the "naive, gullible, stupid" is gas-lighting. Last but not least, do you have any evidence for this? IMO it's mostly just used for journalists to discredit people they disagree with (e.g. Trump or Brexit voters). > we have a lot of people who are just too trusting, or too naive, or too gullible, or perhaps just even stupid.

tzs 6y ago
> You're conflating a few issues. Facebook is being boycotted ostensibly for failing to combat hate speech, whereas your comment is mostly written as a argument to censor fake news. Classical mote-and-bailey fallacy. I didn't realize that when you said the law should be the arbiter of what speech is allowed, not Facebook, that you were just talking about hate speech. I thought you were making an argument about free speech in general. > Sure, you probably wrote your comment because you oppose Trump on political views and you support Twitter acting against promoting those views, but at least be transparent about it; don't claim that tech giants are just trying to protect the "naive, gullible, stupid" is gas-lighting. Actually, none of the examples I had in mind had anything whatsoever to do with Trump as far as I know. I was thinking of flat Earth people, Scientologists, the people who feed kids bleach to ward of autism, and similar.
danans 6y ago
> Trump's warning that any squatters in Washington DC will be treated according to law What is this law against peaceful protest that you cite? And under what statute is the use of violence against those protesters sanctioned by the law?
- bhupy 6y ago
  Squatting + Vandalism != peaceful protest If a group of people peacefully protest on my lawn, they are not Constitutionally protected to do so, no matter how "peaceful" their assembly. If I call the cops to forcefully remove them from my property, I would be acting within the bounds of the law. If a group of people spray-paints my business, and I call on the police to reprimand them, that is again within the confines of the law. The President tweeting about doing the same is a simple extension of this. You may disagree with the law in question (as is your right), but it's a bit silly to suggest that tweeting about enforcement of the law (no matter how unjust you think it is), should be considered beyond the pale on a global platform.
  - danans 6y ago
    > Squatting + Vandalism != peaceful protest Agreed that vandalism is not peaceful protest. > If a group of people peacefully protest on my lawn, they are not Constitutionally protected to do But occupying a public space (not a private lawn) in protest - what you refer to as squatting - is absolutely peaceful protest. Lafayette Square is not POTUS' private lawn.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      > Lafayette Square is not POTUS' private lawn But St Johns church is not a public space, and vandalizing it is not legal. Even in public commons, vandalizing/toppling public statues is currently not legal. Trump's tweets/posts are strictly about reprimanding this behavior. Again, there is a growing orthodoxy that holds that this behavior should not be reprimanded, but tweeting about enforcing those existing laws is well within the realm of reasonable discourse, especially for a political leader.
      - danans 6y ago
        > But St Johns church is not a public space Lafayette Square is a public place, and that is where POTUS cleared peaceful protectors with force, so that he could walk across it for his photo op at the church. If it were an issue of protecting St John's Church property, they could have cleared just that property, and brought the president in with a helicopter. But the whole point was to demonstrate the show of force against the protesters. You appear to be focusing on St John's Church's private property with the goal of distracting attention from the public place where the actual use of force against peaceful protesters took place: Lafayette Square. One doesn't need to be a liberal to call out the shamefulness of that incident. In fact the hardly liberal James Mattis did exactly that, as did the other general who was caught in the photo op.

by tomp 6y ago

tzs 6y ago

> You're conflating a few issues. Facebook is being boycotted ostensibly for failing to combat hate speech, whereas your comment is mostly written as a argument to censor fake news. Classical mote-and-bailey fallacy. I didn't realize that when you said the law should be the arbiter of what speech is allowed, not Facebook, that you were just talking about hate speech. I thought you were making an argument about free speech in general. > Sure, you probably wrote your comment because you oppose Trump on political views and you support Twitter acting against promoting those views, but at least be transparent about it; don't claim that tech giants are just trying to protect the "naive, gullible, stupid" is gas-lighting. Actually, none of the examples I had in mind had anything whatsoever to do with Trump as far as I know. I was thinking of flat Earth people, Scientologists, the people who feed kids bleach to ward of autism, and similar.

danans 6y ago

> Trump's warning that any squatters in Washington DC will be treated according to law What is this law against peaceful protest that you cite? And under what statute is the use of violence against those protesters sanctioned by the law?

bhupy 6y ago
Squatting + Vandalism != peaceful protest If a group of people peacefully protest on my lawn, they are not Constitutionally protected to do so, no matter how "peaceful" their assembly. If I call the cops to forcefully remove them from my property, I would be acting within the bounds of the law. If a group of people spray-paints my business, and I call on the police to reprimand them, that is again within the confines of the law. The President tweeting about doing the same is a simple extension of this. You may disagree with the law in question (as is your right), but it's a bit silly to suggest that tweeting about enforcement of the law (no matter how unjust you think it is), should be considered beyond the pale on a global platform.
- danans 6y ago
  > Squatting + Vandalism != peaceful protest Agreed that vandalism is not peaceful protest. > If a group of people peacefully protest on my lawn, they are not Constitutionally protected to do But occupying a public space (not a private lawn) in protest - what you refer to as squatting - is absolutely peaceful protest. Lafayette Square is not POTUS' private lawn.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    > Lafayette Square is not POTUS' private lawn But St Johns church is not a public space, and vandalizing it is not legal. Even in public commons, vandalizing/toppling public statues is currently not legal. Trump's tweets/posts are strictly about reprimanding this behavior. Again, there is a growing orthodoxy that holds that this behavior should not be reprimanded, but tweeting about enforcing those existing laws is well within the realm of reasonable discourse, especially for a political leader.
    - danans 6y ago
      > But St Johns church is not a public space Lafayette Square is a public place, and that is where POTUS cleared peaceful protectors with force, so that he could walk across it for his photo op at the church. If it were an issue of protecting St John's Church property, they could have cleared just that property, and brought the president in with a helicopter. But the whole point was to demonstrate the show of force against the protesters. You appear to be focusing on St John's Church's private property with the goal of distracting attention from the public place where the actual use of force against peaceful protesters took place: Lafayette Square. One doesn't need to be a liberal to call out the shamefulness of that incident. In fact the hardly liberal James Mattis did exactly that, as did the other general who was caught in the photo op.