3 ms·

Seems like a bad idea when political leaders are calling for compiling enemies lists and punishing opposition supporters. https://nypost.com/2020/11/06/aoc-fac

Seems like a bad idea when political leaders are calling for compiling enemies lists and punishing opposition supporters. https://nypost.com/2020/11/06/aoc-facing-heat-for-wanting-to-archive-posts-by-trump-sycophants/ https://nypost.com/2020/11/06/aoc-facing-heat-for-wanting-to...

opheliate 6y ago
Hey, could you point me to where the political leader you're referring to has actually called for punishing opposition supporters? The tweets she actually wrote only explicitly ask for archiving things people have posted publicly, not for punishing anyone. It's obviously possible to read what she wrote as a plan to compile a list of enemies for future consequences, but just to give an alternate perspective, I read what was said as a simple call for accountability of public figures (i.e: politicians within the Republican party who have supported Trump, but now are disavowing him), rather than being intended as some sort of mass-surveillance programme targetted at anyone who disagreed with her.
- matthewmacleod 6y ago
  Of course they can’t do that; they’re deliberately misrepresenting a statement in order to stir up more of this nonsense.
- eyeball 6y ago
  >It's obviously possible to read what she wrote as a plan to compile a list of enemies for future consequences Yes, yes it is. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/first-aocs-list-now-cnn-warns-of-blacklisting-trump-team https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/first-...
  - opheliate 6y ago
    This doesn't provide any more evidence for AOC having called for punishing opposition supporters, does it? Tapper doesn't appear to be directing employers to do anything here: he's stating how employers judge candidates, and noting how considering one's actions in that frame might cause one to act differently. There's not a threat here, it's an acknowledgement of how society works. My point is that these aren't reasonable interpretations of what these figures have said. Like I said, it's certainly possible to read into their words as much as you want, but it requires far fewer assumptions about the unknowable mental states of others to simply take their words at face value. Divorced of the spin placed onto what's been said by the press, these statements are entirely innocuous.

opheliate 6y ago

Hey, could you point me to where the political leader you're referring to has actually called for punishing opposition supporters? The tweets she actually wrote only explicitly ask for archiving things people have posted publicly, not for punishing anyone. It's obviously possible to read what she wrote as a plan to compile a list of enemies for future consequences, but just to give an alternate perspective, I read what was said as a simple call for accountability of public figures (i.e: politicians within the Republican party who have supported Trump, but now are disavowing him), rather than being intended as some sort of mass-surveillance programme targetted at anyone who disagreed with her.

matthewmacleod 6y ago
Of course they can’t do that; they’re deliberately misrepresenting a statement in order to stir up more of this nonsense.
eyeball 6y ago
>It's obviously possible to read what she wrote as a plan to compile a list of enemies for future consequences Yes, yes it is. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/first-aocs-list-now-cnn-warns-of-blacklisting-trump-team https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/first-...
- opheliate 6y ago
  This doesn't provide any more evidence for AOC having called for punishing opposition supporters, does it? Tapper doesn't appear to be directing employers to do anything here: he's stating how employers judge candidates, and noting how considering one's actions in that frame might cause one to act differently. There's not a threat here, it's an acknowledgement of how society works. My point is that these aren't reasonable interpretations of what these figures have said. Like I said, it's certainly possible to read into their words as much as you want, but it requires far fewer assumptions about the unknowable mental states of others to simply take their words at face value. Divorced of the spin placed onto what's been said by the press, these statements are entirely innocuous.