8 ms·

Good. He needs to finally shut up and get the hell out. The losing tantrum has continued long enough. Time to leave before he cracks the country in two irrevoca

Good. He needs to finally shut up and get the hell out. The losing tantrum has continued long enough. Time to leave before he cracks the country in two irrevocably. To those who are downvoting: he lost pretty much every legal case he threw at this problem. He lost the election. It wasn't stolen. Give it up. There's no Kraken, just a bunch of grifters trying to take your money (including Trump himself). Time to move on.

fwn 6y ago
I downvoted you. I'm a German who, like most Germans, does not like Trump. The article is about Twitter exploring new ways to shape interactions with the content from Trump, a retreating politician, on their platform. This development is far more relevant to me than the largely US american pro/contra Trump debate, as my own societies discourse is dependent on those very same platforms. I therefore believe that it is completely wrong to justify Twitter's continuing trials on discoursive influence over the notion that it's alright since Trump might be a particularly bad actor. I think that's off topic and misses the point. I just thought I'll explain since the thread appears to be very heated right now. People might attribute up & downvotes to a far smaller set of reasons than they should on a platform as global as HN.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Is there a reason to think they intend to use these strategies more generally?
  - j16sdiz 6y ago
    Because any power would corrupts eventually?
    - UncleMeat 6y ago
      So? That isn't the only input to the system. The conclusion here obviously cannot be "then grant no power to anybody" unless you are the most extreme left-anarchist. Power has the capacity to harm but also aid. We must balance the risk of harm against the potential for aid. The ability to run a standing army can be used for ill. Yet we have an army. The ability to regulate corporate pollution can be used for ill. Yet we have pollution regulations. The ability to throw people in prison via the justice system can be used for ill. Yet we have laws and courts and prisons.
- spurgu 6y ago
  > The article is about Twitter exploring new ways to shape interactions with the content from Trump, a retreating politician If he actually was giving signs of retreating. Him undermining the democratic process (if you can call the electoral college that) is what's worrying here (I'm also European).
  - tetrometal 6y ago
    Challenging elections to ensure they're fair and legal is hardly undermining them. It forces them to be strengthened against fraud. I don't think Bush/Gore undermined anything. I don't think Hillary undermined them when she told Biden not to concede under any circumstances. I don't support her or Biden's politics, but I cheered that position.
    - MereInterest 6y ago
      Challenging elections to ensure they're fair and legal is hardly undermining them, but isn't what Trump is doing. He is grasping at the barest of legal straws, all the while asserting that he is right. For a good review of just how off base these lawsuits are, Legal Eagle has done a good review of them [0,1]. (Warning, long-form content with sponsorship segments.) [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha7iWECm_8E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha7iWECm_8E [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-nblE8ps2M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-nblE8ps2M
      - tetrometal 6y ago
        I don't really care what legal straws he grasps at, though. I say go for it. Any challenge only serves to strengthen our democracy, excepting any that succeed in spite of being wrong. I have so far seen no reason to worry about the latter bit.
        MereInterest 6y ago
        I strongly disagree. This is the equivalent of using SLAPP lawsuits to muddy the waters and prevent moving forward.
- prh8 6y ago
  What if he tweeted encouraging people to go murder [insert any of the groups he has repeatedly attacked] ? Would the absolutism of allowing that outweigh the obvious problems it would bring on?
  - amadeuspagel 6y ago
    Four US presidents have been assasinated, two wounded, and there have been attempts on many more, including Trump. Clearly speech critical of the president cannot be allowed on twitter.
    - prh8 6y ago
      I originally left out the word "he," which made my question less clear. But if a president encouraged murder, do you think that should be left alone? What if he tweeted he would pardon anyone, even further encouraging it?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- sixothree 6y ago
  We have armed men rallying outside of people's houses because of him.
  - dafoex 6y ago
    Armed with what? Since about March or April we've had a not insignificant number of people armed with Molotov cocktails, what difference is there when they are armed with factory made weapons? Frankly, anyone that threatens or carries out acts of violence is at fault, regardless of their political persuasion - don't turn a blind eye to actual criminals just because you think you might agree with them.
    - anigbrowl 6y ago
      Since about March or April we've had a not insignificant number of people armed with Molotov cocktails, what difference is there when they are armed with factory made weapons? Those people with molotov cocktails have been almost exclusively targeting property rather than people, and specifically corporate rather than personal property. I'm not suggesting you should approve that, but it is categorically different. As for your question, it makes a huge difference. While any weapon can be used to inflict harm (by definition), some make that significantly easier than others. It's facile to ignore this and pretend all harms are equivalent.
- that_guy_iain 6y ago
  Bit awkward but I'll use the example I had in mind. What would have happened if people stopped Hitler from standing in beer halls blaming Jews for everything. He wouldn't have been able to gather a following and influencer so many people and so many lives would have been spared. I use the Hitler example, because what we're seeing is Trump trying to grasp power not via a vote but undermining the vote and is stirring up tensions pretty much like Hitler. I get everyone thinks free speech is essential, but we live in a world where free speech is not a thing for very valid reasons. Germany only promises freedom of opinion; they don't actually promise you can tell anyone that opinion, try denying the holocaust. And in Germany, you're not legally allowed to insult someone (civil matter, but still not legal), in Berlin, and someone got convicted (eventually overturned but the fact it happened is massive) for farting on a police officer. The US, which claims to be the centre of freedom, has one of the lowest press freedoms and a multitude of laws to keep things secret. There are things that we know people shouldn't be allowed to say. Freedom of speech is a myth and should not be used to enable the destruction of democracy or to spread propaganda (in any sense). I'm sure the majority of people here would agree terrorism propaganda videos shouldn't be hosted on twitter or youtube, and people shouldn't be allowed to promote terrorism. Well, this is basically the same, in many of the Trump supporter stuff, I've seen calls for domestic terrorism. Also, I think a lot of people don't realise why we're seeing an increase in companies stepping up here. Biden has offically won, now. All states have certified who won. The election is over. All that can be done now is stirring up hate and starting a civil war.
- DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
  > The article is about Twitter exploring new ways to shape interactions with the content from Trump, a retreating politician, on their platform. ... > I therefore believe that it is completely wrong to justify Twitter's continuing trials on discoursive influence over the notion that it's alright since Trump might be a particularly bad actor. what you see is a global company acting locally and so not too surprising, no? Algorithmic biases and assumption engineered so the service is successful with a US ideology. Nobody asks the question in any tech company does the product only work in my market (unless you're outside the US). There are plenty of German companies (start-ups especially) which first design for a market that works in the US. Even language support is first English before they become local. FAANG and every SV start-up thinks first whether that works here in the US. It's just normal business sense and no big scheme of why they do this. Twitter does it because it makes sense for them to fight back against lies and disinformation that end up killing people. Free Speech ends here.
adnzzzzZ 6y ago
If cities can be burned to the ground, statues toppled, and no one gets arrested (or if they do they're bailed immediately), how is a little losing tantrum going to make things significantly worse? As Trump himself says: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doZE4Yqog5I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doZE4Yqog5I
- mmastrac 6y ago
  Heaven forbid that people protest getting killed randomly by the police. And don't act like there aren't instigators on the right pushing the violence because it suits their ends. Caring more about statues than human rights says a lot about you.
  - DapperZoom 6y ago
    People can start protesting getting killed randomly by the police once anything remotely resembling that starts to happen.
  - adnzzzzZ 6y ago
    I agree with you! The way the police acts is often awful and overly broad. I'm all for diminishing their power. But this makes your comment down the thread even more confusing. You said: "He's trying to be clever and say "civil war" without saying "civil war". The LARPers on the right seem to be enjoying this a great deal. I'm sure the FBI will be very interested in their calls for violence." So, are you against using police force unnecessarily or for it? Because you seem to be saying that people should be visited by the FBI for their comments online, like it happened with this kid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgqeJi_Z6aM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgqeJi_Z6aM. Or are you only for it if it's against your political opponents?
    - mmastrac 6y ago
      Oh no you got me. Police shutting down calls for bombing democratic cities is exactly the same thing.
  - dafoex 6y ago
dafoex 6y ago
The trouble is that by visibly taking action against a particular group, that group will feel the need to retaliate - this is the most sure fire way to radicalise a group I can think of. Filter bubbles and shadow bans already exist, and while I think they are particularly insidious for people wanting to find multiple opposing views on something, they are invisible to the average user. Just make sure that Trump's tweets and interactions don't get shown on any feed except his own page, and any retweets are only shown to the people that retweet him, and be done with it. People still think they have the freedom to read and speak about naughty opinions, but they never get further than the "desk" of the person that wrote those opinions.
- gfodor 6y ago
  There doesn't seem to be much remaining restraint against suppression of conservative speech, since so many norms have now been revoked. You don't have to agree with these people to understand the basic formula that if a large enough group feels like they have been disenfranchised and are now being suppressed from talking about it by those in power the result is always the same. The way out of this was for the winning side to get out ahead of it and do everything in their power to legitimize the election for these people. They didn't have a moral duty to do so, but it was foolish not to, since now by not doing so we've seen a deep, cemented, hatred and distrust of the outcome and the other side that from my vantage point is materially worse than before and could have been avoided to a large degree. We're in trouble. People on the "winning" side of this dispute seem to be celebrating as the other side's hopes are dashed and their speech is marginalized, but in fact they ought to be terrified, since insofar as the other side isn't persuaded of their error and their beliefs deepen in light of the coercion being used against them being seen as a form of confirmation, things are going to be worse for everyone going into the new year. A strange irony from this situation that I hadn't realized is that it seems that if one is on the winning side of a dispute its the point of maximal confidence the other side will be coerced into submission that one actually should be the least confident that the dispute is going to be settled, since it means coercion has been accepted as the only possible method to settle it. In fact, its that moment, the one where persuasion is understood to not be viable, which presents the greatest danger. Our history points to another example of the point of presumed capitulation in fact being the start of anything but, but I won't make the analogy at the risk of it (rightly) being torn apart.
tetrometal 6y ago
Contrary to the hypocritical ravings of the left, I think election challenges are healthy for democracy. I wish they happened every time. I don't have a lot of trust in them as-is, and whatever the outcome of Trump's challenges, one of them will be that anyone thinking about committing fraud will likely think again after all this. https://spectator.us/reasons-why-the-2020-presidential-election-is-deeply-puzzling/ https://spectator.us/reasons-why-the-2020-presidential-elect...
- yokoprime 6y ago
  It’s ok to challenge and ask for proof. It’s not ok to blatantly ignore this proof once provided without any justification. It’s not ok to “feel” something is’t right because it’s against your bias.
  - tetrometal 6y ago
    Eh, I see this play out over and over again: 1. Right-leaning person or organization makes an argument. 2. Left-leaning person or organization makes a counter-argument. 3. Right-leaning person or organization makes a counter-argument. 4. Left-leaning person or organization cries foul, declares the discussion decided at step two and further discussion unethical. That's not how these things work.
- rblatz 6y ago
  In general most people I see aren’t against the legal challenges. They are against the trial in the court of his supporters opinion that he is running. Because arguments that are meritless/fabrications can be brought up with no repercussions. Based on the pitiful weak arguments he made in court it seems like his team wasn’t even trying to win an actual court case, they were playing it up to rally his base.
  - tetrometal 6y ago
    The trial in the court is a legal challenge. I don't really have a problem with Trump (or Biden) supporters being rallied. Why does "rally his base" have a bad connotation in your mind?
downandout 6y ago
The reason you are getting downvotes is because you aren’t seeing the bigger picture. This has nothing to do with Trump, and everything to do with platforms that have a de facto monopoly on certain types of free speech suppressing it in favor of certain groups. It’s all well and good when they are suppressing people that disagree with you, but not so much when the opposite is true. This is why “platforms” like Twitter need to lose their liability protection when they engage in such behavior. They are no longer playing the role of independent platform in need such protection; they are a publisher that is deciding what can and cannot be viewed. That is perfectly acceptable, as long as they are held accountable for that content. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
- dleslie 6y ago
  Twitter does not have a monopoly, let alone is abusing the powers of one. You may use Parler, Gab, and countless federated services; along with Facebook and other giants.
  - downandout 6y ago
    A de facto monopoly means one that is, for all intents and purposes, a monopoly - despite the existence of alternatives. Is anyone going to read your content on any of the services you mentioned?
    - dleslie 6y ago
      Plenty of people use Parler, Facebook, Mastodon and Gab. Seems quite American to me to be supporting a marketplace of alternatives.
      - downandout 6y ago
        Facebook is in a different category. Are you really arguing that Parler, Mastodon, and Gab have userbases that are on par with Twitter? How exactly are you defining “plenty”?
DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
> Time to leave before he cracks the country in two irrevocably. hasn't this already happened? It'll take a long time to recover the damage done to foreign policy. even worse is the division, which was already present thanks to how distant people are if they are a few income brackets apart. he really knew how to worsen all this and make the chaos work for him. whoever repairs the damage in the coming years has their work cut out. maybe we've learned something as a collective? (I don't think so because while humans are smart humanity is the worst)
- WillPostForFood 6y ago
  It'll take a long time to recover the damage done to foreign policy. It doesn’t take too long to mobilize the troops and get back to active war in the Middle East.
  - orwin 6y ago
    Nah, but the Iran deal is almost dead, the US lost the leadership in the TPP, and although India, the Philippines, Korea, Japan and Australia played well, the CCP grabbed more power than ever in this trade deal. The CCP also managed to take control of eastern Africa and managed to make an indian ocean trade route that COMPLETELY avoid India. Well done. Also during the squabble between Trump and Kim-Jun-Un, the CCP just send 4000 troups in 16 different location around the Indian ocean, to "secure their investment". TBH i'm glad there is a little competition to the US, and that the CCP successfully outplayed the US on a diplomatic standpoint, but please don't conflate foreign policy and war. War is such a small part of foreign policy overall.
    - netsharc 6y ago
      I think the poster you're replying to is just regurgitating the common right-wing talking point that Obama was a war-monger, and that Trump did not start any new wars. (Counterpoint: Under Trump, air strikes rules of engagement got loosened, and more civilians died: https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2020/Rising%20Civilian%20Death%20Toll%20in%20Afghanistan_Costs%20of%20War_Dec%207%202020.pdf https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/20... ). On the topic of foreign policy fuck-ups, another consequence of Trump is that countries about to do deals with the USA under Biden will ask, "So, will this deal be undone in when the next administration comes to power?" and will be more hesistant or they'll manage to get a better bargain because of the US's loss of reputation.
lucb1e 6y ago
> To those who are downvoting: [I'm right, give it up already] It's not about being right or wrong. Downvotes are for comments that don't contribute to the conversation. One can agree with you and still think the tone does not invite interesting conversation. The guidelines say: "Users should vote and comment when they run across something they personally find interesting".
- dafoex 6y ago
  True, but in practice "upvote" tends to equate to "agree" and "downvote" to "disagree".
  - lucb1e 6y ago
    Hence the reminder, both for GP and those voting in the thread. Most of the time it doesn't matter so much, but I figured I'd at least try to help preventing an echo chamber here where useless polarized statements are voted on based on how many followers that pole has...
nindalf 6y ago
> he lost pretty much every legal case he threw at this problem. That’s an understatement. After the second loss in the Supreme Court he and his allies are at 1 win, 57 losses. He lost the election and lost every case that mattered, while winning one inconsequential case. What a loser.
Yetanfou 6y ago
After 4 years of hearing that Trump only got to where he was due to Russian interference without Twitter doing even a single fact check, let alone any banishments I think Twitter has a remarkably itchy trigger finger when it comes to Trump claiming similar reasons for Biden gaining the upper hand.

fwn 6y ago

I downvoted you. I'm a German who, like most Germans, does not like Trump. The article is about Twitter exploring new ways to shape interactions with the content from Trump, a retreating politician, on their platform. This development is far more relevant to me than the largely US american pro/contra Trump debate, as my own societies discourse is dependent on those very same platforms. I therefore believe that it is completely wrong to justify Twitter's continuing trials on discoursive influence over the notion that it's alright since Trump might be a particularly bad actor. I think that's off topic and misses the point. I just thought I'll explain since the thread appears to be very heated right now. People might attribute up & downvotes to a far smaller set of reasons than they should on a platform as global as HN.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Is there a reason to think they intend to use these strategies more generally?
- j16sdiz 6y ago
  Because any power would corrupts eventually?
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    So? That isn't the only input to the system. The conclusion here obviously cannot be "then grant no power to anybody" unless you are the most extreme left-anarchist. Power has the capacity to harm but also aid. We must balance the risk of harm against the potential for aid. The ability to run a standing army can be used for ill. Yet we have an army. The ability to regulate corporate pollution can be used for ill. Yet we have pollution regulations. The ability to throw people in prison via the justice system can be used for ill. Yet we have laws and courts and prisons.
spurgu 6y ago
> The article is about Twitter exploring new ways to shape interactions with the content from Trump, a retreating politician If he actually was giving signs of retreating. Him undermining the democratic process (if you can call the electoral college that) is what's worrying here (I'm also European).
- tetrometal 6y ago
  Challenging elections to ensure they're fair and legal is hardly undermining them. It forces them to be strengthened against fraud. I don't think Bush/Gore undermined anything. I don't think Hillary undermined them when she told Biden not to concede under any circumstances. I don't support her or Biden's politics, but I cheered that position.
  - MereInterest 6y ago
    Challenging elections to ensure they're fair and legal is hardly undermining them, but isn't what Trump is doing. He is grasping at the barest of legal straws, all the while asserting that he is right. For a good review of just how off base these lawsuits are, Legal Eagle has done a good review of them [0,1]. (Warning, long-form content with sponsorship segments.) [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha7iWECm_8E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha7iWECm_8E [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-nblE8ps2M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-nblE8ps2M
    - tetrometal 6y ago
      I don't really care what legal straws he grasps at, though. I say go for it. Any challenge only serves to strengthen our democracy, excepting any that succeed in spite of being wrong. I have so far seen no reason to worry about the latter bit.
      - MereInterest 6y ago
        I strongly disagree. This is the equivalent of using SLAPP lawsuits to muddy the waters and prevent moving forward.
prh8 6y ago
What if he tweeted encouraging people to go murder [insert any of the groups he has repeatedly attacked] ? Would the absolutism of allowing that outweigh the obvious problems it would bring on?
- amadeuspagel 6y ago
  Four US presidents have been assasinated, two wounded, and there have been attempts on many more, including Trump. Clearly speech critical of the president cannot be allowed on twitter.
  - prh8 6y ago
    I originally left out the word "he," which made my question less clear. But if a president encouraged murder, do you think that should be left alone? What if he tweeted he would pardon anyone, even further encouraging it?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sixothree 6y ago
We have armed men rallying outside of people's houses because of him.
- dafoex 6y ago
  Armed with what? Since about March or April we've had a not insignificant number of people armed with Molotov cocktails, what difference is there when they are armed with factory made weapons? Frankly, anyone that threatens or carries out acts of violence is at fault, regardless of their political persuasion - don't turn a blind eye to actual criminals just because you think you might agree with them.
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    Since about March or April we've had a not insignificant number of people armed with Molotov cocktails, what difference is there when they are armed with factory made weapons? Those people with molotov cocktails have been almost exclusively targeting property rather than people, and specifically corporate rather than personal property. I'm not suggesting you should approve that, but it is categorically different. As for your question, it makes a huge difference. While any weapon can be used to inflict harm (by definition), some make that significantly easier than others. It's facile to ignore this and pretend all harms are equivalent.
that_guy_iain 6y ago
Bit awkward but I'll use the example I had in mind. What would have happened if people stopped Hitler from standing in beer halls blaming Jews for everything. He wouldn't have been able to gather a following and influencer so many people and so many lives would have been spared. I use the Hitler example, because what we're seeing is Trump trying to grasp power not via a vote but undermining the vote and is stirring up tensions pretty much like Hitler. I get everyone thinks free speech is essential, but we live in a world where free speech is not a thing for very valid reasons. Germany only promises freedom of opinion; they don't actually promise you can tell anyone that opinion, try denying the holocaust. And in Germany, you're not legally allowed to insult someone (civil matter, but still not legal), in Berlin, and someone got convicted (eventually overturned but the fact it happened is massive) for farting on a police officer. The US, which claims to be the centre of freedom, has one of the lowest press freedoms and a multitude of laws to keep things secret. There are things that we know people shouldn't be allowed to say. Freedom of speech is a myth and should not be used to enable the destruction of democracy or to spread propaganda (in any sense). I'm sure the majority of people here would agree terrorism propaganda videos shouldn't be hosted on twitter or youtube, and people shouldn't be allowed to promote terrorism. Well, this is basically the same, in many of the Trump supporter stuff, I've seen calls for domestic terrorism. Also, I think a lot of people don't realise why we're seeing an increase in companies stepping up here. Biden has offically won, now. All states have certified who won. The election is over. All that can be done now is stirring up hate and starting a civil war.
DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
> The article is about Twitter exploring new ways to shape interactions with the content from Trump, a retreating politician, on their platform. ... > I therefore believe that it is completely wrong to justify Twitter's continuing trials on discoursive influence over the notion that it's alright since Trump might be a particularly bad actor. what you see is a global company acting locally and so not too surprising, no? Algorithmic biases and assumption engineered so the service is successful with a US ideology. Nobody asks the question in any tech company does the product only work in my market (unless you're outside the US). There are plenty of German companies (start-ups especially) which first design for a market that works in the US. Even language support is first English before they become local. FAANG and every SV start-up thinks first whether that works here in the US. It's just normal business sense and no big scheme of why they do this. Twitter does it because it makes sense for them to fight back against lies and disinformation that end up killing people. Free Speech ends here.

adnzzzzZ 6y ago

If cities can be burned to the ground, statues toppled, and no one gets arrested (or if they do they're bailed immediately), how is a little losing tantrum going to make things significantly worse? As Trump himself says: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doZE4Yqog5I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doZE4Yqog5I

mmastrac 6y ago
Heaven forbid that people protest getting killed randomly by the police. And don't act like there aren't instigators on the right pushing the violence because it suits their ends. Caring more about statues than human rights says a lot about you.
- DapperZoom 6y ago
  People can start protesting getting killed randomly by the police once anything remotely resembling that starts to happen.
- adnzzzzZ 6y ago
  I agree with you! The way the police acts is often awful and overly broad. I'm all for diminishing their power. But this makes your comment down the thread even more confusing. You said: "He's trying to be clever and say "civil war" without saying "civil war". The LARPers on the right seem to be enjoying this a great deal. I'm sure the FBI will be very interested in their calls for violence." So, are you against using police force unnecessarily or for it? Because you seem to be saying that people should be visited by the FBI for their comments online, like it happened with this kid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgqeJi_Z6aM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgqeJi_Z6aM. Or are you only for it if it's against your political opponents?
  - mmastrac 6y ago
    Oh no you got me. Police shutting down calls for bombing democratic cities is exactly the same thing.
- dafoex 6y ago

dafoex 6y ago

The trouble is that by visibly taking action against a particular group, that group will feel the need to retaliate - this is the most sure fire way to radicalise a group I can think of. Filter bubbles and shadow bans already exist, and while I think they are particularly insidious for people wanting to find multiple opposing views on something, they are invisible to the average user. Just make sure that Trump's tweets and interactions don't get shown on any feed except his own page, and any retweets are only shown to the people that retweet him, and be done with it. People still think they have the freedom to read and speak about naughty opinions, but they never get further than the "desk" of the person that wrote those opinions.

gfodor 6y ago
There doesn't seem to be much remaining restraint against suppression of conservative speech, since so many norms have now been revoked. You don't have to agree with these people to understand the basic formula that if a large enough group feels like they have been disenfranchised and are now being suppressed from talking about it by those in power the result is always the same. The way out of this was for the winning side to get out ahead of it and do everything in their power to legitimize the election for these people. They didn't have a moral duty to do so, but it was foolish not to, since now by not doing so we've seen a deep, cemented, hatred and distrust of the outcome and the other side that from my vantage point is materially worse than before and could have been avoided to a large degree. We're in trouble. People on the "winning" side of this dispute seem to be celebrating as the other side's hopes are dashed and their speech is marginalized, but in fact they ought to be terrified, since insofar as the other side isn't persuaded of their error and their beliefs deepen in light of the coercion being used against them being seen as a form of confirmation, things are going to be worse for everyone going into the new year. A strange irony from this situation that I hadn't realized is that it seems that if one is on the winning side of a dispute its the point of maximal confidence the other side will be coerced into submission that one actually should be the least confident that the dispute is going to be settled, since it means coercion has been accepted as the only possible method to settle it. In fact, its that moment, the one where persuasion is understood to not be viable, which presents the greatest danger. Our history points to another example of the point of presumed capitulation in fact being the start of anything but, but I won't make the analogy at the risk of it (rightly) being torn apart.

tetrometal 6y ago

Contrary to the hypocritical ravings of the left, I think election challenges are healthy for democracy. I wish they happened every time. I don't have a lot of trust in them as-is, and whatever the outcome of Trump's challenges, one of them will be that anyone thinking about committing fraud will likely think again after all this. https://spectator.us/reasons-why-the-2020-presidential-election-is-deeply-puzzling/ https://spectator.us/reasons-why-the-2020-presidential-elect...

yokoprime 6y ago
It’s ok to challenge and ask for proof. It’s not ok to blatantly ignore this proof once provided without any justification. It’s not ok to “feel” something is’t right because it’s against your bias.
- tetrometal 6y ago
  Eh, I see this play out over and over again: 1. Right-leaning person or organization makes an argument. 2. Left-leaning person or organization makes a counter-argument. 3. Right-leaning person or organization makes a counter-argument. 4. Left-leaning person or organization cries foul, declares the discussion decided at step two and further discussion unethical. That's not how these things work.
rblatz 6y ago
In general most people I see aren’t against the legal challenges. They are against the trial in the court of his supporters opinion that he is running. Because arguments that are meritless/fabrications can be brought up with no repercussions. Based on the pitiful weak arguments he made in court it seems like his team wasn’t even trying to win an actual court case, they were playing it up to rally his base.
- tetrometal 6y ago
  The trial in the court is a legal challenge. I don't really have a problem with Trump (or Biden) supporters being rallied. Why does "rally his base" have a bad connotation in your mind?

downandout 6y ago

The reason you are getting downvotes is because you aren’t seeing the bigger picture. This has nothing to do with Trump, and everything to do with platforms that have a de facto monopoly on certain types of free speech suppressing it in favor of certain groups. It’s all well and good when they are suppressing people that disagree with you, but not so much when the opposite is true. This is why “platforms” like Twitter need to lose their liability protection when they engage in such behavior. They are no longer playing the role of independent platform in need such protection; they are a publisher that is deciding what can and cannot be viewed. That is perfectly acceptable, as long as they are held accountable for that content. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

dleslie 6y ago
Twitter does not have a monopoly, let alone is abusing the powers of one. You may use Parler, Gab, and countless federated services; along with Facebook and other giants.
- downandout 6y ago
  A de facto monopoly means one that is, for all intents and purposes, a monopoly - despite the existence of alternatives. Is anyone going to read your content on any of the services you mentioned?
  - dleslie 6y ago
    Plenty of people use Parler, Facebook, Mastodon and Gab. Seems quite American to me to be supporting a marketplace of alternatives.
    - downandout 6y ago
      Facebook is in a different category. Are you really arguing that Parler, Mastodon, and Gab have userbases that are on par with Twitter? How exactly are you defining “plenty”?

DyslexicAtheist 6y ago

> Time to leave before he cracks the country in two irrevocably. hasn't this already happened? It'll take a long time to recover the damage done to foreign policy. even worse is the division, which was already present thanks to how distant people are if they are a few income brackets apart. he really knew how to worsen all this and make the chaos work for him. whoever repairs the damage in the coming years has their work cut out. maybe we've learned something as a collective? (I don't think so because while humans are smart humanity is the worst)

WillPostForFood 6y ago
It'll take a long time to recover the damage done to foreign policy. It doesn’t take too long to mobilize the troops and get back to active war in the Middle East.
- orwin 6y ago
  Nah, but the Iran deal is almost dead, the US lost the leadership in the TPP, and although India, the Philippines, Korea, Japan and Australia played well, the CCP grabbed more power than ever in this trade deal. The CCP also managed to take control of eastern Africa and managed to make an indian ocean trade route that COMPLETELY avoid India. Well done. Also during the squabble between Trump and Kim-Jun-Un, the CCP just send 4000 troups in 16 different location around the Indian ocean, to "secure their investment". TBH i'm glad there is a little competition to the US, and that the CCP successfully outplayed the US on a diplomatic standpoint, but please don't conflate foreign policy and war. War is such a small part of foreign policy overall.
  - netsharc 6y ago
    I think the poster you're replying to is just regurgitating the common right-wing talking point that Obama was a war-monger, and that Trump did not start any new wars. (Counterpoint: Under Trump, air strikes rules of engagement got loosened, and more civilians died: https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2020/Rising%20Civilian%20Death%20Toll%20in%20Afghanistan_Costs%20of%20War_Dec%207%202020.pdf https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/20... ). On the topic of foreign policy fuck-ups, another consequence of Trump is that countries about to do deals with the USA under Biden will ask, "So, will this deal be undone in when the next administration comes to power?" and will be more hesistant or they'll manage to get a better bargain because of the US's loss of reputation.

lucb1e 6y ago

> To those who are downvoting: [I'm right, give it up already] It's not about being right or wrong. Downvotes are for comments that don't contribute to the conversation. One can agree with you and still think the tone does not invite interesting conversation. The guidelines say: "Users should vote and comment when they run across something they personally find interesting".

dafoex 6y ago
True, but in practice "upvote" tends to equate to "agree" and "downvote" to "disagree".
- lucb1e 6y ago
  Hence the reminder, both for GP and those voting in the thread. Most of the time it doesn't matter so much, but I figured I'd at least try to help preventing an echo chamber here where useless polarized statements are voted on based on how many followers that pole has...

nindalf 6y ago

> he lost pretty much every legal case he threw at this problem. That’s an understatement. After the second loss in the Supreme Court he and his allies are at 1 win, 57 losses. He lost the election and lost every case that mattered, while winning one inconsequential case. What a loser.

Yetanfou 6y ago

After 4 years of hearing that Trump only got to where he was due to Russian interference without Twitter doing even a single fact check, let alone any banishments I think Twitter has a remarkably itchy trigger finger when it comes to Trump claiming similar reasons for Biden gaining the upper hand.