6 ms·

And what rules exactly did Trump break? He explicitly did not call for violence. It seems like you want people silenced if they question the official narrative

And what rules exactly did Trump break? He explicitly did not call for violence. It seems like you want people silenced if they question the official narrative. That's precisely antithetical to free-speech ideals. Do you know how often I've seen Republicans called Nazis? Or evil? Or that they need to be eliminated? I don't go crying to Facebook to censor opinions I don't like.

bra-ket 6y ago
exactly, but the lefties are lost cause at this point after years of brainwashing. I have never seen so many people so deep in 'alternate reality'.
Voloskaya 6y ago
Insults are not actual call to immediate violence. Calling thousands of supporters to go to the capitol and telling them "you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong." is a very precise call to violence.
- NE2z2T9qi 6y ago
  Got it. Protesting should be illegal. Thanks for the lesson on free speech.
  - zarkov99 6y ago
    Man, I am sympathetic to the free speech argument and I agree that the right has been getting shafted in that department, but this does seem pretty close to the "don't yell fire in a crowded theater" exception. This was not a protest in the democratic sense. It is a shameful day for the country.
    - tshaddox 6y ago
      This is way beyond "don't yell fire in a crowded theater," which was an action considered to be outside the protection of free speech because it presented a "clear and present danger." That standard was later restricted further, and is now "imminent lawless action." The President's actions appear to blow right past "clear and present danger" and explicitly call for "imminent lawless action."
  - jgeada 6y ago
    That was not a protest. It was a planned and coordinated terrorist mob attack on the US Capitol, and successfully breached it. The first such successful attack since 1814. Trump and allies have been communicating the date and requesting this behavior for weeks. Anybody surprised at the result should be deemed mentally incompetent.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- al_chemist 6y ago
  > Calling thousands of supporters to go to the capitol and telling them "you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong." is a very precise call to violence. "Kill them", "Attack them", "Burn down that building" is a very precise call to violence. "You have to be strong" is not. "You have to show strength" is not. #KillAllMen on the other hand is a very precise call to violence, and yet nobody cares about banning that on social media.
  - Voloskaya 6y ago
    > "You have to be strong" is not. "You have to show strength" is not. It is, in the context of the events from the past few weeks. Some of his supporters had been saying for weeks now that they were "standing by" and ready to do "what had to be done" when Trump would call to them. His speech yesterday was predicably heard as the call. I don't believe for 1 second that he didn't intended for his words to be interpreted that way. And for the record, #KillAllWhatever should be banned as well in my book, I'm not defending it.
    - al_chemist 6y ago
      > #KillAllWhatever should be banned as well in my book, I'm not defending it. Thank you. > It is, in the context of the events from the past few weeks If something is "very precise" in context, then it is not precise. If we have to interpret words, then we have multiple interpretations and everybody can have their own truth. You can't say something is "a very precise call to violence" because of some people may interpret it their way. His tweet (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1346912780700577792 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/13469127807005777...) is very precise. "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence!"
      - arolihas 6y ago
        So the tweet that wasn’t taken down is the one that isn’t a call to violence. Good to know.
  - 6y ago
- briantakita 6y ago
  Strength does not mean violence in this case. >99% of the gathering was peaceful. What if we applied the same standards we applied to the Black Lives Matter protests which also included elements of rioting, looting, arson, & even murder, yet were heralded as "mostly peaceful" (by the same people)?
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    >99% of BLM protests are also peaceful.
    - OpticalWindows 6y ago
      100% of the difference was military authorization for extra security and media slant. On some level this was allowed to happen.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
a_wild_dandan 6y ago
Using a platform to widely spread toxic disinformation about election fraud is probably against Facebook's ToS.
mistermann 6y ago
I'm sorry but this is silly (and I'm a "Trump supporter"). > He explicitly did not call for violence. Effective communication need not be specific. Surely you possess this knowledge, but might it have been in "cold storage" at the time you wrote this comment? > It seems like you want people silenced if they question the official narrative. Reality is often not as it seems. Often it is even the exact opposite of how it seems. > Do you know how often I've seen Republicans called Nazis? Or evil? Or that they need to be eliminated? "Truthy", but orthogonal. Two wrongs don't make a right (or so "they" say).
- thotsBgone 6y ago
  Right before he was banned from Twitter, didn't several of his tweets specifically and emphatically urge protesters to avoid violence and respect the police presence?
  - mistermann 6y ago
    Perhaps. Were they received by all participants? How were they interpreted? These are humans, not robots.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

bra-ket 6y ago

exactly, but the lefties are lost cause at this point after years of brainwashing. I have never seen so many people so deep in 'alternate reality'.

Voloskaya 6y ago

Insults are not actual call to immediate violence. Calling thousands of supporters to go to the capitol and telling them "you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong." is a very precise call to violence.

NE2z2T9qi 6y ago
Got it. Protesting should be illegal. Thanks for the lesson on free speech.
- zarkov99 6y ago
  Man, I am sympathetic to the free speech argument and I agree that the right has been getting shafted in that department, but this does seem pretty close to the "don't yell fire in a crowded theater" exception. This was not a protest in the democratic sense. It is a shameful day for the country.
  - tshaddox 6y ago
    This is way beyond "don't yell fire in a crowded theater," which was an action considered to be outside the protection of free speech because it presented a "clear and present danger." That standard was later restricted further, and is now "imminent lawless action." The President's actions appear to blow right past "clear and present danger" and explicitly call for "imminent lawless action."
- jgeada 6y ago
  That was not a protest. It was a planned and coordinated terrorist mob attack on the US Capitol, and successfully breached it. The first such successful attack since 1814. Trump and allies have been communicating the date and requesting this behavior for weeks. Anybody surprised at the result should be deemed mentally incompetent.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
al_chemist 6y ago
> Calling thousands of supporters to go to the capitol and telling them "you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong." is a very precise call to violence. "Kill them", "Attack them", "Burn down that building" is a very precise call to violence. "You have to be strong" is not. "You have to show strength" is not. #KillAllMen on the other hand is a very precise call to violence, and yet nobody cares about banning that on social media.
- Voloskaya 6y ago
  > "You have to be strong" is not. "You have to show strength" is not. It is, in the context of the events from the past few weeks. Some of his supporters had been saying for weeks now that they were "standing by" and ready to do "what had to be done" when Trump would call to them. His speech yesterday was predicably heard as the call. I don't believe for 1 second that he didn't intended for his words to be interpreted that way. And for the record, #KillAllWhatever should be banned as well in my book, I'm not defending it.
  - al_chemist 6y ago
    > #KillAllWhatever should be banned as well in my book, I'm not defending it. Thank you. > It is, in the context of the events from the past few weeks If something is "very precise" in context, then it is not precise. If we have to interpret words, then we have multiple interpretations and everybody can have their own truth. You can't say something is "a very precise call to violence" because of some people may interpret it their way. His tweet (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1346912780700577792 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/13469127807005777...) is very precise. "I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence!"
    - arolihas 6y ago
      So the tweet that wasn’t taken down is the one that isn’t a call to violence. Good to know.
- 6y ago
briantakita 6y ago
Strength does not mean violence in this case. >99% of the gathering was peaceful. What if we applied the same standards we applied to the Black Lives Matter protests which also included elements of rioting, looting, arson, & even murder, yet were heralded as "mostly peaceful" (by the same people)?
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  >99% of BLM protests are also peaceful.
  - OpticalWindows 6y ago
    100% of the difference was military authorization for extra security and media slant. On some level this was allowed to happen.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

a_wild_dandan 6y ago

Using a platform to widely spread toxic disinformation about election fraud is probably against Facebook's ToS.

mistermann 6y ago

I'm sorry but this is silly (and I'm a "Trump supporter"). > He explicitly did not call for violence. Effective communication need not be specific. Surely you possess this knowledge, but might it have been in "cold storage" at the time you wrote this comment? > It seems like you want people silenced if they question the official narrative. Reality is often not as it seems. Often it is even the exact opposite of how it seems. > Do you know how often I've seen Republicans called Nazis? Or evil? Or that they need to be eliminated? "Truthy", but orthogonal. Two wrongs don't make a right (or so "they" say).

thotsBgone 6y ago
Right before he was banned from Twitter, didn't several of his tweets specifically and emphatically urge protesters to avoid violence and respect the police presence?
- mistermann 6y ago
  Perhaps. Were they received by all participants? How were they interpreted? These are humans, not robots.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]