11 ms·

What is “the other route”? They are being deplatformed because their speech is violent and damaging—in many cases it’s literal incitement to violence. Their le

What is “the other route”? They are being deplatformed because their speech is violent and damaging—in many cases it’s literal incitement to violence. Their legal cases are being rejected because they have no legal merit. The mainstream media refuse to take them seriously because they have again and again shown themselves to be bad faith actors, peddlers of unsubstantiated conspiracy, outright liars, and so on. I don’t need anybody to tell me any of the above secondhand—they themselves, via Twitter accounts and so on, are primary sources. All things are not equal. Order and chaos are not equivalent. If a rabid cougar gets loose in a shopping mall, it does not earn the right to be there just by being there (de facto) and being really, really mad. It’s going to hurt people if we let it do its thing, and we take whatever measures we have to to get rid of it for the greater good of society.

obiefernandez 6y ago
This is a great point that is not made often enough. The logical conclusion is that the de-platformed actors get mad enough that they start lashing out in criminal ways, doing stuff that gets them locked up or killed, or otherwise "de-platformed" in real life. There's some short term pain, but ultimately society has a net win. Convince me I'm wrong...
- Mountain_Skies 6y ago
  Remember your post when things don't end up going down the path you think you've expertly designed for your preferred outcome. When you ask "why is this happening?", know that you were part of the reason why things ended up the way they end up.
- yawaemworht 6y ago
  > The logical conclusion is that the de-platformed actors get mad enough that they start lashing out in criminal ways, doing stuff that gets them locked up or killed, or otherwise "de-platformed" in real life. There's some short term pain, but ultimately society has a net win. Convince me I'm wrong... Aren't you, in this comment, doing the same exact thing for which those people are getting deplatformed? I read that as a "if they get killed that's a win for society". Would you feel comfortable if somebody said the same thing about other categories of people?
- mirkules 6y ago
  It’s so easy to think of “societal net gain” when you are on the winning side. However, when you are on the receiving end of “societal net gain,” it is a much tougher pill to swallow. In other words, personal sacrifice by choice is laudable; mandatory personal sacrifice is the opposite. The expression has never been “What’s good for the gander is good for the goose”
  - seesaw 6y ago
    I feel the real underlying issue is economic disparity. When breads and circuses stop, you will see riots. It gets worse when media has a hard time getting eye balls unless they can show outrage.
RspecMAuthortah 6y ago
But the thing with these sweeping generalizations of "them" as being violent and damaging is - who gets to define what is violent and damaging? Glenn Greenwald, who I respect a lot and was instrumental in breaking the mass surveillance in US by intelligence agencies recently spoke about these very issue: " My insistence that we look at the other side of the ledger — the costs and dangers not only from such attacks but also the “solutions” implemented in the name of the stopping them — did not come from indifference towards those deaths or a naive views of those responsible for them. It was instead driven by my simultaneous recognition of the dangers from rights-eroding, authoritarian reactions imposed by the state, particularly in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic event. " and then this: " It has long been clear that, in the post-Trump era, media outlets looking to keep viewers hooked, and government officials looking to increase their power, will do everything possible to center and inflate the threat posed by right-wing factions. I’ve said this more times than I can count over the last year at least. Like all inflated threats, this one has a kernel of truth. As is true of every faction, there are right-wing activists filled with rage and who are willing to do violence. Some of them are dangerous (just as some Muslims in the post-9/11 era, and some Antifa nihilists, were and are genuinely violent and dangerous). But as was true of the Cold War and the War on Terror and so many other crisis-spurred reactions, the other side of the ledger — the draconian state powers clearly being planned and urged and prepared in the name of stopping them — carry its own extremely formidable dangers. Refusing to consider those dangers for fear of standing accused of downplaying the threat is the most common tactic authoritarian advocates of state power use. Less than twenty-four hours after the Capitol breach, one sees this tactic being wielded with great flamboyance and potency, and it is sure to continue long after January 20. "
- caconym_ 6y ago
  I’m not talking about government suppression of speech. I’m talking about society itself rejecting a certain kind of speech, by the actions of private citizens and organizations, and generally having an awareness of the fact that two sides of an issue are not always equally right. We have to do our best. The fact that it’s a hard problem to solve without going too far doesn’t give us license to throw up our hands, cast off from reality, and inhabit a dreamland where there is no difference between a truth and a falsehood.
gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
> They are being deplatformed because their speech is violent and damaging—in many cases it’s literal incitement to violence. "in defense of looting" And while I'm at it - why isn't China being deplatformed? They literally just posted on their embassy twitter account saying they fixed minority women who were "baby-making machines." One can only guess they mean sterilization. It's obvious who's allowed to be inhumane and who isn't. https://abcnews.go.com/International/chinese-embassy-tweet-uighurs-birth-rate-draws-instant/story?id=75118569 https://abcnews.go.com/International/chinese-embassy-tweet-u...
- caconym_ 6y ago
  I can read quite clearly between the lines of your comment, but I’m still having trouble finding where in my comment I said that users calling for violence on social media should be exempt from sanctions if they’re left-leaning.
  - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
    > we take whatever measures we have to to get rid of it for the greater good of society Justifying around the "greater good" is so obviously fraught and subjective. And since the workers in tech are overwhelmingly liberal, they will undoubtedly bias policies of mass communication platforms to disallow opposition. Oddly enough people so concerned with minority representation will steam-roll minorities when they make blind "greater good" majoritarianism the norm. And nowadays the definition of "harm" has been trivialized so far that really practically anything is a target.
  - spoonjim 6y ago
    Also, beware the false equivalence between smashing a store window and stealing some crap vs. actually attacking a human being. They will use the word "violence" to describe both, rather than get into a definition war with them, just keep the distinction clear.
    - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
      > beware the false equivalence between smashing a store window and stealing some crap vs. actually attacking a human being Ok so I guess economic circumstances can never be oppressive. So if a thieve steals all your stuff and you starve...that's not violence!
brighton36 6y ago
What makes the legal route legitimate is a negotiation in society. If the legal route is rescinded, then, the courts will be considered illegitimate. Perhaps that's right. But, that's also how revolutions start.
- caconym_ 6y ago
  The legal system is certainly a flawed creation of man, but it isn't a magic wand. I'd go so far as to say that most legal systems, extant and otherwise, won't (absent corruption) serve as a vehicle for you to do literally whatever you want. I'm not a lawyer, but I get a strong impression that the Trump campaign's attempts to have the election results invalidated or reversed in various jurisdictions were in that vein, and literally laughable. I agree that revolutions are real, that many have happened in the past, and presumably more will in the future.
zests 6y ago
How do you decide which of the violent and/or damaging speeches to deplatform? I see nothing done except “use tribalism to decide.”
- colinmhayes 6y ago
  Exactly what we're doing now. Democracy. The people vote with their wallet.
  - zests 6y ago
    The mega-corporations that herd people together and use their people herd to sell ad slots are not part of a democracy.
    - bun_at_work 6y ago
      Public outrage is what these companies are responding to. If they didn't think the majority of their users wanted this, they wouldn't do it. For example, you don't see Parler banning the domestic terrorists organizing on the platform, do you?
  - rufus_foreman 6y ago
    So Hamilton, not Jefferson.
- caconym_ 6y ago
  > I see nothing done except “use tribalism to decide.” I disagree. You don't need tribalism, for instance, to see that somebody spreading lies and conspiracy theories in a transparent attempt to undermine confidence in our elections is going to do an immense amount of damage to the institutions of our democracy if he isn't muzzled. We have to remember that truth is real, that people can act in good faith, and simply do the best we can. Perfect is the enemy of good enough.
  - drak0n1c 6y ago
    Who decides what counts as lies and conspiracy theory? What if they decide spreading the attitude that “all cops are bastards” or the notion that police shooting events are mostly motivated by bigotry a conspiracy theory that leads to additional violence and start banning tangential speech?
lenkite 6y ago
Please remove the blinkers. Dozens of murderous world leaders that regularly espouse violence are still on Twitter but Trump is eliminated. BLM leaders who explicitly called for violence, arson and looting were never "fact-checked". Not until they started openly talking about murdering whites. Face it - this is because the Twitter CEO actively dislikes Trump and has little to do with any sort of violent speech.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Cite even one example of a BLM leader explicitly (or even implicitly) calling for violence, arson, and looting. Go ahead, I'll wait. You won't find anyone, because it didn't happen. OTOH, the Proud Boys did explicitly call for violence, arson, and looting during the BLM rights, and their leader admitted as much in a live television interview.
  - lenkite 6y ago
    What ? There are dozens of such videos. Do your own research please. This stuff never make it to NYT/CNBC/Liberal media btw. https://twitter.com/MarinaMedvin/status/1299930096472657920 https://twitter.com/MarinaMedvin/status/1299930096472657920 https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-leader-if-change-doesnt-happen-we-will-burn-down-this-system/ https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-leader-if-change-doesnt-ha... https://therightscoop.com/portland-black-lives-matter-leader-openly-advocates-for-murder-of-police-video/ https://therightscoop.com/portland-black-lives-matter-leader... Regarding whites should be "wiped out" https://www.dailywire.com/news/blm-leader-says-whites-sub-human-should-be-wiped-joseph-curl https://www.dailywire.com/news/blm-leader-says-whites-sub-hu... Black Lives Matter leader justifies rioting in interview with Tomi Lahren: https://www.foxnews.com/media/black-lives-matter-president-riot https://www.foxnews.com/media/black-lives-matter-president-r... “When the fires were burning, and people were chanting, I just felt liberated for a brief moment, and I felt for one of the only times in my life that the government had no control over me," said Newsome. Now replace Newsome by a Trump supporter. Suddenly it needs "suppression".
    - gamblor956 6y ago
misun78 6y ago
The person who posted is still active on Twitter - https://www.deccanherald.com/sites/dh/files/styles/article_detail/public/article_images/2020/05/19/614640-576751536-1496228967.jpg?itok=gkYBTuc1 https://www.deccanherald.com/sites/dh/files/styles/article_d... Double standard much?
- bluegene 6y ago
  Kathy Griffin lost her job at CNN and faced a lot criticism from all walks of life at that time. So it wasn't like she didn't face consequences at that time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Griffin#Depiction_of_Donald_Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Griffin#Depiction_of_Don...
gamblor956 6y ago
To follow up on caconym's comment, FBI has confirmed that more than a dozen explosive devices were found at the Capitol after the siege, including pipe bombs left in front of the DNC offices.[1] 5 people died. 50 officers were wounded, some seriously enough that they are still in the hospital. Multiple protestors had zip ties and other means of restraint on them, knives, and guns, and on their social media profiles were promoting violence against legislators. This wasn't protesting. It was terrorism. And these terrorist attacks were organized and coordinated on Parler and other social media. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/capitol-riot-fbi-hostages/2021/01/08/df99ae5a-5202-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/capitol-rio...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- snowflake_ptr 6y ago
  Seven people died in a single weekend of BLM riots[1], which happened throughout all of 2020. That was also terrorism, yet no social media company deplatformed any Antifa- or BLM-related group. [1] https://www.insider.com/multiple-people-shot-dead-kentucky-iowa-nebraska-indiana-blm-protests-2020-6 https://www.insider.com/multiple-people-shot-dead-kentucky-i...
  - andybak 6y ago
    Were those killed mostly protesters, law enforcement or non-participants? It makes a fairly big difference surely? It's odd that nobody seems to mention that aspect when they bring this up.
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      None of the people killed were involved in the protests. The shootings simply happened while protests were occurring elsewhere. The puppet account didn't even bother to read his source; he simply posted it based on the title.
hartator 6y ago
70 people died because of the BLM riots and they are not getting deplatformed.
- anonuser123456 6y ago
  I would like to see a source on this.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  > 70 people died because of the BLM riots and they are not getting deplatformed. Who is the "they" that should be deplatformed for the actions you describe? Were there particular BLM organizers / leaders that were calling for destruction of property, violence against people, and the overthrowing of legally elected governments? Certainly there were folks that took advantage of the crowds to do nefarious things, and I don't doubt some actual BLM folks committed acts. There were also documented false flag operations against BLM: * https://www.wsls.com/news/virginia/2020/07/27/police-richmond-riots-instigated-by-white-supremacists-disguised-as-black-lives-matter/ https://www.wsls.com/news/virginia/2020/07/27/police-richmon... But were the BLM demonstrations purposefully organized to do these things?
atypicaluser 6y ago
OP writes: > We just assume we're right. And you follow up by proving just how right he is. First you dehumanize your political opponents--"If a rabid cougar gets loose..."--then you tell us what we need to do--"we take whatever measures we have to to get rid of it for the greater good of society." And you claim it's the other side's speech that "is violent and damaging"? P.S. At the time of this reply, it's not the current POTUS calling a sitting US Senator a "Goebbels". Care to guess where this is going?
- caconym_ 6y ago
  The point of the cougar analogy is not to dehumanize anybody. It is to demonstrate that sometimes problems exist (problems as in configurations of reality that can be articulated as bad), and that doing nothing is often not the solution that will yield the greatest good in a utilitarian sense. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. I'm curious, though—would you just let the cougar do its thing? Like, if that literally happened, and you were the guy at animal control who got the call?
  - disgrunt 6y ago
    I reject your analogy on it's face as a banal attempt to justify incivility and barbarism towards those in which we disagree.
    - caconym_ 6y ago
      Okay. But if you want to imagine I'm making a point I'm not making and respond to that rather than the point I am making, could you do it offline in a Word doc or something? There's already a lot of noise in this thread.
snowflake_ptr 6y ago
> They are being deplatformed because their speech is violent and damaging—in many cases it’s literal incitement to violence. I challenge you to provide any concrete evidence for this claim - in particular, that (1) the majority of their speech specifically consists of calls to violence (not just "violent" because that term has been twisted recently to mean a wide range of things that a certain political party disagrees with) (2) that the behavior of the tens of millions of people in this political party are at all correlated with the several hundred people who stormed the capitol and (3) that this was significantly worse than the Antifa and BLM riots that we had throughout the entirety of 2020.
disgrunt 6y ago
Reducing your fellow countrymen to an animal analogy is exactly the kind of dehumanization that has become commonplace in popular discourse. It's not enough that you disagree with them, they must be put down like some rabid beast. We're on a path with this kind of thinking. If history is any guide, it doesn't end well.
- caconym_ 6y ago
  I'm not reducing anyone to anything. Addressed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25695775 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25695775
selfishgene 6y ago
Wasn't there an insurrection involved in the American Revolution? And just think, we celebrate that one every July 4! Sometimes working toward "the greater good of society" requires violence. Therefore the real issue here is not the violence but rather the "misinformation" ... both in the form of dubious claims about election fraud as well as the attempt by powerful technology elites to silence the misinformed by de-platforming them instead of "federating" the flow of information through technologies like Mastodon that respect their users' freedom.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

obiefernandez 6y ago

This is a great point that is not made often enough. The logical conclusion is that the de-platformed actors get mad enough that they start lashing out in criminal ways, doing stuff that gets them locked up or killed, or otherwise "de-platformed" in real life. There's some short term pain, but ultimately society has a net win. Convince me I'm wrong...

Mountain_Skies 6y ago
Remember your post when things don't end up going down the path you think you've expertly designed for your preferred outcome. When you ask "why is this happening?", know that you were part of the reason why things ended up the way they end up.
yawaemworht 6y ago
> The logical conclusion is that the de-platformed actors get mad enough that they start lashing out in criminal ways, doing stuff that gets them locked up or killed, or otherwise "de-platformed" in real life. There's some short term pain, but ultimately society has a net win. Convince me I'm wrong... Aren't you, in this comment, doing the same exact thing for which those people are getting deplatformed? I read that as a "if they get killed that's a win for society". Would you feel comfortable if somebody said the same thing about other categories of people?
mirkules 6y ago
It’s so easy to think of “societal net gain” when you are on the winning side. However, when you are on the receiving end of “societal net gain,” it is a much tougher pill to swallow. In other words, personal sacrifice by choice is laudable; mandatory personal sacrifice is the opposite. The expression has never been “What’s good for the gander is good for the goose”
- seesaw 6y ago
  I feel the real underlying issue is economic disparity. When breads and circuses stop, you will see riots. It gets worse when media has a hard time getting eye balls unless they can show outrage.

RspecMAuthortah 6y ago

But the thing with these sweeping generalizations of "them" as being violent and damaging is - who gets to define what is violent and damaging? Glenn Greenwald, who I respect a lot and was instrumental in breaking the mass surveillance in US by intelligence agencies recently spoke about these very issue: " My insistence that we look at the other side of the ledger — the costs and dangers not only from such attacks but also the “solutions” implemented in the name of the stopping them — did not come from indifference towards those deaths or a naive views of those responsible for them. It was instead driven by my simultaneous recognition of the dangers from rights-eroding, authoritarian reactions imposed by the state, particularly in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic event. " and then this: " It has long been clear that, in the post-Trump era, media outlets looking to keep viewers hooked, and government officials looking to increase their power, will do everything possible to center and inflate the threat posed by right-wing factions. I’ve said this more times than I can count over the last year at least. Like all inflated threats, this one has a kernel of truth. As is true of every faction, there are right-wing activists filled with rage and who are willing to do violence. Some of them are dangerous (just as some Muslims in the post-9/11 era, and some Antifa nihilists, were and are genuinely violent and dangerous). But as was true of the Cold War and the War on Terror and so many other crisis-spurred reactions, the other side of the ledger — the draconian state powers clearly being planned and urged and prepared in the name of stopping them — carry its own extremely formidable dangers. Refusing to consider those dangers for fear of standing accused of downplaying the threat is the most common tactic authoritarian advocates of state power use. Less than twenty-four hours after the Capitol breach, one sees this tactic being wielded with great flamboyance and potency, and it is sure to continue long after January 20. "

caconym_ 6y ago
I’m not talking about government suppression of speech. I’m talking about society itself rejecting a certain kind of speech, by the actions of private citizens and organizations, and generally having an awareness of the fact that two sides of an issue are not always equally right. We have to do our best. The fact that it’s a hard problem to solve without going too far doesn’t give us license to throw up our hands, cast off from reality, and inhabit a dreamland where there is no difference between a truth and a falsehood.

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago

> They are being deplatformed because their speech is violent and damaging—in many cases it’s literal incitement to violence. "in defense of looting" And while I'm at it - why isn't China being deplatformed? They literally just posted on their embassy twitter account saying they fixed minority women who were "baby-making machines." One can only guess they mean sterilization. It's obvious who's allowed to be inhumane and who isn't. https://abcnews.go.com/International/chinese-embassy-tweet-uighurs-birth-rate-draws-instant/story?id=75118569 https://abcnews.go.com/International/chinese-embassy-tweet-u...

caconym_ 6y ago
I can read quite clearly between the lines of your comment, but I’m still having trouble finding where in my comment I said that users calling for violence on social media should be exempt from sanctions if they’re left-leaning.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  > we take whatever measures we have to to get rid of it for the greater good of society Justifying around the "greater good" is so obviously fraught and subjective. And since the workers in tech are overwhelmingly liberal, they will undoubtedly bias policies of mass communication platforms to disallow opposition. Oddly enough people so concerned with minority representation will steam-roll minorities when they make blind "greater good" majoritarianism the norm. And nowadays the definition of "harm" has been trivialized so far that really practically anything is a target.
- spoonjim 6y ago
  Also, beware the false equivalence between smashing a store window and stealing some crap vs. actually attacking a human being. They will use the word "violence" to describe both, rather than get into a definition war with them, just keep the distinction clear.
  - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
    > beware the false equivalence between smashing a store window and stealing some crap vs. actually attacking a human being Ok so I guess economic circumstances can never be oppressive. So if a thieve steals all your stuff and you starve...that's not violence!

brighton36 6y ago

What makes the legal route legitimate is a negotiation in society. If the legal route is rescinded, then, the courts will be considered illegitimate. Perhaps that's right. But, that's also how revolutions start.

caconym_ 6y ago
The legal system is certainly a flawed creation of man, but it isn't a magic wand. I'd go so far as to say that most legal systems, extant and otherwise, won't (absent corruption) serve as a vehicle for you to do literally whatever you want. I'm not a lawyer, but I get a strong impression that the Trump campaign's attempts to have the election results invalidated or reversed in various jurisdictions were in that vein, and literally laughable. I agree that revolutions are real, that many have happened in the past, and presumably more will in the future.

zests 6y ago

How do you decide which of the violent and/or damaging speeches to deplatform? I see nothing done except “use tribalism to decide.”

colinmhayes 6y ago
Exactly what we're doing now. Democracy. The people vote with their wallet.
- zests 6y ago
  The mega-corporations that herd people together and use their people herd to sell ad slots are not part of a democracy.
  - bun_at_work 6y ago
    Public outrage is what these companies are responding to. If they didn't think the majority of their users wanted this, they wouldn't do it. For example, you don't see Parler banning the domestic terrorists organizing on the platform, do you?
- rufus_foreman 6y ago
  So Hamilton, not Jefferson.
caconym_ 6y ago
> I see nothing done except “use tribalism to decide.” I disagree. You don't need tribalism, for instance, to see that somebody spreading lies and conspiracy theories in a transparent attempt to undermine confidence in our elections is going to do an immense amount of damage to the institutions of our democracy if he isn't muzzled. We have to remember that truth is real, that people can act in good faith, and simply do the best we can. Perfect is the enemy of good enough.
- drak0n1c 6y ago
  Who decides what counts as lies and conspiracy theory? What if they decide spreading the attitude that “all cops are bastards” or the notion that police shooting events are mostly motivated by bigotry a conspiracy theory that leads to additional violence and start banning tangential speech?

lenkite 6y ago

Please remove the blinkers. Dozens of murderous world leaders that regularly espouse violence are still on Twitter but Trump is eliminated. BLM leaders who explicitly called for violence, arson and looting were never "fact-checked". Not until they started openly talking about murdering whites. Face it - this is because the Twitter CEO actively dislikes Trump and has little to do with any sort of violent speech.

gamblor956 6y ago
Cite even one example of a BLM leader explicitly (or even implicitly) calling for violence, arson, and looting. Go ahead, I'll wait. You won't find anyone, because it didn't happen. OTOH, the Proud Boys did explicitly call for violence, arson, and looting during the BLM rights, and their leader admitted as much in a live television interview.
- lenkite 6y ago
  What ? There are dozens of such videos. Do your own research please. This stuff never make it to NYT/CNBC/Liberal media btw. https://twitter.com/MarinaMedvin/status/1299930096472657920 https://twitter.com/MarinaMedvin/status/1299930096472657920 https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-leader-if-change-doesnt-happen-we-will-burn-down-this-system/ https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-leader-if-change-doesnt-ha... https://therightscoop.com/portland-black-lives-matter-leader-openly-advocates-for-murder-of-police-video/ https://therightscoop.com/portland-black-lives-matter-leader... Regarding whites should be "wiped out" https://www.dailywire.com/news/blm-leader-says-whites-sub-human-should-be-wiped-joseph-curl https://www.dailywire.com/news/blm-leader-says-whites-sub-hu... Black Lives Matter leader justifies rioting in interview with Tomi Lahren: https://www.foxnews.com/media/black-lives-matter-president-riot https://www.foxnews.com/media/black-lives-matter-president-r... “When the fires were burning, and people were chanting, I just felt liberated for a brief moment, and I felt for one of the only times in my life that the government had no control over me," said Newsome. Now replace Newsome by a Trump supporter. Suddenly it needs "suppression".
  - gamblor956 6y ago

misun78 6y ago

The person who posted is still active on Twitter - https://www.deccanherald.com/sites/dh/files/styles/article_detail/public/article_images/2020/05/19/614640-576751536-1496228967.jpg?itok=gkYBTuc1 https://www.deccanherald.com/sites/dh/files/styles/article_d... Double standard much?

bluegene 6y ago
Kathy Griffin lost her job at CNN and faced a lot criticism from all walks of life at that time. So it wasn't like she didn't face consequences at that time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Griffin#Depiction_of_Donald_Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Griffin#Depiction_of_Don...

gamblor956 6y ago

To follow up on caconym's comment, FBI has confirmed that more than a dozen explosive devices were found at the Capitol after the siege, including pipe bombs left in front of the DNC offices.[1] 5 people died. 50 officers were wounded, some seriously enough that they are still in the hospital. Multiple protestors had zip ties and other means of restraint on them, knives, and guns, and on their social media profiles were promoting violence against legislators. This wasn't protesting. It was terrorism. And these terrorist attacks were organized and coordinated on Parler and other social media. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/capitol-riot-fbi-hostages/2021/01/08/df99ae5a-5202-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/capitol-rio...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
snowflake_ptr 6y ago
Seven people died in a single weekend of BLM riots[1], which happened throughout all of 2020. That was also terrorism, yet no social media company deplatformed any Antifa- or BLM-related group. [1] https://www.insider.com/multiple-people-shot-dead-kentucky-iowa-nebraska-indiana-blm-protests-2020-6 https://www.insider.com/multiple-people-shot-dead-kentucky-i...
- andybak 6y ago
  Were those killed mostly protesters, law enforcement or non-participants? It makes a fairly big difference surely? It's odd that nobody seems to mention that aspect when they bring this up.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    None of the people killed were involved in the protests. The shootings simply happened while protests were occurring elsewhere. The puppet account didn't even bother to read his source; he simply posted it based on the title.

hartator 6y ago

70 people died because of the BLM riots and they are not getting deplatformed.

anonuser123456 6y ago
I would like to see a source on this.
throw0101a 6y ago
> 70 people died because of the BLM riots and they are not getting deplatformed. Who is the "they" that should be deplatformed for the actions you describe? Were there particular BLM organizers / leaders that were calling for destruction of property, violence against people, and the overthrowing of legally elected governments? Certainly there were folks that took advantage of the crowds to do nefarious things, and I don't doubt some actual BLM folks committed acts. There were also documented false flag operations against BLM: * https://www.wsls.com/news/virginia/2020/07/27/police-richmond-riots-instigated-by-white-supremacists-disguised-as-black-lives-matter/ https://www.wsls.com/news/virginia/2020/07/27/police-richmon... But were the BLM demonstrations purposefully organized to do these things?

atypicaluser 6y ago

OP writes: > We just assume we're right. And you follow up by proving just how right he is. First you dehumanize your political opponents--"If a rabid cougar gets loose..."--then you tell us what we need to do--"we take whatever measures we have to to get rid of it for the greater good of society." And you claim it's the other side's speech that "is violent and damaging"? P.S. At the time of this reply, it's not the current POTUS calling a sitting US Senator a "Goebbels". Care to guess where this is going?

caconym_ 6y ago
The point of the cougar analogy is not to dehumanize anybody. It is to demonstrate that sometimes problems exist (problems as in configurations of reality that can be articulated as bad), and that doing nothing is often not the solution that will yield the greatest good in a utilitarian sense. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. I'm curious, though—would you just let the cougar do its thing? Like, if that literally happened, and you were the guy at animal control who got the call?
- disgrunt 6y ago
  I reject your analogy on it's face as a banal attempt to justify incivility and barbarism towards those in which we disagree.
  - caconym_ 6y ago
    Okay. But if you want to imagine I'm making a point I'm not making and respond to that rather than the point I am making, could you do it offline in a Word doc or something? There's already a lot of noise in this thread.

snowflake_ptr 6y ago

> They are being deplatformed because their speech is violent and damaging—in many cases it’s literal incitement to violence. I challenge you to provide any concrete evidence for this claim - in particular, that (1) the majority of their speech specifically consists of calls to violence (not just "violent" because that term has been twisted recently to mean a wide range of things that a certain political party disagrees with) (2) that the behavior of the tens of millions of people in this political party are at all correlated with the several hundred people who stormed the capitol and (3) that this was significantly worse than the Antifa and BLM riots that we had throughout the entirety of 2020.

disgrunt 6y ago

Reducing your fellow countrymen to an animal analogy is exactly the kind of dehumanization that has become commonplace in popular discourse. It's not enough that you disagree with them, they must be put down like some rabid beast. We're on a path with this kind of thinking. If history is any guide, it doesn't end well.

caconym_ 6y ago
I'm not reducing anyone to anything. Addressed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25695775 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25695775

selfishgene 6y ago

Wasn't there an insurrection involved in the American Revolution? And just think, we celebrate that one every July 4! Sometimes working toward "the greater good of society" requires violence. Therefore the real issue here is not the violence but rather the "misinformation" ... both in the form of dubious claims about election fraud as well as the attempt by powerful technology elites to silence the misinformed by de-platforming them instead of "federating" the flow of information through technologies like Mastodon that respect their users' freedom.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]