4 ms·

The storming of the Capitol was another 9/11 type of event, we are now in the same climate that lead to the Patriot Act, war, torture and countless other abuses

The storming of the Capitol was another 9/11 type of event, we are now in the same climate that lead to the Patriot Act, war, torture and countless other abuses. People are cheering on the bans and new laws without thinking further of the massive negative consequences the slippery slope will likely lead to. Glenn Greenwald did an excellent interview yesterday where he explained exactly why acting hastily after traumatic events while in rage is so damn short sighted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMVS9tfNyjc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMVS9tfNyjc I'd also like to highlight this comment, the content of which is so damn important to think about: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25691709 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25691709 Rage is never a good long-term solution.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I just fundamentally disagree with the equivalence between social media bans and the topic at hand. I strongly support the recent bans and strongly oppose the Domestic Terrorism Act.
- kristofferR 6y ago
  It's not just targeted bans of specific people, Shopify banned Trump for completely benign merch and Apple/Google banned Parler (non-partisan Twitter clone which only removes illegal content). When half the country are feeling discriminated for just expressing their views you've gone too far. Twitter could just have enacted manual approval of Trump tweets instead of banning him for absurd reasons [1], and there would be far less hate all around. [1] The reasons stated for banned him was his two latest benign tweets that 1. his voters would have a voice and 2. that he would not attend Biden's inauguration. https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    I'm not interested in debating that topic here, and I've edited my original comment to try and avoid sounding like I'm inviting a debate. My point is that you're drawing a line between two very different things with different sets of supporters.
    - kristofferR 6y ago
      They're not really different things, it's about suddenly banning/criminalizing behavior due to slightly unrelated behavior. Inciting a riot or storming the Capitol has always been disallowed/illegal, but now it's used as an argument to enact laws/policies to punish unrelated actions/tweets. We're in a situation where stating that you're not attending Biden's inauguration is branded as "inciting violence", and way too few reasonable people are speaking out about it. The right screams bloody murder about it of course, but we don't listen to them any more. They don't listen to us lefties when we have reasonable things to say. We're quickly decending into a non-functioning society, and both sides are to blame.
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        But private organizations banning people and government legislatures criminalizing activity are very different things, enough so that this concept of "banning/criminalizing" strikes me as meaningless. I just don't see the connection you're proposing.
        kristofferR 6y ago
        Only in concept, not in practice. People can be just as mistreated by monopolistic cooperations as they can be from the government.
        SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        I don't know what to say here other than, the concept is what's important. There's a huge conceptual gulf between us and I don't know how to bridge it.
      - Guvante 6y ago
        > We're in a situation where stating that you're not attending Biden's inauguration is branded as "inciting violence" That wasn't what he got banned for at all.
  - x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
    So they don't remove spam?
    - kristofferR 6y ago
      Parler is mostly spam anyway.
  - tehwebguy 6y ago
    Based on the way things went down people took the second tweet as a “don’t come to school tomorrow if you know what I mean” type of message.
  - iamacyborg 6y ago
    > When half the country are feeling discriminated for just expressing their views you've gone too far That depends entirely on the view they’re expressing, doesn’t it?
    - sieabahlpark 6y ago
      Have you ever actually spoken to someone with different views other than your own? Stop being an idealogue with zero insight into how your own ideas can be turned against you. That's the fucking counter opinion right now.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  Why not oppose both? Wouldn't get people riled up as much. Without banning attempts Trump wouldn't have an argument about stealing. This is almost self inflicted.
A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
Yes and no. 9/11 seemed to really unite US, which resulted in Patriot Act opponents a very small minority. I do not see that happening here. From practical standpoint, the US is already split and this bill appears to be targeted at the radical right. They will oppose it along with run-of-the-mill 'I am not sure government needs more power yo' crowd.
raxxorrax 6y ago
People really like to give up their freedom to punish the other side... Greenwald really reported what a lot of other journalists should have reported too. Especially those that call themselves independent.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

I just fundamentally disagree with the equivalence between social media bans and the topic at hand. I strongly support the recent bans and strongly oppose the Domestic Terrorism Act.

kristofferR 6y ago
It's not just targeted bans of specific people, Shopify banned Trump for completely benign merch and Apple/Google banned Parler (non-partisan Twitter clone which only removes illegal content). When half the country are feeling discriminated for just expressing their views you've gone too far. Twitter could just have enacted manual approval of Trump tweets instead of banning him for absurd reasons [1], and there would be far less hate all around. [1] The reasons stated for banned him was his two latest benign tweets that 1. his voters would have a voice and 2. that he would not attend Biden's inauguration. https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I'm not interested in debating that topic here, and I've edited my original comment to try and avoid sounding like I'm inviting a debate. My point is that you're drawing a line between two very different things with different sets of supporters.
  - kristofferR 6y ago
    They're not really different things, it's about suddenly banning/criminalizing behavior due to slightly unrelated behavior. Inciting a riot or storming the Capitol has always been disallowed/illegal, but now it's used as an argument to enact laws/policies to punish unrelated actions/tweets. We're in a situation where stating that you're not attending Biden's inauguration is branded as "inciting violence", and way too few reasonable people are speaking out about it. The right screams bloody murder about it of course, but we don't listen to them any more. They don't listen to us lefties when we have reasonable things to say. We're quickly decending into a non-functioning society, and both sides are to blame.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      But private organizations banning people and government legislatures criminalizing activity are very different things, enough so that this concept of "banning/criminalizing" strikes me as meaningless. I just don't see the connection you're proposing.
      - kristofferR 6y ago
        Only in concept, not in practice. People can be just as mistreated by monopolistic cooperations as they can be from the government.
        SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        I don't know what to say here other than, the concept is what's important. There's a huge conceptual gulf between us and I don't know how to bridge it.
    - Guvante 6y ago
      > We're in a situation where stating that you're not attending Biden's inauguration is branded as "inciting violence" That wasn't what he got banned for at all.
- x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
  So they don't remove spam?
  - kristofferR 6y ago
    Parler is mostly spam anyway.
- tehwebguy 6y ago
  Based on the way things went down people took the second tweet as a “don’t come to school tomorrow if you know what I mean” type of message.
- iamacyborg 6y ago
  > When half the country are feeling discriminated for just expressing their views you've gone too far That depends entirely on the view they’re expressing, doesn’t it?
  - sieabahlpark 6y ago
    Have you ever actually spoken to someone with different views other than your own? Stop being an idealogue with zero insight into how your own ideas can be turned against you. That's the fucking counter opinion right now.
raxxorrax 6y ago
Why not oppose both? Wouldn't get people riled up as much. Without banning attempts Trump wouldn't have an argument about stealing. This is almost self inflicted.

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago

Yes and no. 9/11 seemed to really unite US, which resulted in Patriot Act opponents a very small minority. I do not see that happening here. From practical standpoint, the US is already split and this bill appears to be targeted at the radical right. They will oppose it along with run-of-the-mill 'I am not sure government needs more power yo' crowd.

raxxorrax 6y ago

People really like to give up their freedom to punish the other side... Greenwald really reported what a lot of other journalists should have reported too. Especially those that call themselves independent.