3 ms·

If this standard is being applied, it should be applied to everyone. BLM-affiliated protest groups have suggested violence like this many times. For example, ch

If this standard is being applied, it should be applied to everyone. BLM-affiliated protest groups have suggested violence like this many times. For example, check out https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/10/us/protest-personal-homes-doxxing.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/10/us/protest-personal-homes..., where protesters showed up at Seattle's mayor's house and spray painted "guillotine Jenny". Neither BLM nor the councilmembers who encouraged the protesters have been banned from big tech platforms. What about when they did the same to Jeff Bezos outside the building he works at (https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/08/jeff-bezos-guillotine-protest-amazon-workers https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/08/jeff-bezos-guilloti...)? What about when something similar was done to Trump outside the white house (https://www.newsweek.com/protest-trump-doll-guillotine-outside-white-house-rnc-1528381 https://www.newsweek.com/protest-trump-doll-guillotine-outsi...)? Treating Steve Bannon differently is hypocritical and unfair. > Well, we’ve just seen what happens when it gets taken literally. Can you quote a specific person saying "go to the capital and break the law and commit violence"? Because I don't think you can find that evidence.

Pfhreak 6y ago
> protesters showed up at Seattle's mayor's house and spray painted "guillotine Jenny" Does these people also have a YouTube podcast that was taken offline? Or are you trying to point a finger at an unrelated issue and saying, "That is also bad!!" What you are doing is called whataboutism. We need to evaluate situations with their context. Constantly pulling in new examples and "they did X which excuses Y" is a child's game. It's the rhetorical equivalent to "they started it!". For example, I might say, "the BLM was responding to threats of violence from the cops" to which you might respond, "the cops were responding to threats of violence from suspected criminals". We could continue this chain forever, coming up with some other example and historical precedent. It's not productive. We're here, now in this thread discussing this one event. > Can you quote a specific person saying "go to the capital and break the law and commit violence"? I assume you mean on Bannons show? Because there are tons of examples of what you've described in other contexts.
Osiris 6y ago
Yes, the standard should be applied to everyone. In my opinion, no one should ever suggest the murder of any other person regardless of whether they intend it as sarcasm, hyperbole, metaphor, or anything else.
- hellgas00 6y ago
  It should be, but it's not, that is what this discussion is about. The band are political in nature, not moral.
ptato 6y ago
Why is it that whenever a prominent right wing figure gets banned (or similar), all that right wingers can answer is whataboutism?
- notadev 6y ago
  Because the issue isn't purely against content moderation, it's that content moderation is not applied equally and even less so when those who should be moderated shared the same "values" as the left-leaning SV types.
- disposekinetics 6y ago
  Maybe they somehow got the message this was all ok after it was literally all ok for eight months. They're despicable, but it is easy to trace exactly how the mainstream rhetoric made this palatable to them.
7952 6y ago
It is up to the courts to decide if these things are illegal or not. Of course people should be held to the same standard. But there is obviously nuance in how a message may be recieved by others and a question of intent. A sitting president and conspiracy theorist trying to steal an election is different to a group of people protesting against police. Maybe there are grounds for prosecution in both cases, but that's not the point. There is a difference. I think people want to use these issues as a way of pointing out hypocrisy that only exists when you think in a culture war way. All nuance is dissolved.

Pfhreak 6y ago

> protesters showed up at Seattle's mayor's house and spray painted "guillotine Jenny" Does these people also have a YouTube podcast that was taken offline? Or are you trying to point a finger at an unrelated issue and saying, "That is also bad!!" What you are doing is called whataboutism. We need to evaluate situations with their context. Constantly pulling in new examples and "they did X which excuses Y" is a child's game. It's the rhetorical equivalent to "they started it!". For example, I might say, "the BLM was responding to threats of violence from the cops" to which you might respond, "the cops were responding to threats of violence from suspected criminals". We could continue this chain forever, coming up with some other example and historical precedent. It's not productive. We're here, now in this thread discussing this one event. > Can you quote a specific person saying "go to the capital and break the law and commit violence"? I assume you mean on Bannons show? Because there are tons of examples of what you've described in other contexts.

Osiris 6y ago

Yes, the standard should be applied to everyone. In my opinion, no one should ever suggest the murder of any other person regardless of whether they intend it as sarcasm, hyperbole, metaphor, or anything else.

hellgas00 6y ago
It should be, but it's not, that is what this discussion is about. The band are political in nature, not moral.

ptato 6y ago

Why is it that whenever a prominent right wing figure gets banned (or similar), all that right wingers can answer is whataboutism?

notadev 6y ago
Because the issue isn't purely against content moderation, it's that content moderation is not applied equally and even less so when those who should be moderated shared the same "values" as the left-leaning SV types.
disposekinetics 6y ago
Maybe they somehow got the message this was all ok after it was literally all ok for eight months. They're despicable, but it is easy to trace exactly how the mainstream rhetoric made this palatable to them.

7952 6y ago

It is up to the courts to decide if these things are illegal or not. Of course people should be held to the same standard. But there is obviously nuance in how a message may be recieved by others and a question of intent. A sitting president and conspiracy theorist trying to steal an election is different to a group of people protesting against police. Maybe there are grounds for prosecution in both cases, but that's not the point. There is a difference. I think people want to use these issues as a way of pointing out hypocrisy that only exists when you think in a culture war way. All nuance is dissolved.