7 ms·

> Twitter literally claims that "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th. Well, no, they didn't claim that. The

> Twitter literally claims that "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th. Well, no, they didn't claim that. They claimed the two tweets, taken together, were the straw that broke the camel's back. And, yes, I think you could reasonably make the claim that the tweets were innocuous if you throw out the context of the President inciting a violent insurrection on Congress. But, we don't have to blind ourselves to that prior context. Given it, and given the way a number of people received those comments and have been actively organizing for violence around the inauguration since then, it doesn't seem to be to be a close call.

sli 6y ago
> taken together Taken together primarily, along with numerous other tweets in secondary. It wasn't just those two.
- ncallaway 6y ago
  Sure, I agree, but I thought that was kind of implicit in the phrase "straw that broke the camels back". This was the latest individual thing, sitting on a mountain of other things, that finally caused the dam to break.
lightgreen 6y ago
> throw out the context of the President inciting a violent insurrection on Congress No the president did not incite violent insurrection. There is literally nothing he said is that incitement.
- nemosaltat 6y ago
  Could you clarify you position here? I can read your comment a few ways: 1. The president did not incite violent insurrection. 2. None of the presidents actions meet the legal standard for incitement. Full Stop. 3. None of the presidents actions meet the commonly understood definition of incitement. Full Stop. I think an argument could be made for 1. I’d struggle with 2 or 3. IANAL but let’s consider: > So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give… The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. > So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I want to thank you all. God bless you and God bless America. Thank you all for being here, this is incredible. Thank you very much. Thank you.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - outside1234 6y ago
    Please stop. He went on for two months about how the election was stolen (with no evidence), talked about the 2nd amendment and "how it could solve this", and then sent proxies to talk about "taking it to Congress," not to mention literally thousands of other lies. Enough with the gaslighting - this was entirely justified.
    - mlyle 6y ago
      ??? lightgreen was saying it wasn't incitement. nemosaltat, whom you replied to, was -arguing- with lightgreen. nemosaltat said that he was pretty sure it met the legal standard for incitement. Maybe he doesn't say it quite as strongly as you would like, but you can hardly call this "gaslighting".
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- oarabbus_ 6y ago
  Do you realize you don't have to literally say "let's be violent and attack people" in order to incite violence?
  - CountDrewku 6y ago
    Do you realize that anyone can claim “incitement” of violence since it’s completely subjective and therefore probably very dangerous thing to be using as a way to determine “guilt”. In fact I don’t like the tone of your comment and I feel it might be setting some people off. How about we keep the responsibility with the people actually physically doing the crime. People make their own decisions. Your logic would dictate the person doing the crime takes no responsibility since they were incited into doing it.
    - Schiendelman 6y ago
      No one acted violently after reading your comment, but people did act violently after reading Trump’s Twitter. If you have an example of someone’s Twitter being taken down for inciting violence were no violence occurred, let us know!
      - CountDrewku 6y ago
        How about the opposite where actual dictators are allowed to incite and not get taken down? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/09/18/twitter-says-murderous-dictators-can-stay-service-long-follow/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/09/18/twitter-sa...
        lightgreen 6y ago
        Paywalled, cannot read, sorry.
      - lightgreen 6y ago
        > No one acted violently after reading your comment, but people did act violently after reading Trump’s Twitter. Consider this example. John fired Andrew from the job. And told him, please do whatever you want to get your job back. Andrew took his shotgun and killed ten top managers. Deaths of ten people is a direct consequence of John actions. John actions might be irresponsible, but was not inciting violence. Same way Capitol hill events were a direct consequence of Trump actions, but Trump did not incite violence.

sli 6y ago

> taken together Taken together primarily, along with numerous other tweets in secondary. It wasn't just those two.

ncallaway 6y ago
Sure, I agree, but I thought that was kind of implicit in the phrase "straw that broke the camels back". This was the latest individual thing, sitting on a mountain of other things, that finally caused the dam to break.

lightgreen 6y ago

> throw out the context of the President inciting a violent insurrection on Congress No the president did not incite violent insurrection. There is literally nothing he said is that incitement.

nemosaltat 6y ago
Could you clarify you position here? I can read your comment a few ways: 1. The president did not incite violent insurrection. 2. None of the presidents actions meet the legal standard for incitement. Full Stop. 3. None of the presidents actions meet the commonly understood definition of incitement. Full Stop. I think an argument could be made for 1. I’d struggle with 2 or 3. IANAL but let’s consider: > So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give… The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. > So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I want to thank you all. God bless you and God bless America. Thank you all for being here, this is incredible. Thank you very much. Thank you.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- outside1234 6y ago
  Please stop. He went on for two months about how the election was stolen (with no evidence), talked about the 2nd amendment and "how it could solve this", and then sent proxies to talk about "taking it to Congress," not to mention literally thousands of other lies. Enough with the gaslighting - this was entirely justified.
  - mlyle 6y ago
    ??? lightgreen was saying it wasn't incitement. nemosaltat, whom you replied to, was -arguing- with lightgreen. nemosaltat said that he was pretty sure it met the legal standard for incitement. Maybe he doesn't say it quite as strongly as you would like, but you can hardly call this "gaslighting".
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
oarabbus_ 6y ago
Do you realize you don't have to literally say "let's be violent and attack people" in order to incite violence?
- CountDrewku 6y ago
  Do you realize that anyone can claim “incitement” of violence since it’s completely subjective and therefore probably very dangerous thing to be using as a way to determine “guilt”. In fact I don’t like the tone of your comment and I feel it might be setting some people off. How about we keep the responsibility with the people actually physically doing the crime. People make their own decisions. Your logic would dictate the person doing the crime takes no responsibility since they were incited into doing it.
  - Schiendelman 6y ago
    No one acted violently after reading your comment, but people did act violently after reading Trump’s Twitter. If you have an example of someone’s Twitter being taken down for inciting violence were no violence occurred, let us know!
    - CountDrewku 6y ago
      How about the opposite where actual dictators are allowed to incite and not get taken down? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/09/18/twitter-says-murderous-dictators-can-stay-service-long-follow/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/09/18/twitter-sa...
      - lightgreen 6y ago
        Paywalled, cannot read, sorry.
    - lightgreen 6y ago
      > No one acted violently after reading your comment, but people did act violently after reading Trump’s Twitter. Consider this example. John fired Andrew from the job. And told him, please do whatever you want to get your job back. Andrew took his shotgun and killed ten top managers. Deaths of ten people is a direct consequence of John actions. John actions might be irresponsible, but was not inciting violence. Same way Capitol hill events were a direct consequence of Trump actions, but Trump did not incite violence.