6 ms·

Could you explain what you mean by this?

jacobolus 6y ago
The implication is that the nationwide (and worldwide) Black Lives Matter protest marches in wake of George Floyd's death should have been prevented and their communications shut down, because the grandparent poster thinks that protesting police brutality and murder is illegitimate, but storming the US Capitol with the stated goal of overthrowing the government and extrajudicially executing the Vice President is just fine.
- watwut 6y ago
  Conservative groups still exist outside Parler. And they can and do coordinate there. The same platforms were closing accounts calling for violence and preparing it during BLM protests. The difference is that while people on Parler claim that violent subgroups don't represent all Trump supporters, platforms that don't allow calls for violence are not good for them.
j_walter 6y ago
Protesting anything is fine. It's how far you take that protest that is the problem. When does a protest become a riot? When you block traffic? When you enter a secured space? When you break into a federal building? When you set fire to a federal building? When you set fire to cop cars? When you break windows of local businesses? When you loot local businesses? When you spray paint hate speech? When you threaten cops families with death? When you throw fireworks at people? When you throw Molotov cocktails at people? These all occurred in large numbers during between the death of George Floyd and the Capitol Riot. How many times did big tech step and and stop the coordinating efforts for those protests/riots?
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  Hm. I think a lot of people reasonably draw the line on speech somewhere after the protests & property damage that happened during 2020, but before action coordinated to take control of the seat of government/potentially kidnap or kill elected representatives.
  - neuland 6y ago
    Or, people are just inconsistent and not thinking about things beyond their politics. People will praise the Arab Spring organizing on Twitter without considering the implications for the events at the Capital on Jan 6th. People are fine with Parler getting banned by all their vendors for not moderating violence and threats. But people would loose their minds if the same thing happened to Facebook for their failure to moderate violence around the Rohingyan genocide.
    - caseysoftware 6y ago
      > People will praise the Arab Spring organizing on Twitter without considering the implications for the events at the Capital on Jan 6th. This is a great point. It's also key to consider that some of the groups that praised the Arab Spring were the Obama State Department which was led by Hillary Clinton at the time. It appears the threshold is "support violent insurrection in other countries but stamp out the discussion of it here".
      - mcguire 6y ago
        Or, perhaps, "support violent insurrection after peaceful protests against authoritarianism, human rights violations, political corruption have failed, when there is no further peaceful opportunity for opposition." (The United States had an election, right? One with no more than the usual, minor, issues, right? One where legal actions were taken and weighed appropriately, right? One where one specific loser seems only to be complaining about losing, right? One where all of the other contemporaneous votes were not objected to, right? One that will be revisited in 2 to 4 years, right?)
        caseysoftware 6y ago
        Serious question: Which of the lawsuits went into discovery and were heard to weigh those claims? I'd love to read the details as that could dispel rumors and bs.
        6y ago
- watwut 6y ago
  > These all occurred in large numbers during between the death of George Floyd and the Capitol Riot. How many times did big tech step and and stop the coordinating efforts for those protests/riots? They did closed accounts that called for violence. I have literally seen that. Both twitter and facebook. Not perfectly, but they did not refused to delete tweets or whole accounts.
  - kofejnik 6y ago
    https://twitter.com/adbusters/status/1288193793267625984 https://twitter.com/adbusters/status/1288193793267625984 is still up "On September 17, 2020 we will lay siege to The @WhiteHouse for exactly fifty days. We need your wisdom and expertise to pull off a radically democratic toneshift in our politics. Are you ready for #revolution? This is the #WhiteHouseSiege" 1k retweets
    - johnmaguire2013 6y ago
      https://twitter.com/Adbusters/status/1289363787879915522 https://twitter.com/Adbusters/status/1289363787879915522 Doesn't seem they were advocating for violence.
    - lwheelock 6y ago
      > Fifty days — September 17th to November 3rd. > > Let us once again summon the sweet, revolutionary nonviolence that was our calling card in Zuccotti Park. If your stated intent explicitly calls for ‘non-violence’, I expect this doesn’t violate ToS despite potential inferences from the sensational branding. I never heard of this before so I don’t even know what happened on Sept. 17. Was it violent?
    - weaksauce 6y ago
      because they didn't call for a violent overthrow of the government but a peaceful jazz fest like they had 9 years prior. they are calling for an occupy wallstreet 2.0 https://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/whitehousesiege-tactical-briefing-1 https://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/whitehousesiege-tactical... the stuff that parler was leaving up was outright sedition and calls for violence.
- ekianjo 6y ago
  But you know that people only think about the narrative. If its BLM everything goes. If its the other side, its evil, has to be stopped. And the best thing is that they are completely oblivious to their double standards.
  - edmundsauto 6y ago
    That is one perspective, although it’s very limited in its nuance. A lot of people supported BLMs pre-violence protests because they wanted police held accountable. And a reasonable person can discuss whether the violence would have escalated if the police hadn’t been so aggressive. Compare that to the Capitol insurrection, where the goal was to overturn the results of an election. To overturn the government. Where the people inciting the violence were in the same tent. There was never good intent on the side of the insurrection it’s, and they escalated to violence on their own.
    - ekianjo 6y ago
      > where the goal was to overturn the results of an election If that was really the goal you'd think they would have gunned up a little more than they did. Instead, very few people were actually armed, so that seems rather disorganized for an actual coup. > A lot of people supported BLMs pre-violence protests because they wanted police held accountable. So protesting for police violence makes it OK to loot stores and burn cars that have nothing to do with it? How is that EVER ok? If you condemn violence you need to condemn violence no matter who instigates it, not only when it's very convenient for one to do so. because this is exactly what was happening 6 months ago, people cheer-leading the violence on Twitter if it was BLM related.
- adrian_b 6y ago
  I do not think that it is very hard to determine when a protest becomes a riot, but I think that it is extremely difficult to determine who is guilty for transforming a protest into a riot. I have no idea about what has really happened last year in USA, because the truth cannot be discovered just from video transmissions at TV or on the Internet. Nevertheless, I have seen much more closely a large number of peaceful protests in other countries, which eventually became riots. However it became clear later, that in most or in all cases, the transformation of the protests into riots was done by undercover police agents or secret service agents, who had infiltrated the protests and who had done this in order to discredit the protests so that their demands could be ignored and their organizers punished.
jokethrowaway 6y ago
Parent was obviously referring to the 34 deaths, theft, forcing people to comply with the requests (raise your first or face the mob) and millions of damage in private property, due to the BLM rioting. Still, it's not relevant because they weren't exercising freedom of speech, just incitement of violence. Same as the people at the Capitol.
- jacobolus 6y ago
  Your numbers are not reliable, and you should discount whatever source you got them from. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/07/facebook-posts/no-proof-black-lives-matter-killed-36-people-injur/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/07/facebook-p... The large Black Lives Matter protests all over the country were overwhelmingly lawful and peaceful. The main exceptions were the scenes in many places of cops beating the shit out of people, etc. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/style/police-protests-video.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/style/police-protests-vid... In various cities a small number of people acted violently. These were opportunists without apparent link to the Black Lives Matter organizers who took advantage of the situation to smash things up. Some were likely sympathetic to the BLM message, but others have been identified as far-right agitators. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/22/who-caused-violence-protests-its-not-antifa/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/22/who-cause... https://www.justsecurity.org/70497/far-right-infiltrators-and-agitators-in-george-floyd-protests-indicators-of-white-supremacists/ https://www.justsecurity.org/70497/far-right-infiltrators-an...
  - jokethrowaway 6y ago
    The only number I brought up is number of deaths which I thought it was 34 from memory. I don't mind the people protesting peacefully, I'm talking about the violent ones. Your fact checker doesn't report a number, some people counted 36. Wikipedia reports 19+ deaths: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_and_controversies_during_the_George_Floyd_protests#Events_within_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_and_controversies_dur... It's irrelevant. There was looting from stores, burning of buildings and killings, surrounding people in restaurants and forcing them to comply. You can call it a peaceful protest as much as you want and you can link biased sources all day, but you won't change facts.

The implication is that the nationwide (and worldwide) Black Lives Matter protest marches in wake of George Floyd's death should have been prevented and their communications shut down, because the grandparent poster thinks that protesting police brutality and murder is illegitimate, but storming the US Capitol with the stated goal of overthrowing the government and extrajudicially executing the Vice President is just fine.

watwut 6y ago
Conservative groups still exist outside Parler. And they can and do coordinate there. The same platforms were closing accounts calling for violence and preparing it during BLM protests. The difference is that while people on Parler claim that violent subgroups don't represent all Trump supporters, platforms that don't allow calls for violence are not good for them.

j_walter 6y ago

Protesting anything is fine. It's how far you take that protest that is the problem. When does a protest become a riot? When you block traffic? When you enter a secured space? When you break into a federal building? When you set fire to a federal building? When you set fire to cop cars? When you break windows of local businesses? When you loot local businesses? When you spray paint hate speech? When you threaten cops families with death? When you throw fireworks at people? When you throw Molotov cocktails at people? These all occurred in large numbers during between the death of George Floyd and the Capitol Riot. How many times did big tech step and and stop the coordinating efforts for those protests/riots?

whimsicalism 6y ago
Hm. I think a lot of people reasonably draw the line on speech somewhere after the protests & property damage that happened during 2020, but before action coordinated to take control of the seat of government/potentially kidnap or kill elected representatives.
- neuland 6y ago
  Or, people are just inconsistent and not thinking about things beyond their politics. People will praise the Arab Spring organizing on Twitter without considering the implications for the events at the Capital on Jan 6th. People are fine with Parler getting banned by all their vendors for not moderating violence and threats. But people would loose their minds if the same thing happened to Facebook for their failure to moderate violence around the Rohingyan genocide.
  - caseysoftware 6y ago
    > People will praise the Arab Spring organizing on Twitter without considering the implications for the events at the Capital on Jan 6th. This is a great point. It's also key to consider that some of the groups that praised the Arab Spring were the Obama State Department which was led by Hillary Clinton at the time. It appears the threshold is "support violent insurrection in other countries but stamp out the discussion of it here".
    - mcguire 6y ago
      Or, perhaps, "support violent insurrection after peaceful protests against authoritarianism, human rights violations, political corruption have failed, when there is no further peaceful opportunity for opposition." (The United States had an election, right? One with no more than the usual, minor, issues, right? One where legal actions were taken and weighed appropriately, right? One where one specific loser seems only to be complaining about losing, right? One where all of the other contemporaneous votes were not objected to, right? One that will be revisited in 2 to 4 years, right?)
      - caseysoftware 6y ago
        Serious question: Which of the lawsuits went into discovery and were heard to weigh those claims? I'd love to read the details as that could dispel rumors and bs.
        6y ago
watwut 6y ago
> These all occurred in large numbers during between the death of George Floyd and the Capitol Riot. How many times did big tech step and and stop the coordinating efforts for those protests/riots? They did closed accounts that called for violence. I have literally seen that. Both twitter and facebook. Not perfectly, but they did not refused to delete tweets or whole accounts.
- kofejnik 6y ago
  https://twitter.com/adbusters/status/1288193793267625984 https://twitter.com/adbusters/status/1288193793267625984 is still up "On September 17, 2020 we will lay siege to The @WhiteHouse for exactly fifty days. We need your wisdom and expertise to pull off a radically democratic toneshift in our politics. Are you ready for #revolution? This is the #WhiteHouseSiege" 1k retweets
  - johnmaguire2013 6y ago
    https://twitter.com/Adbusters/status/1289363787879915522 https://twitter.com/Adbusters/status/1289363787879915522 Doesn't seem they were advocating for violence.
  - lwheelock 6y ago
    > Fifty days — September 17th to November 3rd. > > Let us once again summon the sweet, revolutionary nonviolence that was our calling card in Zuccotti Park. If your stated intent explicitly calls for ‘non-violence’, I expect this doesn’t violate ToS despite potential inferences from the sensational branding. I never heard of this before so I don’t even know what happened on Sept. 17. Was it violent?
  - weaksauce 6y ago
    because they didn't call for a violent overthrow of the government but a peaceful jazz fest like they had 9 years prior. they are calling for an occupy wallstreet 2.0 https://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/whitehousesiege-tactical-briefing-1 https://www.adbusters.org/campaigns/whitehousesiege-tactical... the stuff that parler was leaving up was outright sedition and calls for violence.
ekianjo 6y ago
But you know that people only think about the narrative. If its BLM everything goes. If its the other side, its evil, has to be stopped. And the best thing is that they are completely oblivious to their double standards.
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  That is one perspective, although it’s very limited in its nuance. A lot of people supported BLMs pre-violence protests because they wanted police held accountable. And a reasonable person can discuss whether the violence would have escalated if the police hadn’t been so aggressive. Compare that to the Capitol insurrection, where the goal was to overturn the results of an election. To overturn the government. Where the people inciting the violence were in the same tent. There was never good intent on the side of the insurrection it’s, and they escalated to violence on their own.
  - ekianjo 6y ago
    > where the goal was to overturn the results of an election If that was really the goal you'd think they would have gunned up a little more than they did. Instead, very few people were actually armed, so that seems rather disorganized for an actual coup. > A lot of people supported BLMs pre-violence protests because they wanted police held accountable. So protesting for police violence makes it OK to loot stores and burn cars that have nothing to do with it? How is that EVER ok? If you condemn violence you need to condemn violence no matter who instigates it, not only when it's very convenient for one to do so. because this is exactly what was happening 6 months ago, people cheer-leading the violence on Twitter if it was BLM related.
adrian_b 6y ago
I do not think that it is very hard to determine when a protest becomes a riot, but I think that it is extremely difficult to determine who is guilty for transforming a protest into a riot. I have no idea about what has really happened last year in USA, because the truth cannot be discovered just from video transmissions at TV or on the Internet. Nevertheless, I have seen much more closely a large number of peaceful protests in other countries, which eventually became riots. However it became clear later, that in most or in all cases, the transformation of the protests into riots was done by undercover police agents or secret service agents, who had infiltrated the protests and who had done this in order to discredit the protests so that their demands could be ignored and their organizers punished.

jokethrowaway 6y ago

Parent was obviously referring to the 34 deaths, theft, forcing people to comply with the requests (raise your first or face the mob) and millions of damage in private property, due to the BLM rioting. Still, it's not relevant because they weren't exercising freedom of speech, just incitement of violence. Same as the people at the Capitol.

jacobolus 6y ago
Your numbers are not reliable, and you should discount whatever source you got them from. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/07/facebook-posts/no-proof-black-lives-matter-killed-36-people-injur/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/07/facebook-p... The large Black Lives Matter protests all over the country were overwhelmingly lawful and peaceful. The main exceptions were the scenes in many places of cops beating the shit out of people, etc. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/style/police-protests-video.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/style/police-protests-vid... In various cities a small number of people acted violently. These were opportunists without apparent link to the Black Lives Matter organizers who took advantage of the situation to smash things up. Some were likely sympathetic to the BLM message, but others have been identified as far-right agitators. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/22/who-caused-violence-protests-its-not-antifa/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/22/who-cause... https://www.justsecurity.org/70497/far-right-infiltrators-and-agitators-in-george-floyd-protests-indicators-of-white-supremacists/ https://www.justsecurity.org/70497/far-right-infiltrators-an...
- jokethrowaway 6y ago
  The only number I brought up is number of deaths which I thought it was 34 from memory. I don't mind the people protesting peacefully, I'm talking about the violent ones. Your fact checker doesn't report a number, some people counted 36. Wikipedia reports 19+ deaths: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_and_controversies_during_the_George_Floyd_protests#Events_within_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_and_controversies_dur... It's irrelevant. There was looting from stores, burning of buildings and killings, surrounding people in restaurants and forcing them to comply. You can call it a peaceful protest as much as you want and you can link biased sources all day, but you won't change facts.