3 ms·

There is obviously some legitimacy to the notion the rules are applied unfairly. It's invariably about 'fine lines' 'gray areas' and 'shifting sands of policy

by jariel 6y ago

There is obviously some legitimacy to the notion the rules are applied unfairly. It's invariably about 'fine lines' 'gray areas' and 'shifting sands of policy and situation'. In that context, I don't see Kap's statement quite as a call to violence, even though it may be, it's veiled just sufficiently that I would personally give it a pass. Certainly 'resistance' is within bounds. 'Revolt' I guess would be the complicating term. The real question is ... why would Jack Dorsey give a very wealthy athlete $3M? I would hope you meant to day 'Colin's Foundation' or something like that which is hopefully focused on legit social justice, and not, for example, perpetuating lies about elections? Finally, to my point about 'shifting sands' - I think the context of a President using the legitimacy of his office to make very serious false claims, which have very serious implications, and who's further incitement at last materially contributed to an 'insurrection' on Capitol Hill ... may very well have been a 'new context' in which the policy might materially change. It probably the behooves Dorsey & Co. to start to think about their new defacto policy in the context of other actors, so as to be fair. Edit: Dorsey's donation was indeed to a Kap led foundation, not to Kap himself, here [1]. It seems there's legitimacy to the cause, that said, I can't help bit grin at the large image at the bottom, with Kap's 'Che' style self-branding effort. [1] https://www.knowyourrightscamp.com/ https://www.knowyourrightscamp.com/

aksss 6y ago
Irrespective of Dorsey and Kap (really), can we all acknowledge that “foundations” or these non-profit entities run by the wealthy and politically entangled are convenient vehicles of tax advantage, asset protection, and influence peddling? I’m not saying all are so let’s not get our knickers in a twist - there are plenty of altruistic non-profits out there, and many that only exist thanks to the wealthy. But the default reaction to large sums of money being given to a foundation named for a wealthy, politically entangled person or family should not be, “oh, it’s a non-profit, it’s helping the children”. More than likely it’s that person’s way of putting assets they enjoy daily into a trust to shelter it from taxation or legal seizure (think tax man or divorce court), to get monetary consideration for services rendered (foundation pays high salaries to family members or self while on payroll as nominal employees), and to accept gifts to support the above under cover of a donation. Write a check for a few worthy charitable operations, do some appearances, publish a few reports, and it’s a net positive legal financial strategy.
- jariel 6y ago
  So first - the donation has nothing to do with anything really, it's kind of a side issue. Second, this is not the kind of 'influence peddling' organization you are thinking of. These kinds of orgs. are 'influentially benign', this money is not going to change any votes. You're thinking more of Clinton Foundation or Koch Brothers. If you want to be cynical about it - then I suggest it's more to do with the fact that this 'charity' seems to be the 'Colin Kap Personal Brand Promotion Marketing Vehicle' in the sense it seems to be more about him than ostensibly the people he's trying to help. And of course 'how' he's trying to help seems a little vague. If this were something like 'support underproduction kids by helping them pay for tuition' that would be wonderful. But the real issue is ostensible hypocrisy in Twitter bans, and while I think there is a legit fine line, I don't think Twitter has crossed it. They can make the case for banning Trump and not Kap. Though maybe there's some other tweets they ought to delete as well. To his credit, Dorsey did indicate the difficult challenge in the decision and that this issue certainly is not over. There's a difference between calling for protest of authorities who have killed innocent people, possibly on the basis of racism vs. trying to stop the electoral process, which amounts to a de-facto coup. Those are worlds apart. Those who 'looted Target' I hope can face appropriate charges, those who materially were trying to stop the electoral process as well, and those will be 'much more relevant'.
  - 99_00 6y ago
    >trying to stop the electoral process, which amounts to a de-facto coup. Trump followed the electoral process which allows for legal challenges and never called on anyone to do anything illegal.
    - jariel 6y ago
      Mafia bosses don't order someone killed either. Nevertheless, there was an insurrection on Capitol Hill whereby a few thousand people did overrun with the intent to stop the electoral process (and with a few others planning much worse). So it's established there was an insurrection in his name. Now: He called people to Capitol Hill from across the country specifically to protest the electoral validation. He publicly stated on many occasions - without factual evidence - that the election was stolen, giving his audience what they believed to be the credibility necessary to make very aggressively legitimate grievance. He condemned his on VP for failing in his duty (to commit sedition?) He called on protesters to 'fight fight fight' He called on them to commit 'political combat'. He called on them to 'walk down Pennsylvania Ave' with him. During the insurrection he didn't call in the National Guard, nor convene with Mike Pence, he wasn't publicly trying to get them to stand down, rather, he was on the phone with Republican Congressmen (who were in lock down facing threats to their lives!) pressuring them to stop the vote count, which would be illegal obviously. The President - at that moment - was a willing participant , along with the protesters, in an attempt to overthrow the Republic - which is a coup. This is Standard Authoritarian Playbook, it happens all the time, just not in places we pay attention to. I don't believe Trump planned a coup, but he put all the conditions in place and lit the match, and when it started to burn, he acted directly against his responsibility as President, and instead, acted with the insurrectionists. If, at the moment of insurrection, he were to have stepped in and quashed it all - which he could have done but chose not to - then the argument could be made that 'he didn't mean it, it just got out of hand'. His statements on Twitter were a primary vehicle for this insurrection ergo, a ban, which as Jack says ... 'is complicated'. No doubt. And of course there's hypocrisy and bias with him and the rest of social media.

by jariel 6y ago

aksss 6y ago

Irrespective of Dorsey and Kap (really), can we all acknowledge that “foundations” or these non-profit entities run by the wealthy and politically entangled are convenient vehicles of tax advantage, asset protection, and influence peddling? I’m not saying all are so let’s not get our knickers in a twist - there are plenty of altruistic non-profits out there, and many that only exist thanks to the wealthy. But the default reaction to large sums of money being given to a foundation named for a wealthy, politically entangled person or family should not be, “oh, it’s a non-profit, it’s helping the children”. More than likely it’s that person’s way of putting assets they enjoy daily into a trust to shelter it from taxation or legal seizure (think tax man or divorce court), to get monetary consideration for services rendered (foundation pays high salaries to family members or self while on payroll as nominal employees), and to accept gifts to support the above under cover of a donation. Write a check for a few worthy charitable operations, do some appearances, publish a few reports, and it’s a net positive legal financial strategy.

jariel 6y ago
So first - the donation has nothing to do with anything really, it's kind of a side issue. Second, this is not the kind of 'influence peddling' organization you are thinking of. These kinds of orgs. are 'influentially benign', this money is not going to change any votes. You're thinking more of Clinton Foundation or Koch Brothers. If you want to be cynical about it - then I suggest it's more to do with the fact that this 'charity' seems to be the 'Colin Kap Personal Brand Promotion Marketing Vehicle' in the sense it seems to be more about him than ostensibly the people he's trying to help. And of course 'how' he's trying to help seems a little vague. If this were something like 'support underproduction kids by helping them pay for tuition' that would be wonderful. But the real issue is ostensible hypocrisy in Twitter bans, and while I think there is a legit fine line, I don't think Twitter has crossed it. They can make the case for banning Trump and not Kap. Though maybe there's some other tweets they ought to delete as well. To his credit, Dorsey did indicate the difficult challenge in the decision and that this issue certainly is not over. There's a difference between calling for protest of authorities who have killed innocent people, possibly on the basis of racism vs. trying to stop the electoral process, which amounts to a de-facto coup. Those are worlds apart. Those who 'looted Target' I hope can face appropriate charges, those who materially were trying to stop the electoral process as well, and those will be 'much more relevant'.
- 99_00 6y ago
  >trying to stop the electoral process, which amounts to a de-facto coup. Trump followed the electoral process which allows for legal challenges and never called on anyone to do anything illegal.
  - jariel 6y ago
    Mafia bosses don't order someone killed either. Nevertheless, there was an insurrection on Capitol Hill whereby a few thousand people did overrun with the intent to stop the electoral process (and with a few others planning much worse). So it's established there was an insurrection in his name. Now: He called people to Capitol Hill from across the country specifically to protest the electoral validation. He publicly stated on many occasions - without factual evidence - that the election was stolen, giving his audience what they believed to be the credibility necessary to make very aggressively legitimate grievance. He condemned his on VP for failing in his duty (to commit sedition?) He called on protesters to 'fight fight fight' He called on them to commit 'political combat'. He called on them to 'walk down Pennsylvania Ave' with him. During the insurrection he didn't call in the National Guard, nor convene with Mike Pence, he wasn't publicly trying to get them to stand down, rather, he was on the phone with Republican Congressmen (who were in lock down facing threats to their lives!) pressuring them to stop the vote count, which would be illegal obviously. The President - at that moment - was a willing participant , along with the protesters, in an attempt to overthrow the Republic - which is a coup. This is Standard Authoritarian Playbook, it happens all the time, just not in places we pay attention to. I don't believe Trump planned a coup, but he put all the conditions in place and lit the match, and when it started to burn, he acted directly against his responsibility as President, and instead, acted with the insurrectionists. If, at the moment of insurrection, he were to have stepped in and quashed it all - which he could have done but chose not to - then the argument could be made that 'he didn't mean it, it just got out of hand'. His statements on Twitter were a primary vehicle for this insurrection ergo, a ban, which as Jack says ... 'is complicated'. No doubt. And of course there's hypocrisy and bias with him and the rest of social media.