7 ms·

>> Having clear rules that apply to all users and Facebook > No, no and NO again! There needs to be rules much stricter for those in extreme places in society

by koolba 6y ago

>> Having clear rules that apply to all users and Facebook > No, no and NO again! There needs to be rules much stricter for those in extreme places in society - the president is not an "ordinary" user and should have much stricter rules to adhere to, as should be expected of elected officials. I'd argue for the reverse. The statements of a political figure must be evaluated in as positive a light as possible. Otherwise you end up with every single statement they make being grounds for removal (e.g., "We need to fight against the special interests!, oh no, he's suggesting we fight!).

throwaway2048 6y ago
I'm not much of a fan of lower standards for authority figures.
tw04 6y ago
There's a reason the statement "acting presidential" exists. We generally hold people in power to a higher standard in this country, and rightly so. "We need to fight against special interests" has no context. If the preceding 10 minutes was talking about the civil war - then yes I would be extremely concerned that the President went from talking about war to starting a "fight" with someone. If the previous 10 minutes was talking about financial reforms, then IN CONTEXT, the president is talking about a very different kind of fight. I have no time for people who try to dodge responsibility by claiming the context of a statement doesn't matter, on the flip side I have no time for someone who takes a one-sentence snippet out of context to try to hang someone out to dry either. IMO that's the problem with what I can only describe as the 'twitter generation' we're currently experiencing. Everything is a 140 character snippet and context is completely lost or discarded.
- bko 6y ago
  > There's a reason the statement "acting presidential" exists. We generally hold people in power to a higher standard in this country, and rightly so When did "we" turn into the current governing structure of Facebook?
  - dylan604 6y ago
    Exactly. The product never gets a say in what is done to/with it.
- the-dude 6y ago
  They hate our freedoms led to 20 years of war.
  - CyberDildonics 6y ago
    It didn't lead to 20 years of war, it was used to sell 20 years of war.
    - the-dude 6y ago
      I stand corrected! You are absolutely right, wrong choice of words.
- oceanplexian 6y ago
  Presidents have always acted unpresidential but the difference is that Twitter and TV didn't exist then. Lincoln was notorious for using profanity, more than a few (Including Jackson) killed someone in a duel. While some presidents have been more controversial, and outspoken than others, the idea that there is a "well mannered" presidential archetype is a myth.
  - anotha1 6y ago
    None of your examples are on a public stage for a mass audience. It's different. What you say to the crowd has distinctly different impact than what you say "in the locker room" to an acquaintance.
    - dylan604 6y ago
      But if you then brag about your locker room conversation to a journalist while on the record, that then become in the public stage.
      - rrose 6y ago
        also, the issue with the access hollywood tapes wasn't that it was "locker room talk" that got public, it was that what he said was morally pretty disgusting. people were mad about what he said, not the manner or forum in which he said it
      - wernercd 6y ago
        "while on the record" The problem is that he wasn't "on the record"... he was secretly recorded. Meanwhile, the other side backs actual calls for violence from people like Maxine while clutching pearls over 6 hours of mostly peaceful protests in the capital. Trump says mean things? bad things? OH NO! he's so much worse than democrats and "peaceful activists" who have caused billions in damage and killed many people.
        madengr 6y ago
        They also arrest old ladies for an “insurrection” while ignoring billions in damage from Burn Loot Murder. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/kansas/articles/2021-04-25/two-kansas-women-arrested-in-jan-6-capitol-riot https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/kansas/articles/2021...
- panzagl 6y ago
  Acting presidential went out with the Clinton administration- it was widely commented on at the time (see the commentary around him appearing on Arsenio Hall), but the media loved the cachet/ attention too much to let it get beyond the Sunday morning talking head shows.
- Rapzid 6y ago
  I spend too much time on r/politics.. It's mostly people getting outraged together about contextless headlines, quotes, soundbites, articles, and etc. Mostly. It happens here too. cough basecamp cough.
zxzax 6y ago
Isn't that just proving the point? Powerful figures should absolutely be more careful when using words like "fight" out of context because a certain percentage of people may very well misinterpret that as a call to violence. The platform evaluating it in a certain way doesn't change what the rest of the audience is going to evaluate it as.
- koolba 6y ago
  > Isn't that just proving the point? Powerful figures should absolutely be more careful when using words like "fight" out of context because a certain percentage of people may very well misinterpret that as a call to violence. The platform evaluating it in a certain way doesn't change what the rest of the audience is going to evaluate it as. No, no, no! The answer to idiots misinterpreting words literally isn't to dumb down our speech. That would be double plus ungood.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    tact != dumbing down If anything, it's the opposite.
    - ds206 6y ago
      It's too bad politicians don't have a way to express their policy views to everyone in as much detail as they need, spanning as many hours as it takes. Oh yeah, they do LOL. I wonder how long it'll be until we have the first "big brother" politician that has web cams in their office and is transparent about every decision they've made?
  - zxzax 6y ago
    >The answer to [less knowledgeable people] misinterpreting words literally isn't to [simplify] our speech. Yes, it is? For the biggest example, Have you ever done child care? Kids may not understand whatever complex metaphor you're trying to use, they're not "idiots" for being that way, that's your responsibility as the adult to explain what you mean to them or use a simpler phrasing. Some kids may not even be ready for the explanation and you'll have to wait until they're older to use the complex phrasing. Yes it's unfortunate that for some this pattern continues into adulthood but they're also not "idiots" for being that way, not everyone can be an English major.
throwaways885 6y ago
The plebs should have more rights to speak freely than the politicians. Or more accurately, the reverse should never be true.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
stickfigure 6y ago
We generally punish culpable people in more senior positions more severely. Mafia bosses get bigger sentences than low-level street thugs. In the aftermath of WW2, high level Nazis received death sentences. I don't think "treat everyone on Facebook exactly equally" is a reasonable standard.
RickJWagner 6y ago
I'd argue that celebrities of all kinds should be held to higher standards for truth and good behavior. More followers means more potential for misuse.
nailer 6y ago
> Otherwise you end up with every single statement they make being grounds for removal (e.g., "We need to fight against the special interests!, oh no, he's suggesting we fight!). That seems to be the case in this situation. The President called on people to show up, not to riot. If the same standard was applied universally this would have a chilling effect on all protest. This should be unnecessary to say but just in case HN thinks this is political advocacy: I personally dislike Donald Trump.

by koolba 6y ago

throwaway2048 6y ago

I'm not much of a fan of lower standards for authority figures.

tw04 6y ago

There's a reason the statement "acting presidential" exists. We generally hold people in power to a higher standard in this country, and rightly so. "We need to fight against special interests" has no context. If the preceding 10 minutes was talking about the civil war - then yes I would be extremely concerned that the President went from talking about war to starting a "fight" with someone. If the previous 10 minutes was talking about financial reforms, then IN CONTEXT, the president is talking about a very different kind of fight. I have no time for people who try to dodge responsibility by claiming the context of a statement doesn't matter, on the flip side I have no time for someone who takes a one-sentence snippet out of context to try to hang someone out to dry either. IMO that's the problem with what I can only describe as the 'twitter generation' we're currently experiencing. Everything is a 140 character snippet and context is completely lost or discarded.

bko 6y ago
> There's a reason the statement "acting presidential" exists. We generally hold people in power to a higher standard in this country, and rightly so When did "we" turn into the current governing structure of Facebook?
- dylan604 6y ago
  Exactly. The product never gets a say in what is done to/with it.
the-dude 6y ago
They hate our freedoms led to 20 years of war.
- CyberDildonics 6y ago
  It didn't lead to 20 years of war, it was used to sell 20 years of war.
  - the-dude 6y ago
    I stand corrected! You are absolutely right, wrong choice of words.
oceanplexian 6y ago
Presidents have always acted unpresidential but the difference is that Twitter and TV didn't exist then. Lincoln was notorious for using profanity, more than a few (Including Jackson) killed someone in a duel. While some presidents have been more controversial, and outspoken than others, the idea that there is a "well mannered" presidential archetype is a myth.
- anotha1 6y ago
  None of your examples are on a public stage for a mass audience. It's different. What you say to the crowd has distinctly different impact than what you say "in the locker room" to an acquaintance.
  - dylan604 6y ago
    But if you then brag about your locker room conversation to a journalist while on the record, that then become in the public stage.
    - rrose 6y ago
      also, the issue with the access hollywood tapes wasn't that it was "locker room talk" that got public, it was that what he said was morally pretty disgusting. people were mad about what he said, not the manner or forum in which he said it
    - wernercd 6y ago
      "while on the record" The problem is that he wasn't "on the record"... he was secretly recorded. Meanwhile, the other side backs actual calls for violence from people like Maxine while clutching pearls over 6 hours of mostly peaceful protests in the capital. Trump says mean things? bad things? OH NO! he's so much worse than democrats and "peaceful activists" who have caused billions in damage and killed many people.
      - madengr 6y ago
        They also arrest old ladies for an “insurrection” while ignoring billions in damage from Burn Loot Murder. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/kansas/articles/2021-04-25/two-kansas-women-arrested-in-jan-6-capitol-riot https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/kansas/articles/2021...
panzagl 6y ago
Acting presidential went out with the Clinton administration- it was widely commented on at the time (see the commentary around him appearing on Arsenio Hall), but the media loved the cachet/ attention too much to let it get beyond the Sunday morning talking head shows.
Rapzid 6y ago
I spend too much time on r/politics.. It's mostly people getting outraged together about contextless headlines, quotes, soundbites, articles, and etc. Mostly. It happens here too. cough basecamp cough.

zxzax 6y ago

Isn't that just proving the point? Powerful figures should absolutely be more careful when using words like "fight" out of context because a certain percentage of people may very well misinterpret that as a call to violence. The platform evaluating it in a certain way doesn't change what the rest of the audience is going to evaluate it as.

koolba 6y ago
> Isn't that just proving the point? Powerful figures should absolutely be more careful when using words like "fight" out of context because a certain percentage of people may very well misinterpret that as a call to violence. The platform evaluating it in a certain way doesn't change what the rest of the audience is going to evaluate it as. No, no, no! The answer to idiots misinterpreting words literally isn't to dumb down our speech. That would be double plus ungood.
- kube-system 6y ago
  tact != dumbing down If anything, it's the opposite.
  - ds206 6y ago
    It's too bad politicians don't have a way to express their policy views to everyone in as much detail as they need, spanning as many hours as it takes. Oh yeah, they do LOL. I wonder how long it'll be until we have the first "big brother" politician that has web cams in their office and is transparent about every decision they've made?
- zxzax 6y ago
  >The answer to [less knowledgeable people] misinterpreting words literally isn't to [simplify] our speech. Yes, it is? For the biggest example, Have you ever done child care? Kids may not understand whatever complex metaphor you're trying to use, they're not "idiots" for being that way, that's your responsibility as the adult to explain what you mean to them or use a simpler phrasing. Some kids may not even be ready for the explanation and you'll have to wait until they're older to use the complex phrasing. Yes it's unfortunate that for some this pattern continues into adulthood but they're also not "idiots" for being that way, not everyone can be an English major.

throwaways885 6y ago

The plebs should have more rights to speak freely than the politicians. Or more accurately, the reverse should never be true.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

stickfigure 6y ago

We generally punish culpable people in more senior positions more severely. Mafia bosses get bigger sentences than low-level street thugs. In the aftermath of WW2, high level Nazis received death sentences. I don't think "treat everyone on Facebook exactly equally" is a reasonable standard.

RickJWagner 6y ago

I'd argue that celebrities of all kinds should be held to higher standards for truth and good behavior. More followers means more potential for misuse.

nailer 6y ago

> Otherwise you end up with every single statement they make being grounds for removal (e.g., "We need to fight against the special interests!, oh no, he's suggesting we fight!). That seems to be the case in this situation. The President called on people to show up, not to riot. If the same standard was applied universally this would have a chilling effect on all protest. This should be unnecessary to say but just in case HN thinks this is political advocacy: I personally dislike Donald Trump.