3 ms·

> It's one thing to silence known terrorists (people who engage in terror, or help coordinate terror). It's another to silence dissent because you don't like t

> It's one thing to silence known terrorists (people who engage in terror, or help coordinate terror). It's another to silence dissent because you don't like them. I see only the former happening. > As far as I know, ISIS and ISIS supporters had Twitter handles till 2015 when they began purges. So they actually were okay with known terrorists to use their platform until the Obama admin pressured them enough. Cite please. > As I mentioned above, know terrorists, ban them. Enemies of the state, ban them. Dissenters because they harass the government? No. Politicians because they say politically incorrect things that don't align with an admin? No. I again only see the former happening. Storm the capitol, you're no longer a "dissenter". > The Jan 6 thing was unfortunate, but there is no way in hell that was an attempted coup. The great thing about social media is you cannot ret-con a narrative. It was very much an attempted coup. Failing doesn't change the intent. > Do you think if they had "control" of the Capitol, suddenly all military and government personnel would listen to them, the DoD, FBI, NSA, IRS, DOE, State Govs, etc., etc? That's not how it works. That's why it was an "attempted" coup. Also, do you think if Trump actually was against the capital riot, the response would've been delayed by hours? Really? _Really_? Per your original post, _one of us_ is definitely recounting events based off of a specific political alignment, but it's certainly not me.

mc32 5y ago
My original post is that silencing critics doesn't typically stop with silencing those you disagree with, it comes for everyone because it's easier to silence critics than it is to address their complaints (one way or the other). So you get to places where you cannot question official take of official organs or policies. It looks like dissent stops at burning state buildings, but an incursion into federal buildings crosses the line. Got it. Looks like those people did not get the memo with that distinction. What consists of an attempted coup? The belief you will overthrow the government? Were the 70s protests where they sat and thought hard revolutionary thoughts that would lift up government buildings (pentagon and whitehouse I believe) and uproot them if they thought hard enough, attempted coups? After all, some truly believed those sit-ins would overthrow the government.
- void_mint 5y ago
  define: coup > a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government. That defines a coup. That's also what was attempted. I don't believe you're posting in good faith. I won't be responding further.

mc32 5y ago

My original post is that silencing critics doesn't typically stop with silencing those you disagree with, it comes for everyone because it's easier to silence critics than it is to address their complaints (one way or the other). So you get to places where you cannot question official take of official organs or policies. It looks like dissent stops at burning state buildings, but an incursion into federal buildings crosses the line. Got it. Looks like those people did not get the memo with that distinction. What consists of an attempted coup? The belief you will overthrow the government? Were the 70s protests where they sat and thought hard revolutionary thoughts that would lift up government buildings (pentagon and whitehouse I believe) and uproot them if they thought hard enough, attempted coups? After all, some truly believed those sit-ins would overthrow the government.

void_mint 5y ago
define: coup > a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government. That defines a coup. That's also what was attempted. I don't believe you're posting in good faith. I won't be responding further.