4 ms·

Specious argument. First of all, the democrats did a lot of calling of elections into question, and so have republicans, and so what? Second, there has been a

Specious argument. First of all, the democrats did a lot of calling of elections into question, and so have republicans, and so what? Second, there has been an enormous amount of violence in the U.S. in the past several years, and the vast majority of that did not happen on 2021-01-06. Third, "storming" of capitols is a thing that has happened plenty in the U.S., and fairly recently too, once in the past year alone in Georgia, and in Wisconsin in 2010, and so on.

virgildotcodes 5y ago
Your argument seems to boil down to: “bad things have happened before, so bad things aren’t bad”. 1. In a close election, contesting it or demanding a recount is fine and sane. Step aside once the results of that process are in. Trying to discredit the entire system with a mountain of bullshit and overthrow an election when it is overwhelmingly clear that it did not go in your favor is an incredibly dangerous road for us to go down. The two practices are incomparable. 2. I can’t understand this argument. Are you saying that 1.6.21 must compose a minimum of 51% of all violence in the US over the past several years before it qualifies as an issue? 3. Presidents inciting their supporters to violently overthrow elections that did not go in their favor is not a thing that has happened plenty recently nor should it ever.
- cryptonector 5y ago
  I'm saying we don't do prior restraints on speech in the U.S. Law enforcement can take care of the rest.
  - lern_too_spel 5y ago
    And YouTube is saying that it is not obligated to carry content that convinces stupid people to do dangerous things. Doing so causes chaos, which ultimately reduces advertising spend and hurts profits.
rootusrootus 5y ago
So storming the US Capitol is okay, and to be expected in the future? What will you say when Democrats do it? Will it be insurrection in that case? I mean, explicitly stating the purpose is to overturn the election. When does it become insurrection, exactly? Does it not count when 'patriots' are doing it to 'save the country'?

virgildotcodes 5y ago

Your argument seems to boil down to: “bad things have happened before, so bad things aren’t bad”. 1. In a close election, contesting it or demanding a recount is fine and sane. Step aside once the results of that process are in. Trying to discredit the entire system with a mountain of bullshit and overthrow an election when it is overwhelmingly clear that it did not go in your favor is an incredibly dangerous road for us to go down. The two practices are incomparable. 2. I can’t understand this argument. Are you saying that 1.6.21 must compose a minimum of 51% of all violence in the US over the past several years before it qualifies as an issue? 3. Presidents inciting their supporters to violently overthrow elections that did not go in their favor is not a thing that has happened plenty recently nor should it ever.

cryptonector 5y ago
I'm saying we don't do prior restraints on speech in the U.S. Law enforcement can take care of the rest.
- lern_too_spel 5y ago
  And YouTube is saying that it is not obligated to carry content that convinces stupid people to do dangerous things. Doing so causes chaos, which ultimately reduces advertising spend and hurts profits.

rootusrootus 5y ago

So storming the US Capitol is okay, and to be expected in the future? What will you say when Democrats do it? Will it be insurrection in that case? I mean, explicitly stating the purpose is to overturn the election. When does it become insurrection, exactly? Does it not count when 'patriots' are doing it to 'save the country'?