4 ms·

I think that mob incitement is an excuse used for selective enforcement of the rules. If you're on the left, you're clearly operating under different rules: htt

I think that mob incitement is an excuse used for selective enforcement of the rules. If you're on the left, you're clearly operating under different rules: https://twitter.com/LoriLightfoot/status/1523844510735908864 https://twitter.com/LoriLightfoot/status/1523844510735908864

ece 5y ago
Yeah, that's equivalent to "stand back, and stand by" /s
- gadders 5y ago
  - ece 5y ago
    She is talking about defending her rights in court.
  - antiterra 5y ago
    Where are you exactly where people say ‘call to arms’ as anything other than idiomatic call to action?
    - gadders 5y ago
      Well I think to be fair-minded if "call to arms" is idiomatic, then you have to assume that "stand back, and stand by" is as well. You can't arbitrarily take one literally and one not. If they both idiomatic, then they are both equally harmless.
      - notreallyserio 5y ago
        One of those phrases is told to groups of people that regularly worships guns in public. The other is not. Context counts for a lot.
        gadders 5y ago
        One of those communications is aimed at people that regularly riot. Context counts for a lot.
        phailhaus 5y ago
        Which group is that? Can you name them? Who is their leader? Trump told the Proud Boys specifically to "stand back and stand by". They are an armed group. You are equating the Proud Boys with the amorphous "LGBTQ+ friends" community, and then saying that the latter "regularly riot". That's not tenable. I think you are deliberately engaging in bad-faith arguments. You are literally saying "gay people are the same as organized armed militias." In fact, you said it's "worse."
        gadders 5y ago
        FireBeyond 5y ago
        Weird. Members of The Proud Boys (in fact, people they publicly list as their leadership) have been arrested multiple times in my town for drawing weapons (paintbull guns, pepper spray, baseball bats, guns) at protests, firing shots at protests, shooting people at protests. Don't go on about Antifa as some armed organized group and act like the Proud Boys are "just a bunch of friends disappointed in the direction of society" or some shit. Like you say, "that's not even remotely close to being factual". The Proud Boys literally have an entire section on their website showing them violently attacking people: https://proudboyspnw.com/fafo/ https://proudboyspnw.com/fafo/ Sources: https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/520702-416146-portland-proud-boy-leader-tiny-toese-shot-by-opposing-group-at-wa-clash-city-says https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/520702-416146-portland-proud-boy... Some more: https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2022/01/proud-boy-tusitala-tiny-toese-faces-felony-charges-in-clash-near-abandoned-portland-kmart.html https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2022/01/proud-boy-tusitala-... https://proudboyspnw.com/chapters/ https://proudboyspnw.com/chapters/ - you're right, absolutely not organized, whatsoever.
prezjordan 5y ago
Lori Lightfoot is neither on the left (she is squarely a centrist), nor the President of the United States claiming that the election was stolen.
- AlgorithmicTime 5y ago
- md2020 5y ago
  You’re splitting hairs. She’s making a “call to arms”, as mayor of one of the largest cities in the US, over an unsubstantiated claim that the Supreme Court is going to overturn the right to gay marriage, which they are not doing and have not indicated they will do. Seems pretty analogous to me.
  - ece 5y ago
    Multiple states have passed laws targeting LGBTQ+ and it's not unreasonable to rally around how this will all play out in the courts and legislatures.
  - Bud 4y ago
    "Splitting hairs"? Trump's words and actions KILLED PEOPLE. I think you need to get some perspective. You're a fluent speaker of English. Please don't pretend not to know that "call to arms" is an idiomatic expression.
Karawebnetwork 5y ago
Context matters. The LGBTQ+ community is not known for having weapons and for bringing those to the table during debates. It is not known for committing violence either. This contrasts severely with the crowd that Trump was addressing at the time. Their spaces were filled with calls to weaponization, civil wars and conspiracies against the system itself. The messages were written after people had made threats and refused to engage with the system. This is why it was so dangerous at the time, as we can now see clearly with insight after what ultimately happened. Lori Lightfoot's call to arms is not happening within that context. Simply looking at the dictionary will enlighten you: "something that makes people want to take action and get involved in an attempt to deal with a bad situation. He issued a call to arms on behalf of the environment." Using this example from Macmillan Dictionary, no one is gathering firearms to shoot at the wind. What they are doing is paying attention to the issue and challenging the opposition within the scope of the law and political system. The LGBTQ+ community is simply lawyering up, making noise about upcoming laws, legally protesting and pushing back using the existing political system. This is usually in the form of strongly written letters to representatives. All of this is not only legal, it is encouraged behavior in the American political system. In the end, being LGBTQ+ is not a political identity. It is not "leftist" or "rightist". It is simply the way some people are. Some of them extremist on the left while others are extremist on the right. LGBTQ+ individuals are found on the entire spectrum of American politics.
- theandrewbailey 5y ago
  When we're talking about bans on social media, context doesn't matter. How many stories have you read of someone trying to argue and explain context to overturn a ban, only to have the appeal rejected? (And if it is overturned, it's only because strings were pulled.) When someone gets banned, a reason might be given, but context never is.
  - Karawebnetwork 5y ago
    If I have a weapon in my hand and yell "I will kill you" at someone, this is a threat. If I you give me a teddy bear with a pun that I hate on it and I tell you "I will kill you" with a smile on my face, that's not a threat. It depends on the context. The first person would go to jail. The second person would not. Analyzing the context of any situation is why we have a legal system with judges and juries.

ece 5y ago

Yeah, that's equivalent to "stand back, and stand by" /s

gadders 5y ago
- ece 5y ago
  She is talking about defending her rights in court.
- antiterra 5y ago
  Where are you exactly where people say ‘call to arms’ as anything other than idiomatic call to action?
  - gadders 5y ago
    Well I think to be fair-minded if "call to arms" is idiomatic, then you have to assume that "stand back, and stand by" is as well. You can't arbitrarily take one literally and one not. If they both idiomatic, then they are both equally harmless.
    - notreallyserio 5y ago
      One of those phrases is told to groups of people that regularly worships guns in public. The other is not. Context counts for a lot.
      - gadders 5y ago
        One of those communications is aimed at people that regularly riot. Context counts for a lot.
        phailhaus 5y ago
        Which group is that? Can you name them? Who is their leader? Trump told the Proud Boys specifically to "stand back and stand by". They are an armed group. You are equating the Proud Boys with the amorphous "LGBTQ+ friends" community, and then saying that the latter "regularly riot". That's not tenable. I think you are deliberately engaging in bad-faith arguments. You are literally saying "gay people are the same as organized armed militias." In fact, you said it's "worse."
        gadders 5y ago
        FireBeyond 5y ago
        Weird. Members of The Proud Boys (in fact, people they publicly list as their leadership) have been arrested multiple times in my town for drawing weapons (paintbull guns, pepper spray, baseball bats, guns) at protests, firing shots at protests, shooting people at protests. Don't go on about Antifa as some armed organized group and act like the Proud Boys are "just a bunch of friends disappointed in the direction of society" or some shit. Like you say, "that's not even remotely close to being factual". The Proud Boys literally have an entire section on their website showing them violently attacking people: https://proudboyspnw.com/fafo/ https://proudboyspnw.com/fafo/ Sources: https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/520702-416146-portland-proud-boy-leader-tiny-toese-shot-by-opposing-group-at-wa-clash-city-says https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/520702-416146-portland-proud-boy... Some more: https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2022/01/proud-boy-tusitala-tiny-toese-faces-felony-charges-in-clash-near-abandoned-portland-kmart.html https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2022/01/proud-boy-tusitala-... https://proudboyspnw.com/chapters/ https://proudboyspnw.com/chapters/ - you're right, absolutely not organized, whatsoever.

prezjordan 5y ago

Lori Lightfoot is neither on the left (she is squarely a centrist), nor the President of the United States claiming that the election was stolen.

AlgorithmicTime 5y ago
md2020 5y ago
You’re splitting hairs. She’s making a “call to arms”, as mayor of one of the largest cities in the US, over an unsubstantiated claim that the Supreme Court is going to overturn the right to gay marriage, which they are not doing and have not indicated they will do. Seems pretty analogous to me.
- ece 5y ago
  Multiple states have passed laws targeting LGBTQ+ and it's not unreasonable to rally around how this will all play out in the courts and legislatures.
- Bud 4y ago
  "Splitting hairs"? Trump's words and actions KILLED PEOPLE. I think you need to get some perspective. You're a fluent speaker of English. Please don't pretend not to know that "call to arms" is an idiomatic expression.

Karawebnetwork 5y ago

Context matters. The LGBTQ+ community is not known for having weapons and for bringing those to the table during debates. It is not known for committing violence either. This contrasts severely with the crowd that Trump was addressing at the time. Their spaces were filled with calls to weaponization, civil wars and conspiracies against the system itself. The messages were written after people had made threats and refused to engage with the system. This is why it was so dangerous at the time, as we can now see clearly with insight after what ultimately happened. Lori Lightfoot's call to arms is not happening within that context. Simply looking at the dictionary will enlighten you: "something that makes people want to take action and get involved in an attempt to deal with a bad situation. He issued a call to arms on behalf of the environment." Using this example from Macmillan Dictionary, no one is gathering firearms to shoot at the wind. What they are doing is paying attention to the issue and challenging the opposition within the scope of the law and political system. The LGBTQ+ community is simply lawyering up, making noise about upcoming laws, legally protesting and pushing back using the existing political system. This is usually in the form of strongly written letters to representatives. All of this is not only legal, it is encouraged behavior in the American political system. In the end, being LGBTQ+ is not a political identity. It is not "leftist" or "rightist". It is simply the way some people are. Some of them extremist on the left while others are extremist on the right. LGBTQ+ individuals are found on the entire spectrum of American politics.

theandrewbailey 5y ago
When we're talking about bans on social media, context doesn't matter. How many stories have you read of someone trying to argue and explain context to overturn a ban, only to have the appeal rejected? (And if it is overturned, it's only because strings were pulled.) When someone gets banned, a reason might be given, but context never is.
- Karawebnetwork 5y ago
  If I have a weapon in my hand and yell "I will kill you" at someone, this is a threat. If I you give me a teddy bear with a pun that I hate on it and I tell you "I will kill you" with a smile on my face, that's not a threat. It depends on the context. The first person would go to jail. The second person would not. Analyzing the context of any situation is why we have a legal system with judges and juries.