Bad Faith Politicians Are Using Social Media Suspension To Boost Their Own Profiles
from the how-do-you-deal-with-this? dept
You may have heard that conspiracy theorist and nonsense-spouting Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has, not for the first time, been temporarily suspended from Twitter for passing along conspiracy theory nonsense regarding vaccines. She’s unable to tweet for 7 days. I, unfortunately, can’t find the tweet now, but back in July when she was similarly suspended for just 12 hours, I saw someone jokingly note that temporarily suspending someone like Greene was the equivalent of Twitter throwing her a fundraiser, since she would immediately turn around, play the victim, and get her gullible, duped followers to throw more money at her. And, no doubt the same is true with this suspension as well. She’s already put out a statement and the usual “conservative” media orgs are already talking about how “Twitter can’t handle the truth” or some such nonsense.
And then, of course, you have people who are reasonably ticked off at Twitter “only” temporarily suspending Greene for spreading nonsense info, rather than permanently banning her.
So, in the end, you have both ends of the political spectrum mad about this setup, and trying to spin it to their own advantage. However, once again, it really seems to highlight the impossible nature of content moderation at scale, especially when some of the parties are clearly acting in bad faith.
Twitter has its escalation policies in place, and they’re designed (reasonably!) to deal with good faith users, who might not realize they’re violating the rules or spreading dangerous disinformation. In that world, an escalating penalty system makes sense. Getting suspended for a few hours or a week generally sucks for users who actually like to use the site but it’s a sort of “cool off” period combined with a gentle nudge to be a better participant on the internet. But, of course, that system kind of breaks down when you have not just bad faith actors who are deliberately testing the boundaries of what they can get away with, but who actually benefit from the suspension and the press attention that comes with it.
At this point, some will say “well, that’s a perfect reason to just suspend such people permanently.” But, alas, that comes with its own challenges. Indeed, jumping straight to a permanent suspension only proves that the company would be treating some people differently, and would be treated by people like Greene as “proof” of “anti-conservative bias” (again, this would be bad faith, but it would allow the story to have some level of confirmation). So, Twitter can’t do that without providing what a bunch of people will see as confirming evidence. So Twitter follows its rules, and continues to escalate the punishment (eventually MTG will get permanently suspended, it seems only a matter of time).
Looked at realistically, the fact that Twitter is following its stated escalation policies, rather than doing an outright ban should be seen as evidence that it is not “biased against conservatives,” but is treating everyone the same. If you violate the company’s policies about COVID vaccines, then you go through the escalation process — whether you made a mistake in good faith or whether your a bad faith grifter. Of course, that’s not how it will play out anywhere, because no one does nuance any more.
Some might argue that the obvious bad faith nature of MTG’s arguments mean that Twitter should just have a policy of banning bad faith grifters. And that’s certainly tempting, but how do you define bad faith grifter within a policy such that a large team of content moderation professionals can apply it consistently? The problem is that you really can’t. The very nature of an escalation policy is that it does, eventually, take care of most bad faith grifters. It just takes time, and allows them to violate the rules a bunch of times before getting the final send-off.
Filed Under: bad faith, content moderation, politicians, social media
Companies: twitter
Comments on “Bad Faith Politicians Are Using Social Media Suspension To Boost Their Own Profiles”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Maybe Twitter should take user sentiment into account when making a decision. It wouldn’t even need to ask users directly: no doubt Twitter has analytical tools that can track positive, negative, and neutral tweets in response to the suspension.
And I think the answer also varies depending on what you consider the primary goal of content moderation to be. Is it to limit the reach of harmful content? To make the site more user-friendly (and thus attract the most users)? Advertiser-friendly? To take a moral stand? Responding to pressure from employees, activists and/or regulators? Of course these things aren’t mutually exclusive, but what you prioritize would impact your strategy.
Re: Re:
"Maybe Twitter should take user sentiment into account when making a decision."
The problem is that "Twitter" is either an algorithm or one of hundreds of underpaid human moderators, neither of which is capable of making a consistently accurate call on interpreting user sentiment.
Re:
The goal of any form of content moderation is the same across the board: curating a community. Communities that don’t care how shitty they are won’t moderate much speech; communities that care about normally marginalized voices will moderate a hell of a lot of speech to make sure those voices don’t get drowned out. Moderation is the only way to curate a community of any real quality. A refusal to moderate gets you shitpits like Parler and Gab.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but content moderation is difficult and expensive, and the big platforms are all for-profit corporations. So you’ll need to reconcile this and the fact that business-wise, it is in their best interests to moderate as little as possible.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but also no. Moderation may cost money and dig into the company profits but not moderating or being too light on moderation will result in a platform overrun by trolls and worse, which in turn will drastically reduce the pool of companies/groups that are going to want to advertise on the platform, such that the for-profit angle actually provides a hefty incentive for platforms to moderate.
Re: Re: Re:2
See also: the “Worst People” Problem
Re: Re: Re:
No. No, it is not.
Anyone who owns a platform that they intend to make a business out of will want to make it appealing to as many people as possible. That can mean moderating a hell of a lot of speech that a hell of a lot of people find…well, let’s say “distasteful” to be generous. A platform may initially land a large userbase by embracing the Worst People Problem, but it won’t keep that userbase for long precisely because of its embracing of the Worst People.
Advertisers thrive on controversy; that much is true. But no company worth a damn wants its name attached to bigotry and hatred—to racial slurs, anti-queer propaganda, and blatant anti-Semitism. The only way to make sure such content stays off a platform is to moderate that content…and to do so heavily.
I mean, what platform do you really think Coca-Cola would want its products associated with: a platform that welcomes bigots or a platform that rejects bigots?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Let’s look at YouTube. Shitheels like Steven Crowder, PewDiePie, TheQuartering, and E;R all manage to keep existing on YouTube, where advertisers like Coke and more spend tons of money on ads. Crowder got away with repeated homophobic harassment of Carlos Maza and has been making money on YT again for almost exactly a year. That’s not heavily moderating content at all. And corps like YouTube had the fucking cojones to emblazon their logo with the Pride colors back in June when high-profile assholes like Crowder get away with their bigotry.
The key for platforms seems to be to say that they reject bigots, but it’s actually a lie, and promise (with their fingers crossed) to “do better” when their cash cows say racial slurs or advocate for certain people to not exist. They moderate as little as possible to make it look like they’re doing their jobs so as to keep advertisers happy, while reaping the rewards from toxic bigots.
Twitter’s decision to ban Trump was akin to a radio show knowing their asshole shock-jock host was an asshole, but only deciding to can him once he exhausted his usefulness.
They’ll all do what makes them money for as long as possible then pretend they’re shocked that some hateful cretin with viewer/follower metrics in the millions was, in fact, a hateful cretin.
Re: Re: Re:3
Companies like YouTube are far from perfect at their curation of community. (Hell, they’re barely good at it on a good day.) But they’re not exactly putting out a welcome mat for bigots and assholes in the same way places like Gab and Parler have done. YouTube can always do better, but it can also do much worse. That it’s chosen to at least try the “better” option must be worth something.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
The manner in which they give well-known bigots like Crowder the kid-gloves treatment to where he’s once again making money directly from his videos, and that he still had his channel after his harassment of Maza in the first place, points to them having that welcome mat out.
What part of YouTube’s history of letting profitable assholes get away with shit that regular users would get nuked from orbit for doing indicates to you that they’ve chosen to try to be better?
They’ll all do what makes them money for as long as possible then pretend they’re shocked that some hateful cretin with viewer/follower metrics in the millions was, in fact, a hateful cretin. YouTube and other platforms have followed this pattern to a T; they’re not good-faith actors.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Depends on your definition of "bigotry." Twitter has no shortage of people who will call you all manner of isms just for not liking a movie.
I can hope their moderators don’t belong to that group.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
At least one of them is an AI that sucks at doing its job, taht much we know.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
business-wise, it is in their best interests to moderate as little as possible
Business-wise, it’s perfectly fine for them to run their company into the ground.
What makes you think that the community doesn’t want more moderation? Aren’t their opinions just as important as those who don’t want moderation? You’re making the assumption that the majority does not want moderation – that’s kinda presumptuous, isn’t it?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"So you’ll need to reconcile this and the fact that business-wise, it is in their best interests to moderate as little as possible."
Uhh…no. Just no.
That’s like saying it’s in a bar owner’s best interest never to toss a patron out. If your business is about having the maximal possible attendance then it is in your best interest to toss out – or moderate – everyone who risks driving off a significant proportion of other patrons.
Hence why a stated grievance regarding the waste of tax money or government overreach will likely fly on most major platforms but nazi propaganda and ethnic slurs quickly get the banhammer.
Business-wise companies cater to their consumers. In that it’s always in their interest to favor either the majority by removing content held to be generally unacceptable (example; Twitter), or very specifically to a persistently revisiting minority in which case they need to remove content held objectionable to that minority (Example; Gab).
And the jury’s already in on the fact that it pays much better to moderate strictly along the lines of what the majority finds acceptable.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Which is why Trump got banned from Twitter back in 2012 for spreading birther conspiracy bullshit. Oh, wait…
Well, at least Facebook gave Steve Bannon a perma-ban for calling for people to get beheaded. Oh, wait…
Well, at least YouTube permanently banned PewDiePie and Steven Crowder for being bigoted pieces of shit. Oh, wait…
Here’s the deal: These companies moderate their high-profile bad-faith-actor cash cows as little as possible. They barely moderate the people that are capable of doing the most harm; at least, until the cost-benefit analysis for keeping them around turns south. Like I said farther up: They’ll all do what makes them money for as long as possible then pretend they’re shocked that some hateful cretin with viewer/follower metrics in the millions was, in fact, a hateful cretin.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I’d really like to know how much these bad-faith actors earn for Youtube.
It shouldn’t be that hard, there’s sites that tell you how much money these jerks make in general.
Now, if you said "moderate as cheaply as possible", I’d have agreed with you, since Youtube was never a profitable enterprise and content moderation at scale is impossible. And it’s taken Youtube forever to get basic moderation tools like chat filters and subscribers-only mode up. And that’s just for live streamed content.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
All of this come to the idea that There is a FAR left and a FAR right, but allot more people are in the middle.
The narrower you make the group in any direction means cutting more and more off.
The other side of this is the SPAM. You cant EDIT a post. You Cut it or leave it alone. TD has a great trick with this. Then there are GAMES people can play. If something gets Cut there is generally no sign of it, and no proof it was up/down. Unless the Site Holds in for a time until things are cleared up about it.
But its easy to point fingers if there is no proof.
Re: Re: Re:
How does this fit into dealing with climate change denial, which I expect the platforms to come under scrutiny for sooner or later? Should those who deny climate science be treated the same as anti-vaxxers or neo-Nazis? They arguably cause harm with their disinformation, but aren’t quite as obnoxious to regular users or community-disrupting as the latter two groups.
Re: Re:
"And I think the answer also varies depending on what you consider the primary goal of content moderation to be."
The primary goal of content moderation is, and has always been; "We think you’re being an asshole and are no longer willing to allow you on our property". It truly is that simple. Because it always concerns private entities setting the rules under which they allow strangers to trespass in their house.
That is, and should remain, the final answer to the question of what the goal of content moderation is.
"Is it to limit the reach of harmful content? To make the site more user-friendly (and thus attract the most users)? Advertiser-friendly? To take a moral stand? Responding to pressure from employees, activists and/or regulators?"
These questions only come into play when the property owner decides to set up the rules – their Terms Of Service. And the criteria they use to determine the best rules of the house are identical to the ones most bar owners apply when they decide on what premise they’ll toss a patron out of their establishment.
I think it’s important to remember, in the current climate where the braying herd of grievance addicts making up the republican base keeps trying to conflate the issues, that this whole debate revolves around mainly sane online publicans trying to maintain establishments their normal patrons will still want to patronize while the crowd of butthurt nazis, bigots, racists, loudmouth drunks and gropers standing outside are baying in outrage and trying to make it a case of their "rights" being infringed when they get tossed out for disturbing the other guests and causing a ruckus.
It’s a very simple question with a very simple answer and the only reason that we’re giving it much weight is that lately that baying crowd of deplorable assholes has political representation of unscrupulous and ignorant grifters willing to take the argument of a tantrum-throwing kindergartner and turn it into a talking point to be debated in the House of congress.
Re: Re: Re:
So what should platforms do about, say, climate change denial (which is an issue I expect to come up shortly)? Specifically, should it give those who deny climate science the same treatment as anti-vaxxers and neo-Nazis?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"So what should platforms do about, say, climate change denial (which is an issue I expect to come up shortly)?"
Morally, ethically, or legally?
For the platform to act ethically you might expect that a responsible corporation set up rules which are balanced and enforced roughly in similar fashion irrespective of origin.
For the platform to act morally it would have to add the benefit of the majority into the balance of ethics.
For the legal expectations of the platform…well, this is where we’ll have to be very careful indeed.
So what a platform should do demands context before you can answer that question. You and I might think neo-nazi and/or KKK propaganda ought to be discarded unread because we frankly want nothing to do with the sheetheads.
"Specifically, should it give those who deny climate science the same treatment as anti-vaxxers and neo-Nazis?"
Ethically if they have rules which state they do not welcome manifest and obvious falsehoods deemed detrimental and hazardous then yes.
Morally, HELL yes!.
Legally up to the owner if they want their platform to be dystopian fairy-tale exchange hub.
What is really the argument in the US right around now is really an entirely different question. In a free country, how do you prevent 30% of the citizenry to become so sold on dystopian grimdark fairytales and grievance that they end up willing to endanger themselves, their friends, family, and all the rest of society just for a chance to own the libs in an entitled fit of spiteful pique?
That the narrative is instead debates on whether the nation can survive the existence of fundamental liberties isn’t pointing out the flaws in those liberties.
It’s pointing out that the nation in question is fundamentally broken.
Your question refers to what should be done about the symptomatic headache of the cancer patient. It fills little real purpose.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How to deal which such stuff requires caution.
One need not look far to see where the anti-vax movement started.
https://www.wibc.com/blogs/mock-n-rob/watch-pre-election-montage-proves-democrats-created-vaccine-hesitancy/
Let’s keep in mind it was long ago that our current VP said she’d never take a vaccine created under trump.
Climate has been a listen-don’t-look situation far longer.
With the movement dating to the late 60s and decades of presenting coincidence as proof it’s not going to be easy to convince people you actually have evidence now [that we do].
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Does it surprise anyone that reality is not how Lyinlodos deliberately misrepresents it here?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I’m not misrepresenting anything here. At all.
The entire last year of Trump’s term dems said they wouldn’t trust, nor take, any vax from the trump admin.
The video evidence is quite clear.
It was 2020 that GSP and GNP finally removed the signs about the glaziers melting.
I don’t deny global warming (and never did).
In now have seen actual evidence of human influence on speeding the process.
I point out that a=b=c factual evidence that didn’t require any fill/in-the-blanks didn’t exist (publicly) until just the last few years.
So either point out that reality so I can confront your claim or shovel it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
The facts that those who exclusively swallow disinformation don’t know is that the Democratic politicians’ actual position was that they’d distrust a vaccine released under Trump if he unduly pressured the FDA into releasing it without proper safety/efficacy testing.
A valid concern, given Trump’s history of undue agency pressure, embrace of dangerous and ineffective treatments, and desperation for positive election-season spin.
As for the second revisionism gaslighting, even Exxon knew humanity was causing global warming back in the ’70s. They used the evidence they had then to accurately predict the ~1C warming we’ve hit today. Because that’s how climate models work – they’re built off of hard data.
The only climate predictions that were not based on real-world evidence, the only ones that have never accurately predicted current trends, were the sham models that pretend that it was anything but humanity that was the root cause.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/a-look-back-at-very-bad-predictions-of-global-cooling/
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
It’s revisionist to say if.
None of those democrats said if In those speeches.
There was no if he did this or if he did that.
There was I won’t because he will.
Claiming some intention after the fact doesn’t change what was said.
As for climate I always said show me the evidence. I didn’t buy in or dismiss human involvement.
Save the snowball Earth nuts. They were as dumb in idea as melted glaciers by 2000…2010…2016…2018…
There’s a difference between conjecture and fact.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
If you cared at al about facts, you would know that if there were no evidence, there would be no models.
But feel free to stick to your baseless conjecture that the evidence you choose to be blind to whe shown doesn’t exist.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Idiot. That’s the only thing I can come up with for your position.
Mainly because you’re too self absorbed to comprehend that legitimate data has my full faith. And legitimate data (based on 2017 and later corings) shows carbon inconsistencies with natural occurrence.
I point out that your type, your kind, has pushed absolute crap as fact for decades. That you’re crap happened to reach an accurate conclusion doesn’t make it prime rib. It’s still crap.
But you are the textbook case for why people don’t take US progressives seriously.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Facts in evidence:
nypost /2020/01/09/
glacier-national-park-removes-signs-predicting-glaciers-will-be-gone-by-2020/
But since you like liberal media https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-national-park-2020-trnd/index.html
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
And there’s your M.O.
Play fast and loose with definitions and context to weave your twisted narrative. In this instance, pretending that ice cores are the sole and only hard evidence we’ve ever had, ignoring the decates of carbon and temperature records scientists have recorded. (and the decades-old knowledge that humanity’s carbon emissions were orders of magnitude above anything natural.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Says one who believes everything their choice sources Puts out
To a person who wanted to see a,b,c,d,e,f,g,…
Prior to (I believe the latest tunnel coring began 2016) We had a,b,h,y,
Fill in the blanks with hypothesis.
I don’t play fast and loose, I want cold hard data. In order and complete.
Befor I change my mind from possible hypothesis to can’t disprove theory.
The majority of carbon complaints prior to that had alternative to explanations.
We now have an adulterated single source
Evidence.
We have very different ideas of where the proof line is.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
Jist out of curiosity, can you name the fraud that took advantage of your dunning-kruger to program you with that bullshit narrative, or are you just naturally a "useful" idiot?
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
*unadulterated
You really have a method of looking for things that aren’t there and finding them anyway. That’s a liberal methodology.
Here, we see it in climatology.
After decades of “show me proof” being answered with “we just know” they’ve created a wolf crier situation.
Ars had a wonderful article about climate change not long ago that focused a good chunk on those samples.
Those reports need to get out to a wider audience.
After decades of ‘because I said so’ you (the left etc) have now locked away the very proof we (the rest of the country) have demanded, behind a journal paywall!
:facepalm:
Re: Re: [entry onto or remaining on virtual premises]
Not quite. The
strangers'', a/k/ausers”, are actually business invitees, intended to be there for the advantage of the business owner. The business owner expected to exercise a bit more care toward his invitees. For instance, a bar owner ought to eject drunks before they become beligerant and injure other patrons. A restaurant ought to eject smokers before they stink up the place and irritate the allergies of the others in there.In the case of a brick-and-mortar business on real property, the owner invites customers in order to have his business prosper. But if someone becomes a pain in the butt, causing other customers to leave, the business owner withdraws the invitation and boots the undesirable out. The business invitee becomes a trespasser. Few businesses have rules on the wall setting forth the conditions under which undesirables will be booted.
In the case of a virtual business on the internet, evidently Gov DeSantis and others in the crazy crowd wish for it to be different. They would bar business owners from ejecting undesirables, or at least seriously limit the ability to do so.
I am of the view that they ought to offer a convincing explanation for why these businesses ought to be treated differently, stripped of their rights to revoke the business invitations and eject trespassers. In the physical world, the ability to exclude is an essential stick in the bundle of rights that is property; I have seen no compelling argument as to why the virtual world ought to be different in this respect.
re: Name Change
Dear Representative Taylor Greene,
Recently, a colleague of mine sent a letter to Governor Spencer Cox asking that worthy to change his name based upon public pressure. This was quite the eye opener for me! Such a concept had never even occurred to me before. But now that I am aware of it, I have my own request to make.
Much like Utah, we the citizens of Georgia, and of the United States in general, do not want sick jokes running rampant in our civil institutions. Your initials have been popularized as "MTG", which besmirches the reputation of a fine game that enjoys a – heretofore good – reputation worldwide.
Therefore, I hereby request you change your initials so they do not cause further confusion between the game’s fantasies of plane-traversing wizards battling each other with cosmic forces and those you have been espousing. Frankly, ma’am, your fantasies are of a much inferior and less believable quality.
Respectfully yours,
Anonymous
Re: re: Name Change
Thanks for posting about that Cox letter! It’s gold.
Assuming it’s really sent by a Republican (ergo, an SJW-hater), and not a well-executed troll, the "this is a social justice issue" part is particularly impressive.
(Also, as someone who played the card game in question a long time ago, I add my support behind the request for a name change.)
Re: re: Name Change
I’m sure two won’t be readily confused. One refers to a world of incredible character building, fantasy, and magic. The other is a card game with a digital footprint.
stares in 184 days
ummmmm hmmmmmm
Her actions will cause needless deaths.
She wants to be suspended to raise more money.
Perhaps it is time to have a bullshit badge to put on her tweets.
Let her keep claiming the jewish laser team is ruining the planet & slap a bullshit badge on her post, can;t be that hard to find a reputable source to refute that the space lasers are controlled by Scientology and not the Jews.
Silencing her gives her what she wants, fundraising & confirmation that shes speaking the truth the powers that be don’t want anyone to see.
Removing the content makes the problem worse, because humans are fscking stupid. Suddenly her statements have more weight in these idiots minds who can’t seem to understand HIPPA doesn’t stop her from admitting she was vaccinated to the people she is telling not to get the jab themselves.
She is always going to have crazy followers, but slapping a bullshit badge on it instead of removing it will hurt her revenue stream.
The battlecry of we have to remove all the disinformation before people believe it… how the fsck is that working out for you?
Her deleted tweets appear on 2000 conspiracy sites & get more attention, the removal "confirming" they don’t want you to hear her speak truth. That really seems to be short sighted planning to just push the disinformation from 1 platform to 2000 & charge up her base to give give give to keep her "protecting" them from science & reality.
Add a bullshit badge, link to facts, and let the stupid still make their decisions, but rob her of the power to raise more money by telling even more lies.
Watch her self destructing trying to go bigger and bigger to earn a timeout & never getting the pellet for getting timedout.
On a side note…
Hey Mike!!
Now that they caught the guy who killed the Girl Gone actress on a scooter (or motorcycle) Maybe revisit the email with the title something entirely different?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Stop Defining, Start Announcing
Twitter’s SJW rulemakers and other pro-censors are constantly trying to come up with new and more detailed rules that would somehow allow them to ban the people that they don’t like, while allowing those that they do, and somehow be able to remain consistent. This cycle of complexity is never-ending. The solution is for Twitter to just be honest and admit that they hate conservative political viewpoints, and publicly and openly declare that they are going to ban anyone who espouses them. Of course, this would do significant damage to their near monopoly on market share for their category, so the deception will continue.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
Re: Stop Defining, Start Announcing
Once again, Koby claims that NAMBLA and ISIS have the strongest opinions.
Re: Re: Jinx
Shit I should have scrolled down a bit.
Re: Re: Re: Jinx
No worries! Sane minds think alike!
Re: Stop Defining, Start Announcing
Oh look it’s the ISIS and kiddie porn apologist.
Re: Just can't help but cheer on ISIS can you?
-Repeatedly lying about being ‘censored’ because people keep showing you the door of their private property proves that you’re not just a person no-one wants to be around but a dishonest one who refuses to own their own words and deeds and instead blames others.
Re:
Please define this initialism in clear, concise, and specific terminology that can’t be changed for the sake of a given argument.
How does it feel to be a Nazi supporter?
Re: Stop Defining, Start Announcing
"Twitter’s SJW rulemakers…"
"SJW" is how you know that the following argument is going to be some seriously weak-sauce shit.
"…and other pro-censors are constantly trying to come up with new and more detailed rules that would somehow allow them to ban the people that they don’t like, while allowing those that they do…"
Which is entirely their right to do. Or are you also arguing that you don’t also have the right to stop people you don’t like from coming into your house while allowing in those that you do like. Coz there’s zero difference.
"The solution is for Twitter to just be honest and admit that they hate conservative political viewpoints…"
MTG and the other crackpots are not being kicked off for espousing "conservative" viewpoints. Proper conservatism is a whole different thing to what the Mad Hatter wing of the GOP are currently going all-in on.
"Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest."
After all the people pointing out your apparent support for ISIS and KKK viewpoints, surely by now you’ve realised the glaring flaw in your theory.
Re: Re: Stop Defining, Start Announcing
No, the theory is sound. You are simply misunderstanding his use of the term “strongest”. His argument is indeed of the strongest, much as turkey litter is of the strongest and should only be applied far from the house lest its strength overwhelm.
Re: 'Oh, you know...'
Can’t believe I almost missed this delightful gem.
This cycle of complexity is never-ending. The solution is for Twitter to just be honest and admit that they hate conservative political viewpoints,
Oh the hypocrisy of YOU of all people saying Twitter should ‘just be honest’ …
Speaking of honesty though which ‘conservative political viewpoints’ would those be, and be specific.
Re: Stop Defining, Start Announcing
Twitter’s SJW rulemakers and other pro-censors are constantly trying to come up with new and more detailed rules that would somehow allow them to ban the people that they don’t like, while allowing those that they do, and somehow be able to remain consistent.
This is literally the opposite of what happened and what I described here. They are bending over backwards to NOT takedown grifting idiots so as to show how fair they’re being. And idiots like the people you follow are exploiting that.
Twitter to just be honest and admit that they hate conservative political viewpoints,
Lol. You are not very bright.
-Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest.
Koby, I’m surprised, but a little impressed, that you are now saying that Critical Race Theory is the strongest theory out there. Wasn’t expecting that from you.
Re: Re: Stop Defining, Start Announcing
Allow me to respond with this GIF: https://64.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_maqbsdTBgi1qf2ulmo1_500.gifv
Re: Re: Stop Defining, Start Announcing
I’m more surprised that his FBI handler is doing their job, even if barely.
Re: Stop Defining, Start Announcing
Troll Account!!!!!!
Do not engage!!!!!!
Flag and move on!!!!!!
Re: Re: Stop Defining, Start Announcing
Frankly, some of the best discussion on these posts involves slapping Koby and other trolls down. It encourages the rational actors to develop their arguments, improving the logic, the language, and the metaphors used. Even when we will never change Koby’s mind, they have been invaluable at finding both genuine errors or bad faith nitpicks that would fold my argument in a real discussion.
I take what I learn arguing with the troll, and use it to educate my social circle through rational discussion because Koby’s heavy use of ad hominim and the fallacy fallacy have improved my positions on numerous topics.
Re: Re: Re: Stop Defining, Start Announcing
I agree with most of what you say, but this particular troll no longer argues in good faith.
He mostly does nothing but comes in, drops a load of bull ????, and never comes back to defend his statements.
At this point, I believe he is just here to do nothing more than troll. There are better commenters with whom to discuss the same topics.
Re: Re: Re:2
And I’m here, too.
Re: Stop Defining, Start Announcing
And what are the viewpoints of conservatives these days? It’s not about cutting spending & small/limiting the power of government like in the days of old. Their shitty social values are the same. They can’t openly degrade people on social media so easily because it’s a shared space (nothing stopping them from buying a bunch of tiki torches and marching in their khakis, and they have become pretty emboldened with slinging the n word, even at a city council meeting) they used to, but they can still spread lies and disinformation about abortion, the environment, climate change, race relations. And they still get plenty of access to whitewash textbooks & lie to adolescents about the limited sex information they are taught (which has dangerous and life altering effects on people), something they never had much effective reach on Twitter to do anyways.
Do you count the lies, distortions, and science denialism as conservative values?
I mean seriously, tell me what actual conservative values are, because all I see are blatant lies and hateful vitriol being taken down.
Re: Re: Stop Defining, Start Announcing
"And what are the viewpoints of conservatives these days?"
That white men need to retain their seat on the top of the world. Or at the very least, as is the case with the republican base these days, ensure that hopeless losers living in trailer parks and debt-riddled mobile home owners still have a demographic they can spit down on, and can keep on never having to learn anything while looking down at actual experts and academics.
Honestly, I think that last part is more of it these days. The republican base needs someone to be angry about so they can get the fix to stave off their grievance addiction and a daily "2 minutes of hate" ritual to provide catharsis. And the GOP leadership is all too happy to provide panem et circenses for this braying herd of too simple folk.
Re: Re: Re: Stop Defining, Start Announcing
Right, but will they come out and say it? Because they keep claiming it’s their "conservative" views that are being "censored", not the racism and hatred they try to cloak in religious values, or dangerous misinformation/disinformation. I think they are putting forth a bad faith argument and they know damn well why they keep getting put in time out, and can’t come up with anything that actually aligns with pre or post Trump conservative values.
Re: Re: Re:2 Stop Defining, Start Announcing
Which is why it’s important to hold their feet to the fire when they do that and demand that they specify exactly which ‘conservative values/views’ are being ‘censored’, no ‘Oh you know’ or empty garbage like ‘family values’, what specifically is being given the boot that they want to defend.
If the ‘conservative’ posters here are any indication that’s the quickest way to shut them up because they know they don’t dare answer that question honestly and they’ll either try to ignore it or change the subject, both of which are answers in themselves.
Re: Stop Defining, Start Announcing
Please do tell us, what conservative political viewpoints does Twitter hate?
And tell us who is getting banned while espousing those viewpoints?
If you want to be taken seriously, then you should be able to answer those two simple questions.
And if you don’t answer, what does that tell us about you?
Re: Re: Stop Defining, Start Announcing
"Please do tell us, what conservative political viewpoints does Twitter hate?"
Something like that?
Re: Stop Defining, Start Announcing
Let’s start with you first.
Announce your position insteead of making us infer from your messages and past experience.
Re: Stop Defining, Start Announcing
"Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest."
Koby, once and for all you need to learn that ISIS, sex traffickers and child diddlers aren’t more credible because they are unpopular.
"Twitter’s SJW rulemakers and other pro-censors are constantly trying to come up with new and more detailed rules that would somehow allow them to ban the people that they don’t like…"
Aside from the clear message that you deplore and marginalize anyone believing in human equality you keep implying that it’s somehow weird that people owning property need to justify why they are tossing unwanted guests out of that property.
This keeps on not being a good look for you, Koby. At least stop pussyfooting around the cause you keep making up these bullshit arguments for.
Re: Stop Defining, Start Announcing
Or, you know, you could actually follow the rules you agreed to when you joined.
This isn’t about SJW’s, this isn’t about censorship, this is about conservatives believing the rules don’t apply to them, not the rules of a platform, nor the rules of civil society. You can put a Fuck Biden sign on your lawn, but your neighbour has every right to criticise you for that and kick you off their property when you try to put one up on theirs.
Re: Stop Defining, Start Announcing
that would somehow allow them to ban the people that they don’t like
What makes you think this isn’t at the request of the rest of the community? I for one, certainly don’t want to have to deal with a bunch of adult children who go out of their way to be the biggest asshole they can be.
You can say it’s social media making the decision. But don’t think for one second that it isn’t the rest of the community that’s flagging the posts. If your shit gets taken down, understand that someone in your circle thinks you’re an asshole.
Re: Re: Stop Defining, Start Announcing
There are a lot of Conservative assholes who report tweets on people not in their own circle. To assume the same case isn’t true of liberals and leftists is folly. We definitely have people who police a public twitter like MTG specifically because they will find anti-vaxx nonsense (what she keeps getting banned for).
Re: Re: Re: Stop Defining, Start Announcing
Did you really not see your false equivalence as you were writing that?
Bring the hammer down or don't bother
Context matters, it’s one thing for a user to violate a rule when lives aren’t at risk but when someone’s breaking the rules in a manner that will result in a body-count and they are doing so repeatedly then the hammer should be brought down much sooner than if it’s just some jackass slinging racial slurs.
As for the concern that giving her the boot will just provide ammo for those screeching about ‘conservative persecution’ to do so even more they’re already doing that. When you’re dealing with people who will just make up their own ‘evidence’ or warp what’s there for their own gains hesitating because ‘they might take it the wrong way’ plays right into their hands by allowing them to abuse the system and lie unchecked even longer.
Either issue some real penalties where the cost is greater than the gains or don’t even bother because by pussyfooting around like this the social media companies are playing right into the hands of the frauds and liars they are supposedly ‘punishing’, encouraging them to keep acting just as they are since a temporary suspension may take away one platform for them to post on but it provides enormous benefits that more than make up for it.
Re:
Those for whom grievance is a way of life will never be soothed by any balm.
Re: Bring the hammer down or don't bother
This. So much this. Greene and every other high-profile grifter like her doesn’t care about provable truths, facts, data, science, history, or anything that shows them they’re wrong. I am so tired of the “Ah, but dost thou truly want Platform X to be the Arbiter Of Truth?” hand-wringing that happens when issues like these get brought up. The hemming and hawing about the Infinite Complexities Of Content Moderation™ becomes particularly fucking stupid in situations like this, when any reasonable person could point to the giant fucking dumpster-fires that are the words and actions of Greene and people like her and the harm that they cause and go “Yeah, that shit needs to go.”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Bring the hammer down or don't bother
Bit hard to actually have consequences when they get rewarded for it and/or are funded by the Kochs and News Corp and their associated conflict-sowing shell organizations.
Unless you mean exercising the Second Amendment. Yes, I know what I’m implying. It’s time to stop pussyfooting and show the Republicans we mean business.
Re: Re: Bring the hammer down or don't bother
"It’s time to stop pussyfooting and show the Republicans we mean business."
Well, with both the benighted moron militia planning that kidnapping and the 6th of january failed insurrection it’s pretty clear that much of the republican base has already opened the fourth box.
The sane majority, meanwhile, has two options; spend the next generation fighting a million insane doomed-to-fail bills put out there as "base fodder" by grifters eager to prove to their base that the courts and the system are intrinsically opposed to the "common man", wasting every effort that should have gone to progressing society from keeping it from sliding backwards. Burn out every sane politician willing to spend their whole career trying to retain vestiges of democracy while 70 million americans keep trying to erode and dismantle it…
Or just realize that it’s no use trying to debate with people who abandoned any semblance of good faith and just run the benighted fuckwits out of the civilization they keep trying to ruin. Treat them like they treat black people and latinos. Make them second-class pariahs and cast them out. Leave them in the pennsylvanian hills and the ozarks to inbreed themselves out of existence. And don’t let them back in until they learn the minimum standards of humanity.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: Bring the hammer down or don't bother
Or, maybe, just maybe, that certain views need to be violently excised from humanity.
Starving them out rarely works if the enemy believes in their ideology to the point of not playing by the rules. At that point, we drop with the force escalation bullshit and start murdering them until they either get the message or they all die.
Even animals respond to reward and pain. These folks? Not so much. And the clock’s ticking.
Re: Re: Re:2
Violence is an ideology. Saying shit like “certain views need to be violently excised from humanity” exposes that ideology for what it is: “might makes right” reasoning, or—to quote a famous Tumblr shitpost—“violence for violence is the rule of beasts”. To want to inflict violence upon those you dislike only because you dislike them is to become an animal driven by rage and hatred. It is to become that which you hate by going down a different road.
Do I believe we’d be better off without Nazis and Nazism in the world? Yes. Do I believe we need to “violently excise” such people and such views from the world? No. We’ve seen someone try something like that before, after all. We call what he did “the Holocaust”.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Maybe we should inflict violence upon far-right shitheads because they want marginalized groups to die and won’t play by any of the same rules or decorum that we’ve wanted and hoped for over the last 5 years. We’ve gone far past "speech you dislike" territory here; tolerating the intolerant throughout the Trump and Pandemic era hasn’t made for a lot of progress. Or any progress at all, it feels like.
Re: Re: Re:4
Where, then, does this road end? As I said, violence is an ideology—so I want to know how far you’ll go for your ideology. Will you merely punch “far-right shitheads” in the face, or will you do worse? How many people should face this violence? How often should they face it? And if a far-right shithead happens to sit in elected public office, exactly how far will you go to get them out of office?
I know the temptation to go lower than their low is strong. Hell, even I understand that feeling of wanting to pop one of those assholes in the mouth. That said: unprovoked irrational violence against those shitheads will make them martyrs and make you someone serving a prison sentence. We have many ways of dealing with right-wing nutjobs; violence should be the absolute last resort.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
That said: unprovoked irrational violence against those shitheads will make them martyrs and make you someone serving a prison sentence.
As Matt Dillahunty noted in regards to the time someone punched Richard Spencer(I think that was the person anyway) on tv if it would have been a smart move for him to pay someone to punch him while being interviewed it’s stupid of you to do it for free.
Re: Re: Re:6
Even if he paid for the punch, Spencer never stood a chance of being anything but a punchline.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
“ But beware
For when you quench your bloodthirst
Others will seek vengeance on you
And they won’t rest until you’re dead”~Dethklok
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
So…
It’s time to forge the sword of friendship, accept their apology, and let the flames of empathy burn bright since mercy begets mercy.
Follow in the path of the fictional Gorek the Magnanimous.
Warning: If you choose to google the reference, be forewarned, it’s… crass and crude humor, and things you’d most likely get fired for if you’re googling from work.
Re: Re: Re:7
No, it isn’t. But it also isn’t time to literally beat the life out of Trumpists unprompted. There are options beyond “let’s tolerate the intolera—whoops, there’s a concentration camp” and “let’s mount their severed heads on pikes outside government buildings”.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
And those have all been working so well. This isn’t some anime or Steven Universe or My Little Pony where trying to change someone’s mind hard enough will work. We’re running out of options, and "Incrementalism and Decorum in the face of liars who have never had any intention of playing by the rules" is an option that’s been tried and failed numerous times.
Greg Abbott, my state’s governor, wants to turn Texas into a fascist theocracy. The Democrats in our House of Representatives have fled the state to deny him a quorum. He’s determined to call as many special sessions as needed to get his agenda of abortion restrictions, transgender youth healthcare restrictions, the banning of teaching of Critical Race Theory, and voting rights restrictions all passed into Texas law. He called for the second special session the other day, and it’s already underway with the Dems still in D.C. and Greg wanting to have them arrested once they return to the state, locked in the House of Representatives building, and seated there until all of his horseshit laws are passed by the Republican majority. Meanwhile, our shitty electrical grid that caused people to freeze to death hasn’t been fixed and likely won’t be fixed ever, and Abbott is intent on filing lawsuits so that cities and counties can’t implement or enforce mask or vaccination mandates as Delta rages on. I’m counting down the days until my state descends into actual anarchy, with nowhere near the disposable income I’d need to move out, and even if I did, I’d feel guilt for the countless other Texans who hate it here and are being targeted by the laws Greg wants passed, but don’t have the means to leave.
What am I supposed to do? Wait until elections next year and pray that Abbott, Dan Patrick, and their cronies get voted out of office, that the people they’ve indoctrinated suddenly have a change of heart? Kindly fuck off with that noise. Fuck you and your moralistic "But if we fight the monsters, we’ll become monsters ourselves!" claptrap. It’s really clear, Sage Freehaven, that you’re the kind of person who’d say "I don’t like what you have to say but I’ll defend you’re right to say it" and "If we hurt them, we’ll be just as bad as them!" as you’re being marched into the GOP death cult’s re-education camps.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
P.S.: I’m just so tired and angry from seeing fascists and ignorance gain so much ground here in the U.S.. I’d be glad to see Dems first off try to push forward laws that ban fascism and Nazism, ensure that that speech isn’t deemed as equal to other speech. This is what many European nations have done; countries like France and Germany have proven more formidable to insurrection and chaos than the U.S. as of recently. The fascists in those countries have a much had a much harder time gaining ground since their speech and etiquette and iconography is illegal. We still have like, one or two options to go before option 3: forced ostracization & violent oustering, in my estimation, but if none of those work, then I’d be fine with taking the third option.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
And then what happens when the GQP comes back into power, and start passing laws that ban speech such as equality, climate change, tax the rich, police reform, etc, etc, etc.
I believe that there are many reasons we have the 1st amendment, and this specific point is one of them.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
This argument never ceases to amuse me. If the GQP comes back into power any which way, they’ll pass laws banning speech about whatever the fuck they want regardless. They already pass laws trying to restrict abortions when abortions are constitutionally protected. They already pass laws to strangle voting rights. They already pass laws that try to demolish LGBTQ+ protections.
To take what That One Guy said at the start of this reply thread and change it up a little:
As for the concern that banning hate speech and Nazi bullshit will just provide ammo to the GQP to point to for them to turn it around on us, they’re already doing that. When you’re dealing with people who will just make up their own ‘evidence’ or warp what’s there for their own gains, hesitating because ‘what if they get back into power again’ plays right into their hands by allowing them to abuse the system and lie unchecked even longer.
If the GQP ever gets back into power, there’s no law that’s gonna stop them from banning whatever the fuck they want. But if we work to enshrine "being a bigoted fascist fuckwad is a no-go" into law now, we can dismantle a good chunk of their ability to retain and accumulate power. So while Dems have this tenuous amount of power, they should do all they can to dismantle GQP power structures; a good starting point would be looking at the anti-hate laws around the world, or simply how they handle hate speech up north in Canada.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
None of your ideas will pass the 1st amendment.
As much as I consider Nazi speech horrific, it is still constitutionally protected, and there are 1000’s of reasons why it should be kept that way.
The gov’t has no business telling me what I am allowed and not allowed to say, as no matter which party is in control, that is what leads to actual Nazism.
Re: Re: Re:7
I’m well aware that this is reality and not the world of Dream Obama.
But even in reality, violence for violence is the rule of beasts.
Anything short of actual political violence. If you disagree with what the insurrectionists did on the 6th of January, doing it yourself for a wholly different cause won’t make you much better than them.
I know it can be disheartening to watch the moral arc of the universe bend towards the obscene, the hateful, and the sociopathic. I know it hurts to watch the righteous fall to the wicked—to see the flourishing of that which causes despair. But that can’t excuse political violence. That can’t excuse the violent oppression of those with whom we disagree, even if their ideologies and their politics may cause harm to others. That isn’t a humane way to deal with the problem.
On the first point: Yes, they do have a right to say heinous things—but nobody has to listen or give them a platform. Anyone who does that shit will have to deal with the social (and possibly legal) consequences.
One the second point: As I implied above, violence for its own sake is bullshit. Violence in response to a direct and imminent threat against one’s self or others is the only justifiable violence. If and when such violence is genuinely needed, I would be on board with it. But I cannot condone political violence, even for shitheels like Greg Abbott, Ron DeSantis, and their Dear Leader himself.
(Would I like to punch them in the face if I could get away with it scot-free? I’d be lying if I said no. That said: I’d still feel like shit because that punch won’t accomplish anything. It might even make them martyrs.)
So am I. But violence will only strengthen their resolve—and result in more violence. I can’t, and won’t, be on board with the idea of hurting (or killing) people who hold heinous or even dangerous political ideologies only for the fact that they hold those ideologies.
Unfortunately, that would require a change to the First Amendment that Republican lawmakers would agree with or a ruling from the conservative-leaning Supreme Court that says such speech isn’t 1A-protected. I wouldn’t bet on either one happening any time soon.
You’re free to make that decision. But don’t be surprised if the FBI ends up turning you into one of their homegrown terrorists as a result.
I understand the urge to hurt those who have (or would) hurt you. Hell, for a while after I dropped out of high school due to bullying, I thought about revenge for those who drove me out. (Sometimes violent, sometimes not.) So trust me when I admit that your position is sympathetic. But I am not the person I was back then—I can’t, won’t, and don’t allow myself to be consumed by the thought of political violence as a righteous ideology.
We don’t have an easy solution to the problem of American fascism—or, at least, an easy non-violent solution. Again: I get that. But I can’t condone political violence as anything other than an absolute last resort when every other conceivable option has been cut off. Violence is not my ideology; whether it is yours is a decision only you can make. All I can do is ask you to rethink that decision. What you do after that is out of my hands.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
There is no “may”. Their ideologies and politics have caused harm to others and are causing harm to others right now.
But too many people do listen to them, and too many people do continue to give them platforms. And they rarely – if ever – suffer social or legal consequences. Greene is already trotting out her suspension as a badge of honor and making a martyr out of herself. Twitter chose to let Trump use them as a platform and haven’t suffered one whit for it. There’s a consequence deficit at play. And it’s unclear how to fix that deficit without devising new legal frameworks for how we treat speech that causes tangible harm.
Re: Re: Re:9
I accept that, yet I don’t believe violence or government censorship are the answers. I’ve made my feelings on violence clear, and I believe asking the government to censor “dangerous ideologies” risks censoring ideologies and opinions that are likely to do little more than humiliate the government. Going for either of those easy solutions might bring you some personal satisfaction, but whether it will actually take care of the problem is another story.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Violence begets violence.
And the threats of violence creates tension.
We have perfect examples of what happens when you push back against the angry mob with force.
Over and over. It’s a recurring theme in this country now.
Be it BLM marches turning into firebombings or stop the steal turning into a mob in the halls of the senate.
I don’t have an answer but all we are doing as a country is constantly turning up how much violence we will accept.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
"We have many ways of dealing with right-wing nutjobs; violence should be the absolute last resort."
You really don’t. It’s all boiled down to "let them be and hope for the best". As a result of which you are, as a nation, at the point where the saner majority keeps standing up and declaring "Mr. Hitler wants peace!" every time the GOP displays the very low bar of actually agreeing to come to the table…notwithstanding that they’ve used this exact method oh so many times to calm the waters before their next push.
The 6th of jan was your beer hall coup, guys. Your future relies entirely on the next GOP candidate not being a narcissistic and inept monster.
And at some point the GOP will find their bohemian corporal. Channeling Neville Chamberlain won’t help.
Re: Re: Re:6
You’re coming awfully goddamn close to saying I’m a motherfucking Nazi sympathizer. I don’t appreciate that, and I doubt you would if I did the same to you.
I believe in violence as a last resort. In lieu of violence, we have other options for dealing with assholes—e.g., imprisonment for crimes, social ostracision, and expensive-as-fuck lawsuits. I’m all for inflicting consequences on would-be fascists and Nazi fuckwits, too. But violence can’t be the first and only consequence. I have no sympathies for Nazis and fascists; what I have are concerns about the road that long-term sustained political violence will take us down. The U.S. wouldn’t come out of such a situation as the same country it was before. The question is whether it would still be a country worth living in.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Like I said, they are already actively shielded from the consequences of their actions. They are being paid to do this.
The modern Republican party is now the new Confederates and the Democrats just keep on accomodating them, because theres no way in hell the Dems are gonna give up that sweet, sweet control the Repubs keep making into law.
As for "how far", let’s just say that the less I talk about it, the better. I know where the road ends, and if I have to go that far, then so be it.
It’s either that or seeing Shadowrun come to life. ANd yes, I’ve already seen it come to life.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
And give them the justification they need to violently take over the government, (they are the better armed and organized part of society).
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
January 6 happened.
And that was them trying to murder federal employees doing their job over their candidate not winning another 4 years of sending the US back to the Civil War Era.
Pandora’s Box is open, and yet the people who instigated this are not punished.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
"Do I believe we’d be better off without Nazis and Nazism in the world? Yes. Do I believe we need to “violently excise” such people and such views from the world? No."
I hate to break it to you, Stephen, but in this, the best of all possible worlds…democracy must be defended by force of arms, because that’s always what the opposition who reject democracy do.
The US was reminded of this truism three times on ther own soil; in casting off the colonial yoke, in the civil war, and lately on the 6th of january this year.
I’m not advocating we simply go all the way to a declaration of war but it’s always been clear that society can not function when it contains a large proportion of individuals whose primary concern is tearing that society down. Popper’s paradox of tolerance applies. One way or another for a community to exist those who will not abide by the simple rules of personal responsibilities must be shown the door.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
And if need be, the door to Hell.
Re: Re: Re:4
If and when that kind of violence becomes an absolute necessity—if and when all other options are off the table—I will gladly give my approval to such violence. But I refuse to believe we’re there right now, and I refuse to advocate for political violence in any situation other than the last desperate resort of protecting democracy.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Dislike is a very, very mild word for how I feel about these people.
I’m from Singapore. These people have poisoned my communities, spewed their poison and have turned a portion of Singapore into THEIR ideological footsoldiers and willing bad-faith politicians.
When I dislike a person, corp or entity, I do my best to fuilly dissociate from their presence. I will keep quiet and wait for them to see how awfull these entities are, before I come in and educate them further. No one likes to be blasted constantly about how wrong their choices are. I’ve had my fair share of assholes moralizing about my decisions and political shortcomings, both locally and online, to know this.
They’ve done far, far worse and even ol’ Mike has to accept funding from their paymasters.
As much as I despise violence, I’ve seen enough harassment come from not only the US, but also Japan and China just because their imagined entertainers didn’t conform to CERTAIN expectations they did not know was put on them, and locally, let’s just say it’s the perfect dystopia that even the American politicians would fucking LOVE to have.
I’ll repeat myself, it’s a bit too late to talk to these people. They are actively shielded from the consequences of their actions. They get PAID to get banned. And when they do that it only fuels their martyr complex. This has been going on for quite a while.
The harmful effects of tobacco, climate change denial, you name it, the Kochs, Rupert Murdoch and their ilk have actively funded and may have done MORE.
I understand that maybe some people are uncomfortable with the fact that their backs are to the wall and we’re all fucked unless we do something that ISN’T kowtowing to them. But we’re already there and I fear we’re even losing the window to act.
At the very least, realize we HAVE to fight, if only to gain even a silver of breathing space to handle the bigger issues at hand.
Re: Re: Bring the hammer down or don't bother
If someone is rooting for escalation, imagining that escalation is a workable strategy for convincing them to deescalate is optimistic.
Re: Re: Re: Bring the hammer down or don't bother
Too late to escalate anything.
2A implies we’re using force straight off the bat. And the end result is never pretty.
Re: Re: Congrats, you played right into their hands
Yes, I’m sure adding ‘murdering political opponents’ to the list of acceptable options will work really well to deal with a party that’s already shown themselves to be violent enough to spawn one failed insurrection, what could go wrong? /s
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: Congrats, you played right into their hands
Oh come off it. That was not the parts as a whole. Or even in part.
The capital riot was nothing more than a group of self obsessed turds.
Re: Re: Re:2 Congrats, you played right into their hands
A fair point, I’m sure it was a complete coincidence that they gathered outside of and a portion of them broke into a government building where those inside just so happened to be in the process of finalizing the election at the time. /s
Re: Re: Re:3 Congrats, you played right into their hands
And I’m sure that noose was just an art piece and the chants of "hang Mike Pence" were simply intepretative art. /s
73 million people sat and cheered a violent mob. I’m sure that’s clearly 1A at work. /s
And I’m sure that mob had a list of people they clearly wanted to get signatures from, because they’re such big fans of the electoral process, to the point they had to break into a federal building to interrupt a federal process. Clearly they were big fans of the electoral process. /s
Re: Re: Re:2 Congrats, you played right into their hands
Said nobody who wasn’t deliberately lying.
Re: Re: Re:2 Congrats, you played right into their hands
"The capital riot was nothing more than a group of self obsessed turds."
Not with every republican congressman unwilling to even investigate the event or condemn those of their peers to cheer the protestors on.
It’s time to realize that the GOP as a whole is beyond salvaging at this point. When they start running their own out for daring to question Dear Leader igniting the insurrectionists it clearly shows where they stand.
No, those insurrectionists weren’t "just" a group of self-obsessed turds. They were always intended to mount an actual insurrection, aided and abetted by republican leaders and acknowledged by most of the rest of the republican party.
With polls now showing a majority of republican voters no longer believe in democracy and just about half believing in pushing their agenda through with force of arms, no one can credibly state the 6th of january was simply an aberration.
Re: Re: Re: Congrats, you played right into their hands
"…will work really well to deal with a party that’s already shown themselves to be violent enough to spawn one failed insurrection, what could go wrong?"
Plenty, to be sure.
But with that party already having opened the fourth box and calling for a violent overthrow of the government, you aren’t the people setting the rules of engagement. They are.
You said it yourself. They are already violent enough to have run their beer hall coup. Your options are to quit the field or play by the rules they’ve invoked. Or, metaphorically, wait until you lose Poland.
It is now a right wing badge of honor to be banned on social media. 4 Chan for the masses!
First of all, you should refer to the turd simply as Greene (instead of using some cute, little TLA). I expect she likes the whole "MTG" thing.
Three Strikes doesn’t work any better for bad faith turds than it does for those with some "good faith." Some people just don’t learn. You really can’t worry about what turds or their friends say.
So, just do the right thing and move on.
motherfuckers are censoring me
for not even breaking the rules
where’s xenu when you need him
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Article by issue
mansplaining
Is a bullshite term used to appease shire for brains and anti sex lesbian does.
Or, it doesn’t exist
“Suspending “someone like Greene was the equivalent of Twitter throwing her a fundraiser”
That’s actual correct. The more you give the loons bans the more pro they become. Flag, tag, and move on.
“ “you have people who are reasonably ticked off at Twitter "only" temporarily ”
Fuck off censorship supporting turds.
Some people, like it or not, really do fit the far far right and far far left notion of: cook clean make babies
The linked photo says something to me, hottie.
If she’s a proper human and doesn’t fall into the Christian methodology of shaving, I’d eat her.
Ball gag first though.
Don’t talk, just moan.
Say what you want about my sexual ideals but I’m still a diehard feminist. The reality is some people aren’t good at much else.
Male and female: some people really are only good for pleasure. And some are good for noting.
Re: Article by issue
Put down that meth pipe.
Re: Article by issue
"And some are good for noting."
Your shit opinion has been noted
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Article by issue
Now now: seriously, some people…
Like hitler? How about the torch turds of Carolina? Some people—just good for nothing.
Re: Re: Article by issue
It’s always projection from Lodos.
Well, obviously. When someone claims to tell some kind of secret truths that The Man wants to suppress, suppressing them gives them a boost by proving that part of what they’ve said right.
Pointing and laughing was always the best reaction to ridiculous things.
wow! whoever wud’av guessed?
Bad Faith Politicians? Are there any republicans left that are capable of acting in good faith?
Re: Have reasonable expectations, please.
Look, McCarthy is doing all he can but he cannot replace everyone at once.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Oh?
“ Well, at least Facebook gave Steve Bannon a perma-ban for calling for people to get beheaded.”
I remember a particular “comedian”, who failed to be funny eveTr, shown holding the decapitated head of Trump.
Did that get taken down?
Re: Oh?
Sounds like a practising prop for shrunken heads with the brain shrinkage already taken care of.
Re: Oh?
It is a long standing prop joke/tradition to use masks of public figures on severed head props, albeit relatively discreetly. Nixon being dead has not stopped his head from appearing on spikes. It is often a matter of what is available at the time.
It is disingenuous to make that into a death threat or imply equivalence.
Re: Oh?
"I don’t agree with Republicans, but I will break my own back and pour ashes and sackcloth on my head if they ever get mildly insulted" – Lostinlodos
Twitter is dooming section 230
The more Twitter, Facebook and Google do stuff like this, the more powerful they make anti-establishment politicians and sooner, rather than later, section 230 will get nuked.
I mean, the smartest thing to do is antagonize politicians who are angry at you for what you’re doing, right?