Trump asks U.S. judge to force Twitter to restart his account

[reflechissez]

Has that clause ever been challenged in a court of law? I suspect its on shaky ground

Is this assessment based on your extensive legal experience?

 

[TomFitz]

Sophistry and fallaciousness are, essentially, lies. It is a question of degree. Spin is a form of lying. Right now, when you said *you were careful to omit that* you engaged with an underhanded and devious use of rhetoric, and in this sense spin, making an insinuation that I deliberately withheld an important fact from you . . . because (I must assume this is what you mean) that you have established as a predicate that I am dishonest and being dishonest with you.

I have said before, and repeat again, that you can observe these devious tactic of fallacious argument used time and again all across this board. Often, those who use these tactics the most (based on my unofficial analysis!) are those with your political orientation. There is much talk about this around us today. The 'derangement' of the American Progressive/Left.

Now why is this? I ask. The reasons seem complex but I would not say that it is impossible to get to the root and propose a definition. When you read what I write note that this is one of my tasks: to see and expose this.

You did, you deliberately neglected to mention the outright lying that is a constant in right wing media.

I challenged you when you tried to assert that trumpism had some intellectual merit. You dodged that question, entirely.

Now you’re trying to pretend that trash like Gateway Pundit and Tucker Carlson are part of training in the use of reason (your words) and have merit because of some vague “categories of the mind”.

No, you did not specifically mention the media I referred to, even though it is the heart and center of the trump universe, and jsut about every trump supporter on this forum consumes it.

”It is imperative to corrupt that citizen so that she and he are susceptible to the lying and fallacious rhetoric of marketing propaganda and by extension political propaganda. The corruption of the citizen results in the corruption of the political body generally. And we live in a time where *corruption*, on all levels, shows itself plainly.”

That is true. And it is the goal of every agitprop operation in the intelligence world. Including and especially the Russians campaigns that were run for Brexit, and the campaign that the Russians were running in American right wing social media since 2013, and accelerating with the promotion of trump and trumpism.

There are no conservative on this board anywhere who ever once expressed any outrage whatsoever when their media lies to them. Indeed, they go right back for more. Fox lies because it knows it has an uncritical and poorly informed audience. Talk radio always did. It may not be a news source, but a lot of its audience thinks it is.

 

[Lursa]

What "larger issue"? Something you invented?

She has not been forthcoming on that.

 

[RAMOSS]

My point still stands

However, the point is invalid.

 

[Lursa]

This is an example of (ridiculously) laden rhetoric. There is nothing one can do with it.

Except, as I say, to focus on the mind that put it together.

 

[bearpoker]

What are you talking? That is exactly what the contract is.

Twitter allows a person to their platform for the rights to that persons personal information.

The person agrees to allow twitter access to their personal information in exchange for the right to use the platform.

Where is the language to indicate that this is an exchange?

 

[Lursa]

This is a false-assertion. You have made an interpretation that you seek, by any means (devious means) to assign to me.

It is projection, as I have said. You will go on and on and on in this vein until you gather the strength to see what you do.

Please Your pretentious unreadable walls of text belie this clearly.

 

[Lursa]

Very well: demonstrate what is unclear and why it is unclear.

I think this is what they call 'gish galloping'...continually asking irrelevant questions to make the other people work so hard that they cant be bothered anymore.

Pretty much everyone here agrees with her...let's go with that and you figure out how to write honest, succinct, clear discourse?

 

[Lursa]

Yes, the man is clearly a sociopathic narcissist!

And yet you wrote you most likely would vote for him as POTUS if he ran again. Are these what you consider constructive and positive qualities for a leader?

 

[Lursa]

Do you recognize that a) that is a possibility, and b) that it is done, can be done, and has been done?

More gish galloping

 

[Lursa]

Do you recognize *corruption* on any level? Corruption of the individual or corruption within political systems?

More gish galloping.

 

[JasperL]

Do you recognize that a) that is a possibility, and b) that it is done, can be done, and has been done?

Define "it."

And you might want to reconsider your extensive use of the passive voice. It's a sign of lazy writing and is quite tiring to read.

"It" (undefined) is done...by whom (also undefined). How can we recognize if and/or when "it" that you don't define "is done by" some unnamed person or group of persons?

 

[Lursa]

Yes, but you have no ground to make that assertion. You make the assertion nevertheless. That this is done, regularly and constantly, is what I focus on.

Every one of your posts gives us grounds to make that assertion. Your posts are the proof.

 

[Lursa]

You are referring to Jungian defined projection I think which is fairly defined in that way.

The projection I describe is an outward projection onto an external object or situation. Think of it like projection onto a screen.

I think there are definitely times when Jungian projection occurs. But I also think that simple projection (as I might call it) occurs.

 

[Sue Sponte]

It would be up to the judge hearing the case to interpret the contract

Has that clause ever been challenged in a court of law? I suspect its on shaky ground

So Trump has an amazing breach of contract claim against Twitter that somehow failed to find its way into the lawsuit he filed?

It's not my business to tell others what reality they seek to believe, but perhaps some consideration should be given to the non-existence of things when even Donald Freaking Trump isn't willing to make the claim. In other words, if a viable breach of contract claim existed against Twitter, one should expect to see it alleged in the lawsuit Trump filed against Twitter.

In reality, there is no such claim alleged because even a blowhard such as Trump knows there is zero merit to it. From a guy who is obviously willing to file suit on the first amendment claim, which also has zero merit. A guy who thought Pence was free to ignore certified votes sent in from the states and prevent Biden from being elected. Yes, even Donald Trump and his team of nutbag lawyers weren't willing to claim Twitter breached the TOS. It's an argument too far even for people willing to make the most inane of arguments.

These lawsuits are political porn, nothing more. Once you accept that, it makes life easier.

 

[Athanasius68]

I didn't say "risk to Twitter". I said risk. Of course they had immunity from liability. This was something apart from that. This was Twitter living up to their commitment to make their site a safer place by ejecting someone that they considered to be a harmful poster.

Twitter had expressed a commitment to finding an optimum balance between allowing freedom of expression and disallowing dangerous posts and posters. Twitter concluded that Trump had passed into the dangerous posts and posters category and that his risk to the nation was especially great after the events of January 6. They weren't going to continue let him use their platform as a tool in for his attempts to prevent the peaceful transition from Trump's administration to Biden's.

That was their decision, their right and their civic responsibility.

They are free to make that choice.
But they shouldn't receive government benefit in doing so.

 

[Sue Sponte]

They are free to make that choice.
But they shouldn't receive government benefit in doing so.

I take this to mean you support rescinding the protections provided by Sec. 230.

Personally, I believe that is ill-advised. It will result in the opposite of the thing complained of; specifically, bans will happen more often and faster, resulting in less freedom of expression on such sites.

But at this point, I'm quite inclined to let the Republicans throw themselves in the briar patch and see if they like the results. They aren't going to be convinced the banning of their Messiah was anything short of tragic injustice, they will require some form of punitive action, and revocation of Sec. 230 appears to be the path they wish to travel. So be it. I won't get banned because I have no problem complying with terms of service of social media sites. And I predict the result of that desire for punishment will only further serve to remove harmful conservative misinformation from being spread via twitter and other sites.

So the Republicans will probably shoot themselves in the foot, all to appease Hair Fuhrer and his sycophants. Fine by me.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

You did, you deliberately neglected to mention the outright lying that is a constant in right wing media.

I am uncertain what outright lying you refer to. It is too vague a reference. So, no, I did not neglect to mention something I knew about. Note that a great deal of lying (misrepresentation, distortion) goes on in the do-called Left-oriented media.

So I operate from the understanding that lies (as I define them) are common currency.

If that is so, the task is not to unravel lies by one faction, but to unravel general lying.

I challenged you when you tried to assert that trumpism had some intellectual merit. You dodged that question, entirely.

I do not accept the term ‘Trumpism’. It is not a valid term in my view. It is, I believe, another demonstration on your part of fallaciousness. That term is highly rhetorical and expresses your bias.

Because the term cannot because in sound, fair discourse, I passed over it.

You may succeed in challenging a fool who does not notice your sophistries, but I have an intellectual reputation to uphold!

 

[JasperL]

Charlottesville is a good example that can be studied to examine and better understand how false assertions and false descriptions (false framing) are used by people, by municipalities, by states, and by media, to frame events and through framing to control how they are perceived.

The Unite the Right rally obtained a legal permit to have a rally. It was entirely peaceful and quite calm. Then, mobs descended upon the city to *protest* and to engage in provocation and violence against those of the rally. The public situation was very badly handled by the civic authorities and, by incompetence or by design (no one is certain) the two groups were allowed to melee.

It's odd to see you accuse others of 'false framing' then you proceed to clearly frame the events in an obviously biased way. "Mobs descended" - meaning those protesting white supremacists and anti-Semites - but you don't describe the rally organizers as a "mob" although they showed up that morning heavily armed, including with riot gear, shields, clubs and firearms.

And you also effectively equate a group spreading hate with those who would protest them. Perhaps your sentiments are with the former, but the white nationalist crowd got what they wanted, and fully anticipated, which were violent confrontations with those who in fact as I see it rightfully protested dirtbags chanting Nazi slogans and Jews will not replace us. Those sentiments are in fact a poison in our society.

That violence wasn't a 'bug' but a feature of what the organizers intended to accomplish that day. It's unfortunate that the violent protesters gave them what they wanted, but what is clear is the protests and the violence is what they wanted, and prepared for because they knew they'd get that reaction.

So your framing is clearly intended to "control how [the events] are perceived.]

The protestors by their presence, by their intentions, chose to engage in violent confrontation with those of the rally. So, I would say that *clear seeing* and clear understanding must establish these facts as facts.

I assume that you feel that if and when you (you-plural is implied) assign a title to someone or some group (white supremicist, racist, bigot, what-have-you) that you assume that those you label, because of your assignment, do not have a right to rally together. That it is 'right & proper' (necessary) that they be assailed. This is common thinking. It is part of the declaration that it is ok to 'punch a Nazi'

Of course they have a right to assemble as do the protesters. And violence, assault, etc. are crimes even when perpetrated against Nazis. We don't have to feel sorry for dirtbags begging for a fight that they got one, or were punched, but of course if unprovoked the person committing assault should be charged with a crime.

I don't feel sorry for them because the 'regime' these dirtbags long for is one where Jews could be assaulted, murdered, for no reason or any reason, with impunity and were assaulted and murdered by the millions. The white supremacists are longing for the day when a white man could with impunity assault any black man in the south and know no jury would convict him.

 

[JasperL]

So, once you have assigned your labels, and once you have roused up the mob, it is assumed (fallaciously, incorrectly and unlawfully) that any sort of repression is ok. These sorts of justifications and rationalizations are used, all the time, by people who describe themselves as being on the political left.

Trump had nothing to do with the organization of the Unite the Right rally. So there could have been no instigation by him. But perhaps in your mind this is how you have interpreted it? So then, your *interpretation* overrides 'real description'. You no longer are concerned to know the truth. The truth is irrelavant to your activity (and again I refer to a wider you-plural).

Going further: the young man with mental issues who tried to leave the area in his car was, according to some solid information, surrounded by protestors who threatened him (clubs and such). I am uncertain what went through his head (and no one can be certain) but it has been said that he panicked and tried to escape and that this is how he happened to ram those cars. The death of a protestor (and the injury to many others) had to be defined as an 'intentional murder', and indeed he was convicted of first degree murder and condemned to life in prison.

You've "projected" your biases all through that last paragraph, starting with characterizing his actions as 'tried to leave the area' proceeding to 'it has been said' which is your typical passive voice phrasing so you need not identify who said that, or on what basis, then 'had to be defined' but again, you don't say by whom, and if you are referring to the police and prosecutors, perhaps they "had to" define it that way because that's what the facts show.

What we know is he was in fact convicted of murder, and pled guilty to a series of hate crimes, and so we know prosecutors and a jury dismissed what 'has been said' by someone unnamed it based on the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Here, we have a sort-of parallel that can be drawn between his convicion and that of Chauvin.

The entire situation is 'spun' in a certain way, the spun description is bolstered at every turn, the actual truth becomes irrelevant because a *mob* has taken over (mob mentality, social hysteria).

What I say is that these situations need to be carefully examined, taken apart, and a person capable of 'clear thinking' and 'sound interpretation' needs to make clarifying statements. But where will we find a person who can do that? Who is committed to doing that?

In this case you didn't make clarifying statements but resorted to the same non-committal drivel we've become accustomed to.

(What Trump said about Charlottesville was, of course, twisted for various political purposes, and the same analysis I offer here can be, should be, applied to this).

That's more projection on your part. You've asserted as a fact that what Trump said was "twisted for various political purposes" which all but asserts as a fact that the criticisms of what he said in the immediate aftermath were not proper or legitimate.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

…… (snip) ….Tucker Carlson are part of training in the use of reason (your words) and have merit because of some vague “categories of the mind”.

TC is quite successful at certain moments and I tremendously appreciate him. At other moments he descends into ‘emotionally infused assertions’ (something like this) and plays to his audience.

As with so many there is something solid in his discourse, but also demagogic.

 

[LostinThought]

Some posters inability to understand BASIC first amendment principles leads to the kind of confusion and ignorant posts we see in this thread.

Well, the main issue is that they like to hide being the whole "it's a private business" excuse.
Though wait until a private business decides to restrict their services to one of the typically protected social classes, and these same people will go clutching their pearls all the way to the bank.

Yet they don't seem to realize that there is no need for a government to be charged with destroying someone's first amendment rights, especially when it's apparent that they've been outsourcing it to those same "private businesses" that they like to protect.

 

[Master Debator]

Well, the main issue is that they like to hide being the whole "it's a private business" excuse.
Though wait until a private business decides to restrict their services to one of the typically protected social classes, and these same people will go clutching their pearls all the way to the bank.

Yet they don't seem to realize that there is no need for a government to be charged with destroying someone's first amendment rights, especially when it's apparent that they've been outsourcing it to those same "private businesses" that they like to protect.

When you say typically protected I think you mean legally protected. Yes, blacks, gays and women are federally protected from discrimination by any business that falls under the category of public accommodation. Unfortunately, being a bitch ass rent boy cuckservative isn't a federally protected class. Boo hoo.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

No, you did not specifically mention the media I referred to, even though it is the heart and center of the Trump universe, and just about every trump supporter on this forum consumes it.

Myself, I read the NYTs but then compare outlooks and general presentations in other media.

What you (evidently) reject absolutely, I do not reject absolutely.

This is one reason I referred to Heidegger’s essay on Plato’s Cave. We are forced to interpret our world through lenses provided to us. Each one has unique features — both of clarification and distortion.

 

[bearpoker]

Hair Fuhrer

Hair Fuhrer! I love it!