"Trump's speech is protected"

[Lord Tammerlain]

I think that is unfair to Klein, bordering on malicious attacking.

I have read articles of hers specifically on the environment. She has called for dramatic and sudden changes on the environment. That would cause mass economic chaos, that would effect the poor primarily.

I don’t think she means harm but is not looking at the larger picture. Change is required no doubt but it has to be done with a plan to ensure people do not starve in the process or get tossed into slums as they can’t afford rent

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

What do you think might make Hedges an accelerationist (I'm not familiar with the term)?

I'd say he is mildly so, but look the word up fer chrissakes.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Not sure of the term as well but I expect it would mean someone who wants to change society for what they believe is for the better, without any real concern for the process to get there

I expect Naomi Klein would fall into that category as she definitely wants change to society primarily for environmental reasons but she does not have any real plans on how to support people when millions not jobs go away if her plans were enacted. Causing suffering for millions in the process. She would generally not be effected as she is I expect upper middle class in income

But she DOES outline and define disaster capitalism very well, the fact that she's a little weak on solutions does not alter the legitimacy of her raw observations, yes? No?

 

[OpportunityCost]

These questions are harder than people think. Because of animosity to trump, there's a willingness to rush from 'trump called on people to go to the capitol' to 'some people who went to the capitol committed crimes up to murder' to mean 'trump ordered people to commit murder' and should be charged with murder.

But however much people want to say trump didn't seem to mind if they did, however much he seemed to embrace 'bad people' we don't like, including ones who wore offensive messages, however much it could be said he was reckless not to demand they refrain from violence, it's not quite the same as 'he ordered them to commit murder'.

Consider how a Democratic leader could call on supporters of BLM to 'resist', to protest, to show their strength, and then they have a rally and it turns violence and someone in the group kills someone - would we say the same about that Democratic leader being guilty of murder? It's not quite exactly the same, but it's not too different.

It does seem to me, that however much trump deserves to lose social media for years of abuse, which didn't happen, that the two tweets that DID get a lifetime ban are pretty dubious for doing so, and more an excuse to finally get around to doing it than really justifying it themselves.

For example, one of the two simply said he won't attend the inauguration; but Twitter said that that could be interpreted as encouraging violence at the inauguration. Huh? That's a very weak claim. That standard could be used to vilify almost any message.

Imagine Biden tweeting it's a good thing if trump doesn't attend, something he said, and that being interpreted as calling for violence against trump supporters at the inauguration so he gets a lifetime ban. Huh? So clearly it's a sort of 'ban trump just because we've turned on him, and are using an excuse' more than for the reason given of the specific tweets.

And it's 'ok' because so many of us are simply glad to see trump finally banned. But it sets a heck of a precedent.

And it doesn't make it look better that their silencing trump comes the same month that trump declared war on them by wanting their legal protections from being sued removed. It colors the action with companies attacking and silencing the president on their platforms if the president dares to challenge their power.

So, this isn't as clear as people might want. This isn't that much a surprise when trump is seen as getting away without accountability on the one hand, then people are more willing to see accountability from another method even if it's not quite justified. It's a little like people not being concerned if OJ's rights had been violated at his second trial, because we think he got off of murder charges at the first trial.

Craig, we have trying to get people here to see that viewpoint ever since it happened, maybe they will dwell on it a bit more coming from someone from their side of the aisle.

Good post, I hope it makes people think on both sides.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

But she DOES outline and define disaster capitalism very well, the fact that she's a little weak on solutions does not alter the legitimacy of her raw observations, yes? No?

Certainly not her observations are correct he policies to correct them probably not

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Where did trump speak out in favor of specific illegal and violent acts? Is protesting at the capitol illegal and violent? Is 'being strong'? You can argue that his comments are dog whistles implying more - but the same arguments could be used to say people advocating BLM protests should know there might be some violent acts at them and claim they are therefor calling for the violence to happen, even though they didn't say that.

I would say the BLM protests had the capability to be violent, depending on plenty of responses to it is violent police response and or outside instigation.

It was not the goal of the majority of protests

For the March on Jan 6 anyone who was not expecting violence is an idiot. The plan was to stop the steal and prevent Biden from being president, on Jan 6 no other option but violence was left. Trump calling for the march to the capital that day was indirectly calling for violence. He was smart enough not to do it directly

Trump was pushing for violence but being careful not to say it specifically. Much like saying the guy across the street and is a problem I wish someone would take care of him. Then one of my associates take him out. I never said to kill him, everyone knows what I meant if I was in a criminal gang of course

 

[Craig234]

I would say the BLM protests had the capability to be violent, depending on plenty of responses to it is violent police response and or outside instigation.

It was not the goal of the majority of protests

For the March on Jan 6 anyone who was not expecting violence is an idiot. The plan was to stop the steal and prevent Biden from being president, on Jan 6 no other option but violence was left. Trump calling for the march to the capital that day was indirectly calling for violence. He was smart enough not to do it directly

Trump was pushing for violence but being careful not to say it specifically. Much like saying the guy across the street and is a problem I wish someone would take care of him. Then one of my associates take him out. I never said to kill him, everyone knows what I meant if I was in a criminal gang of course

And that's the point. Could most of the people in either even not wanted violence, while some did? Could the politician involved say they were only encouraging peaceful protest, yet be accused of 'indirectly' wanting the violence? The two scenarios aren't too far apart.

And that's the point, also, if we set the precedent of making the politician criminally liable for 'indirect' and an opinion about intent in one case, then it can be done in other cases. The Justice Department has already indicated it won't charge any leaders with crimes for those 'indirect' incitements. And there's some merit to that, you don't want to make politicians liable for the worst people do claiming inspiration from that politician.

Remember the person who shot at some members of Congress, nearly killing Steve Scalise.

He did it as a supporter of Bernie.

We can find plenty of things Bernie said about how much of a threat corrupt interests are to the country, calling for revolution and action, and the same 'indirect' claim could be made to make Bernie criminally for that shooting. On and on. It's not easy looking for how to draw the line when it becomes criminally liable, especially with partisans on the other side who will call for criminal charges over nothing ("LOCK HER UP!").

 

[noonereal]

Also, we need the incoming government to focus on Covid relief, climate change, etc instead of an immediate impeachment trial.

I think most of us agree on this.

 

[Craig234]

I have read articles of hers specifically on the environment. She has called for dramatic and sudden changes on the environment. That would cause mass economic chaos, that would effect the poor primarily.

I don’t think she means harm but is not looking at the larger picture. Change is required no doubt but it has to be done with a plan to ensure people do not starve in the process or get tossed into slums as they can’t afford rent

Nothing in her recommendations precludes such planning. Should she also say what the workers will eat for lunch every day, and if she doesn't, she wants them to go hungry? And her recommendation will create many, many jobs in green energy.

I don't think you mean harm with the excessive criticism of her correct calling for action on the environment, but you didn't look at the larger picture, which can help slow action which will hurt many people as pollution and the climate worsen. See how that works?

 

[Craig234]

Private businesses are not subject to the protections people have from the government.

No, they're not, but they are still subject to the protections the government wants to put in place, such as non-discrimination, safety, honesty in advertising, and so on. Still don't know what your point was.

 

[mrjurrs]

No, they're not, but they are still subject to the protections the government wants to put in place, such as non-discrimination, safety, honesty in advertising, and so on. Still don't know what your point was.

The point was that private businesses can do pretty much what they want with customers or potential customers. Obviously there are govt regulations to protect consumers. A bakery can discriminate against gay people, the govt can't. Twitter can muzzle people on their platform, the govt can't.

 

[Craig234]

The point was that private businesses can do pretty much what they want with customers or potential customers. Obviously there are govt regulations to protect consumers. A bakery can discriminate against gay people, the govt can't. Twitter can muzzle people on their platform, the govt can't.

There are limits, and they shouldn't include discriminating against gay customers. There are important issues to figure out about how social media platforms should be regulated, and the right answer isn't, they shouldn't. I have some ideas, but it's a big topic.