Jump to content
Wymsey

US Presidential Election 2020

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

70 million people voted for Trump.  More than the UK population.  If you think the free market took him off Twitter you are an idiot, and I know you are not an idiot.  No doubt Trump's behaviour since the election loss has been shocking, but banning the president from Twitter is in many respects more sinister and alarming than a desperate fool doing his best to give himself a I was robbed narrative to live on.

Allow me to further clarify, then.

 

70 million people voted for Trump in November. However, given the events since I would suggest that the "moderates" who voted for him for reasons other than straight ideological no longer would. The situation has changed, and he has a lot fewer backers now than then.

 

So yes, as a result of that I think Twitter saw that this was all bad news for their pocketbook and bad for business, and made a decision based on that.

 

And let's not make out like this is a freedom of speech issue - the man is still the president (for now), he has a thousand and one ways to reach people that are not Twitter.

 

35 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

True for those really committed, but not for the easily swayed which apparently are at risk reading this stuff on social media.  Surely those people can be convinced by either side.  I just don't see that each side building their own echo chambers helps anyone, surely it makes it worse.  I wouldn't be surprised if this makes everything worse on Friday not better,

I would posit that, given recent events, most people are committed and there see very few fence sitters. And as I said above, things are going to likely be bad on Friday anyway, no matter what Twitter did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

70 million people voted for Trump.  More than the UK population.  If you think the free market took him off Twitter you are an idiot, and I know you are not an idiot.  No doubt Trump's behaviour since the election loss has been shocking, but banning the president from Twitter is in many respects more sinister and alarming than a desperate fool doing his best to give himself a I was robbed narrative to live on.

I might have agreed with you years ago, but I do think that the internet has changed everything. It seems to have created a mass of gullible fools who suck up disinformation and are prepared to believe anything, even in the face of facts that directly contradict. This will surely destabilise western democracies that rely on a reasonable consensus. I don’t know what the answer is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d be very interested to see an account of Trump’s action/inaction in the timeline following his speech and in particular what, if anything, he did to protect the law enforcement officers, politicians and staff at the Capitol. 

 

The present indications are that he did little or nothing which suggests a disregard for the safety of others and a hope that the democratic process would be thwarted. 

 

I really hope that the prosecuting authorities throw the book at him. Pandering to his behaviour in the name of reconciliation won’t make his devotees come to their senses all of a sudden. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Trump/Twitter situation is a kind of large-scale deplatforming. I rarely find the application of that particularly comfortable, precisely for reasons mentioned earlier that it’s about the right to air views and discuss them. So although I want Trump impeached and jailed, I find myself in a bit of a quandary.

 

However, to echo @Dahnsouff’s point, that can only hold when people are genuinely willing to consider and discuss. What we have in Trump’s case is people believing everything he says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff (to paraphrase Ned Flanders).

 

The difficult thing if you’re going to advocate deplatforming is where to draw the line, and that’s where I get concerned about it. For instance, if a student union blocks Katie Hopkins from speaking then I understand. But if they block Amber Rudd because she dared to be a Tory then there’s a problem. There’s a range between those two individuals, but where to draw the line is difficult. Nigel Farage, for instance. Which side of the line should he fall? I bet different posters in here would have different answers to that.

 

Donald Trump, with his incitement of a crowd and a band of followers who believe him more than any demonstrable truth, I think falls on the “removal” side of the line. I won’t be mourning the loss of his account or opinions. But I am interested to know how far people feel is too far, and by what standards you or society should judge.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dunge said:

The Trump/Twitter situation is a kind of large-scale deplatforming. I rarely find the application of that particularly comfortable, precisely for reasons mentioned earlier that it’s about the right to air views and discuss them. So although I want Trump impeached and jailed, I find myself in a bit of a quandary.

 

However, to echo @Dahnsouff’s point, that can only hold when people are genuinely willing to consider and discuss. What we have in Trump’s case is people believing everything he says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff (to paraphrase Ned Flanders).

 

The difficult thing if you’re going to advocate deplatforming is where to draw the line, and that’s where I get concerned about it. For instance, if a student union blocks Katie Hopkins from speaking then I understand. But if they block Amber Rudd because she dared to be a Tory then there’s a problem. There’s a range between those two individuals, but where to draw the line is difficult. Nigel Farage, for instance. Which side of the line should he fall? I bet different posters in here would have different answers to that.

 

Donald Trump, with his incitement of a crowd and a band of followers who believe him more than any demonstrable truth, I think falls on the “removal” side of the line. I won’t be mourning the loss of his account or opinions. But I am interested to know how far people feel is too far, and by what standards you or society should judge.

I think that effectively inciting a modern day Reichstag fire should be reason enough.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dunge said:

The Trump/Twitter situation is a kind of large-scale deplatforming. I rarely find the application of that particularly comfortable, precisely for reasons mentioned earlier that it’s about the right to air views and discuss them. So although I want Trump impeached and jailed, I find myself in a bit of a quandary.

 

However, to echo @Dahnsouff’s point, that can only hold when people are genuinely willing to consider and discuss. What we have in Trump’s case is people believing everything he says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff (to paraphrase Ned Flanders).

 

The difficult thing if you’re going to advocate deplatforming is where to draw the line, and that’s where I get concerned about it. For instance, if a student union blocks Katie Hopkins from speaking then I understand. But if they block Amber Rudd because she dared to be a Tory then there’s a problem. There’s a range between those two individuals, but where to draw the line is difficult. Nigel Farage, for instance. Which side of the line should he fall? I bet different posters in here would have different answers to that.

 

Donald Trump, with his incitement of a crowd and a band of followers who believe him more than any demonstrable truth, I think falls on the “removal” side of the line. I won’t be mourning the loss of his account or opinions. But I am interested to know how far people feel is too far, and by what standards you or society should judge.

You're another one missing the actual reason he's been removed. He's been allowed to say what wants for years, spout complete and utter bullshit that either contradicts himself or is proven to be wrong. He has not been removed for any of that, I mean he's been doing it for years, and ramped it up over the last couple of months regarding the election. Hes been removed because he's inciting violence. He's encouraged rioting and attacking the Capitol building, actions which cost 5 people there lives.

 

I totally agree with everyone saying he has the right to spout whatever unproven crap he wants, as does anyone from whatever side of the political spectrum, be it Boris or Starmer, Katie Hopkins or Owen Jones. But once they over step the mark, they have to be censored.

 

I could post over and over in this forum that I think Jamie Vardy is shit. Most people would disagree, but you could argue if I was banned from saying it that would be against my freedom of speech and you'd question the site owners policies. If I came on here every week pre game and tried to rile up fans to start fights, destroy opponent's grounds at away games, attack coaches of away fans and players at home games etc then I think everyone would find hard to argue if the owners banned me completely.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dunge said:

The Trump/Twitter situation is a kind of large-scale deplatforming. I rarely find the application of that particularly comfortable, precisely for reasons mentioned earlier that it’s about the right to air views and discuss them. So although I want Trump impeached and jailed, I find myself in a bit of a quandary.

 

However, to echo @Dahnsouff’s point, that can only hold when people are genuinely willing to consider and discuss. What we have in Trump’s case is people believing everything he says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff (to paraphrase Ned Flanders).

 

The difficult thing if you’re going to advocate deplatforming is where to draw the line, and that’s where I get concerned about it. For instance, if a student union blocks Katie Hopkins from speaking then I understand. But if they block Amber Rudd because she dared to be a Tory then there’s a problem. There’s a range between those two individuals, but where to draw the line is difficult. Nigel Farage, for instance. Which side of the line should he fall? I bet different posters in here would have different answers to that.

 

Donald Trump, with his incitement of a crowd and a band of followers who believe him more than any demonstrable truth, I think falls on the “removal” side of the line. I won’t be mourning the loss of his account or opinions. But I am interested to know how far people feel is too far, and by what standards you or society should judge.

Whilst I agree that the situation looks beyond despair, if we intervene with peoples liberty, then we can only kick the can down the road and not resolve the underlying problems.

It is true I think, that peoples need to be seen to be as right as their own peer group, is far more tangible than any evidential correctness.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Are people aware that Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms are in fact private entities and not government projects right? Why are we talking about free speech and liberty when it’s never ever applied to private companies? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

You're another one missing the actual reason he's been removed. He's been allowed to say what wants for years, spout complete and utter bullshit that either contradicts himself or is proven to be wrong. He has not been removed for any of that, I mean he's been doing it for years, and ramped it up over the last couple of months regarding the election. Hes been removed because he's inciting violence. He's encouraged rioting and attacking the Capitol building, actions which cost 5 people there lives.

 

I totally agree with everyone saying he has the right to spout whatever unproven crap he wants, as does anyone from whatever side of the political spectrum, be it Boris or Starmer, Katie Hopkins or Owen Jones. But once they over step the mark, they have to be censored.

 

I could post over and over in this forum that I think Jamie Vardy is shit. Most people would disagree, but you could argue if I was banned from saying it that would be against my freedom of speech and you'd question the site owners policies. If I came on here every week pre game and tried to rile up fans to start fights, destroy opponent's grounds at away games, attack coaches of away fans and players at home games etc then I think everyone would find hard to argue if the owners banned me completely.


I’m really not missing the reason he’s been removed. Incitement of violence and/or hatred. I don’t want to give the impression I have any sympathy for the man, and I agree with his removal.

 

My concern - and I would add that it’s Trumpism that’s caused this - is that it raises the question of how far free speech goes or can be tolerated, particularly in what we’re now seeing as a “post-truth” world. None of us want extremists running countries. Trump’s Twitter account has been a propaganda factory, and a worryingly successful one. It’s not even about people forgiving him for lies, they don’t even show any understanding that he’s doing it, even when it’s demonstrable. I’ve always had a lot of faith in democracy, but what we’ve seen from Trump both recently and over the last five years has been a great concern to me.


I suppose my post above was thinking out loud a bit, plus partly a response to Jon, plus partly a general question. I don’t want to see free speech curtailed, yet I absolutely don’t want people getting radicalised by people like Trump. I’m just struggling to find the solution between them.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frank Luntz (Republican pollster) polled Americans who voted Republican over the weekend, and it appears as last week's events haven't damaged Trump's reputation all that much.

 

Thread below.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

Are people aware that Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms are in fact private entities and not government projects right? Why are we talking about free speech and liberty when it’s never ever applied to private companies? 

That just a divisive point of view and is simply not true.as it is quite within their business model to be as neutral as they dare.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

Frank Luntz (Republican pollster) polled Americans who voted Republican over the weekend, and it appears as last week's events haven't damaged Trump's reputation all that much.

 

Thread below.

 

 

Basically, how do you convince people who are in a dangerously deranged cult, that they're in a dangerously deranged cult?

 

Even worse, what do you do when they are heavily armed and supported by your own laws?!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, urban.spaceman said:

Basically, how do you convince people who are in a dangerously deranged cult, that they're in a dangerously deranged cult?

 

Even worse, what do you do when they are heavily armed and supported by your own laws?!

May I suggest that you start by not referring to them as a cult?  :D

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

That just a divisive point of view and is simply not true.as it is quite within their business model to be as neutral as they dare.

Again though, we're not talking about neutrality are we. If somebody used your business to incite a riot at which five people died you'd want them disassociated from you, wouldn't you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

That just a divisive point of view and is simply not true.as it is quite within their business model to be as neutral as they dare.


From what I understand the @POTUS account is still online, they’ve banned an individual account for breaching their conduct rules. 
 

What’s the problem?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Basically, how do you convince people who are in a dangerously deranged cult, that they're in a dangerously deranged cult?

 

Even worse, what do you do when they are heavily armed and supported by your own laws?!

"I asked them if they may have to use force to “save the traditional American way of life.” 𝟲𝟰% of them agreed."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Voll Blau said:

Again though, we're not talking about neutrality are we. If somebody used your business to incite a riot at which five people died you'd want them disassociated from you, wouldn't you?

I see the point, my response was in regards to an assumed slight on capitalism at large, and my bad if I mis judged. It is of course true that the brand of an entity would protect itself in the situation you describe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:


From what I understand the @POTUS account is still online, they’ve banned an individual account for breaching their conduct rules. 
 

What’s the problem?

I would have expected so, but post ban I saw The Real Donald Trump account was active, but perhaps that is my ignorance and it was but prevented from posting?

Strangely I never imagined @POTUS would go offline or even be banned from posting, but again, probably just being dumb :dunno:

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

I see the point, my response was in regards to an assumed slight on capitalism at large, and my bad if I mis judged. It is of course true that the brand of an entity would protect itself in the situation you describe.

Yeah, I certainly didn't read it that way. It's more that people are whining on about how Trump ought to have a right to tweet when the reality is (although the law hasn't quite caught up with this yet) that Twitter, Facebook etc are publishers which put content in the public domain in the same way that most privately-funded news outlets are.

 

There are all sorts of reasons why publishers need to protect themselves - legally, morally and reputationally - when it comes to what's put out across their platforms. Twitter has taken a firm, but sadly necessary, step in this case in order to protect itself from damage.

Edited by Voll Blau
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

I think there is a difference between an elected President with 88 million followers and a religious leader for a start.  I think people are letting their hatred of Trump get the better of their judgement on this one.

I do appreciate Twitter etc had a tough call to make, and perhaps in their frame of reference it was the correct one, I just don't think we should be in a position where these platforms which claim to be neutral can mute one side of the political spectrum like this (while claiming to be a platform not a publisher).  You would be screaming if it was the left being muted.

What.  Stop being hysterical it's one guy being banned from a social media site for breaking their TOS.  One guy.

Political censorship would be if they tried to ban all Republicans and anyone with a Trump image in their profile.  Fortunately for me I've never been smitten by political figures who spread hate and lies and violence (I have a long record of disagreeing with the likes of Farage and Trump) and I don't think being left wing would change that for me (sadly I don't have any examples off the top of my head, no doubt you imagine Corbyn is comparable but lol) so I don't think I would be screaming if a single left-wing politician got removed from spewing their bile on Twitter.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

Yeah, I certainly didn't read it that way. It's more that people are whining on about how Trump ought to have a right to tweet when the reality is (although the law hasn't quite caught up with this yet) that Twitter, Facebook etc are publishers which put content in the public domain in the same way that most privately-funded news outlets are.

 

There are all sorts of reasons why publishers need to protect themselves - legally, morally and reputationally - when it comes to what's put out across their platforms. Twitter has taken a firm, but sadly necessary, step in this case in order to protect itself from damage.

Well put. If we want to dumb it down into a simple statement. Those publishers were a vehicle in which an individual spread lies about a democratic process. If the object of those lies were towards a person, we'd be looking at libel charges. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ealingfox said:

The time for this performative 'bothsidesism' is gone. One side is clearly wrong and if we start deciding there shouldn't be consequences for that because we're scared of them then they've won anyway - and I might add using fear to get what you want is quite literally terrorism.

Ahhhhh.  The longing for control. Because we are right and you are wrong. The Patriot Act, The War on Terror and The War on Drugs didn't work so lets double down on a War on Dissent.

As if there were 80 million people sitting in DC protesting to overthrow the government. If we just build more Gulags /Prisons/FEMA:) camps to house the wrong thinkers to provide cheap labor for Target and IKEA our problems would be solved. Maybe just beat them or kill them until they think right left :dunno:

 

After watching the riots, police precincts and miscellaneous businesses destroyed this summer only to see this new riot turned into 9/11 seems the height of hypocrisy. Like watching people turn into an idea(Fascism) which they fear the most.

 

After Biden becomes president I hope he and the rest of the government get busy quickly helping out the citizenry because it wont be about politics or Twitter anymore. Both parties left us for dead. It won't be forgotten. Good Luck to our incompetent government playing Wack-A-Mole.

 

https://www.aeinstein.org/nonviolentaction/198-methods-of-nonviolent-action/

How long before all dissent is erased by whoever is in power. Think.

JFK  "Those who make peaceful change impossible will make violent revolution inevitable"

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

What.  Stop being hysterical it's one guy being banned from a social media site for breaking their TOS.  One guy.

Political censorship would be if they tried to ban all Republicans and anyone with a Trump image in their profile.  Fortunately for me I've never been smitten by political figures who spread hate and lies and violence (I have a long record of disagreeing with the likes of Farage and Trump) and I don't think being left wing would change that for me (sadly I don't have any examples off the top of my head, no doubt you imagine Corbyn is comparable but lol) so I don't think I would be screaming if a single left-wing politician got removed from spewing their bile on Twitter.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/12/22226503/twitter-qanon-account-suspension-70000-capitol-riots

Who decides who is what?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SO1 said:

Ahhhhh.  The longing for control. Because we are right and you are wrong. The Patriot Act, The War on Terror and The War on Drugs didn't work so lets double down on a War on Dissent.

As if there were 80 million people sitting in DC protesting to overthrow the government. If we just build more Gulags /Prisons/FEMA:) camps to house the wrong thinkers to provide cheap labor for Target and IKEA our problems would be solved. Maybe just beat them or kill them until they think right left :dunno:

 

After watching the riots, police precincts and miscellaneous businesses destroyed this summer only to see this new riot turned into 9/11 seems the height of hypocrisy. Like watching people turn into an idea(Fascism) which they fear the most.

 

After Biden becomes president I hope he and the rest of the government get busy quickly helping out the citizenry because it wont be about politics or Twitter anymore. Both parties left us for dead. It won't be forgotten. Good Luck to our incompetent government playing Wack-A-Mole.

 

https://www.aeinstein.org/nonviolentaction/198-methods-of-nonviolent-action/

How long before all dissent is erased by whoever is in power. Think.

JFK  "Those who make peaceful change impossible will make violent revolution inevitable"

...who said anything about prosecuting thought?

 

The argument, rather clearly, is that people are free to think as they wish - but the moment those thoughts are read by and therefore influence another person, the originator is responsible for them with all that entails.

 

If, for instance, a person wants to entertain the thought of repeating the Holocaust, then they can go ahead. But the moment that thought leaves their skull and emerges onto paper or binary they bear all the consequences of it. In any free society, of course, the freedom to take the consequences being the one upon which all others are based.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...