US Presidential Election 2020

[Carl the Llama]

14 minutes ago, SO1 said:

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

Who decides who is what?

I think Twitter decides that people with Qanon-heavy profiles are dangerously spreading misinformation in contradiction to their TOS.  

 

If you want to make this a free speech issue start campaigning for a publicly owned, independent social network where people can say whatever guff comes to mind with no consequences beyond society's reaction to it, but while we're talking about a private company in the USA, if a baker's allowed to refuse to make cakes for gay people then a tech company's allowed to refuse membership to dangerous conspiracy-spreading people.  It's remarkable how the USA flip flops so much on what versions of unfettered capitalism are acceptable depending on who's specifically losing out.

Edited 12 January 2021 by Carl the Llama

[Carl the Llama]

It makes me sad to see otherwise intelligent people pretending there's any similarity between a civil rights movement and an attempt to infringe democracy.  Smh hard.

[That_Dude]

4 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

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.

Internet didn't create the gullibles, they were always there and that's not going to change. What it allowed them is to be reached more easily and create their own echo chambers where they get their confirmation bias. You don't only fight this by banning left, right and centre, but by educating people and it begins in school. An ignorant population will always be easier to manipulate, that's a fact and it's as old as mankind itself.

 

Trump, Q-Anon and their ilk should've been banned from Twitter, FB etc. months, if not years ago. They tolerated them because they greatly profited from it and they're now afraid of stricter regulations following the Capitol storming. Hence the massive crackdown which will be obviously interpretated as a witch hunt by the concerned party.

 

It shouldn't also be limited to Trump and his lunatics, but also world-wide if they want to be consistent with their own rules and not give flank to the critics. Which leads us to the inevitable question about how much power can hold the social media corporations, since they can literally silence anyone, where do you stop and how far is too far. Because let's not kid ourselves the traditional ways of communication aren't nearly as efficient as a simple tweet or a FB message, not matter how superficial it might be.

 

The internet is still stuck in some kind of Wild West era which hasn't been tackled properly until now and the only 'good' thing that came from Trump's disastrous Presidency is to force us to rethink the whole thing and how it should work. There's no easy answer and it will certainly occupy us for quite a long time.

Edited 12 January 2021 by That_Dude

[Dunge]

2 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

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

I think it’s ok to call Trump’s fan base a cult. It’s all based on a firm belief that one charismatic man can do no wrong, and his supporters won’t accept any outside opinions or criticism. So I don’t think it patronises them to call it that. Many might even wear it as a badge of honour.

 

But those poll results show to me that there are millions upon millions of Americans who need to be guided out of that group carefully - those percentages are stark. Hopefully the ridding of the man himself from public life can prove a significant first step in that.

[Dahnsouff]

47 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

 

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"

This quote is extremely pertinent, but not in the way I think you intended. (Although you were at least in part speaking in jest)

 

Change must be impossible  if it is not the democratic will of the majority.

The vocal minority must be unheard in the face of silent majority.

 

The question on the narrowness of the victory, is moot, the question on the validity of election is also moot, until proven otherwise via evidential means.

[HighPeakFox]

26 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

It makes me sad to see otherwise intelligent people pretending there's any similarity between a civil rights movement and an attempt to infringe democracy.  Smh hard.

I have no wish to disagree or defend it, but a wise friend of mine gave this sort of thing some perspective, when we were talking a while ago. 

 

Whilst on the face of it, to you and me it makes no sense, everyone has their own way of dealing with the everyday, the unexplained, the out of control and the great unknown. Myself, I have a clear notion of what is going on, but you won't catch me confidently stating it here, or getting in huge back and forth about it, because I don't have a mission to convince others - not least because people like to take offence at distance because what I say might imply criticism of their standpoint.

 

Anyway, said friend said that more often than not, false equivalence and the like is what people might use to try and keep matters balanced in their own perspective - thus, it becomes a coping mechanism. The idea that things are dangerously out of control is often too frightening a concept to bear, and who am I to tell them they're wrong in refusing to see it?

 

Just another way to understand, I guess. 

Edited 12 January 2021 by HighPeakFox

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

I have no wish to disagree or defend it, but a wise friend of mine gave this sort of thing some perspective, when we were talking a while ago. 

 

Whilst on the face of it, to you and me it makes no sense, everyone has their own way of dealing with the everyday, the unexplained, the out of control and the great unknown. Myself, I have a clear notion of what is going on, but you won't catch me confidently stating it here, or getting in huge back and forth about it, because I don't have a mission to convince others - not least because people like to take offence at distance because what I say might imply criticism of their standpoint.

 

Anyway, said friend said that more often than not, false equivalence and the like is what people might use to try and keep matters balanced in their own perspective - thus, it becomes a coping mechanism. The idea that things are dangerously out of control is often too frightening a concept to bear, and who am I to tell them they're wrong in refusing to see it?

 

Just another way to understand, I guess. 

And people should be welcome to do exactly that.

 

However, when that fear then becomes a danger to other human beings through one way or another, that is exactly when they should be told that they are wrong by anyone with the ability, yes. Fear explains the actions at the Capitol, the anti-vaxx movement refusing vaccinations, climate change ignorance leading to representatives not passing necessary legislation, but it should in no way excuse them nor be accepted.

 

 

[HighPeakFox]

Just now, leicsmac said:

And people should be welcome to do exactly that.

 

However, when that fear then becomes a danger to other human beings through one way or another, that is exactly when they should be told that they are wrong by anyone with the ability, yes. Fear explains the actions at the Capitol, the anti-vaxx movement refusing vaccinations, climate change ignorance leading to representatives not passing necessary legislation, but it should in no way excuse them nor be accepted.

Of course. I was keeping it solely within the confines of disagreement on FT only, really.

[ozleicester]

45 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

It makes me sad to see otherwise intelligent people pretending there's any similarity between a civil rights movement and an attempt to infringe democracy.  Smh hard.

they are the same people who vote repub/conservative and pretend to be horrified by the cocwombles they elect.

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

Of course. I was keeping it solely within the confines of disagreement on FT only, really.

That's fair enough and thank you for the clarification.

 

Unfortunately FT itself, while not possessed of anyone present at the Capitol recently (I think), does have occasional appearances from anti-vaxxers and climate change ignorers.

[Jon the Hat]

5 hours ago, Voll Blau said:

Stop making this out to be something it's not. This is not for one minute about partisan politics or people's personal opinions of the guy and it's so disingenuous for people to keep suggesting it is.

 

Have you thought for one second about the legal implications for Twitter if they'd allowed Trump to keep on doing what he was doing? They'd have been facing civil actions from the families of the dead and those who were injured for years to come.

 

The man was responsible for inciting a riot at which five people were killed. That's it. That's why he was banned.

He incited the riot in his speech to the crowd if he did at all, not on Twitter.

[Jon the Hat]

17 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

That's fair enough and thank you for the clarification.

 

Unfortunately FT itself, while not possessed of anyone present at the Capitol recently (I think), does have occasional appearances from anti-vaxxers and climate change ignorers.

I see you have moved on from the "deniers" term which tries to tar people who doubt climate science with holocaust deniers!  Well done

[Carl the Llama]

6 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

He incited the riot in his speech to the crowd if he did at all, not on Twitter.

He told them they're very special on twitter though.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I see you have moved on from the "deniers" term which tries to tar people who doubt climate science with holocaust deniers!  Well done

...only because the term "deniers" is inaccurate, mon ami - you may as well deny gravity for all the physical evidence clearly available.

 

I make no apologies for stating that those who ignore the manifold future effects of climate change and elect representatives who do the same may well be responsible for a lack of preparation leading directly to a shortage of food and potable water that will itself result in a death and misery count that would make the Holocaust look very small indeed.

[HighPeakFox]

17 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

He incited the riot in his speech to the crowd if he did at all, not on Twitter.

His Twitter feed has been one long, repetitive stream of irresponsible gaslighting and incitement for as long as I care to remember. Quite how he's got this far before the people that can do something about it have woken up is beyond me. 

Edited 12 January 2021 by HighPeakFox

[Voll Blau]

24 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

He incited the riot in his speech to the crowd if he did at all, not on Twitter.

"If he did at all".

 

Arf.

[Carl the Llama]

I've been having a thing about this having a right to use twitter because free speech argument and I'm starting to get behind it. 

 

After all, if we're saying that not having access to a twitter account is a free speech violation then that means the state has an obligation to ensure every man, woman and child is provided with a smartphone or tablet of some kind and reliable access to the internet since those are the minimum requirements for having access to twitter. Whether or not they sign up to a twitter account should still be entirely up to them, but not having the means to do so would be an infringement on their rights and their freedom of speech.

 

When can we get started on this?

[That_Dude]

26 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

He incited the riot in his speech to the crowd if he did at all, not on Twitter.

His tweet feed was literally an incitation to riot since September. He's been conditioning his gullible supporters for the 'fraud' before the elections even happened. The Capitol storming was a culmination and the logical conclusion of his gaslighting and outright lies about the elections with his speech in DC only being  the cherry on the top.

 

Can't believe you're taking that path.

[Guest SO1]

54 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

This quote is extremely pertinent, but not in the way I think you intended. (Although you were at least in part speaking in jest)

 

Change must be impossible  if it is not the democratic will of the majority.

The vocal minority must be unheard in the face of silent majority.

 

The question on the narrowness of the victory, is moot, the question on the validity of election is also moot, until proven otherwise via evidential means.

I wasn't being in jest. People perceive the internet/twitter to be a place of free speech. Shut that down and its seen by me and others as an abuse of power and a shutting down of peaceful dissent. Slowly but surely dissent(anywhere) is being criminalized. That's whats behind my posting of the Kennedy quote.

 

Everywhere I look in the world peaceful protests are being met with violent resistance by governments. Little being covered by mainstream media or news outlets on the internet. Where else does dissent go if you have 80 million people with no voice? The only place is supposed to be government and no one listens or cares.

Thanks for your rational comments.

 

[HighPeakFox]

1 minute ago, SO1 said:

I wasn't being in jest. People perceive the internet/twitter to be a place of free speech. Shut that down and its seen by me and others as an abuse of power and a shutting down of peaceful dissent. Slowly but surely dissent(anywhere) is being criminalized. That's whats behind my posting of the Kennedy quote.

 

Everywhere I look in the world peaceful protests are being met with violent resistance by governments. Little being covered by mainstream media or news outlets on the internet. Where else does dissent go if you have 80 million people with no voice? The only place is supposed to be government and no one listens or cares.

Thanks for your rational comments.

 

This is fine until it is the man who holds the title of POTUS is inciting said 'dissent'. That is the point where I come to realise that the whine of 'I'm entitled to my opinion' and 'telling it like it is' is actually often an excuse for 'I want to be able to say and do inexcusable things without consequence because freedom of speech'. 

[Dahnsouff]

9 minutes ago, SO1 said:

I wasn't being in jest. People perceive the internet/twitter to be a place of free speech. Shut that down and its seen by me and others as an abuse of power and a shutting down of peaceful dissent. Slowly but surely dissent(anywhere) is being criminalized. That's whats behind my posting of the Kennedy quote.

 

Everywhere I look in the world peaceful protests are being met with violent resistance by governments. Little being covered by mainstream media or news outlets on the internet. Where else does dissent go if you have 80 million people with no voice? The only place is supposed to be government and no one listens or cares.

Thanks for your rational comments.

I hear you, and of course peaceful protests requesting change is to be applauded, but my issue comes from, in your scenario, what happens if 85 million offer an opposing standpoint to the 80 million?

Isn`t this where the US finds itself? This is exactly where the UK found itself with regards to Brexit  

[Guest SO1]

Just now, HighPeakFox said:

This is fine until it is the man who holds the title of POTUS is inciting said 'dissent'. That is the point where I come to realise that the whine of 'I'm entitled to my opinion' and 'telling it like it is' is actually often an excuse for 'I want to be able to say and do inexcusable things without consequence because freedom of speech'. 

This is beyond Trump. My fear is the big picture or how this works out for the person on the street.

After 9/11 I'm suspect of everything my government tries to control and then turns into a way to criminalize its citizens.

[Dunge]

37 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I've been having a thing about this having a right to use twitter because free speech argument and I'm starting to get behind it. 

 

After all, if we're saying that not having access to a twitter account is a free speech violation then that means the state has an obligation to ensure every man, woman and child is provided with a smartphone or tablet of some kind and reliable access to the internet since those are the minimum requirements for having access to twitter. Whether or not they sign up to a twitter account should still be entirely up to them, but not having the means to do so would be an infringement on their rights and their freedom of speech.

 

When can we get started on this?

You’re saying that you’re advocating a ToryTablet (TM)? :-)

[Guest SO1]

2 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

I hear you, and of course peaceful protests requesting change is to be applauded, but my issue comes from, in your scenario, what happens if 85 million offer an opposing standpoint to the 80 million?

Isn`t this where the US finds itself? This is exactly where the UK found itself with regards to Brexit  

But you at least have affordable Health Care.

There are millions who didn't vote for Trump or Biden who have a say in this as well. How this gets solved would be for the government to care for all its citizens. Franklin Roosevelt style would be a good start. Take that 740 billion we just gave to the military and look after the people . Not just the rich corrupt corporations and the people who enable them (lobbyists and elected representatives etc.).

 

Why can't our government do the right thing? Working people are fighting for their lives right now and have been since Reagan and Clinton flushed them down the toilet.

[Jon the Hat]

48 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

"If he did at all".

 

Arf.

I mean to say I haven't heard the speech so i am assuming he did.  Twitter he has certainly talked a lot of bullshit about the stolen election etc.  Whether in a court of law that would qualify I don't know.