US Politics Thread

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Where do you fit in this hierarchy Michael?

I’ve got a foot in both camps.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

actions have consequences

Not fucking long enough.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Some of the replies to that are pathetic.

This one in particular totally misses the point.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

actions have consequences

Embarrassing cunts

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

actions have consequences

That woman at 0:58 screaming 'IT HURTS!!!'. Tough sh*t. You don't like it, stop resisting arrest.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

actions have consequences

Here's another one...

 

[SWP's back]

You are doing what others are doing and conflating the issues because it is Trump.

The issue here is corporate over reach, not Trump per se.

No, the issue is Trump.

You’re attempting to add in hypotheticals that exist only in your head.

 

[SWP's back]

I am not and have not argued that at all.

I am arguing that a Corporation should not have the power to control political debate, because that is Oligarchy.

But they don’t have that power. They have the power to ban users that break their code of conduct which is what Trump did for 4 years. They only relented to public pressure when he tried to actually subvert democracy and incite insurrection.

And by you saying that Trump shouldn’t have been banned as he was elected, you ARE essentially saying that he should be allowed to do whatever he wants.

 

[metalblue]

So when we got our news from newspapers, did you complain about the moral outrage of editors choosing what stories made the grade?

If I say I want to rape your child, and stab you through the head, and I’m gonna do it, just you wait — what side of the “debate” is that?

And as always the “final solution” in the last paragraph is a totalitarian one. What happens if that “independent body” turns out to be, you know, not so “independent”? At least if I’m pissed off at Twitter I can communicate about a hundred other ways.

I’ve no beef with you but I think these questions are important.

You’ve proven my argument to a point. Newspapers and television is not independent and hasn’t been for as long as I can remember. My newspaper of choice back in the day was “The Independent” for that reason but last time I looked at it it went down the same route of its competitors. Even the FT has had moments of biased views.

The internet was supposed to give us cat videos and this non-regulated freedom of expression and has to a point, Twitters unilateral action is a step against that and one more toward that editorial approach. The upshot of that will be lefties using Twitter and normal people using Snapchat or similar.

If you want to come and do those things mate (and I know you don’t) then posting it on headstabbingchat.com is going to find a lot of likeminded people encouraging you to do it. But posting it on BM or Twitter will have people telling you to get help. Depriving you of that choice is to fail you.

Moreover we have laws in place about inciting violence and these should be the mechanism deployed not arbitrary bans.

I understand what you mean about an independent body may be influenced (subconsciously even) due to their own political beliefs but at least it allows us a way to identify dangerous individuals and deny them the space to spread their poison and is probably better than the alternatives. Corporate decisions will, after all, be governed by revenue and I imagine being an upcoming chat service you’d bend over backwards to suddenly have Trump on board and his 80m followers.

 

[SWP's back]

How do you think Twitter should have handled this specific incident that has actually happened?

He isn’t even aware of Trump’s specific tweets. That’s what makes his stance that ‘Twitter is wrong’ all the more ridiculous.