I am a solid Trump Supporter. I have been to several Trump Rallies. I, personally, did not go to DC - though i wanted to. None of the Trump Rallies that I attended, were like DC, no bad dudes at any of them, instead friendly smiling people). I have been a Rush Limbaugh follower (Proud Ditto Head, Mega Dittos) since 1989. I donated hundreds to Trump, and still want him to pull a rabbit out of the hat, and stick it to the dem cheaters. ONWARD TO MY QUESTION.
I strongly believe in FREE SPEECH (1st Amendment). I have watched "No Safe Spaces" - excellent movie, and both Conservatives and Liberals in the movie strongly support the following statement:
THE SPEECH THAT NEEDS TO BE PROTECED THE MOST, IS THE SPEECH THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH, THE SPEECH THAT YOU DO NOT LIKE.
I agree with that 100% - ^ that the speech that should be protected the most, is that which we strongly disagree. It is easy to show support for Speech that we like.
ππ’ππ‘ ππ‘ππ π¬ππ’π: ππ ππππππππ:
ππππππ ππππππ πππππ πππππ πππππ πππ πππππ π ππππ πππ ππ ππππ ππ ππππππ πππ ππ ππππππππ?
There is a part of me that says YES. (Twitter, Parler, FB, TDW, etc) needs to allow for that (GATHER FOR VIOLENCEA). If not, then it becomes a SLIPPERY SLOPE - as to WHAT else you do NOT allow. And WHO decides.
Personally, I am 1000% AGAINST VIOLENCE.
Part of my reason is that a close friend from high school (40 years ago), her daughter and son-in-law work for Amazon. This friend is a huge Conservative. But they (she, her daughter, son-in-law) do not condone violence. Therefore, they support Amazon de-platforming Parler. I srtongly disagree with her about Amazon and Parler (as well as Google Play Store, and Apple App Store removing Parler).
Personally, I am 1000% AGAINST VIOLENCE.
And I believe that most (if not all) of the DC Violence was Antifa or Anti-Trump people.
Even the TDW Admin Post today mentions not wanting to have posts for Violence.
Therefore, I am torn. If we agree, and disallow Posts about Violence. Then, we are, in part, forgiving Amazon for removing Parler. (if there is evidence that planning occurred on Parler)
The easiest argument for me, for us, is to conclude that ALL of the violence in DC was Anti-Trumpers. I'm not convinced that there were none (zero) Trump Supporters who would participate in Violence (or did break into the Capital). I want to believe that all the bad characters were Antifa - but what it we are wrong (and some of them ARE Trump Supporters).
Please don't just make condescending remarks. If you don't like my question, then don't post. I AM LOOKING FOR SINCERE RESPONSES.
THANKS.
Concerning the Capitol the biggest tragedy I see is the alarming censorship of it, simply attending it people are listed as terrorists regardless of If they committed acts of violence and doing so makes people afraid to post evidence of what actually went on.
As far as I've heard I can't say for sure it's all true due to all the recent censorship (first amendment is first for a reason) the violence portion of it was instigated by Antifa, though likely had real supporters in there as well, and somehow during the event some Q followers got told to steal Pelosi's hard drive during the chaos and bring it to special forces, combined with videos going around of Antifa training for the event and the "security" opening the doors wide open it was obviously a planned oppression the general Trump supporters had no knowledge of.
I condemn all violence of that event, but many are being persecuted for it that had nothing to do with it
Making threats of violence or participating in conspiracy to commit violent acts is actually against the law, so platforms should be deleting that content as fast as they are able. That doesn't mean those platforms should be held responsible for what some random users do. That's like saying any hotel you sleep in is responsible for something illegal you do while staying there, like arresting the hotel manager because a guest used cocaine in the room. Stupid and unfair.
I say we must allow it. But nothing says they need to mix in with everyone else in virtual forums. Want to LARP your rage filled fantasies? Fine, into the ragemonkey bucket you go, along with your fellow ragemonkeys. Gives the FBI and ATF a nice centralized place to focus on watching for any monkey who decides to act on their rage. Same with other unsavory types. The reality is, we do this unconsciously when we meet people as well. We file them into mental buckets: Pervert. Pedo. Crazy person. Criminal. Hoopy frood I'd totally have a beer with. Hot. Not so hot. ...nice personality. "Off" in some way. Like me. Totally not like me good. Totally not like me bad.
We all do this subconsciously, and it's a pretty well documented phenomenon. So why not embrace it?
like you said, slippery slope. If I owned a "townhall/village square" type platform, I would give people the options to ban speech they personally didn't want to hear. I'd make it a personal choice. But I wouldn't ban the actual speech (I would ban pictures and CP suggested material tho.)
I read and understand your post.
But think of this: what did we do BEFORE social media? Did anyone feel threatened speaking their mind?
Answer: no! Face to face was the way they were worked out. Fists May have been involved- but the issue stayed EXACTLY where it should have: 2 people who either agree to disagree, or settle it.
Social media has enabled MOB mentality, pot stirring, and legitimate hatred for people we donβt know. I would suggest sharing INFORMATION over opinion is more valuable.
like you said, slippery slope. If I owned a "townhall/village square" type platform, I would give people the options to ban speech they personally didn't want to hear. I'd make it a personal choice. But I wouldn't ban the actual speech (I would ban pictures and CP suggested material tho.)
If I had the skill I would make a site where you can create your own ban list or subscribe other people's ban lists. The number of people on your ban list is your rating on the site. So the higher the number of people you have banned the higher your intolerance score. People with less people on their ban list get pushed to the top. I know there are probably a million holes in this idea and people will game the system. Other than that only content that was actually illegal would be banned.
As long as itβs legal speech is the rule. Go to gab, fuck parler. Calls to violence, harassment and doxxing are illegal.
Thatβs the argument. No concession at all. All legal speech.
I can wave my fist around all I want and until I hit you Iβm not doing anything illegal, although many states have fighting words laws or ample self defense laws too be proactive in defense instead of reactive. Wave your fists around the wrong person in the right states and theyβll start swinging and wonβt be considered the aggressor.