They went straight from his rally to Capitol hill. Ultimately his MO is edging very close to unacceptable and saying the right things to the right people to please his ego.
IMO he should've been banned from Twitter on the spot after he retweeted a video of a gut shouting white power at a bunch of black people
> I'm so done. If I cannot live in a country where a politician, of any background, cannot call on their supporters to protest
Calling on your supporters to protest is fine. Calling on your supporters to protest, with a pattern of all the protests becoming violent is less fine. At some point you become complicit in not enforcing the value of peace strongly enough. And when trump rewards violent people, and celebrates them, and encourages them, and then things turn violent, people see through the indirection.
And I'll note that the left doesn't have a pattern of a leader whose calls for protest reliably all turn violent. People protest outside Mitch mcconnell's house weekly, and they've never been violent. They don't give him peace, but they are peaceful. That's what democratic politicians encourage, and what they show they value, and so that's what happens.
> Unlike all the politicians I mentioned above, the moment Trump heard about the violent breakins,
Reports from wh sources indicate that he had to be forced to include statements like "stay peaceful" and "go home" in his tweets.
> Wich all protests are you referring to? IIRC most Trump rallies were overwhelmingly peaceful until now...
Rallies != protests. IN cases where the president has asked his supporters to confront other groups, be it the media, other politicians, etc. there is reliably violence.
But they called the rallies (the completely peaceful ones) dangerous white supremacist meetings. I am a brown man. They are none of those things. The hyperbole is astounding.
I don't believe I've seen the characterization of Trump's rallies as, specifically "dangerous white supremacist meetings". I have seen the characterzation of many of trump's followers as white supremacists though.
Can you cite an example (and preferably multiple, since you said "they") of the former, that his rallies are "dangerous white supremacist meetings", and not simply the latter?
If not, I think it's you who is engaging in hyperbole.
(I'll also note the difference in tone between Trump's address today from the Oval Office and his prior statements. Today, for the first time, he didn't speak out of both sides of his mouth when discussing violence from his supporters. He unequivocally denounced violence. The difference between "Stand back and stand by" and "Violence and vandalism have no place in our country and no place in our movement...no true supporter of mine could ever endorse political violence" is obvious. If his statements had been, from the beginning, that clear and unequivocal he would have faced far less criticism. I mean he clearly would have faced some, Biden faced criticism for repeated unequivocal denouncement of violence[0], from people to his right and left. I expect trump would have faced the same. But we probably wouldn't have had last Wednesday, and Trump probably wouldn't be facing down a second impeachment, nor enough upset Republican Senators that he might actually get convicted).
Where to? Nearly every country in the western world is far less absolutist when it comes to freedom of speech. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you'd find them far more socialist than you'd like too.
Those people over the summer were't protesting for Kamala Harris or Biden, dude. Try again. Like, they aren't even comparable. Trump told these people to gather, on a lie, and fed them nonsense.
Bringing up BLM as a counterpoint to these terrorists is the weakest argument I've heard in a long time. Whataboutism to the max. Pathetic. There is exactly 0 connection to the two events, yet you people seem to keep bringing it up to distract from the right-wing terrorism you seem to support.
Also, the looters during BLM were not connected to the message - they were thugs looking to take advantage. Not the same of last week. But, you must have known that, right? Since it's pretty basic knowledge. Ignorance is bliss, I guess, right?
Trump and friends talked about being defrauded ("stolen election!") for an hour, and then said "So we are going to--we are going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we are going to the Capitol, and we are going to try and give--the Democrats are hopeless, they are never voting for anything, not even one vote but we are going to try--give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help, we're try--going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue." (and then he took a limo back home to the White House), does that not sound like "let's intimidate them!"? And considering his audience, he must've known that they're ready for violence.
As grandparent post said, Trump never asks anyone directly to avoid breaking the law (he did something similar with Comey, and on the "find me 11780 votes!" phone call).
I think there are a few problems with this theory.
First, what Trump actually told the protestors on the 6th was to go peacefully. His plain language has been analyzed by qualified legal scholars and they conclude it does not meet the very high threshold of “fighting words”. [1]
Second, as we can clearly see, the attacks on the capital were planned well in advance of Trump’s speech and therefore could not have been incited by that speech in the first place.
Third, the violent protesters had already started breaching the capital while Trump was still speaking a mile away.
So I think there are important facts on the ground that do not support the allegation that Trump’s speech on the 6th incited a spontaneous mob.
I think you could argue that denial of the election result and false claims of election fraud — over many weeks and by many people including Trump — led in part to certain people to plan for violence on the 6th.
The people that planned and executed the violence should be charged with crimes and face a jury of their peers.
My understanding is that the laws against inciteful speech require the speech to result in imminent lawless action. If I listen to a podcast on Monday and decide to violently protest next week, the podcast would not be illegal speech.
> First, what Trump actually told the protestors on the 6th was to go peacefully. His plain language has been analyzed by qualified legal scholars and they conclude it does not meet the very high threshold of “fighting words”.
None of the major tests of whether speech is protected apply to the decontextualized plain language of the utterance in isolation, and the “fighting words” test is particularly non-germane here in any case, since it is a test that specifically relates to provocation of an audience hostile to one’s ideas, so you'd have to be either grossly incompetent or intensely dishonest to measure something suggested to be incitement of a friendly crowd to violence against a common enemy against it.
> Second, as we can clearly see, the attacks on the capital were planned well in advance of Trump’s speech and therefore could not have been incited by that speech in the first place.
That's...not how incitement works. It is not the case that once a a breach of the peace has been planned, encouragement immediately proximate to the planned breach to steal the nerves of either those who were in on the plan, or to fire up other susceptible persons in the area to join in, is no longer incitement. That's nonsense.
The only relevance that the prior planning has to incitement is that, if Trump knew about that planning, assessment of intent and reasonably forseeable effect of his words would have to be made in light of that knowledge.
> Third, the violent protesters had already started breaching the capital while Trump was still speaking a mile away.
Again, that's not how incitement works. The fact that a riot or other ongoing breach of the peace has begun doesn't make further immediate encouragement not incitement.
As with the last point, this is only relevant at all to the extent that, if Trump knew of it, assessment of his intent and the reasonably forseeable consequences of his action must be made with that knowledge in mind.
> The people that planned and executed the violence should be charged with crimes and face a jury of their peers.
Sure. That's not exclusive of accountability for incitement, whether by Trump or others.
> So I think there are important facts on the ground that do not support the allegation that Trump’s speech on the 6th incited a spontaneous mob.
No one made the allegation that Trump incited a spontaneous mob.
Yes, Trump’s speech clearly does not fall under “fighting words” which leaves only the even harder test (from Brandenburg) of speech that “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
> Saying things that foreseeably move some audience members to act illegally isn’t enough,” notes Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment specialist at UCLA Law School. “Speaking recklessly isn’t enough. The Court was well aware that speech supporting many movements — left, right, or otherwise — that merely moves the majority to political action may also lead a minority of the movement to rioting or worse. It deliberately created a speech-protective test that was very hard to satisfy.” [1]
If someone is already causing a pre-planned disturbance a mile away while you are speaking, it’s impossible to argue that the words were an incitement to imminent lawless action in that case. I’m not sure how you get around the fact that an imminent cause-effect relationship is a necessary component of this form of unprotected speech.
If the question is whether a political speech falls into the unprotected category of incitement to imminent lawless action, it’s highly probative to that specific charge if the lawless action was pre-planned and already occurring when you spoke.
An additional necessary element for incitement is intent. You would have to prove that Trump intended for his supporters to try to actually carry out a riot on that day, despite his calls for them to be peaceful, and how much he stood to lose (did lose) if (when) they were not.
To throw another question into the mix, if someone makes a rousing speech which rallies up a crowd, and then after the crowd takes a mile long walk they encounter an existing volatile situation like an ongoing riot, I’d be pretty surprised if the earlier speech can suddenly become illegal unprotected speech based on some true incitement to violence which happens later.
I certainly have never heard of any such case of speech that “got the ball rolling” but didn’t actually directly instruct a person or crowd to commit a specific illegal act.
> If someone is already causing a pre-planned disturbance a mile away while you are speaking, it’s impossible to argue that the words were an incitement to imminent lawless action in that case.
Its not if people hearing your words join in the disturbance. (There’s other ways it could, as well.) Again, the fact that a disturbance is under way does not make it impossible for someone to commit incitement with regard to that disturbance. Repeating the same false claim doesn’t make it any less false.
> First, what Trump actually told the protestors on the 6th was to go peacefully. His plain language has been analyzed by qualified legal scholars and they conclude it does not meet the very high threshold of “fighting words”. [1]
1. Language doesn't have to be illegal for it to break Twitter's TOS.
2. Language requires context. When Michael Corleone says "I don't want anything to happen to him while my mother's alive" everyone listening to those words understand exactly what they mean - that his brother's a few weeks away from ending up with a bullet in his head.
The context in this case has been weeks of crying from the rooftops about how the deep state is stealing the election from you, and that your boys should go to Capitol and do something about it. Meanwhile, your lawyer is shouting about how it's time for 'Trial by combat.'
I think it’s totally clear that in the court of public opinion Trump is guilty of inciting the riot.
In the context of a court of law, if we’re speaking about the actual limits of free speech in America, I think Trump’s speech does not meet the threshold.
So I’m not trying to make a political point, but I think there’s an interesting legal discussion to really understand that just because violence happens after a speech, or in this case concomitant to a speech, there’s still a very high bar - very direct language that has to be used for that person to be guilty of incitement in a court of law.
I completely agree it’s totally up to Twitter to decide to ban Trump from their platform. They likely don’t even have to give you a specific reason under their ToS. I wasn’t speaking about the Twitter ban in this case.
Lastly, I’d agree completely that context matters. Interestingly, the context of Giuliani’s “trial by combat” statement was discussing some hypothetical investigation that was supposed to happen over the next 10 days that they were going to “stake their reputation” on;
By that metric, I can point to many statements by many democrats, including the incoming Vice President, that 'directly incited' violence. This is a ridiculous standard. The double think is insane.
Yes! Thank you! And now the same politicians and reporters who said that are pretending to care for the police hurt in this riot and talking about how important law enforcement is.
Forgive me for believing that law enforcement protecting family businesses is 1000x more important than law enforcement protecting politicians.
EDIT: love the downvotes from people who believe torching family businesses, often immigrant ones, is cool! I'm telling you guys keep downvoting. You really look like the good guys.
What is wrong with you? Literally nobody is saying that.
Holding police accountable is something we should all get behind. Whatever it is you think the "other side" supports sounds like something you picked up from Breitbart. Get real man.
I agree we should hold police accountable, which is why I voted for whatever the BLM protestors asked for in my city of Portland. When they protested, I supported them. When they harassed mayor wheeler, I supported them.
When they started destroying local businesses, I didn't support them. I posted once on my next door to please let's all remain peaceful and stop the destruction of local small businesses, and was met with immediate condemnations of being racist. I got so many hate messages, despite being brown myself, that I eventually left next door, out of fear of doxxing.
When BLM then went and tagged Pelosi and McConnell's homes, I cheered them on. I don't mind seeing people harass politicians. I just don't want them destroying private citizen's stuff, or killing them when they defend it.
And I don't read Breitbart. I read Mother Jones and the New Yorker, and sometimes I read Breitbart when left wing people get outraged by their articles.
Or will we keep justifying direct justifications of violence, while ignoring the calls to peace spoken and written by Trump.
Honestly, I'm done at this point. I hope people like you keep saying what you're saying. You'll just convince more people, just like y'all have convinced me.
Here's vice interviewing a man who just shot a trump supporter and killed him. They did this after he had done so, but before he was turned over to police. Harboring a criminal is illegal: https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7g8vb/man-linked-to-killing...
EDIT: and just like I thought, from the downvotes, people actually agree with the direct calls to violence issued by these mainstream outlets that led to over 30 deaths this summr]er, and $2billion in damages, mainly to small businesses all over america. The lack of moral convictions on this forum is pathetic.
For the record, runit's code is in really bad shape.
It uses deprecated APIs, and also hasn't been updated from K&R C. There are a number of type warnings on 64-bit systems. The build system cannot be used for cross-compilation, and compiling/installing it is a disaster kind of generally.
Runit's licensing is all over the place, and its documentation is incomplete/inaccurate. It's been abandoned by its creator, as near as I can tell. I tried to get in touch with him a couple of years ago to offer some fixes, and got radio silence. There is no apparent way to contribute code to the project.
I've never used the busybox version, and so I can't speak to that one. But upstream runit has been a dead project for years, and badly needs to be forked by the distros that use it.
I use st, it's one of the best terminal emulators I've found, and I'm not going to stop using it just because some possibly-associated dev made a kinda-sorta-tasteless joke when they named some random server.
It's just a social event they did. Nothing to it. The conversation continued a bit with a discussion on what exactly what means with "cultural marxism", and it's not as bad as this snippet might make it appear. But can't add context lest people give the benefit of the doubt, ey?
I actually like suckless software and I'm a little (lot) annoyed by the overwhelming "sides" of politics, especially the left because a lot of US tech comes from a left wing belief and sometimes people online beat me over the head with it and make me annoyed.
But, to be clear, there are three things here:
1) They're doing a Tiki Torch walk, during a time when it was heavily politicised.
2) They're adapting Nazi slogans as hostnames
3) They're denigrating "Cultural Marxism".
Any one of these alone I would probably defend, but 3 is a pattern and not a good one.
> 1) They're doing a Tiki Torch walk, during a time when it was heavily politicised.
No it wasn't; just in the US. Not everyone in the world is obsessed with the latest drama in the US.
I've done many torchwalks with scouts. In fact, they're used to celebrate the end of the Nazi occupation in my home town every single year on Sept 18th. Should we stop doing this because some yahoos on the other side of the world used some torches in some far-right march? This is "Hitler has a moustache, you have a moustache, ergo you must be a Nazi"-kind of logic.
> 2) They're adapting Nazi slogans as hostnames
A private server belonging to a single person, not the project. I have asked him plainly and directly about that and he avoided the question. I am also not impressed by this, but that doesn't make him a Nazi, and it certainly doesn't make everyone involved in the project a Nazi.
> 3) They're denigrating "Cultural Marxism".
A single person is (same one as the hostname). And like I said, there is a lot more to that conversation than the screenshot makes it out to be as there was a lot of confusion about what's intended with "cultural marxism". I really recommend you read the entire conversation in full, and while I don't personally agree with their take, it's also really not that bad.
>No it wasn't; just in the US. Not everyone in the world is obsessed with the latest drama in the US
In Germany the association between fascism and torch marches is even stronger and absolute a political symbol, it's an unambigious symbol that nobody adopts accidentally, and it is a contemporary political issue. So called 'Fackelmärsche' by far-right fraternities and far-right groups have been an issue over recent years.(https://www.dw.com/en/germany-torch-wielding-neo-nazis-march...)
Where do you think American Neo-Nazis get their symbolism from? The US invents a lot of culture, but this one is sadly on us.
So everyone walking with a torch in Germany is a Nazi...? You can find many images of people doing exactly that in Germany with a cursory internet search. The Nazis appropriated many existing symbols and customs, but that doesn't make the entire symbolism or custom automatically "Nazi". Neo-Nazis use Norse mythological symbols too. Other people just like Norse mythology. Context is everything, and the context here is most certainly not one of "a torch march protest". Not everyone who shaves their head is a Nazi skinhead either, nor is everyone who wears army boots.
I wasn't there. Maybe they were talking about the "final solution" for the Jews. I don't think they were, but there is no way for me to know for certain. But lacking any evidence of this, I find such a grave accusation based on such incredibly thin evidence – especially when stated like it's almost a certainty – deeply troubling.
Nazis wear trousers. My boss wears trousers. So my boss must be a Nazi.
Torch walks are not exclusively associated with or invented by the far right. They were adopted by the far right from pre-existing traditions in the regional cultures.
The same person has also given a talk on their conference with the title "OpenBSD supremacy", which seems like an oddly specific choice of words (though it could also be the result of English as a second language).
Even unrelated to Charlottesville torch walks generally have right wing connotations, as it was a traditional show of force by the Nazis. In Germany these days you mostly see them done as right wing rallies. As one data point, here[0] you can see NPD members calling for protest holding torches (during broad daylight).
The torches are used as a symbol - might be nothing, but paired with speaking out against cultural marxism it's more likely to be intentional than it otherwise would be.
I don't know, but I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt since the mail server is fairly explicit if true.
I looked it up on wikipedia. But it was like learning monads from wikipedia. It's a dense nest of jargon that just leaves me wondering which way is up if I spend more than a few minutes following links.
Speech should have limits, but calling anything that took place on parler automatically 'hate speech' so contemptible that it ought to result in banning along with everything else on that site is ridiculous. There have been few instances of truly censorship-worthy speech over the past year, from either left or right.
It's not surprising, and it's disingenuous to accuse people of apathy. In several flu seasons, hospitals have been overwhelmed, tent beds set up, etc, and most people don't care because the flu is 'normal'. COVID is becoming 'normal', which is good, because it's not going away, so we all need to learn to deal with it.
This is like accusing those in the 50s for being apathetic about polio, because they didn't upend their entire life to protect their children from this incredibly deadly and disfiguring disease. When humans are confronted with a problem they simply cannot meaningfully prevent, they tend to ignore it and get on with their lives.
Fascism is quite literally the merger of corporations with government (see corporatism [1]). In non-Nazi Fascist countries, such as proto-fascist pre-Anschluss Austria and Mussolini's Italy, the government was organized such that individuals and 'stakeholders' (i.e., companies, unions, and guilds) were given a say in government. In interviews with NYT journalists, this is the eventual structure that even Adolf Hitler also had in mind after the revolution was through [3].
Yesterday, we saw the American corporate board take actions that used to be the sole purview of a government. They did this at a time while the current administration (the one they harmed) pursues anti-trust lawsuits against them. This is a clear blurring in the distinction between the incoming administration's government and corporations. The incoming administration would do best to criticize the banning of their opposition. Not only would it make them look like they're taking the 'higher road', it would put them in line with other major liberal western powers, such as Germany, France, etc, all of whom have condemned what happened yesterday. However, instead, we have seen the embrace of these corporate actions by the new congress. It is especially concerning when the incoming president took more donations than his opposition from large corporations [2].
This is very concerning, and -- unlike the constant doom-predictions of 'fasciscm' of the last four years, which have been made without any attention paid to the history of fascism -- brings us closer to actual fascism -- that is to say, the merger of corporations, unions, and government -- than any action of the last four years. That is not to say we're Nazi Germany by any means (for that we'd have to start injecting the language of racial superiority into the picture), but I just want to point this out. The number of people cheering uncritically (especially those in government) is incredibly concerning.
"Asked if, after four years or twenty years of dictator ship, he foresaw the resumption of parliamentary government in Germany, the Chancellor [Hitler] paused: 'Yes,' he said finally, 'but with a Parliament of another and better type, in which representation will be on a technical basis. Such a development is the Italian corporative State.' (this is what I reference above on Wikipedia)
I often find myself disagreeing with your views, but in this case I mostly agree.
I'm open to ideas of how to best deal with extremist thought (and subsequent action), and I do feel simply arguing that speech should be fully free is nice but a tad too reductive and dogmatic.
Whatever my thoughts on what we /should/ do, I feel what's happening now is way too knee-jerk and a possible lead-up to policy that just gives 'the powers that be' more power, and that's worrying.
I have never said that speech should be fully free. I do have criteria that would be used to censor speech. However, neither the sixth riots or the summer riots had many actors whose speech I believe ought to have been banned.
For example, while I believe the democratic party spurred on or sat back in silence while BLM and Antifa rioted, most democratic politicians did not do anything that deserves censorship. Even Kamala Harris's financial support of those who looted and destroyed police stations in Minneapolis should not be censored -- the bail she asked for was a completely legal thing to provide.
As for the sixth, Trump's posts were entirely peaceful. He consistently asked for a peaceful demonstration. There are those claiming that using phrasing like 'fight' or 'take your country back', etc, incite violence. I do not believe that for one minute. Banning the opposition from saying they should 'fight' the incumbents or 'take the country back' from them seems incredibly dangerous. Even such colorful language as asking for politicians heads on a platter should not be banned (I recall several incidences of twitter accounts depicting Trump's beheading).
Politics in general leads to strong emotions. People have strong emotions over politicians. English has lots of colorful language for people we don't like. I believe the standards for 'violence' against politicians ought to be much lower than for calling for violence against people, especially non-governmental agents. For example, I do believe some of the BLM incitement of anger that instructed people to burn or loot local businesses (especially when that anger and mob then led to deaths), ought to have been soundly condemned, and I believe twitter should have flagged it and taken some measures to punish the account (although I still think outright censorship for one post would be overkill).
This is because these posts direct anger indiscriminately at people of a certain class, not one specific person who may actually have power. I find those kinds of posts highly problematic, and those would be the first I would censor, but again, I think we have seen only a handful of those over the past year. Certainly, I don't think any major politician has reached that bar.
So no, I do not believe in no censorship ever, I just have very open standards as to what speech to allow that would mainly have me allowing the vast majority of speech. I am not going to tighten my standards simply because left-wingers find them distasteful or want to accuse me of being a free speech zealot. I've stood on these same principles since when I was a democrat, and I'll stand on them now.
If it is an extremist thought it is better to know who is saying what than cutting off communication completely and hoping the problem goes away. But this has to go along with society coming together and addressing the problem firsthand. Is the extremist thought because of a mental illness? Is it some monetary issue driving such thoughts? Is it social issues that is driving such thoughts? Is it religion? The thoughts by themselves are immaterial unless the individual is a psychopath. Many turn extremist because of an underlying cause which I call the "root cause". Attack the root cause. That'll fix the person. For how long will society keep ignoring this aspect of human beings? Unless you dedicate funding towards tackling such issues you'll get to no where. By shutting off communications you haven't shut off these thoughts that crop up in an extremists mind. Al Qaeda existed before internet was even a thing. We have had genocides when technology did not exist. All throughout human history. It always has been bloody. On the contrary, I can argue that we are at a much better place than we were in the past many thousand years. So to only blame technology for spread of misinformation is disingenuous. Before technology existed misinformation spread rapidly through word of mouth but there was no way to cross check it. Today you have that ability to cross verify. You just need to give time to people to get used to this.
But once you introduce Censorship there is no turning back. Once authority tastes power they'll want to keep using it more and more. Just like Surveillance, Censorship will become a powerful tool in the hands of the powerful. It always starts with a valid justification.
What part of Trump's policies are extremist? I ask this question honestly. None of his policies are extremist in the slightest. Even the mob on the sixth are just crazy supporters. Trump instructed them to be peaceful repeatedly, even while they were doing it. I understand that he is brusque and has a brash personality, but I cannot understand what it is about him that makes him more extreme than any other previous US president. I just do not understand.
This is an incredibly honest question. I typically ask it, people give me examples, and then I think back to previous presidents in my lifetime (none of whom I've supported, mind you), and can recall pretty much equivalent situations. Then the person I speak with gets angry and walks away really mad at me for what feels like simply remembering things that have happened in my life. I cannot understand it, and frankly, the simple refusal of people to actively engage has made me go from not liking Trump for his personality, to honestly finding him a hero. Please, will someone calmly explain to me what is extreme about Trump's policies?
I don't label Democrat policies as extreme despite no longer being part of that party and not agreeing with any of them. I don't understand the hyperbole.
I don't find his policies extremist. On the contrary I feel he did more for minority upliftment than any other US President in modern times.
I have always supported Trump over here when no one was coming out in his support. Got down voted heavily too. You can see my comments to know where I stand on this. In fact, he is the least extreme US President I have seen till date.
No matter what the majority thinks I have personally looked into policies that Trump has gotten pushed either through his executive orders or through the Congress and every single policy I have agreed to. I'm not even an American. I'm an Indian. Trump has targeted India when it comes to trade and imposed tariffs. Quite frankly I feel he was completely in the right for doing so. The deficit between our countries was too huge in terms of trade and it needed to be balanced out. There is a time and place for jingoism but not when truth is staring in your face. So you'll find more people in India pro-Trump than you'll find even in America perhaps. We can't forget his help in making sure China comes around and removed the block on UN sanctions against terrorist Maulana Masood Azhar. Obama couldn't get it done as China never took him seriously. Trump got it done. You can read more about it here: https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.economictimes.com/news/intern...
But I would definitely call the ones who stormed US Capitol as insurrectionists. There is no excuse for that behaviour. If at all, it damaged Trump more than it helped him. I mean the entire premise of Trump supporters being different from left-wing supporters was one knows to protest peacefully while the other indulges in riots and arson. I was extremely disappointed when I saw it go out of hand at the US Capitol. This is not what I expected. But nevertheless it happened and cannot be reversed.
I'm the child of indian immigrants. My parents adored trump in 2016, I was meh because all my friends told me he was a white supremacist. I thought my parents had gone mad. But then I saw that nothing my friends claimed actually came true and in fact trump governed like any other republican but way better because he didn't exclude people due to culture war issues and he didn't warmonger and brought peace.
But what really redpilled me was the impeachment farce where he literally was impeached for investigating his predecessor for crimes we now know occurred. That sends a very chilling message.
> I'm the child of indian immigrants. My parents adored trump in 2016, I was meh because all my friends told me he was a white supremacist. I thought my parents had gone mad. But then I saw that nothing my friends claimed actually came true and in fact trump governed like any other republican but way better because he didn't exclude people due to culture war issues and he didn't warmonger and brought peace.
Exactly right. Thanks for keeping an open mind and not getting caught up in this frenzy of opposing Trump just for the heck of it. I can understand how hard it is to be in America right now and be a Trump supporter.
> But what really redpilled me was the impeachment farce where he literally was impeached for investigating his predecessor for crimes we now know occurred. That sends a very chilling message.
Absolutely right. I can't believe people are unable to see this. I guess their hatred for Trump is to such an extent that they are willing to live in a fascist state where every part of their life is controlled by decisions of Government in collusion with Big Tech. It is so obvious yet it evades most people I discussed with over here. Everyone is cheering the advent of censorship. It is surreal!
Exactly. It's so unbelievable that people don't realize that the USA has been a fascist police state since the days of slave patrols allying with banks and sheriffs, just like today's police allying with chambers of commerce and police unions. By focusing so much on which party the fascists belong to, and ignoring the bigger pattern of corporate money flowing into a multitude of different politicians, we're missing out on structural improvements that could actually make a difference in how free the typical person gets to be. It seems like everybody is thinking that things have changed when they are still the same. Disappointing!
Precisely. It's unbearable to think that the USA has been building a corporatist empire over the past century and change, built upon the backs of abused laborers and assassinated politicians. By constantly propping up banana republics and dictators, and funding neocolonial industrialization projects in developing nations, the USA crushes citizen-driven attempts at socialism and humanism. Horrific!
Indubitably. It's hilarious and saddening to realize that startup culture contributes to rising corporatism and capitalism, by focusing on the production of new entrepreneurs and businesses rather than the investment of wealth into the laboring people who produced it. By positioning itself as a politically neutral group, YC is able to use HN as a magnet to polarize unwitting programmers into believing in a meritocracy where they are better than other people, and foster a culture of contributing to corporations. Abusive!
I'm unsure if you think that I'm supposed to disagree with you. I really don't. YC is incredibly toxic. I let the scales fall off my eyes on that one. When I first graduated university and started reading hacker news, I had a dream to build a business with YC. I no longer have any interest in doing business with them (would rather bootstrap myself), and only remain on here because of the interesting tech articles.
The 1st amendment does not apply to private entities. The first amendment is a law restricting only Congress.
'Freedom of speech', however, is not the 1st amendment. It is an ethical precept, not a law. It's like how 'don't cheat on your wife' doesn't mean you get thrown in jail, but you'll generally be seen as a 'bad guy'.
I am glad Poland is doing something, but I'm not sure I like this bill either. This is just censorship by another name.
I think we need to make a distinction -- as the US Supreme Court did -- between large, publicly held corporations and small closely held corporations. In Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court said that only closely held corporations (those held by a small, definable number of people) had freedom of religion and association. That is their justification for why Hobby Lobby did not need to provide BC coverage. Because it was owned only by one small family, forcing them to take the revenue (which they own) to pay would directly violate the religious beliefs of that small number of people.
On the other hand, Amazon does not have freedom of religion, because Amazon has thousands of shareholders with no universal religious inclination. A fundamentalist christian owner of Amazon stock cannot reasonably ask Amazon to stop paying for birth control.
But, I've only thought about this for a few hours. I'm interested in what other policies can be implemented to serve both the rights of hosts and the rights of content creators.
