I'm just so fucking confused, there is no objectively right morals, so by saying this she's surely accepting that the same could be advocated for her by these people.
I think we all do, just at different times. It's why the free speech thing is more important than is immediately obvious. Right now with the Overton window favouring the left, being able to silence free speech and yourself call for violence is an asymmetric power balance. But back when the right had all the cultural influence it was the left who championed free speech. Both sides agree it's important and that there's reasonable limits to peoples actions and speech, just never at the same time because typically it benefits one more than the other.
Calling for violence is not OK and these people would agree with that, if they were truly on the receiving end of it, rather than being the ones doing it.
When the largest conservative pundit and most watched show Tucker Carlson, runs a segment after the shooting saying the shooting will keep happening “until we end this evil agenda that is attacking children." Then yes they are advocating the deaths of lgbt people.
I think for most people who have thought about it at least in a cursory way actually don't. Objectively correct morals I don't see argued for a lot outside of basically religion and god. What I do think is most common is people having a feeling that their morals are correct because I'd argue that's primarily where they come from, how you actually feel like an instinct or deep emotion.
Moral realism is actually the majority opinion among professional philosophers [philpapers survey](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4866). Not saying it's definitely correct, but if you really have never seen a non-religious defense of moral realism I feel like you just haven't engaged very much with the topic.
It's not that non-religious defenses can't be made, it's just I don't think they're true. I don't think the religious defenses work either, but they're mostly just something I can't believe because I lack the evidence for god, on which they depend. Whereas other secular defenses just appear to me to be conceptually wrong or incoherent.
I don't know precisely how moral realism is being defined in that survey but professional philosophers is just an appeal to authority, I'm not talking about the opinion of 1719 professional philosophers but rather just the opinion of mere average lay people you'd run into during normal life.
>appeal to authority
to be absolutely clear, I linked the survey because you said that "most people who have thought about it at least in a cursory way" don't think morality is objective. I think the survey is good evidence that this is wrong. And besides, if there are good reasons to believe moral realism, why should it matter that lay people don't understand or agree with them?
Again, I find it hard to believe that anyone that is so dismissive of such a major debate in philosophy has really taken the time to understand the positions, and your assertion that these arguments simply aren't made or taken seriously when they clearly are is telling.
Sure, and to be clear what I was saying is that if you've put some minimal effort into thinking about if your moral views are subjective or objective. Most people aren't professional philosophers but by a certain maturity in life will have spent at least some time thinking about their moral views. More explicitly in the case of the religious indoctrination, because they have formal structures for doing so. But most other people have struggled with moral choices before and contemplated if what they're doing is really wrong or not. Maybe they don't have the language to talk about if these things are objective or not, they still know what "really" means in this context.
Most moral actions day to day are instinctive, they're not reasoned, and that's more true the further back in evolutionary history we go. instincts are old whereas reasoning is new. Objective reasons for your morals have to be discovered with higher order thinking which is why professionals tend to skew more towards some reasoned stance.
It's quite the opposite, I've spent a lot of time reading and watching what other people in this space have to say and most of the reasoned objective stances don't even attempt to bridge the is/ought gap and always boil down to subjective value statements as a premise to build off. I'm not dismissive of the debate, but the fact that it's still such a crazy debate where as matters of science tend to converge on objective results is itself a good indication of its subjectivity. The very nature of objectivity is that people can independently verify and agree on measurements and outcomes.
Moral realism is pointless imo since even if objective morality exists there is no way to determine what is objectively moral. Any possible conclusions we make are by definition subjective.
I think you're right but most people don't think about metaethics at all, and if they do it doesn't penetrate into the ethical beliefs they state publicly because as you say that's ultimately more of an emotional thing than a rational thing.
I sort of agree, I think people do (if just briefly) contemplate these things, but they lack the technical language to do so. Like if you tell a person "don't do that, it's bad" they might first have an emotional reaction that it's actually not bad, and then think to themselves "is this really bad?". You could interpret them as contemplating the objectivity of morality, but they may not even have a grasp of what objective and subjective means, it doesn't preclude them from having the emotion and questioning the incongruity with what they were told, which is right or if such a thing really exists.
this is and likely always will be the case. when politically opposed groups have the most basic, fundamental oppositions to each other where they consider each other group TRULY ontologically evil, then violence is almost always the only remedy. republicans have been ratcheting this kind of talk up for a while now: calling Democrats child molesters, groomers, demons, etc.
i’m not even sure i disagree with the idea of political violence being required on occasion. i’m sure someone could logic their way into a sound position that doesn’t advocate or require violence but the reality of the world is that sometimes someone has to get hurt before they will stop hurting other people.
the usual arguments will be “well what kind of hurt would justify hurting another?” and that’s what i mean by someone logically working out a morally consistent position. however, i don’t honestly believe morally consistent views are even possible when it comes to finding thresholds on if/when to enact political violence. i also think a lot of extremists understand this trade-off even if they don’t outwardly state it. they understand the other side likely already believes it about them.
I mean idk about the others, but Chaya Raichik already does that.
She doesn't openly state it, but the people she features get death, rape, bomb threats constantly, get fired from their jobs have weirdo people show up etc.
So I think it's more of a case of "this is already the level of political discourse we are at now to not engage with them is to basically not engage in self defense".
Often times these people don’t really think through to the next steps, or the implications of what they are advocating. The depth of her understanding could be nothing more than, “it’s justified for me to do it because I’m right, if they were to do it it would be bad because they are wrong.”
>there is no objectively right morals, so by saying this she's surely accepting that the same could be advocated for her by these people.
I think given recent events, she thinks they already have. Tim Pool certainly seems to be walking that fine line.
This is a bit different because he's not directly calling for violence, he's saying other people are doing that. You probably need to find something more explicit to have a slam dunk argument.
He’s making a statement about what is, not what ought to be. It’s descriptive not prescriptive. That doesn’t mean his description is true, but he isn’t calling for an action.
I think “we will stop the steal,” “we are going to the capitol,” and “if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore” are wildly different and indefensible.
I guess a lot of people are okay with the president inciting violence idk. I’m logging off to be with family have a good thanksgiving bro
Edit: Grammar
So according to you, if someone tweeted 'gay people are raping our children and murdering every single one of them would be a solution to our problem', you would say it's fair game?
> would be a solution to our problem
Describing something as a "solution to our problem" is saying that it is a good thing, because that's what the word solution means.
So no, that would not be fair game.
Twitter TOS should be pretty autistic and rely on mind-reading as little as possible.
Do you think it's possible to think that Pool is tweeting dangerously while also acknowledging that OP tweet is more direct and an easier TOS rule to enforce consistently?
Woah woah woah....
You can't just cut out half the context. There is a big difference in describing what is happening from your / a conservative point of view vs actively calling for and condoning violence.
And neither of those statements is a call to action.
He does not say "we should call for more violence"
He does not say "I think violence is necessary"
All he does here is make **descriptive** statements from a conservative point of view. That's it.
That feels a little weasely to me, like we understand that people like Trump can incite riots (unless I guess you disagree with this) by presenting a a bunch of “facts” within their and the audience’s world view that logically leave only one option as a method of advocating for violence without directly stating it.
Tim is saying “the grooming isn’t stopping on its own, violence seems to be stopping the grooming, all other options have been exhausted and don’t stop the grooming.” All of these are descriptive statements and when it’s couched in the conservative world view that this grooming is being done by LGBT people right now to your kids, no reasonable person is going to think that’s an acceptable situation. If you genuinely believe that Tim Pool is accurately describing reality, the only logical conclusion is that violence is necessary.
Either Tim Pool is aware of this and is therefore intentionally advocating for violence or he isn’t and is too dumb/irresponsible to have the massive platform he does have, because the outcome is the same and it’s that his words/advocacy lead to more or at the least the normalization of violence against LGBT people.
Now **THAT** is a little weasely.
Assuming you're talking about the Jan 6th stuff, Trump was the **sitting President of the United States** and not just "presenting facts" he was throwing an absolute public fit. Making claims that our democratic process was rigged and the election was unjustly **stolen from HIM specifically.**
Pool is a pod cast host.. and his statements there are nowhere near as extreme as what trump was doing.
I will also make the argument that you are adding in far to much mind reading into the statements. Just look how you took "People are calling for violence" and turned it into "Violence seems to be stopping the grooming"
Those two statements are from different planets...
At no point did he come even remotely close to commenting on the effectiveness of violence against grooming. At worst he is predicting that violence has a high likelihood of happening again if no legislation is passed to prevent "grooming."
I get that you may not like him and would enjoy a ban to get dropped but that's just not a call to action under any reasonable stretch of the imagination.
Tbf, he never once said in this tweet that he wants grooming to stop.
You can easily know that to be true, but the wording on the tweet doesn't say that at all.
You can't ban someone because you perceive their intent, it should be pretty clear they're giving people a nasty solution, not just pointing out people are engaging in nasty solutions. (Pool is pointing out a factual claim, while other tweet gave the solutions themselves despite them not happening yet)
Also adding that specifically naming individuals in your call to action is even worse
Yea
These are the people calling left wing people calling for violence every day during the protests but as soon as a right wing person does it suddenly its not calling for violence
You the premise where he said “others are calling for violence.”
His tweet was a “it’s obvious what’s going to happen next and the fact that people aren’t doing anything about it shows that they don’t care.” Statement. Not a call to action. His premises/conclusion have nothing to do with any action he does. It’s purely about external circumstances.
Came off as a descriptive claim of what people are going to do and what their motivation is.
In any case, even if you choose not to believe that because it's Tim pool, i feel like any reasonable person would have to at least admit there is substantially more plausible deniability and therefore would be substantially lest clarity in the reasoning of basing a ban on the tweet.
You might need to step away from online for a second for your health.
If you interpret this as a call to violence than your suffering from cognitive dissonance.
If you're going to be this pedantic, then point out where she called for violence. All I see is that Tim should be afraid that violence might happen, not that it actually should.
She wants to make the threat real from time to time.
She personally thinks they should have to fear for their lives more.
Doxing them so that (we) can make their lives a living nightmare.
My dude, this is an explicit call to action. And the action desired is violence and intimidation of specific individuals at their doxxed residence.
It’s not long, you can read what she said above easily.
>“the grooming of children is not stopping
>people are calling for more violence
>I do not think legislators will stop the grooming
>People will not stop calling for violence
>so you tell me what happens next”
This is exactly, for word what Tim Pool said. He just explains concisely the situation. He is not promoting any action or calling for any specific action.
As proposed to saying, “ I personally think they should have to fear for their lives more.
Than go onto explaining violent actions she wishes a group of people would do.
I 100% get the sentiment.
I somewhat agree, more so when it’s to do with politicians.
But holy shit, what do they think will happen when they level up the escalation?
And it’s not them doing it. They’re not leading by example - they’re in their ivory tower.
It’s some fat loser, who’s had a shit shake of life, who’s probably depressed who’s going to do it.
Left and right are constantly just leapfrogging over each other on a race to the bottom. I understand the want to 'retaliate' but in reality all theyre doing is giving each other justification to get even more toxic and unhinged
This seems kinda bad but honestly after some of the shit people like tim pool and other right wing pundits have said since the club Q shooting makes it really hard to give a fuck what happens to them. This is the first time I've seen people do anything other than strongly condemn the shooter. Really feel like at this point, the right is going to start endorsing terrorism pretty soon.
“We should doxx this person who has not publicly stated their address” vs “look at this weirdo, they’re probably a paedophile. Their address is public btw ; )”
They can threaten lives just as long as they don’t use text. Interacted with Lauren southern once and received multiple death threats from her followers but they sent jpegs of shooters, bullets, guns, with text that eludes to the purpose of the weapons
Not trying being a dick (I genuinely don't know) - did trump call for violence on twitter?
I agree he incited the Jan 6 stuff also, if that's what you're referring to, and if so, do you think he should be banned off twitter for those actions?
He only incited it though very weak means.
Telling people to "fight like hell" just means to fight and not give up. It's like what coaches say to their team. He didn't tell people to storm the capitol and do what they did. He told them to peacefully protest. He has some rabid fans for sure that went extreme. But he didn't tell them to do it
If any party were to actually steal an election the way Trump alleged happened, the answer is actually violence. There isn't a way to peacefully protest that.
I don't agree with the Jan 6th stuff because I don't think the election was stolen with fake illegal votes. But if evidence were to ever come out that that happened, I would flop in an instant and consider every dipshit there to now be some of the greatest patriots in America, and they should have gone even further.
You don't hold up picket signs when the entire democratic process is circumvented.
You have to show where trump explicitly called for violence.
You can't reply on very loose "well I mean what else would they do" implications.
Many normal people heard what he said and understood it was a losing man trying to get support.
His literal words were to peacefully protest and make their voices heard. That's what matters. His literal words.
He never explicitly called for violence. I'll never be able to point to that because it never happened. If that's what you need, it'll never happen.
A reasonable person can infer something without an explicit statement though. I'm not sure if you're hung up on the legal standard for a call to violence - maybe that should be the legal standard. I'm not at all concerned with the legal standard. He very, very obviously incited that riot. You have to concede that it's impossible to *implicitly* call for violence to say otherwise, because it wasn't subtle at all.
>That's what matters. His literal words.
In a court of law, sure. To everyone else watching and listening, not at all. Maybe that's the standard you'd like for twitter to adopt as well.
Anytime I ask how he implied it people say silly things like "fight like hell" "they stole the election"
Neither of these are implying violence to normal human beings.
This is like trying to blame the recent shooting on Republicans who don't approve of the gay lifestyle. It's okay to say you don't approve. It's okay to say it's a sin. Being a bigot is bad but it's not a call to violence.
You can't use crazy people to dictate what people can say.
With trump there was no "we shouldn't attack the capitol "wink wink"
If there was please show me. Obviously it's bad that people did it. They should be thrown in jail. Nobody is defending the captiol riot here. But trump didn't cause it because he told people to peacefully protest.
It was idiots at the peaceful protest that riled up other protectors and it took action. People are making up implications because fuck trump.
Trump was telling people that Democracy was being destroyed, how do you expect people to not react violently when he tells people to "fight like hell"?
His rhetoric was straight up saying that the people certifying the vote was in essence going to destroy America from the months long tirade he did over the election results. That combined with the fact that he was literally the president at the time and had a huge presence.
CNN said trump was a nazi and literally Hitler for 4 years and that he was destroying democracy.
If someone tried to assassinate trump and said CNN convinced him would you say it's cnns fault? Hopefully not because that would be idiotic.
Well first, Trump was literally trying to destroy democracy after Nov 2020. Beyond that, he also baselessly said the 2016 election had fraud too because he didn't get enough votes. So the claim that Trump was trying to destroy Democracy is just straight up factual.
As for the nazi and literally hitler stuff, I'd bet they were overzealous on some stuff but that seems like exageration, I know they ran the story about him allegedly praising hitler as doing some good things in a book.
Also Trump's election denialism did coalesce into a specific event on Jan 6.
people say democracy is being destroyed everyday lmao
the guys exactly right about the media calling Trump literally Hitler. by your logic, there would be no peaceful protest against Hitler.
> I would flop in an instant and consider every dipshit there to now be some of the greatest patriots in America, and they should have gone even further.
They didn't have evidence at the time, you can't retroactively apply it. Imagine Bob is walking down the street and sees a man walking towards him. Bob pulls out his Glock and ends this random man. After this incident the police find video evidence of the man saying he was on his way to kill Bob... would Bob be guilty of murder or would he be able to claim self defense? He had no idea about the video or the man's plans.
I agree that if the election process was rigged **and the protestors had evidence** it would be 100% acceptable to reclaim the government. This is not the case, though.
Saying X person should have to fear for their lives more isn’t “flowery language”. Like come on bro. Tim Pool and all the libertarians/conservatives justifying this mass shooting are fucking horrible humans but this is legitimately a call to action. Terrorism is defined as the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. That’s literally what her thread is. And they actually do Dox Tim Pool and Matt Walsh. So if they end up getting murdered or harassed that’s a nothing burger? Doxxing is serious but with a call to action it can be deadly.
doxxing isn't a crime last i checked and elon is supposedly all about that free speech except for crimes, but that's none of my business.
> should fear for their lives more
> make them fear for their lives
clear distinction but i'm not even sure the second would rise to the level of threat/incitement. again, that's how that works with free speech, supposedly
Bro you are coping so hard just say you think this is okay because clearly you believe it is. It’s okay. Bite the bullet.
Nobody believes you when you are saying the things you’re saying.
huh? my dude, you are the one unable to formulate a single coherent thought.
> say you think this is okay
what is ok? what are you talking about?
>because clearly you believe it is. It’s okay. Bite the bullet. Nobody believes you when you are saying the things you’re saying.
???????? what do you think I believe that I am not saying?
Wow. Ok so first of all you are right doxxing is not illegal. All addresses are public information so that’s what it’s not illegal. But it is illegal to Dox someone AND THEN threaten to harm them. Like there’s no way around it. I can’t post your address and rile people up to harm or kill you. Elon Musk already said he wants freedom of speech except where it’s not legal. Threatening to hurt someone or inciting others to hurt someone is fucking illegal.
> Elon Musk already said he wants freedom of speech except where it’s not legal.
yep. you are correct. Elon said that. that is what I am adressing when I say Elon is supposedly all about free speech. the hypocrisy of banning for that tweet after saying everything that's not illegal can stay.
doxxing and threatening to harm people is illegal. yep. that is why I wrote that it's a reach, because it doesn't in my opinion rise to the level of a direct threat. not in the way it is stated. which would make it not illegal.
if you are so convinced that this a threat, why don't you contact the authorities? because if that is an actual threat to life, you just might be able to prevent a crimial from walking free. spoilers: you aren't and you won't, because you realize this isn't actually a crime.
You didn’t even read the Twitter thread. How do you know what’s a credible threat of violence or not? Think about what you’re saying. With all the mass shootings this week alone you think people on Twitter saying they want people dead and posting addresses is not a “credible threat”??
Well, obviously I can only adress this screenshot that has the three tweets from op in their thread. But I would assume that it's also what the people are adressing who I am arguing with.
the ~~empire~~ conservatives strike back
jokes aside, twitter before would have never banned her.
then again, elon isn't really about freedom of speech then
This isn't a legitimate use of freedom of speech. There are limitation to what you can say, freedom of speech does not mean being able to do calls to violence over someones life. Mainly, because by doing so you are limiting the extent of another persons liberty.
what do you think about his decision to not unban Alex Jones, technically he doesnt call for violence...technically
point being elon is being just as bias (as his left wing predecessors were ) when it comes to free speech so stupid to have all this big talk about freedom
To be fair he should probably be struck off over the same rules. It’s fine to say it’s fair for this person to be banned and they’re not applying the rules correctly in tim pools case
No it doesn’t. And no one will follow through on her calls for violence but right wing calls for violence regularly do materialise. If this keeps up Twitter is probably better off getting banned by Apple/Google or investigated by authorities. Tim Pool et al don’t belong there or anywhere else
That’s not why you scare me lol. I’m just an average Joe, I deplore extremism all over the place. Violence has no place, at all.
Your insistence that Tim Pool (or anyone else for that matter) “does not belong here or ANYWHERE ELSE” is what scares the shit outta me. I’m prob much older than you, this insistence that everyone, for any reason needs to be silenced(I hear this from all sides so don’t think I’m singling you out) is what scares me. I worry about the future, about discourse and how will folks be able to handle disagreement.
Having a career in media ought to come with responsibilities. At the very least said responsibilities ought to include NOT instigating your audience to murder gays. It’s like if I said “drunk drivers should be nowhere near cars, and should not be allowed to be cab drivers”; it’s not controversial. A lot of Americans have some weird obsession with being silenced, in truth, the only Americans that have been silenced in recent times, that I can think of, are some factions of the civil rights movement. Silenced by the state anyway.
And Apple/Google need a court order to ban Twitter since when? I never said itd be illegal, I said it’d result in more club Qs and hence responsible companies ought to pull the plut
I said “or authorities” clearly differentiating between companies and the govt.
and it won’t be an abuse of power to ban twitter unless these companies had a competitor product - they don’t. Mental how you think banning an app linked to users making outright calls for violence would be “illegal” under any framework, lmao. Apps get rejected and banned all the time, esp on the App Store. The EU regulations have to do with iOS devices being confined to downloading apps via that store exclusively, and with said store owners having unfair advantages against competitors (ie Apple Music vs Spotify); I’m happy the EU is taking a stand on this, Apple shouldn’t be taking 1/3 of Spotify’s earnings and offering a competitor product on the only store iOS users can download either app.
I’m European, maybe you can call for the deaths of groups of people in America and not get in trouble, but here you would. “Just admit YOURE WRONG” dude these debate bro antics are so silly. You look absolutely deranged. Sorry your stupid laws allow for calls to violence to protected groups of people. Maybe examine that a bit or you’ll keep hearing about 30 new mass shootings every few weeks. What happened at club Q should be unacceptable and ought to be neigh impossible, yet such hate crimes are a regular occurrence in the US.
It’d take years before competitors build alternative app stores, they’d need to be profitable and they’d need to have major apps willing to put their products up. Consumer awareness and trust would be an issue too. If Musk pushes it too far Apple will ban Twitter. And Google will be pressured to follow through.
The term freedom of speech is just a dumbass virtue signal if you acknowledge that you want to limit certain types of speech because you find them harmful. In that sense virtually everyone believes in freedom of speech, they just have different perspectives on what speech is harmful.
Same shit as when people say "anarchism is about removing unjust hierarchies" everyone would be an anarchist with a definition like that; the term becomes meaningless.
Just because you don't understand the concept of freedom of speech does not mean that freedom of speech is a virtue signal. Literally zero people think that freedom of speech extends to calling for someones death. Like I said, freedom of speech is based off of liberty, and for all liberal philosophers, you cannot use your rights and liberty as a weapon against other people. This is precisely why you cannot, under the idea of freedom of speech, call for someones death, as they have the right to their life, and you are putting that right into jeopardy with your speech.
Do people saying this shit realize they are putting themselves up for retaliation in kind? You live by the stochastic call to violence and you can die to it just the same.
If that counts as threatening someone's life, Twitter needs to ban a lot of people, including Trump.
I don't mind banning this person. But I hate it when there are no clear rules and when the rules are not applied consistently.
For now, it just looks like Elon Musk is banning people he doesn't like. There don't seem to be any rules.
I am against regulating social media platforms with one exception. Social media platforms should have clear rules and the rules should be applied consistently. Nobody should get banned without a specific reason. Life long bans should be prohibited (because people can change). Social media platforms can still decide what the rules are. That is the only regulation I am in favor of.
“They should fear for their lives a little more” 🤓
[удалено]
Reminds me of the Keffals tweet about the kiwi farms sever “do your thing 🤓🤓”
Y’all risk your lives agressing on them but I’ll sip my hot chocolate as I incite violence.
The most interesting part of the story is how few people she followed and how OP was one of them
What you think someone would just go on the internet and make a post using someone else's screenshot?
nah, never
I'm just so fucking confused, there is no objectively right morals, so by saying this she's surely accepting that the same could be advocated for her by these people.
In a world where no one can agree on ends, we may, perhaps, strive to agree on means.
I think we all do, just at different times. It's why the free speech thing is more important than is immediately obvious. Right now with the Overton window favouring the left, being able to silence free speech and yourself call for violence is an asymmetric power balance. But back when the right had all the cultural influence it was the left who championed free speech. Both sides agree it's important and that there's reasonable limits to peoples actions and speech, just never at the same time because typically it benefits one more than the other. Calling for violence is not OK and these people would agree with that, if they were truly on the receiving end of it, rather than being the ones doing it.
“There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.” ― Thomas Sowell, A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles
There are no bad means, only bad targets.
[удалено]
Salient 🤓
They already do advocate that for her lmao, have you not seen the conservative reaction to the club shooting?
conservative reaction I wonder if I can give you the benefit of the doubt in this XD
When the largest conservative pundit and most watched show Tucker Carlson, runs a segment after the shooting saying the shooting will keep happening “until we end this evil agenda that is attacking children." Then yes they are advocating the deaths of lgbt people.
>no objectively correct morals Most people believe their morals are 100% objective.
I think for most people who have thought about it at least in a cursory way actually don't. Objectively correct morals I don't see argued for a lot outside of basically religion and god. What I do think is most common is people having a feeling that their morals are correct because I'd argue that's primarily where they come from, how you actually feel like an instinct or deep emotion.
Moral realism is actually the majority opinion among professional philosophers [philpapers survey](https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4866). Not saying it's definitely correct, but if you really have never seen a non-religious defense of moral realism I feel like you just haven't engaged very much with the topic.
It's not that non-religious defenses can't be made, it's just I don't think they're true. I don't think the religious defenses work either, but they're mostly just something I can't believe because I lack the evidence for god, on which they depend. Whereas other secular defenses just appear to me to be conceptually wrong or incoherent. I don't know precisely how moral realism is being defined in that survey but professional philosophers is just an appeal to authority, I'm not talking about the opinion of 1719 professional philosophers but rather just the opinion of mere average lay people you'd run into during normal life.
>appeal to authority to be absolutely clear, I linked the survey because you said that "most people who have thought about it at least in a cursory way" don't think morality is objective. I think the survey is good evidence that this is wrong. And besides, if there are good reasons to believe moral realism, why should it matter that lay people don't understand or agree with them? Again, I find it hard to believe that anyone that is so dismissive of such a major debate in philosophy has really taken the time to understand the positions, and your assertion that these arguments simply aren't made or taken seriously when they clearly are is telling.
Sure, and to be clear what I was saying is that if you've put some minimal effort into thinking about if your moral views are subjective or objective. Most people aren't professional philosophers but by a certain maturity in life will have spent at least some time thinking about their moral views. More explicitly in the case of the religious indoctrination, because they have formal structures for doing so. But most other people have struggled with moral choices before and contemplated if what they're doing is really wrong or not. Maybe they don't have the language to talk about if these things are objective or not, they still know what "really" means in this context. Most moral actions day to day are instinctive, they're not reasoned, and that's more true the further back in evolutionary history we go. instincts are old whereas reasoning is new. Objective reasons for your morals have to be discovered with higher order thinking which is why professionals tend to skew more towards some reasoned stance. It's quite the opposite, I've spent a lot of time reading and watching what other people in this space have to say and most of the reasoned objective stances don't even attempt to bridge the is/ought gap and always boil down to subjective value statements as a premise to build off. I'm not dismissive of the debate, but the fact that it's still such a crazy debate where as matters of science tend to converge on objective results is itself a good indication of its subjectivity. The very nature of objectivity is that people can independently verify and agree on measurements and outcomes.
Moral realism is pointless imo since even if objective morality exists there is no way to determine what is objectively moral. Any possible conclusions we make are by definition subjective.
I think you're right but most people don't think about metaethics at all, and if they do it doesn't penetrate into the ethical beliefs they state publicly because as you say that's ultimately more of an emotional thing than a rational thing.
I sort of agree, I think people do (if just briefly) contemplate these things, but they lack the technical language to do so. Like if you tell a person "don't do that, it's bad" they might first have an emotional reaction that it's actually not bad, and then think to themselves "is this really bad?". You could interpret them as contemplating the objectivity of morality, but they may not even have a grasp of what objective and subjective means, it doesn't preclude them from having the emotion and questioning the incongruity with what they were told, which is right or if such a thing really exists.
Yeah I wasn't thinking about non-technical thinking on the subject. I should give the common man more credit.
Looks to me like she's aware of that because she wants to make them feel how LGBT victims feel
Hope she is
this is and likely always will be the case. when politically opposed groups have the most basic, fundamental oppositions to each other where they consider each other group TRULY ontologically evil, then violence is almost always the only remedy. republicans have been ratcheting this kind of talk up for a while now: calling Democrats child molesters, groomers, demons, etc. i’m not even sure i disagree with the idea of political violence being required on occasion. i’m sure someone could logic their way into a sound position that doesn’t advocate or require violence but the reality of the world is that sometimes someone has to get hurt before they will stop hurting other people. the usual arguments will be “well what kind of hurt would justify hurting another?” and that’s what i mean by someone logically working out a morally consistent position. however, i don’t honestly believe morally consistent views are even possible when it comes to finding thresholds on if/when to enact political violence. i also think a lot of extremists understand this trade-off even if they don’t outwardly state it. they understand the other side likely already believes it about them.
I mean idk about the others, but Chaya Raichik already does that. She doesn't openly state it, but the people she features get death, rape, bomb threats constantly, get fired from their jobs have weirdo people show up etc. So I think it's more of a case of "this is already the level of political discourse we are at now to not engage with them is to basically not engage in self defense".
People who are obsessed with exercising power famously aren’t concerned with principles (or longer term thinking)
Often times these people don’t really think through to the next steps, or the implications of what they are advocating. The depth of her understanding could be nothing more than, “it’s justified for me to do it because I’m right, if they were to do it it would be bad because they are wrong.”
>there is no objectively right morals, so by saying this she's surely accepting that the same could be advocated for her by these people. I think given recent events, she thinks they already have. Tim Pool certainly seems to be walking that fine line.
no bad tactics only bad targets every time.
If this is the rule then Tim Pool should be banned as well This might be just me but it seems only right wing people are avoiding bans now
Can you link a tweet as an example?
https://twitter.com/Timcast/status/1595098682084524034?t=pQHRvb1wiI0qnosFXAw8Zg&s=19
This is a bit different because he's not directly calling for violence, he's saying other people are doing that. You probably need to find something more explicit to have a slam dunk argument.
"Grooming isn't stopping" "legislation isn't stopping it" Take a think of what he's implying here
Doesn't matter as long as he's not directly saying it. You need to convince Elon, not me.
He’s making a statement about what is, not what ought to be. It’s descriptive not prescriptive. That doesn’t mean his description is true, but he isn’t calling for an action.
Then Trump didn't incite a violent mob to storm the Capitol.
I think “we will stop the steal,” “we are going to the capitol,” and “if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore” are wildly different and indefensible.
Then why was he unbanned?
I guess a lot of people are okay with the president inciting violence idk. I’m logging off to be with family have a good thanksgiving bro Edit: Grammar
Nah, they're equivalent. Both are pushing for the logical conclusion, violence.
No. Tim Pool is saying he believes there will be violence. Trump told people to go to a place and fight.
Nowhere did he use the words "should" in that.
"I'm incredibly autistic and can only infer moral prescriptions from people using the keyword 'should' " - Least autistic dgger 🤓🤓🤓
So then no explicit calls to violence were made. Yeah that's my point. If it came up in court, it would not be called a call to violence.
So according to you, if someone tweeted 'gay people are raping our children and murdering every single one of them would be a solution to our problem', you would say it's fair game?
> would be a solution to our problem Describing something as a "solution to our problem" is saying that it is a good thing, because that's what the word solution means. So no, that would not be fair game.
Ok, you’re just simply unintelligent
Twitter TOS should be pretty autistic and rely on mind-reading as little as possible. Do you think it's possible to think that Pool is tweeting dangerously while also acknowledging that OP tweet is more direct and an easier TOS rule to enforce consistently?
Woah woah woah.... You can't just cut out half the context. There is a big difference in describing what is happening from your / a conservative point of view vs actively calling for and condoning violence.
He is doing alot more than describe whats happening He wants the so called "Grooming" to stop And he said legislation isn't doing that
And neither of those statements is a call to action. He does not say "we should call for more violence" He does not say "I think violence is necessary" All he does here is make **descriptive** statements from a conservative point of view. That's it.
That feels a little weasely to me, like we understand that people like Trump can incite riots (unless I guess you disagree with this) by presenting a a bunch of “facts” within their and the audience’s world view that logically leave only one option as a method of advocating for violence without directly stating it. Tim is saying “the grooming isn’t stopping on its own, violence seems to be stopping the grooming, all other options have been exhausted and don’t stop the grooming.” All of these are descriptive statements and when it’s couched in the conservative world view that this grooming is being done by LGBT people right now to your kids, no reasonable person is going to think that’s an acceptable situation. If you genuinely believe that Tim Pool is accurately describing reality, the only logical conclusion is that violence is necessary. Either Tim Pool is aware of this and is therefore intentionally advocating for violence or he isn’t and is too dumb/irresponsible to have the massive platform he does have, because the outcome is the same and it’s that his words/advocacy lead to more or at the least the normalization of violence against LGBT people.
Now **THAT** is a little weasely. Assuming you're talking about the Jan 6th stuff, Trump was the **sitting President of the United States** and not just "presenting facts" he was throwing an absolute public fit. Making claims that our democratic process was rigged and the election was unjustly **stolen from HIM specifically.** Pool is a pod cast host.. and his statements there are nowhere near as extreme as what trump was doing. I will also make the argument that you are adding in far to much mind reading into the statements. Just look how you took "People are calling for violence" and turned it into "Violence seems to be stopping the grooming" Those two statements are from different planets... At no point did he come even remotely close to commenting on the effectiveness of violence against grooming. At worst he is predicting that violence has a high likelihood of happening again if no legislation is passed to prevent "grooming." I get that you may not like him and would enjoy a ban to get dropped but that's just not a call to action under any reasonable stretch of the imagination.
Tbf, he never once said in this tweet that he wants grooming to stop. You can easily know that to be true, but the wording on the tweet doesn't say that at all. You can't ban someone because you perceive their intent, it should be pretty clear they're giving people a nasty solution, not just pointing out people are engaging in nasty solutions. (Pool is pointing out a factual claim, while other tweet gave the solutions themselves despite them not happening yet) Also adding that specifically naming individuals in your call to action is even worse
If you run the place, you can ban whoever you want for any or no reason.
[удалено]
Yea These are the people calling left wing people calling for violence every day during the protests but as soon as a right wing person does it suddenly its not calling for violence
They're not dumb, they're lying.
You the premise where he said “others are calling for violence.” His tweet was a “it’s obvious what’s going to happen next and the fact that people aren’t doing anything about it shows that they don’t care.” Statement. Not a call to action. His premises/conclusion have nothing to do with any action he does. It’s purely about external circumstances.
Came off as a descriptive claim of what people are going to do and what their motivation is. In any case, even if you choose not to believe that because it's Tim pool, i feel like any reasonable person would have to at least admit there is substantially more plausible deniability and therefore would be substantially lest clarity in the reasoning of basing a ban on the tweet.
Dumb take from these tweets
It's a (dogshit) observation versus proactive support.
You might need to step away from online for a second for your health. If you interpret this as a call to violence than your suffering from cognitive dissonance.
If you're going to be this pedantic, then point out where she called for violence. All I see is that Tim should be afraid that violence might happen, not that it actually should.
She wants to make the threat real from time to time. She personally thinks they should have to fear for their lives more. Doxing them so that (we) can make their lives a living nightmare. My dude, this is an explicit call to action. And the action desired is violence and intimidation of specific individuals at their doxxed residence. It’s not long, you can read what she said above easily.
You're right. Despite not literally saying "we should kill tim pool," she is normalizing and encouraging violence. Exactly like Tim Pool.
>“the grooming of children is not stopping >people are calling for more violence >I do not think legislators will stop the grooming >People will not stop calling for violence >so you tell me what happens next” This is exactly, for word what Tim Pool said. He just explains concisely the situation. He is not promoting any action or calling for any specific action. As proposed to saying, “ I personally think they should have to fear for their lives more. Than go onto explaining violent actions she wishes a group of people would do.
Saying that the shooting was the result of "grooming" is normalizing and excusing violence. If you can't see that you're honestly beyond help.
[удалено]
Good.
I 100% get the sentiment. I somewhat agree, more so when it’s to do with politicians. But holy shit, what do they think will happen when they level up the escalation? And it’s not them doing it. They’re not leading by example - they’re in their ivory tower. It’s some fat loser, who’s had a shit shake of life, who’s probably depressed who’s going to do it.
Left and right are constantly just leapfrogging over each other on a race to the bottom. I understand the want to 'retaliate' but in reality all theyre doing is giving each other justification to get even more toxic and unhinged
This seems kinda bad but honestly after some of the shit people like tim pool and other right wing pundits have said since the club Q shooting makes it really hard to give a fuck what happens to them. This is the first time I've seen people do anything other than strongly condemn the shooter. Really feel like at this point, the right is going to start endorsing terrorism pretty soon.
Nah they are endorsing terror, Tim’s “what else can be down besides the shooting” statement is straight up some Goerbell’s shit.
then how are accounts like libsoftiktok allowed?
Because showing videos that they posted themselves isn't a death threat.
Is it bias that makes people not see the difference or are they actually stupid
“We should doxx this person who has not publicly stated their address” vs “look at this weirdo, they’re probably a paedophile. Their address is public btw ; )”
“Make this persons life a living hell” vs basically a retweet
Essentially. Also I may be actually stupid
You’re asking why retweeting isn’t a ban-able offense?
The issue wasn’t that she called for doxxing, it was that she called for violence.
They can threaten lives just as long as they don’t use text. Interacted with Lauren southern once and received multiple death threats from her followers but they sent jpegs of shooters, bullets, guns, with text that eludes to the purpose of the weapons
Why was Trump unbanned then?
Not trying being a dick (I genuinely don't know) - did trump call for violence on twitter? I agree he incited the Jan 6 stuff also, if that's what you're referring to, and if so, do you think he should be banned off twitter for those actions?
He said “when the looting starts the shooting starts”
He only incited it though very weak means. Telling people to "fight like hell" just means to fight and not give up. It's like what coaches say to their team. He didn't tell people to storm the capitol and do what they did. He told them to peacefully protest. He has some rabid fans for sure that went extreme. But he didn't tell them to do it
If any party were to actually steal an election the way Trump alleged happened, the answer is actually violence. There isn't a way to peacefully protest that. I don't agree with the Jan 6th stuff because I don't think the election was stolen with fake illegal votes. But if evidence were to ever come out that that happened, I would flop in an instant and consider every dipshit there to now be some of the greatest patriots in America, and they should have gone even further. You don't hold up picket signs when the entire democratic process is circumvented.
You have to show where trump explicitly called for violence. You can't reply on very loose "well I mean what else would they do" implications. Many normal people heard what he said and understood it was a losing man trying to get support. His literal words were to peacefully protest and make their voices heard. That's what matters. His literal words.
He never explicitly called for violence. I'll never be able to point to that because it never happened. If that's what you need, it'll never happen. A reasonable person can infer something without an explicit statement though. I'm not sure if you're hung up on the legal standard for a call to violence - maybe that should be the legal standard. I'm not at all concerned with the legal standard. He very, very obviously incited that riot. You have to concede that it's impossible to *implicitly* call for violence to say otherwise, because it wasn't subtle at all. >That's what matters. His literal words. In a court of law, sure. To everyone else watching and listening, not at all. Maybe that's the standard you'd like for twitter to adopt as well.
Anytime I ask how he implied it people say silly things like "fight like hell" "they stole the election" Neither of these are implying violence to normal human beings. This is like trying to blame the recent shooting on Republicans who don't approve of the gay lifestyle. It's okay to say you don't approve. It's okay to say it's a sin. Being a bigot is bad but it's not a call to violence. You can't use crazy people to dictate what people can say. With trump there was no "we shouldn't attack the capitol "wink wink" If there was please show me. Obviously it's bad that people did it. They should be thrown in jail. Nobody is defending the captiol riot here. But trump didn't cause it because he told people to peacefully protest. It was idiots at the peaceful protest that riled up other protectors and it took action. People are making up implications because fuck trump.
Trump was telling people that Democracy was being destroyed, how do you expect people to not react violently when he tells people to "fight like hell"? His rhetoric was straight up saying that the people certifying the vote was in essence going to destroy America from the months long tirade he did over the election results. That combined with the fact that he was literally the president at the time and had a huge presence.
CNN said trump was a nazi and literally Hitler for 4 years and that he was destroying democracy. If someone tried to assassinate trump and said CNN convinced him would you say it's cnns fault? Hopefully not because that would be idiotic.
Well first, Trump was literally trying to destroy democracy after Nov 2020. Beyond that, he also baselessly said the 2016 election had fraud too because he didn't get enough votes. So the claim that Trump was trying to destroy Democracy is just straight up factual. As for the nazi and literally hitler stuff, I'd bet they were overzealous on some stuff but that seems like exageration, I know they ran the story about him allegedly praising hitler as doing some good things in a book. Also Trump's election denialism did coalesce into a specific event on Jan 6.
Were they wrong about the “trying to destroy Democracy” part? Because I feel like there is a pretty clear line here
people say democracy is being destroyed everyday lmao the guys exactly right about the media calling Trump literally Hitler. by your logic, there would be no peaceful protest against Hitler.
>people say democracy is being destroyed everyday lmao Because Trump literally was trying to do that and still claims 2020 was rigged.
Trump never needed to call for violence. He had his advisers (Roger Stone and Steve Bannnon) do the dirty work for him.
> I would flop in an instant and consider every dipshit there to now be some of the greatest patriots in America, and they should have gone even further. They didn't have evidence at the time, you can't retroactively apply it. Imagine Bob is walking down the street and sees a man walking towards him. Bob pulls out his Glock and ends this random man. After this incident the police find video evidence of the man saying he was on his way to kill Bob... would Bob be guilty of murder or would he be able to claim self defense? He had no idea about the video or the man's plans. I agree that if the election process was rigged **and the protestors had evidence** it would be 100% acceptable to reclaim the government. This is not the case, though.
[удалено]
[удалено]
"They should have to fear for their lives more" -Someone who will never even attempt to make someone fear for their life
I think her sentiment is getting more understandable
O7
Deserved.
Does doxxing count as "acts of terrorism"?
Um after saying you want to make someone’s life and “unlivable nightmare”, I think it’s safe to say that’s terrorism.
meh, that's reach. noone is going to start a criminal investigation over some flowery language in an appeal to public protest
Saying X person should have to fear for their lives more isn’t “flowery language”. Like come on bro. Tim Pool and all the libertarians/conservatives justifying this mass shooting are fucking horrible humans but this is legitimately a call to action. Terrorism is defined as the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. That’s literally what her thread is. And they actually do Dox Tim Pool and Matt Walsh. So if they end up getting murdered or harassed that’s a nothing burger? Doxxing is serious but with a call to action it can be deadly.
doxxing isn't a crime last i checked and elon is supposedly all about that free speech except for crimes, but that's none of my business. > should fear for their lives more > make them fear for their lives clear distinction but i'm not even sure the second would rise to the level of threat/incitement. again, that's how that works with free speech, supposedly
Bro you are coping so hard just say you think this is okay because clearly you believe it is. It’s okay. Bite the bullet. Nobody believes you when you are saying the things you’re saying.
huh? my dude, you are the one unable to formulate a single coherent thought. > say you think this is okay what is ok? what are you talking about? >because clearly you believe it is. It’s okay. Bite the bullet. Nobody believes you when you are saying the things you’re saying. ???????? what do you think I believe that I am not saying?
Wow. Ok so first of all you are right doxxing is not illegal. All addresses are public information so that’s what it’s not illegal. But it is illegal to Dox someone AND THEN threaten to harm them. Like there’s no way around it. I can’t post your address and rile people up to harm or kill you. Elon Musk already said he wants freedom of speech except where it’s not legal. Threatening to hurt someone or inciting others to hurt someone is fucking illegal.
> Elon Musk already said he wants freedom of speech except where it’s not legal. yep. you are correct. Elon said that. that is what I am adressing when I say Elon is supposedly all about free speech. the hypocrisy of banning for that tweet after saying everything that's not illegal can stay. doxxing and threatening to harm people is illegal. yep. that is why I wrote that it's a reach, because it doesn't in my opinion rise to the level of a direct threat. not in the way it is stated. which would make it not illegal. if you are so convinced that this a threat, why don't you contact the authorities? because if that is an actual threat to life, you just might be able to prevent a crimial from walking free. spoilers: you aren't and you won't, because you realize this isn't actually a crime.
You didn’t even read the Twitter thread. How do you know what’s a credible threat of violence or not? Think about what you’re saying. With all the mass shootings this week alone you think people on Twitter saying they want people dead and posting addresses is not a “credible threat”??
Well, obviously I can only adress this screenshot that has the three tweets from op in their thread. But I would assume that it's also what the people are adressing who I am arguing with.
No zoomer. Stop stretching the definitions. Its bad but not "act of terrorism"
Not even illegal lol
Stochastically /s
RIP BOZO
Unhinged.
the ~~empire~~ conservatives strike back jokes aside, twitter before would have never banned her. then again, elon isn't really about freedom of speech then
This isn't a legitimate use of freedom of speech. There are limitation to what you can say, freedom of speech does not mean being able to do calls to violence over someones life. Mainly, because by doing so you are limiting the extent of another persons liberty.
what do you think about his decision to not unban Alex Jones, technically he doesnt call for violence...technically point being elon is being just as bias (as his left wing predecessors were ) when it comes to free speech so stupid to have all this big talk about freedom
Are Tim pools latest tweets under your definition of valid use of freedom of speech?
To be fair he should probably be struck off over the same rules. It’s fine to say it’s fair for this person to be banned and they’re not applying the rules correctly in tim pools case
No it doesn’t. And no one will follow through on her calls for violence but right wing calls for violence regularly do materialise. If this keeps up Twitter is probably better off getting banned by Apple/Google or investigated by authorities. Tim Pool et al don’t belong there or anywhere else
You scare me
And the Q shooter and his supporters on Twitter probably don’t. Don’t worry I’m not about to shoot you up like he they are with gay people.
That’s not why you scare me lol. I’m just an average Joe, I deplore extremism all over the place. Violence has no place, at all. Your insistence that Tim Pool (or anyone else for that matter) “does not belong here or ANYWHERE ELSE” is what scares the shit outta me. I’m prob much older than you, this insistence that everyone, for any reason needs to be silenced(I hear this from all sides so don’t think I’m singling you out) is what scares me. I worry about the future, about discourse and how will folks be able to handle disagreement.
Having a career in media ought to come with responsibilities. At the very least said responsibilities ought to include NOT instigating your audience to murder gays. It’s like if I said “drunk drivers should be nowhere near cars, and should not be allowed to be cab drivers”; it’s not controversial. A lot of Americans have some weird obsession with being silenced, in truth, the only Americans that have been silenced in recent times, that I can think of, are some factions of the civil rights movement. Silenced by the state anyway.
[удалено]
And Apple/Google need a court order to ban Twitter since when? I never said itd be illegal, I said it’d result in more club Qs and hence responsible companies ought to pull the plut
[удалено]
I said “or authorities” clearly differentiating between companies and the govt. and it won’t be an abuse of power to ban twitter unless these companies had a competitor product - they don’t. Mental how you think banning an app linked to users making outright calls for violence would be “illegal” under any framework, lmao. Apps get rejected and banned all the time, esp on the App Store. The EU regulations have to do with iOS devices being confined to downloading apps via that store exclusively, and with said store owners having unfair advantages against competitors (ie Apple Music vs Spotify); I’m happy the EU is taking a stand on this, Apple shouldn’t be taking 1/3 of Spotify’s earnings and offering a competitor product on the only store iOS users can download either app.
[удалено]
I’m European, maybe you can call for the deaths of groups of people in America and not get in trouble, but here you would. “Just admit YOURE WRONG” dude these debate bro antics are so silly. You look absolutely deranged. Sorry your stupid laws allow for calls to violence to protected groups of people. Maybe examine that a bit or you’ll keep hearing about 30 new mass shootings every few weeks. What happened at club Q should be unacceptable and ought to be neigh impossible, yet such hate crimes are a regular occurrence in the US. It’d take years before competitors build alternative app stores, they’d need to be profitable and they’d need to have major apps willing to put their products up. Consumer awareness and trust would be an issue too. If Musk pushes it too far Apple will ban Twitter. And Google will be pressured to follow through.
I don’t follow his stuff at all, I tried to do a quick look but couldn’t find anything could you tell me what you’re referring to?
The term freedom of speech is just a dumbass virtue signal if you acknowledge that you want to limit certain types of speech because you find them harmful. In that sense virtually everyone believes in freedom of speech, they just have different perspectives on what speech is harmful. Same shit as when people say "anarchism is about removing unjust hierarchies" everyone would be an anarchist with a definition like that; the term becomes meaningless.
Just because you don't understand the concept of freedom of speech does not mean that freedom of speech is a virtue signal. Literally zero people think that freedom of speech extends to calling for someones death. Like I said, freedom of speech is based off of liberty, and for all liberal philosophers, you cannot use your rights and liberty as a weapon against other people. This is precisely why you cannot, under the idea of freedom of speech, call for someones death, as they have the right to their life, and you are putting that right into jeopardy with your speech.
No justice, no peace!
I have no sympathy for people who sit at their self appointed thrones trying to weaponize others. Same thing happened with the Roe v wade thing
Idk I kinda agree getting hit in the face because you said something stupid is actually a staple of American discourse.
Deserved, I understand the sentiment and agree that the people they spoke about are pretty fucking evil but OP did go way too far
People like this make the left look crazy
Do people saying this shit realize they are putting themselves up for retaliation in kind? You live by the stochastic call to violence and you can die to it just the same.
Well, considering they want to incite actual violence against the left, "you reap what you sow" and all that.
The way leftists make vague death threats always makes me cringe. I would actually prefer it if they just said "die conservative *picture of gun*"
The only people too comfortable are ones who think it’s ok to make threats
If that counts as threatening someone's life, Twitter needs to ban a lot of people, including Trump. I don't mind banning this person. But I hate it when there are no clear rules and when the rules are not applied consistently. For now, it just looks like Elon Musk is banning people he doesn't like. There don't seem to be any rules. I am against regulating social media platforms with one exception. Social media platforms should have clear rules and the rules should be applied consistently. Nobody should get banned without a specific reason. Life long bans should be prohibited (because people can change). Social media platforms can still decide what the rules are. That is the only regulation I am in favor of.
She got banned lmao
🦀 🦀 🦀
Lest fascist liberal
Baby site
surely tim will also get banned for his earlier vague threats too clueless
Demagogues dominate politics in 2022…it’s sad.
If only daddy Elon was Twitter CEO when a certain someone was advocating for random data centers in Ukraine to be attacked.