tweet text:
> ....These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!
Disclaimer text:
> This Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about glorifying violence. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet to remain accessible. Learn more
"Learn more" links to this page about "public-interest exceptions"
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/public-intere...
edit: here's the official thread from @TwitterComms about it: https://twitter.com/TwitterComms/status/1266267446979129345
"We start from a position of assuming that people do not intend to violate our Rules. Unless a violation is so egregious that we must immediately suspend an account, we first try to educate people about our Rules and give them a chance to correct their behavior. We show the violator the offending Tweet(s), explain which Rule was broken, and require them to remove the content before they can Tweet again. If someone repeatedly violates our Rules then our enforcement actions become stronger. This includes requiring violators to remove the Tweet(s) and taking additional actions like verifying account ownership and/or temporarily limiting their ability to Tweet for a set period of time. If someone continues to violate Rules beyond that point then their account may be permanently suspended."
Somewhere a counter was just incremented. It's going to be amusing if Twitter management simply lets the automated system do its thing. At some point, after warnings, the standard 48-hour suspension will trigger. Twitter management can simply simply say "it is our policy not to comment on enforcement actions".
They've suspended the accounts of prominent people many times before.[1]
https://kstp.com/news/minnesota-national-guard-activated-to-...
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/05/599895184/why-president-trump...
But he doesn't.
Also it is illegal for the federal government to use the military as a police force: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
I found the attribution of the quote very informative and am very surprised it is currently downvoted. My own summary of the tweets is also downvoted, not sure what I could/should add to it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23347395
I tried to neutrally summarize the tweets, in case people wanted to know what they said without clicking.
Bonaparte was a fan of the "whiff of grape" https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_royaliste_du_13_v... but we all know how that ended.
The looting in Minneapolis is a) rather ancillary to the larger protests against the police, b) an American tradition going back to colonial times, and c) a mix of opportunism and antipathy to US hypercapitalism. A few small stores have been damaged but the destruction has mainly been targeted against corporate retail outlets.
and these are all in the last 5 minutes. Selective enforcement doesn't put Twitter in a good light and doesn't seem like something that is in the best interest of their company. Also it is a bad look that their head of site integrity was saying vile stuff about the other half of America.
I really dislike Trump and will definitely vote against him. I don't get the overwhelming support for actions like this from Twitter.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/05/argument-analysis-in-a-cl...
With a gas line possibly being cut, and ~170 business burned down, this is spiraling out of control [0]
I mention the gas line (though I don’t know if this a fair comparison) for the potential of chained explosions like the one in Merrimack Valley [1]
Regardless, I think many are using the protests as an excuse to loot, and let off steam from the tensions of lockdown, in addition to its obvious main reason.
[0] https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/05/29/protesters-take-mi...
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrimack_Valley_gas_explosi...
https://nitter.net/realDonaldTrump/status-/12662311007807447...
One of the government's core tasks is to enforce the law, so yes, the government should control looting.
And FWIW, I think "violent protest" is a misleading euphemism. This is a riot, whether you speak American [0] or English [1].
I honestly don't understand why this is a question. Why wouldn't the government be expected to enforce the law?
[0]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/riot
[1]: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/riot
Our government repeats the motif of filtering down the raw passion and energy of the populace as a whole through a smaller, generally much less numerous group backed with the implicit assumption of good faith and sense.
The faithless elector was to the Founder's one of the last bulwarks against bestowing the highest office in the country to someone so repugnant, that an isolated bunch of people, accountable to no one but their own conscience, politely discussing the matter came to the conclusion it just couldn't work out. The idea that a President could get that far by mere populism and charlatanism may seem daft, but in that time, you didn't have background checks. You couldn't sniff out who someone really was, and if you knew the right people it was easy to get paraded in front of a populace that would eat up anything you fed them as long as there was enough spectacle to keep their attention. Odds are, it wouldn't be a problem. Everything would go just fine. However, the Founder's were well read on the ills of Greek and Roman poli, and the traps of demagoguery, and cults of personality. Their solution was the application of well-intentioned moral reasoning. We've all experienced the excitement of an idea that sounds great in a crowd, to later go home and say, "Now wait a minute." Same basic principle. In such an important decision, if it is really the right answer, no one will refuse,yet if it isn't, the stakes are high enough where the presence of that last chance is warranted.
The political party system completely undermined the entire intent behind the College, and many people never really try to transplant themselves out of the modern mindset, back to the time period to understand it. Nor do they realize just how important careful consideration of the person holding that post was. Think about it.
That President did not have the most capable Armed Forces in the world at his disposal. They did not have the capability to essentially make or unmake law via Administrative law and control of Alphabet soup of national regulatory agencies we have today. That President was not sitting atop the world's largest nuclear arsenal, or at the nexus of arguably one of the most well-funded intelligence and law enforcement apparatus in the world. In comparison to the Presidents of today, Abraham Lincoln was absolutely right. "No man can do any great harm in four years". Nowadays, given the level of interconnectivity between world governments, and the technological capabilities that are at our disposal, it stands to reason they might have balked at having a President in the first place. We don't know for certain. We can only guess.
I'm not certain anyone will find any of what I'm saying rhetorically convincing, but the main point I'm making is it is dangerous to dismiss the past without really understanding why what was done was done. The thinking behind the College was completely rational for the time, and arguably, even more rational and relevant today assuming your values and philosophies are more or less consistent with those of the Founders, who were so helpful as to write them down in generous volume that we may benefit from their endeavors today.
At least, I think so, and I've spent more time than I like to admit trying to understand the topic myself. Which is kind of silly, after all, to be ashamed of doing so, seeing as it is one of the single most important things to do for those who come after us.
To his wife,Joh Adams wrote:
>"The science of government it is my duty to study, more than all other sciences; the arts of legislation and administration and negotiation ought to take the place of, indeed exclude, in a manner, all other arts. I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain."
These Founders. These visionaries so loft in their ideals, dedicated their intellectual lives to the laying of a Foundational edifice that would stand the test of time. No Internet or easily accessible mobs of fairweather supporters did they have. No refuge in trivial pseudonymity were they blessed with. No instant feedback loops, or access to the happenings of the entire world at once to cherry pick what works and what doesn't. In spite of the vices and and repugnancies of the society of the time (which I will not whitewash or dismiss), these men demonstrated a commitment to the future few of their descendants, and increasingly few nowadays truly demonstrate. The preservation of personal liberty, and national unity unrivaled in degree or ferverence in administering. Abraham Lincoln himself likened it to the closest thing we should have to a National religion[2]. To cherish and preserve the liberties we enjoy do those who come after. Before you toss aside the fruits of the labor of people who in their time dedicated so much time to trying to think, reason, compromise, and do things well; it behooves you to at least understand their context, and to carry a paltry mockery of what they had to offer forward that you may learn and reap the fruits of a life we haven't had to spend as they did.
I'm sorry, but the flippant dismissive nature of your response just really doesn't do the import of the issue justice. I'm not trying to be condescending or patronizing (though that may end up being how it ends up coming off). I'm merely pointing out that it isn't some 18th century foppish hat to be cast aside. If you can't demonstrate an appreciation for why it was there, or show any indication you've put thought into whether or not it's mutation from it's original intent has actually been a net negative, it is difficult to take your assertion seriously. Then again, I can count on both hands the number of people I've met who will even entertain that level of debate or thought, and only one hand is necessary for the number who have straight up admitted they do it out of a personally perceived sense of duty.
In short, check your damn history and show your work if you expect to be taken seriously. I can't emphasize it enough. If everyone else's liberties aren't important enough to you to do so, I don't know what else would be.
[1]https://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/archive/doc?id=L178005... [2]http://abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/liberty.htm [2a]Also see the The Eloquent President, by Ronald C. White. Read it slowly. [3]Federalist Papers 68 [4]Anti-Federalist Papers 72
Just read them. It's man years of interlocution to make, far less to read and process, and far easier to get a hold of now.
These aren't easy or trite issues by far, and if nothing else, you have to work to build empathy and compassion to both sides to be able to have any realistic chance of being able to credibly take a stab at making decent policy.
I can forgive a man who decides against me on the grounds he actually did the footwork to understand, but his character lead him to a different conclusion. However I cannot abide by what seems to pass for sound policy nowadays.
Jokes and politics aside, is this a smart business move on Twitter's part? I'm curious how they envision this playing out. I'm really not sure what I expect to happen; Trump may be a fool, but he's stubborn and persistent. There are also politicians on both sides of the fence who are at odds with social media right now--and often Silicon Valley in general. (See: encryption)
I have no doubt Twitter put a lot of thought into this. Does anyone have insight into what Twitter expects to happen? Also, what would they expect to happen if they opted not to label/hide/whatever some of Trump's tweets?
Some of this reminds me of Koreatown during the LA riots. If authorities don’t step in, militia’s will rise up to defend their families and livelihood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Destruc... I think it’s reasonable that a community would defend itself when attacked, but when the National Guard is purposed for that protection, why shouldn’t they be called in?
> Headley, who was chief of police in Miami for 20 years, said that law enforcement was going after “young hoodlums, from 15 to 21, who have taken advantage of the civil rights campaign. ... We don't mind being accused of police brutality."
This is where the quote comes from.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/where-does-phrase-...
Edit:
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-quotes-cop-sparked-rac...
> The National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence found that Headley's remarks and policing policies had been a significant factor in sparking the riots.
> Headley died four months after the riots. The Times in its obituary noted his policies had caused "growing resentment" among black Miami residents.
Our President fully understands the gravity of those words. This is what he wanted to say. This is what he meant. This is what he believes. This is WHO HE IS.
Briefly: speech which both incites imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action fails to be protected as US "free speech".
In this case, my IANAL analysis would be that the tweet had imminent application, but would be unlikely to produce action, for reasons given in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23347453 (tl;dr lethal force is the last resort of a well-regulated militia when restoring public order)
* and am therefore fond of "On the fact..." https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd06xx/EWD611.PDF
https://historymusings.wordpress.com/2015/04/28/full-text-ob...
I didn’t vote for Trump, but it’s clear he’s referring to individuals and groups that are destroying areas of Minneapolis.
> The phrase was used by Miami's police chief, Walter Headley, in 1967, when he addressed his department's "crackdown on ... slum hoodlums," according to a United Press International article from the time.
> Headley, who was chief of police in Miami for 20 years, said that law enforcement was going after “young hoodlums, from 15 to 21, who have taken advantage of the civil rights campaign. ... We don't mind being accused of police brutality."
This is where the quote comes from.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/where-does-phrase-...
Edit:
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-quotes-cop-sparked-rac...
> The National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence found that Headley's remarks and policing policies had been a significant factor in sparking the riots.
> Headley died four months after the riots. The Times in its obituary noted his policies had caused "growing resentment" among black Miami residents.
Our President fully understands the gravity of those words. This is what he wanted to say. This is what he meant. This is what he believes. This is WHO HE IS.
https://www.google.com/search?q=history+of+thug+as+a+race+wh...
This* Tweet violated the Twitter Rules about glorifying violence. However, @Twitter has determined that it will allow terrorists, dictators, and foreign propagandists to abuse its platform.
*Referring to an attached picture of a Khamenei tweet about Palestine
Though laws vary widely in the US, in CA the punishment is about a year in county jail, give or take:
We have a President that is consistently harder to comprehend than GPT-2. Let that sink in.
Here's some back on the phrase. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/where-does-phrase-...
The amazing part to me is that Trump knows an authoritarian-violence catchphrase from 50 years ago. "MAGA" indeed.
https://www.avclub.com/twitter-releases-statement-confirming...
"Twitter releases statement confirming it'll never ban Donald Trump"
They evaluated and rejected hiding "violates Twitter policies" content except in the rare cases where they deem it necessary for the public interest to retain that violating content behind a click barrier.
https://help.twitter.com/en/safety-and-security/offensive-tw... has more details about the current policy, and you can read their blog posts from the past couple years about these policies to gain more context and background.
[0] https://twitter.com/Kaepernick7/status/1266046129906552832?s...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/28/donald-trump...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/where-does-phrase-...
0 - https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-10-19/trump-...
EDIT: Scroll down a bit, the original poster made their account private a few moments ago
That makes it sound like Trump used it in a similar fashion.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/where-does-phrase-...
In addition to his executive order [1], Trump has threatened to delete his Twitter account [2].
[1]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-to-sign-executive-order-t...
[2]: https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/video/twitter-flags-trumps-t...
That assumes that all users on Twitter are equal. By Twitter's own rules [1], there are two classes of users. Elected officials are held to a different standard. That's why this tweet is hidden behind a click, rather than removed. That's why Trump hasn't been banned despite repeatedly violating the TOS that he agreed to when he signed up for his account.
It makes sense to me that if elected officials (a tiny fraction of the population who already have a much bigger voice than the common citizen) are allowed to break the plebeian rules, then social media platforms should be more willing to point out when they're doing so.
[1]: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/public-intere...
Twitter is not tax-exempt but is certainly lawsuit-exempt to a large degree. The entire reason twitter has not be sued into oblivion for the actions of it's users is because of the protections Section 230[1] grants them.
But here is the pinch. Section 230 protection applies only as long as you act as platforms for 3rd party speech. But when they start plastering "Vote for X" banners on their websites of their own violations, they go from being platforms for 3rd party speech to 1st party publishers. That effectively removes the Section 230 protections twitter enjoys.
I much as I hate to say it, Trump might be right this once. Twitter has stopped being a neutral platform enforcing consistent policies for quite some time now.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/28/technology/trump-twitter-...
https://nitter.net/realDonaldTrump/status/126623110078074470...
Update: data https://quillette.com/2019/02/12/it-isnt-your-imagination-tw...
Update: admission https://www.vox.com/2018/9/14/17857622/twitter-liberal-emplo...
They didn't suspend Spike Lee who caused direct harm to a private individual who happened to share a name with an infamous individual: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/spike-lee-settles-twi...
> Glorification of violence policy
...
> You may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people. We also prohibit the glorification of violence.
(https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/glorification...)
As an example of how they won't do so, consider that there are people literally organizing violent riots and destruction of property on Twitter right now, and they have not been banned or had their tweets/accounts hidden. Ilhan Omar's daughter was caught doing so herself, amplifying rioting supported by Antifa and DSA (Democratic Socialists of America), as documented in https://thepostmillennial.com/ilhan-omars-daughter-shows-sup.... While hundreds of people are inciting violence and using Twitter to organize violence in Minneapolis, the company has done nothing to stop it, and yet they're willing to block Trump's tweet on the theoretical enforcement of laws against criminal rioting? Clearly this is a discriminatory bias in action.
As for how they can't do so: Twitter is a Silicon Valley company. It mostly employs young, far left liberals. Its internal culture is heavily influenced by where it is located and the people it employs. Their Hateful Conduct Policy (https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-condu...) is also subject to that cultural/political influence. For instance, this policy notes that "misgendering" is not allowed. But if you're on the other side of the transgender debate, and feel that pronouns should be based on biology-derived gender, and don't think trans women and biological women should be lumped into a group, then you might be banned. Put another way, Twitter has encoded political stances into their operating procedures, and there's no escaping that even if they expressed a wish to treat their customers equally across the board.
There are only two ways out. One option is that Twitter admits it is biased, that they do discriminate against certain viewpoints, and that they do exert editorial control over their platform. The other option is that they return to viewpoint neutrality, avoid censorship/blocking, and only do so to the minimal extent explicitly required by law.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/27/arts/design/van-gogh-stol...
and
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/29/us/politics/klobuchar-min...
"During her own presidential campaign, Ms. Klobuchar faced continued protests, as well as some calls to drop out of the race from local black leaders in Minneapolis, after news reports found numerous faults in the prosecution of a black teenager named Myon Burrell while Ms. Klobuchar was the prosecutor."
> The Rodney King verdict and the ensuing riots are often framed as a turning point for law enforcement and the African-American community. But it's also the single most significant modern event for Korean-Americans, says Edward Taehan Chang, professor of ethnic studies and founding director of the Young Oak Kim Center for Korean American Studies at the University of California, Riverside.
> The nearly weeklong, widespread rioting killed more than 50 people, injured more than 1,000 people and caused approximately $1 billion in damage, about half of which was sustained by Korean-owned businesses. Long-simmering cultural clashes between immigrant Korean business owners and predominately African-American customers spilled over with the acquittals.
I'm on the side of the protesters here, don't get me wrong. But the media sweeps under the rug how often the rage from these events gets taken out on Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, etc.-owned small businesses. There is a narrative the media wants to peddle (black versus white), and these complexities don't have any place in the media narratives.
It sounds like you’re confirming OPs point, not refuting it.
This is human nature and the entire story of our history. Aeschylus even wrote about it:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/7333/jihad-holy-war-internal-sp...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Party_System [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Party_System
> A restaurant caught in the crossfire of unrest in Minneapolis Thursday night has sent a powerful message to its followers on social media: “Let my building burn.”
https://www.facebook.com/111805205582613/posts/3030378453725...:
> Sadly Gandhi Mahal has caught fire and has been damaged....Don’t worry about us, we will rebuild and we will recover. This is Hafsa, Ruhel’s daughter writing, as I am sitting next to my dad watching the news, I hear him say on the phone; “ let my building burn, Justice needs to be served, put those officers in jail”. Gandhi Mahal May have felt the flames last night, but our firey drive to help protect and stand with our community will never die! Peace be with everyone.
If I shot someone on video[0], I would be charged with a crime, likely homicide, that day and in jail until a bail hearing. At which point I might have the option to leave jail until my trial.
In this case the officer was arrested 3 days later (about an hour ago at time of writing), and only due to pressure from both citizens and politicians. Without that, it may have taken longer to charge him, or he may not have been charged at all, just like the other multiple times this officer killed someone.
That's a double standard. The police should serve the people, not be above them or immune to oversight.
[0]: A white person, if I shot a black person, the DA's office might try to cover it up and I'd only get arrested a month later after protests: https://www.nytimes.com/article/ahmaud-arbery-shooting-georg...
> Noor was ultimately arrested and charged with second-degree manslaughter and third-degree murder following an eight-month investigation by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and the Hennepin County Attorney's Office. In April 2019, Noor was convicted of third-degree murder and manslaughter, but acquitted of intentional second-degree murder. In June 2019, Noor was sentenced to 12.5 years in prison.
It seems like the system ended up working to a degree, at least putting the murderer behind bars. So why would one expect significant protests?
The outrage in these cases isn't over a white cop killing a black person per se, it's that the system immediately moves to protect the murderers because they're cops. Rather than arresting the criminal, fellow corrupt cops were stationed outside of his house to protect him. That the main perp has finally been charged is a product of the protests rather than the justice system moving slowly - witness that the conspirators have yet to be charged. Anyone who believes in law and order should be sympathetic to the protestors, even in spite of race.
Furthermore, ascribing the motives of a few looters onto the whole protest is ridiculous. Especially as at least some of that destruction was led by agents provocateurs.
It's funny. I went out of my way to de-politicize the question in order to further the discussion and you promptly re-politicized it in order to muddy it. I suspect it's because you know exactly what I'm getting at. You've avoided the core question no less than 3 times already.
I'll try one more time. Please resist the temptation to play word games or make it political:
If Twitter has limited fact-checking capabilities is it not correct — regardless of politics — to direct those resources where they are more effective?
Therefore (again, regardless of politics), Twitter's actions follow perfectly reasonable logic: that Trump's Tweets would face more scrutiny than say, mine.
Thus, your claim that "the rules are being enforced selectively" can easily be accounted for by Occams Razor: It makes perfect sense that more visible accounts face more scrutiny. It would be highly illogical for Twitter to do otherwise.
"Freedom Watch's First Amendment claim fails because it does not adequately allege that the Platforms can violate the First Amendment. In general, the First Amendment 'prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech,'" the court wrote, citing a previous opinion issued by the D.C. Court of Appeals. The judges went on to say that "'a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor.'"
Is this supposed to be bad? I actually wish that our own PM had done the same. I am sure that the citizens of a lot of countries that live under the rule of criminal syndicates, looters, and highwaymen would agree.
It seems that the US citizens are fine with state mandated violence as long as it does not include them. Nothing happened regarding https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21018041 for example.
Where are the studies that actually show it is a substantial number? Where's the peer-reviewed replication of those studies? How do those studies account for the "Lizardman constant" (https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and...)?
Maybe I'm unique, but I'd guess many of the downvoters have similar complaints.
I don't think it's fair to paint this as unique to US citizens. I'd go as far as saying this is generally true across the world, with few people protesting state sanctioned violence abroad, and significantly more people protesting domestic state sanctioned violence.
I don't think that's unusual. I think it's normal that we care more about our own lives than we do others lives, we care more about people dying at home than we do abroad.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it is normal human behaviour. A good example of this is watching how peoples perceptions of this latest coronavirus unfolded.
There's too much going on in all of our lives to have time for every bad thing happening elsewhere. You pick your battles. That's ok. You still have to live your life for yourself at the end of the day, nobody else is going to live your life for you.
Much as I hate the over-use of the term "dog whistle" this is the exact thing it means. It has plausible deniability, but to the intended audience it sends a clear message.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/05/29/when-the-l...
Looking at the union numbers, DNC had 46 senators of whom 45 voted for the act while the GOP had 32 of which 27 voted for it. So in union numbers the DNC senators voted 98% for it, while GOP did so with 84%.
Here is a longer article with this information: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republ...
As a result of this both parties changed. The DNC took a stand for civil rights and the southern democrats left. At the same time the GOP got a lot new members that influenced the party and created the new power base for it. Later GOP close victories all relied on the previous southern democrats.
Bigger picture, it is clear that the party depending on the south needs to cater to a voting base that is not very positive to civil rights movement, and the opposite for a party that wants to hold the north. It is important to understand that the DNC took a stand here that lost them the south long term because it was the right thing to do (in their minds).
https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1266452015493906435
President Trump has also clarified his remarks, which is a welcome move.
https://www.icollector.com/Austrian-Model-1849-Agustin-Jager...
> Since assuming office in January 2017, Trump has made at least 27 references to staying in office beyond the constitutional limit of two terms. He often follows up with a remark indicating he is “joking,” “kidding,” or saying it to drive the “fake” news media “crazy.” Even if Trump thinks that he’s only “joking,” the comments fit a broader pattern that raises the prospect that Trump may not leave office quietly in the event he’s on the losing end of a very close election.
The Geneva Convention says nothing in particular about hollowpoints, so the verbiage has an "interpretation" by DoD about the Rules of Land Warfare that skirts around the issue . See https://www.justsecurity.org/25200/dod-law-war-manual-return...
I know this because I carried hollowpoints while deployed in an anti-terrorism capacity.
Approx. 4000 employees of Twitter all around the world. Every day 100k (edit: 100M) tweets are sent. The reports of tweets that violate the platform policy are (reported by public) enter a queue. These are then inspected by personnel hired by Twitter (number varies proportionally to the scale reports in the queue).
The personnel then go through a series of steps to take an action such as making you verify again, delete those tweets, suspending the account, or in the last resort ban the user permanently.
All tweets containing muted words will be omitted from your timeline, or if they show up in a thread you're viewing, hidden in-place with a button to reveal. I use this feature liberally. Twitter would be unbearable without it.
You have already stated that you believe that individuals should be shot for theft here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23354190
This is simply a difference of opinion.
> National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Pub.L. 112–81. This NDAA contains several controversial sections (see article), the chief being §§ 1021–1022, which affirm provisions authorizing the indefinite military detention of civilians, including U.S. citizens, without habeas corpus or due process, contained in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub.L. 107–40.
Not to mention his failures to uphold the principles that he ran on: gitmo, whistleblower protections (vis a vis Manning, Asange and Snowden), massacres of civilians ("drone strikes"), etc.
Just because you haven't been watching, doesn't mean that this hasn't outraged the people who do. All of that stuff was covered by NPR at the time, so it's not like any of it was a secret.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorizati...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
I think you'll quickly lean in the opposing view after reviewing those viewpoints, because if Twitter was a utility it would have been declared one at some point in the previous 11 years.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fox-news-b...
> Current party lines blur to to the point of falling apart in the context of the 1964 Act, because it was a huge precipitating event for politicians switching parties (particularly Southern Democrats becoming Republicans). You can't directly map "Rs voted for the Act" onto party membership today: there was a very different mix of platforms at that time, only loosely comparable to what we have now.
In the 1950s and 1960s, as today, Democrats were the party of social welfare, regulation, big government, higher taxes, etc. And republicans were the party of big business, tax cuts, religion in schools, etc. Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx haven't voted for a Republican since the 1920s.
Apart from that, the way you phrased it makes it seem like southern democrats defected to the Republican Party because the democrats supported the 1964 civil rights act. That misleadingly implies that republicans didn't support the 1964 civil rights act (even more strongly)--otherwise, why would southern democrats defect to the Republican Party? Standing alone, it's an assertion that makes no sense, and it subtly tars Republicans as somehow having opposed civil rights.
What happened instead is that the issue changed. "Civil rights" in 1964 meant eliminating discrimination at lunch counters and on busses. That victory was won decisively. By the 1980s and early 1990s, the front had moved to things like affirmative action and racal quotas: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1991/01/15/q.... That triggered a realignment, based on pre-existing ideological lanes. The same republicans who supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could, entirely consistent with their ideology, oppose affirmative efforts to eliminate racial disparities.
[0] https://www.internetlivestats.com/twitter-statistics/#source...
> There were conservative tendencies in American politics before the 1930s, but the modern conservative movement was founded on opposition to the New Deal. The segregationist Democrats, on the other hand, were for the most part eager supporters of the New Deal—provided it was administered in a way that would exclude African Americans from most of its benefits. You do not have to take my word for it—consider the votes: on labor reform, on entitlements, on financial regulation, etc. If the southern Democrats were “conservatives,” then the New Deal was passed on conservative support, which is a very odd claim to make.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-vaccine-half-americ...
How many people does it take to become 'substantial'?
How do you go about "eliminating" a country and its inhabitants without killing them all?
How can Twitter apply these rules inconsistently and be taken seriously?
You normally have the facts on your side, or else you make generous and clear concessions. What is happening here? You are saying such incorrect (or confusing) things.
In point of fact, Democratic presidential candidates began to lose in Southern states because of integration well before the 1970s. Formerly-Democratic Southerners splintered from the Democratic party for explicitly segregationist reasons, and carried several Southern states under a third-party banner, in two different presidential elections (1948 and 1968).
(One of them, Strom Thurmond, is a direct counterexample to your argument that the Civil Rights Acts were not a "precipitating event for politicians switching parties." At least according to Wikipedia, he switched his affiliation to Republican because of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.)
Is this, like, something you haven't read about yet? Or do you have a strong argument that explains the above, which I don't get yet?
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/attack-fun...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/16/us/politics/trump-state-d...
You're wondering off and getting lost in the weeds with your example.
Twitter replied on its platform using a new mechanism that it created. Trying to twist that reply into an "edit" (with the implication that it's some kind of illegitimate corruption of the work replied to) is drifting towards a denial of free speech and other nonsensical implications.
> When I publish it, who is the information content provider as defined by section 230?
On Section 230 more generally:
Correcting a Persistent Myth About the Law that Created the Internet (https://www.theregreview.org/2019/07/15/kosseff-correcting-p...):
> Understanding section 230’s history is essential to informing the current debate about the law. And that history tells us that one of the main reasons for enacting section 230 was to encourage online services to moderate content....
> Section 230’s “findings” states that the internet offers “a forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” Nothing in section 230’s history, however, suggests that this goal requires platforms to be “neutral.” Indeed, section 230 allows platforms to develop different content standards, and customers ultimately can determine whether those standards meet their expectations. [Emphasis mine.]
https://nypost.com/2015/04/28/obama-calls-baltimore-rioters-...
>"... Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. .."
When a car manufacture represents their 18-wheeler fleet as a 'passenger cars' -- we understand that this is a lie and demand corrective action.
When twitter manufactures opinions and hides them as 'public forum discourse' -- we are supposed to be ok with that?
I would be ok if their manufactured opinions are displayed to paid subscribers only, who want to care what Jack Dorsey thinks about President Trump, obamagate or Brexit.
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-or...
Running medical trials on unsuspecting people is wrong whether it's a new drug or vaccine. It also has little to do with the well proven safety vaccines.
> b)Some vaccines contain trace amounts of metals like mercury.
Ah, the classic anti-vax 'toxins' argument. I said that vaccines have been proven safe time and again (which they have). I never said they don't have trace amounts of stuff often found in much larger amounts all around us in the environment [1].
> When I was child, I was literally vaccinated with a re-used needle. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.
There was a time in not so long ago medical history that things like needles were reused. It wasn't specific to vaccines.
> I don't understand why you can act like vaccines have never hurt anyone ever, and claim it as the scientific view
Talk about moving/making up goal posts. Nowhere did I claim that no one was ever hurt in the history of figuring out how vaccines work. What I claimed is that vaccines today have been proven safe over and over again. They also do not cause autism.
[1] https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/toxic-myths-about-vaccines/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/ok-dude-twitter-susp...
France, for example, recently passed a law demanding that various illegal content be removed in 1 hour or 24 hours, or face enormous fines: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52664609
A riot is dangerous, unpredictable, and unwise (imo), but I wouldn't characterize it as thuggish. It's clear to me the reason that word was used was to appeal to his base, who are eager to put a label on these protestors as a way of dehumanizing them.
https://theconversation.com/thugs-is-a-race-code-word-that-f...
Some Democrats like Thurmond did switch in 1964, because once Democrats abandoned their support for segregation, they found they shared other principles with Republicans. But focusing on those isolated instances overlooks and downplays the deep alliance between Democrats and segregationists. Woodrow Wilson, a pioneer of modern progressive “governance by expert bureaucracy” re-segregated the federal workforce. Segregationist Democrats were a key pillar of support for FDR’s New Deal. George Wallace was a segregationist, and also a New Dealer, a champion of labor who called for expanding Social Security. From 1930-1970, the Democratic coalition was glued together by the New Deal, with northern Democrats agreeing to look the other way at what southern Democrats were doing. (I use 1970 as the end date, because those alliances were in place even by Carter’s time: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/jimmy-carters-racist-camp.... Carter would not have won without the South.)
In fact, a minority of Republicans in the 1960s, like Barry Goldwater, did make overtures towards anti-integration forces, in an effort to win southern votes. But they never managed to dismantle the Democratic New Deal coalition in the south. That didn’t happen until much later. And at that point, two major things had happened. Southern states has transitioned from agricultural to industrial. The economy of places like Georgia had boomed by drawing businesses from northern states with lower taxes and less regulation. At the same time, the focus of the “civil rights” movement changed. It moved onto very different issues like affirmative action. I happen to support affirmative action, but it’s hard to deny that it’s an ideologically very different thing than the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Its the class “negative right” versus “positive right” dichotomy that’s always divided conservative versus liberal thought.
The reason I take an exception to the characterization above is that through omission framing, it attempts to tarnish Republicans for something they were on the right side of, while absolving Democrats of something they were for a long time on the wrong side of. It also falsely equates very different civil rights policies. It goes to Biden’s “[Romney] wants to put y’all back in chains” rhetoric. No, it was Democrats who wanted to do that. Romney, and modern Republicans, don’t want to use the power of government to affirmatively erase historical inequities. But it was the Romney-type pro-business Republicans that were a bulwark of the Civil Rights Acts.
1) Democrats were the party of white ethno-nationalism, starting in the 1800s. 2) Democrats abandon that plank by the 1960s, joining with longstanding Republican efforts and overturning Jim Crow. 3) Much later, for unrelated reasons, the South becomes Republicans.
Is that about right?
I agree with #1 and #2. I disagree with #3 and I don't see how the facts support it.
First, there's the "much later" part of #3. Here [1] are presidential voting records for the 13 states of the confederacy. In every case but Missouri, there is a) a period of near-uniform Democratic domination from 1880-1944, b) a string of Democratic losses, and at least two Republican victories, by 1972.
(Yes, Carter won several of those states after Nixon's disgrace. To some degree I contest the conclusions you're drawing there: so did Hoover, Clinton, etc to lesser degrees. I acknowledge that many of these states were purple in the 1970s, but I don't think that supports the timeline of #3 in context.)
Second, there is the claim of "unrelated reasons". The idea that "a minority of Republicans in the 1960s" made overtures to segregationist Dems is equivalent to saying "Nixon didn't do anything like the Southern Strategy", right? (Or were you talking about regional races?) Doesn't that assertion, in turn, hinge on the idea that "states' rights" (to pick one example) is not an overture? If so, I would call it a weak argument.
[1]
https://www.270towin.com/states/Alabama https://www.270towin.com/states/Georgia https://www.270towin.com/states/Louisiana https://www.270towin.com/states/Mississippi https://www.270towin.com/states/Missouri https://www.270towin.com/states/North_Carolina https://www.270towin.com/states/South_Carolina https://www.270towin.com/states/Tennessee https://www.270towin.com/states/Texas https://www.270towin.com/states/Virginia
I think much of the media (bbc, reuters, vox, cnbc, msnbc, abc, cnn, buzzfeed, huffingtonpost, twitter's leadership) basically are the propaganda arm of the anti-Trump Coup.
The use a multi-level approach to execute and to protect it:
- to keep legitimacy of their disinformation efforts, keep 10-15% of the reporting as 'neutral', and then flood the 90% of the time with anti-president message.
This tactic allows for what I call: Plausible Deniability.
When you confront these propagandists about the majority of their disinformation compaign, they point to the '10%' and then claim plausible deniability ('eg we do not do everything wrong)
- Use War propaganda tactics [2]. With emphasis on 4 (We are defending a noble cause, not our particular interests!) and 5 (The enemy is purposefully committing atrocities; if we are making mistakes this happens without intention)
- instigate unrest (and there are a number of tactics to do this, as we are seeing being unrolled)
When you use the above decomposition, it is, at least for me, easy to see what is going on and why.
With regards to:
>".. Could you write down these opinions as if they were your own, without violating HN's house rules?.."
Sure. So let me re-iterate the context
Trump's tweet: >"... ....These THUGS are dishonering the memory of George Floyd, and I won't let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any Difficult and we will assume control, but when looting starts, the the shooting starts.
Thank you. ..."
The twitter suggests that the above is glorifying violence.
I think that an opinion, it is a wrong opinion. And leads to more violence.
I would interpret Trump's message as:
- Laws will be enforced. Help to local police is on the way (in the form of National Guard that Tim Woltz mobilized [1]).
- Physical harm to Innocent people and their property will lead to shootings.
I would interpret Twitter's handling of this as: we do not want law enforcement to enforce laws. Loot all you want, it is your right under the circumstances.
[1] https://www.newsmax.com/politics/tim-walz-george-floyd-riots...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Basic_Principles_of_War_Pr...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/shocked-by-th...
I don't see anything about jailing them - and I remember reading a story awhile back about but can't find it. So if I'm wrong on that point, I stand corrected.
With that said - Obama definitely attacked journalists from DC. Spying on them, following them, etc.
> Trump removing various people
Those people work at the Presidents discretion. All previous Presidents have fired staff at various stages for various reasons.
Trump is a businessman who is known for firing people... You may have seen his Reality TV Show. His catch line? YOURE FIRED!
https://www.rollcall.com/2017/05/10/a-list-of-notable-presid...
He has the ability to fire people at will.
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/165983
> The final vote was ten in favor and ten opposed, so Adams, exercising for the first time his Constitutional authority to break a tie, settled the matter in favor of the president’s exclusive removal power.
> The president’s authority to dismiss an appointee is now settled law, but with the text unclear, it had to be settled by the First Federal Congress.
> autocracy
Trump doesn't have the "unlimited powers" of a King or a Dictator though... you can claim it but he's got the same power as those before.
You could argue about "incremental" movements... but Trump hasn't moved the needle any further that I know of. Previous Presidents? Definitely... but Trump has been using everything previous Presidents have used - from Obama on back.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/6/1/1949441/-Trump-s-J...
