zlacker

There is a worse side effect that comes from conservatives feeling that they have been silenced, as people feel like they have less and less say in a political process they are more and more likely to start employing means outside of it. The real risk here is that if more and more outlets for conservative voices are silenced, whether for good cause or not, this will reinforce the narrative that many of them have that they are the defenders of the truth and right and there is a vast conspiracy operating to seize their guns, deprive them of their rights, and whatever else they can imagine. As that happens there becomes more and more moral justification and greater and greater need there is seen to employ violence in end of their goals.

Ultimately the more and more "dangerous" opinions and people who share those opinions are silenced the more and more dangerous they become in reality.

EDIT: The nature of this comment is intended to be observational not advocational.

>>hpoe+(OP)
Alternatively - if those pushing the far-right violent rhetoric don't have as much of an audience, their support may fade because they don't have a platform.

Deplatforming works.

>>Quercu+N2
It is an interesting question. Although de-platforming reduces the reach of a group does it increase the overall vitrol of the group, or the level of extremism?

Although it may mean fewer people become part of the community it would also mean that those that remain with it are now more isolated from the outside world and increase the precieved level of persecution? Would this then correlate with an increase in action?

I don't know the answer to this, it seems logical to me that each of these answers would be yes, but I definitely think it is a topic worth investigating and discussing.

>>Quercu+N2
Do you consider the tweet far-right violent rhetoric?

>>Quercu+N2
> Deplatforming works.

Any evidence for that assertion?

>>hpoe+(OP)
Do you believe it’s more dangerous to: A: Remove a post encouraging violence with the risk it’ll anger a group of people? Or... B: Keep it and let it reach 80 million followers?

There’s plenty of evidence that many sites (twitter included) allow violent speech from specific groups because they’re worried of the political backlash. These groups still complain about being silenced just the same, despite blatantly violating the TOS.

It doesn’t work. You’re just giving dangerous and violent people a platform to organize, encourage and enable violence. As a platform owner, you can’t just hope they’ll behave if you treat them nicely.

>>koheri+O6
Yeah, I'm not sure how "deplatforming" the US President is even going to work...

>>hpoe+(OP)
Unless the content is called out for inaccuracy, bigotry, etc the user may not even be aware of the issue they create. Like if someone retweets a claim they believe but it is flagged as misleading and fact checked that might be the first time their views were checked and they might recognize their beliefs are wrong and rethink things. But they often won't and I think that is as much part of the problem. Trump won't rethink his position because a tweet was fact checked, he will attack the fact checker and supporters will do the same thanks to his example. There is no self reflection or awareness when called out and the poster becomes defensive, refusing to accept their comment as fake news or bigotry.

If conservatives feel they are being silenced but cannot recognize that the views 'censored' are often bigoted, racist, or simply unpopular or abhorrent outside their bubble, then what do you to? If you call out blatant racism you are less likely to find the user recognize their racism, apologize, and not use such language again and more likely to be called a snowflake and have that behavior turned up a notch. If the original comment is then downvoted by the community or removed by mods then it will enforce that persons view that they are being attacked. This is incredibly common on Reddit where users often include a 'bring on the downvotes' type edit after stating something intolerant or clearly false.

The solution is not to allow these views and opinions to sit unchecked but to recognize a modern civil society must be intolerant of intolerance and moderate appropriately. Downvote and report racist comments. Apply fact checking to statements, even those you believe or feel to be true as that is a sign of bias. If the user doubles down, move on as there is no value in arguing with someone putting their feelings and beliefs/bias above facts and reality. Perhaps when society or their online community turns their back on their comments they will finally have the time to reflect on why and recognize their behavior was unwarranted and unwanted.

>>Aviceb+M6
When the president says "we will take over", and that "the shooting will start", that seems (to me) to be fairly authoritarian (right-leaning) rhetoric.

Our laws explicitly forbid the national military "taking over" in such situations -- the national guard (state military) is who is supposed to be deployed.

>>gknoy+bp
Wikipedia says: "In 2006, Congress passed the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, which gave the president the authority to mobilize National Guard units within the U.S. without the consent of state governors."

>>hpoe+(OP)
> as people feel like they have less and less say in a political process they are more and more likely to start employing means outside of it

Teetering on the brink of an epiphany.

>>pnako+Y8
Why do you think he even got elected? All the news networks had him on constantly. If they had ignored him, he never would have been as influential.

>>Quercu+qD
On the other hand if nobody took him seriously As a candidate, the networks would have ignored him.