zlacker

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+(OP)
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+(OP)
Do you consider the tweet far-right violent rhetoric?

>>Quercu+(OP)
> Deplatforming works.

Any evidence for that assertion?

>>koheri+14
Yeah, I'm not sure how "deplatforming" the US President is even going to work...

>>Aviceb+Z3
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+om
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."

>>pnako+b6
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+DA
On the other hand if nobody took him seriously As a candidate, the networks would have ignored him.