In defence of Trump

[DrZoidberg]

I really dislike the alternative which is forbidding these companies to regulate their own fucking product. Discriminating against people who support domestic terrorism is fine - discrimination against race gender or sexuality is not. Why is that so fucking hard?

I have the same values as you. What sets us apart is that I'm against ramming those values down other people's throat, no matter what methods are used.

Yep. So why are you making it a left vs right issue?

It is more complicated than left vs right. But we do have a situation where the left have gained power in society, but we are unaware of the extent of our power. It's like leftist are mentally still in the 70'ies and fighting The Man. But not realising that we are The Man now.

I suspect it has something to do with that humanities subjects are typically something that left leaning people are attracted to. The communication arts are all humanities subjects. After the Internet and social media came into prominence the left took over the public narrative completely. We're simply better at stringing words together coherently. An important political tool has always been "framing the narrative". The QAnnon crowd have no idea how to construct a punchy story. So much is obvious after watching their retarded videos. I personally can't tell what stories the right/conservatives are telling themselves now to come together around. It looks to me they're just getting increasingly fractured. As it is now, they are unable to do anything useful. Which the Trump presidency demonstrated.

Speak for yourself. I brand myself as a middle-age obstinate cunt. And I have no problem telling Anti-vaxxer QAnon morons to go and get fucked because giving them a platform tacitly gives their bullshit views legitimacy. The golden rule for de-escalating a situation where someone is having a psychotic episode is that you don't feed their delusions. That's how capitols get stormed and Pizza shops get shot at. So no, I don't think Amazon, Google etc are in anyway obligated to host bullshit, clear bullshit, on their platforms or incitements to terrorism because of some ivory tower "both sides" bullshit equanimity.

This is just another version of fascism imho. Left leaning fascism. How do you and I know that we're sitting on the truth? What if QAnnon are the ones who knows what is going on? If we suppress them, we'll never know.

I don't care about de-escalating situations, unless the people targeted are private citizens. Democracy is about letting ideas spread and run freely. The more ideas the better. The more we talk and work on our arguments, the better in the long run.

I think you're the one in the ivory tower. Democracy is a fragile thing. It's easy to lose if we go draconian about it.

I'm perfectly fine with people discussing attacks on the government and revolution. It'll keep the government on their toes. Prevent them from taking their citizens for granted. And above all, it's a sign of a healthy democracy and healthy public debate.

No it fucking isn't. That attitude devolves into, "Wah! My side lost! Everyone gather your pitchforks and let's go fuck *them* up!" very quickly. Believe it or not, there are ways to hold politicians to account without advocating acts of terrorism.

A terrorist is just another word for a freedom fighter. All the word does is give away your ideological leaning. I'd never get in the way of a person fighting for they believe in.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If tomorrow, Amazon decided on a whim to shut down BLM websites, or Apple decided to remove the Mastodon app from their store because someone in there made insulting comments about Tim Cook, you wouldn't think there is any problem with that?

Is that spelled out in Amazon's Or Apple's TOU? 'Whim?' 'Insult?' If so, sucks to not read the small print, i guess.

When i was in the service, our junior sailors kept signing financial contracts that had articles like, "In case of a legal dispute, the signee pre-agrees that the company wins the lawsuit." Sucks, but once they had enterred the contract, not much we could do. Except warn our next crop of junior sailors...

If not in the agreed- upon conditions, though, might not be aznywhere analogous to Parler's situation.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Does Zoid realize that a good percentage of these Trump supporters voted for Obama? Many of them never were conservatives, other than their fear of having their guns taking away, or their desire for a Christian theocracy. Some of them simply lost their minds after becoming victims of a charismatic cult leader.

I don't think Zoid has a clue as to what's going on in the US. And, btw there are plenty of intellectual conservative outlets and writers in the US but the Trump supporters aren't interested in reading them. Trump should have been banned from Twitter a long time ago, since he broke so many of Twitter's rules, but because he was the president, Twitter allowed him to remain right up until he incited violence and encouraged insurrection against his own country. Imo, the real reason they left him on was probably due to trying to push up the price of their stock.

Free speech has limits. We Americans were all taught that in grammar school. Making threats of violence toward someone has always been a crime in the US, as. has been making terroristic threats, etc.

And, for fuck's sake, Zoid, stop claiming that what Twitter and the rest of social media did was an example of cancel culture. It's not. Since when is condemning someone for inciting violence the same thing as condemning someone for something minor they said or did in many cases, decades ago? I don't know if this thread was simply started as a way to get dramatic replies, but it sure looks that way to me.

Why isn't it cancel culture?

I think the guy is an inept leader who doesn't understand cause and effect. A petulant child.

Actually, stop using the term 'cancel culture'. It's a toxic right wing dogwhistle. Unless you want to just admit that you're a right wing troll with little grasp of actual political boundaries, anything involving nuance, or frankly anything more than a three word slogan. It's stupid, pointless, and just buys into te right wing media spin.

The right wing morons protest, boycott, and frankly terrorize businesses all the time. The right wing practices what they call cancel culture ALL. THE. FUCKING. TIME. Actually more than the left, and more extreme than the left. So either fuck off with that noise, or just admit you're a fucking Nazi.

 

[ZiprHead]

Does the group include that? I get the impression that QAnnon are just a bunch of incells sitting in their moms basement making videos. The top government officials claiming affiliation is just throwing them a bone for some support. I think these people have zero backing of any power. I think these people are disempowered. I'm not saying that conservatives as a whole are disempowered. But the QAnnon people are.

You changed the subject from Parler to Qanon.

Let me know when you decide who you're talking about.
Tom

Parler is the preferred social media platform for QAnnon supporters. That's why Amazon stopped hosting it

No, it's not why amazon stopped hosting it.

 

[TomC]

Parler is the preferred social media platform for QAnnon supporters. That's why Amazon stopped hosting it

No, it's not why amazon stopped hosting it.

You're correct, it's not just QAnon. Parler is the preferred social media platform for antigovernment terrorists.
As long as they were just talking about it, Parler remained legal. They had services. It's when they started acting that it became illegal and treasonous. And that's when they lost those services.

This isn't just about differing opinions anymore. I can advocate for legalizing recreational drugs. No problem. But if I start planning for distribution it gets sticky. If I start actually selling them....

Tom

 

[DrZoidberg]

Does Zoid realize that a good percentage of these Trump supporters voted for Obama? Many of them never were conservatives, other than their fear of having their guns taking away, or their desire for a Christian theocracy. Some of them simply lost their minds after becoming victims of a charismatic cult leader.

I don't think Zoid has a clue as to what's going on in the US. And, btw there are plenty of intellectual conservative outlets and writers in the US but the Trump supporters aren't interested in reading them. Trump should have been banned from Twitter a long time ago, since he broke so many of Twitter's rules, but because he was the president, Twitter allowed him to remain right up until he incited violence and encouraged insurrection against his own country. Imo, the real reason they left him on was probably due to trying to push up the price of their stock.

Free speech has limits. We Americans were all taught that in grammar school. Making threats of violence toward someone has always been a crime in the US, as. has been making terroristic threats, etc.

And, for fuck's sake, Zoid, stop claiming that what Twitter and the rest of social media did was an example of cancel culture. It's not. Since when is condemning someone for inciting violence the same thing as condemning someone for something minor they said or did in many cases, decades ago? I don't know if this thread was simply started as a way to get dramatic replies, but it sure looks that way to me.

Why isn't it cancel culture?

I think the guy is an inept leader who doesn't understand cause and effect. A petulant child.

Actually, stop using the term 'cancel culture'. It's a toxic right wing dogwhistle. Unless you want to just admit that you're a right wing troll with little grasp of actual political boundaries, anything involving nuance, or frankly anything more than a three word slogan. It's stupid, pointless, and just buys into te right wing media spin.

The right wing morons protest, boycott, and frankly terrorize businesses all the time. The right wing practices what they call cancel culture ALL. THE. FUCKING. TIME. Actually more than the left, and more extreme than the left. So either fuck off with that noise, or just admit you're a fucking Nazi.

Yes, it's an old conservative tradition back from the days when they could push people around. That doesn't make it ok, or anything the left should emulate. It's just abuse of power. I totally believe cancel culture is a thing. I don't think it's a dogwhistle. I don't think it's a right wing media spin. I think it's a genuine problem today, and it's getting worse.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Parler is the preferred social media platform for QAnnon supporters. That's why Amazon stopped hosting it

No, it's not why amazon stopped hosting it.

Their stated reason for stopping with hosting it, obviously isn't the real reason. It's a convenient thing to blame it on, to avoid alienating any of their customers. Alt right loonies also buys shit online.

 

[Patooka]

Parler is the preferred social media platform for QAnnon supporters. That's why Amazon stopped hosting it

No, it's not why amazon stopped hosting it.

Their stated reason for stopping with hosting it, obviously isn't the real reason. It's a convenient thing to blame it on, to avoid alienating any of their customers. Alt right loonies also buys shit online.

I am envious of your mind reading skills. It is far more likely, far FAR more likely that the rational was, "If we keep Trump on our platform and he escalates we are accountable and we have shareholders to answer for."

 

[barbos]

So Trump finally spoke.
and then youtube decided I need to watch this:

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Parler is the preferred social media platform for QAnnon supporters. That's why Amazon stopped hosting it

No, it's not why amazon stopped hosting it.

Their stated reason for stopping with hosting it, obviously isn't the real reason. It's a convenient thing to blame it on, to avoid alienating any of their customers. Alt right loonies also buys shit online.

In an email obtained by BuzzFeed News, an AWS Trust and Safety team told Parler Chief Policy Officer Amy Peikoff that the calls for violence propagating across the social network violated its terms of service. Amazon said it was unconvinced that the service’s plan to use volunteers to moderate calls for violence and hate speech would be effective.

“Recently, we’ve seen a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms," the email reads. "It’s clear that Parler does not have an effective process to comply with the AWS terms of service.”

link
I think it is funny, that in their rush to show their disdain with Facebook, they outed their alternative. And now their alternative is gone. Not only are these people dangerous, they are incredibly petty and stupid.

 

[ZiprHead]

Someone who was monitoring Parler said many posters offered web hosting services to the company.

 

[ZiprHead]

Parler is the preferred social media platform for QAnnon supporters. That's why Amazon stopped hosting it

No, it's not why amazon stopped hosting it.

Their stated reason for stopping with hosting it, obviously isn't the real reason. It's a convenient thing to blame it on, to avoid alienating any of their customers. Alt right loonies also buys shit online.

 

[Elixir]

 

[TomC]

View attachment 31297

Well, at least when your boss announced his intentions in front of a huge crowd and TV cameras you know where you stand.

No more back room, corporate skullduggery, bullshit. Pence knows what Trump thinks. And what a real life gallows looks like.

Tom

 

[TomC]

View attachment 31297

Also, unfortunately for me.
I'm from Pence's hometown.

Our police force is kinda miniscule, and extremists from both sides are gunning for him. I'm really glad that I'm not part of the group who has to provide personal security to Trump's ex in a place locked and loaded with Trump supporters.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

Someone who was monitoring Parler said many posters offered web hosting services to the company.

I can see it now...

 

[ZiprHead]

The Mercers are billionaires. I'm sure they can afford to buy their own servers.

 

[Jayjay]

If tomorrow, Amazon decided on a whim to shut down BLM websites, or Apple decided to remove the Mastodon app from their store because someone in there made insulting comments about Tim Cook, you wouldn't think there is any problem with that? How about restaurants refusing service to people based on skin color or accent?

Who gave these companies the power to decide what politics or opinions are acceptable?

I really dislike the alternative which is forbidding these companies to regulate their own fucking product. Discriminating against people who support domestic terrorism is fine - discrimination against race gender or sexuality is not. Why is that so fucking hard?

Discrimination based on race, gender or sexuality is illegal. Why? Because enough people decided that it was harmful to allow businesses to "regulate their own products" this way, and it was. So they enacted laws to prevent that. But just having batshit crazy opinions on stuff, including domestic terrorism, isn't illegal (and to the extent it is, it should be handled by the police and courts, not Jeff Bezos). Parler was kicked out of AWS because of public outrage. It's mob justice.

I am not saying that what Apple or Amazon are doing should be illegal. They do have a right to choose whom they serve, as long as it's within the law. But just because they can do it, doesn't mean they should. The amount of power these companies have on individuals and how they can mold public opinion is huge, and it's problematic to say the least. Parler can be kicked to the ground, but Twitter and Facebook can continue unabated in pushing us ads and opinions based on their algorithms just as before. The reason why I used Mastodon as an example is no coincidence: it's a twitter-like distributed social network, where there is no central authority that can block certain messages. If right-wing extremists (or left-wing or religious extremists) were to move their chatter to Mastodon, then what? Would it be ok for Apple and Google remove all Mastodon clients from their app stores?

 

[Jayjay]

If tomorrow, Amazon decided on a whim to shut down BLM websites, or Apple decided to remove the Mastodon app from their store because someone in there made insulting comments about Tim Cook, you wouldn't think there is any problem with that?

Is that spelled out in Amazon's Or Apple's TOU? 'Whim?' 'Insult?' If so, sucks to not read the small print, i guess.

When i was in the service, our junior sailors kept signing financial contracts that had articles like, "In case of a legal dispute, the signee pre-agrees that the company wins the lawsuit." Sucks, but once they had enterred the contract, not much we could do. Except warn our next crop of junior sailors...

If not in the agreed- upon conditions, though, might not be aznywhere analogous to Parler's situation.

The removal of Parler app from Apple app store, as well as AWS denying them hosting services, were of course superficially justified by breaches of TOU. But these companies have leeway in interpreting their terms and they could have just as easily decided differently. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it should be done.

(Although, Parler has sued Amazon for breach of contract and something might come out of that.)

 

[Treedbear]

In my opinion, and it seems to be that of many people of authority on both sides, Twitter was justified in removing Trump's account. Isn't the removal of Parler, etc. by Amazon and Google and others justified for essentially the same reason? I don't know. I'd argue that clear and present danger applies equally well to a company as it does to an individual. Especially in view of the SCOTUS decision that corporations are people as far as free speech is concerned. It's not just an issue of a company's interest in making a profit. They legally have the right to moral and ethical interests, and it should be assumed that they have the right to a social conscience.

Just as with Trump and his use of innuendo and gaslighting, there isn't a fine line that get's violated. But it comes as close as we can allow it to when it results in a siege on Congress. Trump is a master at skirting the bounds of what's legal. It's the reason his followers admire him. It's what makes him a true businessman in their eyes. On Wednesday it got to the point where it didn't matter what was legally justified or not. His actions were "a clear and present danger". That's why the axiom as expressed by Oliver Wendall Holmes sounds so nebulous. Trump doesn't come out yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. He'll say "A lot of people are saying there's a fire in the theater!" Is there really any difference? If an internet forum can't demonstrate that they are able to honor and ensure that TOU are followed don't they deserve to be censored?