(08-20-2021 02:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-20-2021 12:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-20-2021 09:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-20-2021 05:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-19-2021 09:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Wow, Americans defending the Taliban. Hooray for you.

Clearly I’m not defending the Taliban. And you know that.

[

Quote:Your quote proves that Twitter chose to interpret some tweets as inciting violence. I don't think they did. I think it is an interpretation of denying the election.

I guess you will just have to show me where/how he incited violence. I want to see the words where he told people to be violent. I will not do your research for you.

In any case, it does not give a free pass to the Taliban, a course you seem to back.

My personal opinion is that "Death to Unbelievers" is worse than "The election was stolen". I guess we will just have to differ on that. I will remain staunchly anti-Taliban, no matter how nicely they say they want to put the whole world under Sharia law.

I’m not defending Twitter’s decision here about Trump - I’m pointing out that they clearly banned him for his tweets. That was just an excerpt from a rather long post explaining their rationale. Maybe you can look up something.

And I clearly am not giving a “free pass” to the Taliban. This is why the post was cheap and shallow - it clearly conflates two issues for anyone who actually takes a step back. But it lets people like you make a false argument that someone is supporting the Taliban if they point out the shallowness of it.

Once again, point to the tweets that the Taliban has made that you think are against Twitter’s policy, or indicate that you support Twitter banning people/groups for their activities outside of Twitter.

YOU point to the tweets in which you think Trump incited violence.

I think it is a matter of interpretation. For example, some years ago I was giving a talk to a group of about 600 people. As an icebreaker, I mentioned that I was divorced "but would rather be widowed". Now if I made that statement today, Twitter could CHOOSE to interpret it as me advertising that I was in the market for hit man. Then they could CHOOSE to ban me for it. Then Lad could CHOOSE to cite that as evidence that I had in fact tried to hire a hit man.

(Aside: the audience laughed, I had a very good and memorable presentation, and today my ex and I are friendly - and she is still alive)

Show me where he said "Go beat up people, burn their homes, destroy property, kill a few". (Aside: sounds like a BLM peaceful protest, doesn't it?) If all he said was "fight for your rights, don't accept the tainted results", well then, that is very similar to what lots of people were saying in 2016. Very similar to what politicians on both sides of the aisle say routinely.

But if YOU want to change MY mind, YOU need to show ME the tweets.

I am not on Twitter, but I think if they are going to discriminate and ban anybody, it should be murderous organizations like the Taliban, al-Qaeda, Biko Haram, etc.

Twitter literally does that - christ. Here, read it in its entirety: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/co...suspension

You thinking Twitter wasn't correct in their decision is irrelevant to the conversation here. And I don't care and am not trying to change your mind on whether Trump should have been banned.

I'm simply pointing out how the comparison isn't apt.

Thanks for that lnk.

Reading just confirms they twisted and turned in whatever way they needed to get an interpretation to do what they wanted to do. There was no, zero, incitement to violence. All there was was biased interpretation

For example:

The use of the words “American Patriots” to describe some of his supporters is also being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the US Capitol.

"American Patriots" means support for those committing violence? I wonder what "Gold Star Family" means in that case - go burn a federal building?

They say that "instead that he plans to continue to support, empower, and shield those who believe he won the election." What the hell is wrong with that? And where is the incitement to violence?

It is pretty clear that Twitter wanted to ban Trump and seized on the flimsiest of excuses.

Just as I thought.

Now, if they can "read into" tweets whatever they want, why don't they "read into" the Taliban tweets that they incite violence when they say the world should be under Sharia law?