(08-20-2021 05:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-20-2021 03:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

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

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

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

Do you know what they tweet? Is there an official Taliban account?

I know what Trump tweeted - you gave me that, and it absolutely does not in the slightest incite violence.

So if Twitter can interpret any tweet in any way, why not interpret any Taliban tweet as inciting violence? Have any of them turned on the news recently? Why does the Taliban get preferential treatment over Trump if they can just declare any tweet can mean anything they want?

It's simple, and plain as the nose on your face -it is based on politics.

You know it, and yet you still defend the Taliban.

And I sure wish Biden would stop calling it the Tally-bon.

Do you know what they tweet? Seems like you’ve read some of them. Is it like an official Taliban account?