If I went on Forumosa and started chanting shit like "Kill all (insert your minority of choice)!, I’d be banned so quickly, I wouldn’t even have time to say “Tell my wife I love her”.
Because rules.
Social media platforms also have rules about inciting violence, hate speech and encouraging illegal activities.
So the next time you ban someone for doing any of the above things, consider yourself an integral part of “cancel culture mob” and a denier of “free speech”.
Well, no, because those two things aren’t the same thing. If Donald Trump was making videos saying “Kill all (insert your minority of choice)” I’d definitely support banning him. The conversation is exactly about where this line should be.
That’s not what it’s about. It’s more about the"cancel culture" and “snowflake” terminology that gets bandied about by the right-wing.
Giving fascists a voice and platforms is considered “free speech”, and if you are against it, you’re part of the “cancel culture mob”.
Then it is what it’s about, largely. There are certain limits to free speech under different situations. You seem to feel that the limit should extend to “fascists”, much as if you had said “Kill all (minority of your choice)” on this site which we might all agree would be abhorrent. Under that circumstance, I can see why you’d chafe when people use terms like “cancel culture” for other things, which aren’t quite “Kill all (minority of your choice)” or what you term as fascism. I don’t see how saying “Kill all (minority of your choice)” and some kind of undefined fascism are the same, though.
I bolded the part of relevance to what you said. So I agree with you, responsible moderation is nothing to do with cancel culture or anything wrong with it, it keeps undesirables away.
Now back to you, just today we had one poster refer to Trump supporters as cockroaches, another upon learning Trump supporters were protesting in 50 cites and were armed offered the solution “kill them all” there were 75 million people (at least) who voted for Trump. Another had the suggestion of rounding them up in what sounded something similar to the cultural revolution.
So the previous threats are…erased? I watched my city burn up for days. My friends lost their businesses. I’d rather not forget that that happened, or who was largely responsible for doing it and those politicians responsible for allowing it to happen.
Maybe, just maybe that’s why there are “on going threats.” The public is seeking equilibrium.
Overachieving priority is to get the next president installed. There was a direct threat to the constitution and it is not clear that it has disappeared.
The other threats have not disappeared, but they have not escalated since Jan 6th, when it seem it was ok. There must be ongoing monitoring and investigation already.
No, of course not. But they are not in any sense equivalent and should not be conflated. We are talking about a president and his supporters who are unwilling to accept the election and willing to trash the constitution and US government institutions with their only goal being to keep Trump in office. Basically an insurrection. Many of those supporters are willing to use violence or the threat of violence to achieve that.
Many were using violence to achieve social change. I really do not think this was an insurrection. I mean, they were dressed as cartoon characters ffs.