Florida State Seminoles

[hedge]

"yea to some extent."

Were you tempted to paint your face red and blue and don a buffalo headdress and storm the offices of CNN?

[eCat]

"yea to some extent."

Were you tempted to paint your face red and blue and don a buffalo headdress and storm the offices of CNN?

I was until I found pornhub

CNNSI and the rivals board - whatever version they were back then, like IC for example

taught us all very early that the internet was not freedom of speech. Whoever owned the platform owned the speech.

There are millions of people that were on social media who didn't have the benefit of learning what we did back in the late 90's and thought they should be able to say what they want, as much as they want, to whoever they want.

Now that Trump is essentially powerless to fight back against the social media platforms, those millions of people are learning a hard lesson about internet democracy.

[hedge]

"That's why I have trouble understanding why you of all people would want voices of dissent silenced."

Verbal dissent is one thing. Planning and organizing insurrection is something different. I understand that the majority of people on parler aren't doing that, but if parler refuses to monitor their own site and allows some to, they get what they ask for. And hey, like you said, they don't have to rely on Amazon or Google or whoever else. They can buy their own servers (or whatever the fuck it is they're paying Amazon to provide) and have their own setup. Can't afford it? Hey, neither can I. Either raise the money or go home. Why should Amazon or Google or any other company be forced to accommodate shit like that? CNNSI didn't, so we gravitated to some shithole that would allow us to wish death on each other in pithy ways. Parler can do the same...

[hedge]

I thought reddit was already the place where anybody could say anything. Hasn't that been around for awhile? What's the big innovation that parler has supposedly discovered that was different from what people have been doing on reddit for years?

[hedge]

[eCat]

to me thats like saying terrorist planned their attack on the world trade center using AT&T cell phones so AT&T bears some responsibility.

we provide a platform for free speech. we aren't responsible for what users says.

and if we are honest, we know that Antifa, Proud Boys, BLM, 1%'ers whatever have been using social media to plan meetings and acts of civil disturbance well before Parler.

We can say that insurrection is worse, but the "guidelines" for stating why someone should be removed isn't limited to whatever you define as insurrection, its about planned acts of breaking the law.

The issue is that Parler caters to a specific demographic if you will, while the other platforms are supposedly ideology agnostic. No one in charge was willing to step up and say that anarchy organized thru Facebook or twitter was a threat to Americans, they were more concerned with Russian influence. Thats not entirely true but no one was concerned enough to do more than pay it lip service. Certainly not the platform owners themselves.

The 4chan and Trump channels on reddit were banned months ago as I understand it. They were also heavily moderated because they were really ground zero for the kind of scrutiny that Parler is facing - and people weren't even planning violent acts back then it was more about false information and counter protesting antifa/blm

[hedge]

[hedge]

[hedge]

"and if we are honest, we know that Antifa, Proud Boys, BLM, 1%'ers whatever have been using socially media to plan meetings and acts of civil disturbance well before Parler."

I said at the time (I think in counter to your suggestion that they all be mowed down by machine gun fire) that any rioters who are caught looting or destroying property should be arrested and charged and then let the courts decide. Same thing applies here. But I definitely think that storming the US Capitol, while Congress is in session carrying out the Constitutional business of the US government is far, far worse than any kind of looting or property damage you can think of, short of something like the Oklahoma City bombing. Of course, that guy was executed...

[hedge]

"Its disgusting they ordered the 3rd precinct building adandoned to be burned by the rioters."

Well what can they do when thousands of people are protesting? Just start mowing people down? I'm sure Crotch & Co. would be more than happy with that, so what if a few innocent people get killed? But that would just lead to more and bigger riots all over the place. The police can't control an enraged populace, esp. an armed populace. Thanks, 2nd Amendment!

I live in a world where protesting is peaceful, rioting is not. When you are attacking a police station, breaking windows, setting it on fire - with people inside, you are not a protester. You are not innocent.

and yea, I'd be ok with people being mowed down at that point. We have to have law, we have to have order, there has to be consequences for unlawful actions. Its clear to anyone that the police are the line between civility and chaos, and when they are attacked there has to be severe consequences to insure the next person thinks twice before crossing that line.

[eCat]

my position on that hasn't changed


I would only vary on that is if, say 5m people arm up, then its a bit different than 5K, but people are going to get mowed down in that scenario regardless.

[hedge]

I am assuming aTm would include the US Capitol as a building of similar importance to police stations, city halls, etc...

People looting target’s and stores should just be investigated, identified and prosecuted and charged beyond mere theft, but people breaking into police stations, or city halls or occupied residences or something like that should absolutely be dealt with in severe ways escalating from dispersal, to non-lethal, to lethal if it doesnt stop.

Of course the problem with the first part of my post about looting is that you know that the poor minorities on video jumping in to steal shoes would all get jail sentences while the bearded socialist soy boys all in black and skinny jeans, funded by PACs and already with phone numbers for activist attorneys sharpie’d on their arms who were really the ones who showed up prepared with crow bars and hammers and opened the buildings up all get off scott free

[hedge]

"my position on that hasn't changed"

So you'd have been OK with hundreds of those rioters at the Capitol being mowed down by machine gun fire? Well, at least you're consistent. I guess what I find not to be consistent is your apparent level of outrage at the various events. For one, you are calling for rioters to be mowed down, for the Capitol riot I had to coax it out of you. But maybe you're just weary of all of this bullshit. I know I am...

[hedge]

"Of course the problem with the first part of my post about looting is that you know that the poor minorities on video jumping in to steal shoes would all get jail sentences while the bearded socialist soy boys all in black and skinny jeans, funded by PACs and already with phone numbers for activist attorneys sharpie’d on their arms who were really the ones who showed up prepared with crow bars and hammers and opened the buildings up all get off scott free"

I think we know who the equivalents of the poor minorities and the bearded soy boys funded by PACs are in the Capitol riot. Oh the irony...

[eCat]

he might have a bad week ahead of him

[eCat]

wait I was too slow

he got fired a little while ago

[hedge]

Well, he wasn't wrong, at least in what he said that was printed on the image you posted...

[hedge]

A photo of Rosanne Boyland who was trampled to death on January 6th while carrying a "Don't Tread on Me" flag.

[eCat]

"my position on that hasn't changed"

So you'd have been OK with hundreds of those rioters at the Capitol being mowed down by machine gun fire? Well, at least you're consistent. I guess what I find not to be consistent is your apparent level of outrage at the various events. For one, you are calling for rioters to be mowed down, for the Capitol riot I had to coax it out of you. But maybe you're just weary of all of this bullshit. I know I am...

honestly I didn't know the extent of how bad it was when it first started. I don't watch the news anymore.

I just thought a bunch of Trump supporters ran into congress and disrupted the meeting of congressmen which I find to be particularly American in nature.

I'm not thrilled with the unarmed woman being shot, but you run around tearing shit up with armed police, that's gonna happen sooner or later.

People show up with guns there better be a million of 'em

[eCat]

The president didn’t commit incitement or any other crime. I should know. As a Washington prosecutor I earned the nickname “protester prosecutor” from the antiwar group CodePink. In one trial, I convicted 31 protesters who disrupted congressional traffic by obstructing the Capitol Crypt. In another, I convicted a CodePink activist who smeared her hands with fake blood, charged at then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a House hearing room, and incited the audience to seize the secretary of state physically. In other cases, I dropped charges when the facts fell short of the legal standard for incitement. One such defendant was the antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan.

Hostile journalists and lawmakers have suggested Mr. Trump incited the riot when he told a rally that Republicans need to “fight much harder.” Mr. Trump suggested the crowd walk to the Capitol: “We’re going to cheer on brave senators and congressmen and -women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong.”

“To peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”

The president didn’t mention violence on Wednesday, much less provoke or incite it. He said, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

District law defines a riot as “a public disturbance . . . which by tumultuous and violent conduct or the threat thereof creates grave danger of damage or injury to property or persons.” When Mr. Trump spoke, there was no “public disturbance,” only a rally. The “disturbance” came later at the Capitol by a small minority who entered the perimeter and broke the law. They should be prosecuted.

The president’s critics want him charged for inflaming the emotions of angry Americans. That alone does not satisfy the elements of any criminal offense, and therefore his speech is protected by the Constitution that members of Congress are sworn to support and defend.