Nick Catone sues Facebook, and freedom of speech...

[sheldrake]

Bit of a difference between being a president who can't handle losing an election, and a black person who can't handle racist cops getting away with murder.

Bit of a difference between multiple neighbourhoods torched and looted and people killed across the US and one group of dingbats pushing their way into a govt. building after initially being let in by the police, too. The premise that one set of violence is okay because the cause is more just is exactly the problem.

[plodder]

you f.ckin wut

[secret squirrel]

The premise that violence is ok when the cause is just is correct though, unless you think e.g. Allied soldiers in WW2 are morally equivalent to the Wehrmacht.

[sheldrake]

The premise that violence is ok when the cause is just is correct though, unless you think e.g. Allied soldiers in WW2 are morally equivalent to the Wehrmacht.

These two situations are no way vaguely comparable. If Allied Soldiers had randomly smashed up French cities for a year with no Wehrmacht in sight and actually attacked jews for being insufficiently loyal to Britain and America you might have a point.

Just because they say they're fighting fascism doesn't mean they are.

[plodder]

OK, so what you're saying is facebook should ban any sorts of encouragements to violence, non-passive resistance, direct action, protests that aren't police-sanctioned and authorised etc?

[plodder]

The premise that violence is ok when the cause is just is correct though, unless you think e.g. Allied soldiers in WW2 are morally equivalent to the Wehrmacht.

These two situations are no way vaguely comparable. If Allied Soldiers had randomly smashed up French cities for a year with no Wehrmacht in sight and actually attacked jews for being insufficiently loyal to Britain and America you might have a point.

Just because they say they're fighting fascism doesn't mean they are.

This is foolish even for a complete tool. It's toolish. It's so impenetrable it's not even clear where to start unpicking it. Perhaps start by showing some people randomly smashing up cities for a year with no unaccountable racist murder cops in sight.

[sheldrake]

This is foolish even for a complete tool. It's toolish. It's so impenetrable it's not even clear where to start unpicking it. Perhaps start by showing some people randomly smashing up cities for a year with no unaccountable racist murder cops in sight.

You've just watched an interview with a black police officer from Portland giving a first hand account of exactly that. Please channel your toolings to the Pit thread.

[sheldrake]

OK, so what you're saying is facebook should ban any sorts of encouragements to violence, non-passive resistance, direct action, protests that aren't police-sanctioned and authorised etc?

I think they should apply the same bar to left-wing causes as right-wing causes, and I would prefer that bar to be much more permissive than it is now.

I would also like them to identify the first user to upload any given meme so that you can see how many of them are actually produced in ad agencies and specialised little NGOs.

[plodder]

Oh, I think it's easier than that. I think that once they've been broken up into competing rivals then the next step is to simply make them adhere to the same rules as other publishers. I agree content providers should be credited and they should also be paid.

[plodder]

This is foolish even for a complete tool. It's toolish. It's so impenetrable it's not even clear where to start unpicking it. Perhaps start by showing some people randomly smashing up cities for a year with no unaccountable racist murder cops in sight.

You've just watched an interview with a black police officer from Portland giving a first hand account of exactly that. Please channel your toolings to the Pit thread.

You'll need to direct me to the bit in the video where he stops complaining about people interrupting and starts talking about people smashing up cities at random for a year with no unaccountable murder racist cops in sight.

[sheldrake]

This is foolish even for a complete tool. It's toolish. It's so impenetrable it's not even clear where to start unpicking it. Perhaps start by showing some people randomly smashing up cities for a year with no unaccountable racist murder cops in sight.

You've just watched an interview with a black police officer from Portland giving a first hand account of exactly that. Please channel your toolings to the Pit thread.

You'll need to direct me to the bit in the video where he stops complaining about people interrupting and starts talking about people smashing up cities at random for a year with no unaccountable murder racist cops in sight.

He describes his own colleagues of all races as good, honourable people and describes in detail the destruction of an African-American owned business in his city, amongst other things. It sounds like you got a bit bored when you were watching it and kind of skimmed things, eh?

[secret squirrel]

The premise that violence is ok when the cause is just is correct though, unless you think e.g. Allied soldiers in WW2 are morally equivalent to the Wehrmacht.

These two situations are no way vaguely comparable. If Allied Soldiers had randomly smashed up French cities for a year with no Wehrmacht in sight and actually attacked jews for being insufficiently loyal to Britain and America you might have a point.

Just because they say they're fighting fascism doesn't mean they are.

I'm not making a comparison, I'm pointing out using an example that your sweeping statement that the premise that violence in the service of a good cause is ok is wrong is itself wrong.

[sheldrake]

The premise that violence is ok when the cause is just is correct though, unless you think e.g. Allied soldiers in WW2 are morally equivalent to the Wehrmacht.

These two situations are no way vaguely comparable. If Allied Soldiers had randomly smashed up French cities for a year with no Wehrmacht in sight and actually attacked jews for being insufficiently loyal to Britain and America you might have a point.

Just because they say they're fighting fascism doesn't mean they are.

I'm not making a comparison, I'm pointing out using an example that your sweeping statement that the premise that violence in the service of a good cause is ok is wrong is itself wrong.

In that case I'd draw your attention to the context in which it was made.

[plodder]

He describes his own colleagues of all races as good, honourable people and describes in detail the destruction of an African-American owned business in his city, amongst other things. It sounds like you got a bit bored when you were watching it and kind of skimmed things, eh?

“there are no racist murder cops. clear the streets now, scum. there are no racist murder cops”

[Pishwish]

Yeah, judge for yourself whether Maxine Waters was "excusing/justifying antifa violence."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56810245

"We've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business."

This clearly crosses the same line Trump is supposed to have crossed. She wasn't the only one.

Snopes' article is mostly a rambling distraction about something that happened in 1992. They're not an objective source.

Confrontation is inherent to protest. Sit-ins at a segregated business? Confrontational. Marching when your city has banned protest? Confrontational. Facing off cops or soldiers when ordered to disperse? Confrontational. If you think this is "justifying/excusing antifa violence" then I can't help you.

He describes his own colleagues of all races as good, honourable people

Protest is not delegitimized by the tendency for some protests, particularly in Portland, to attract looters and a..eholes who want to live out their anti-authoritarian fantasies. If Portland cops are good, honourable people, then why do they resign en masse when their colleagues get charged with excessive violence? If you had been paying attention, one of the features of the anti-cop protests during the past year was the hundreds of incidents of cops caught on camera using excessive violence against protesters and bystanders.

[sheldrake]

Confrontation is inherent to protest. Sit-ins at a segregated business? Confrontational. Marching when your city has banned protest? Confrontational. Facing off cops or soldiers when ordered to disperse? Confrontational. If you think this is "justifying/excusing antifa violence" then I can't help you.

It is when those things involve trashing business, beating people up and setting fire to neighbourhoods. Absolutely.

Protest is not delegitimized by the tendency for some protests, particularly in Portland, to attract looters and a..eholes who want to live out their anti-authoritarian fantasies. If Portland cops are good, honourable people, then why do they resign en masse when their colleagues get charged with excessive violence? If you had been paying attention, one of the features of the anti-cop protests during the past year was the hundreds of incidents of cops caught on camera using excessive violence against protesters and bystanders.

Do you think that Maxine Waters was being held to the same standard as Trump?

[Pishwish]

So if someone, like Martin Luther King, calls for protests when previous protests have resulted in riots, then that person is justifying violence?

[plodder]

So if someone, like Martin Luther King, calls for protests when previous protests have resulted in riots, then that person is justifying violence?

Well, yes. Violence is used by the state all the time, so it's hardly some weird taboo thing that never happens. If the state uses violence and refuses to work in the best interests of the public then it's not surprising that things kick off now and again.

[sheldrake]

So if someone, like Martin Luther King, calls for protests when previous protests have resulted in riots, then that person is justifying violence?

If they say that people who've already been violent should get more confrontational? and we compare them to somebody who has explicitly asked people to be peaceful? I think it's obvious bias to ban the latter and not the former.

[Pishwish]

Show me where Maxine Waters says that "people who have already been violent should get more confrontational."

[plodder]

Love the idea of banning MLK in the interests of being liberal, too.

Here's a bit on MLK and violence if anyone's interested: https://timeline.com/by-the-end-of-his- ... e177a8c87b

[sheldrake]

Show me where Maxine Waters says that "people who have already been violent should get more confrontational."

"We've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business."

[plodder]

Let me say as I've always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I'm still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice. I feel that violence will only create more social problems than they will solve. That in a real sense it is impracticable for the Negro to even think of mounting a violent revolution in the United States. So I will continue to condemn riots, and continue to say to my brothers and sisters that this is not the way. And continue to affirm that there is another way.

But at the same time, it is as necessary for me to be as vigorous in condemning the conditions which cause persons to feel that they must engage in riotous activities as it is for me to condemn riots. I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation's summers of riots are caused by our nation's winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.

This, you'd ban this?

[Pishwish]

Show me where Maxine Waters says that "people who have already been violent should get more confrontational."

"We've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business."

Oh dear. We appear to be going in circles. I was trying to explain that confrontation does not necessarily mean violence.
The teacher confronted the schoolboy who insulted his classmate.
Mary confronted her husband with her suspicions of the affair.
Tom decided to confront the reality that he was insolvent.
The football match was an exciting confrontation of two teams eager to show their skill.
Football clubs need to confront hooliganism head-on.

It's ok to admit you were wrong, that you read some Brietbart headline and didn't look any deeper to find it was groundless.

[sheldrake]

Show me where Maxine Waters says that "people who have already been violent should get more confrontational."

"We've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business."

Oh dear. We appear to be going in circles. I was trying to explain that confrontation does not necessarily mean violence.
The teacher confronted the schoolboy who insulted his classmate.
Mary confronted her husband with her suspicions of the affair.
Tom decided to confront the reality that he was insolvent.
The football match was an exciting confrontation of two teams eager to show their skill.
Football clubs need to confront hooliganism head-on.

It's ok to admit you were wrong, that you read some Brietbart headline and didn't look any deeper to find it was groundless.

You're completely missing the point. The language got banned for using was even further from being an incitement to violence than that.