Discussed previously, this is a good outline of the issues.
No more thin mints for Donnie.
Scott, after that whole conversation about Twitter, I’m still not convinced your arguments are worth taking seriously, and I’m still not sure that any of your reasoning is based in our current reality. You’ve still not shared at what point in the past, when Twitter hypothetically banned Trump, negative consequences wouldn’t be… noticeable? Worth discussing? Assumed to be better than letting Trump continue?
However, you stopped short of concluding that the solution is dependent on “ending the idea of countries” or “granting the Internet its own sovereignty”. I’m taking that as a good sign!
You seem to really want to know an exact moment he should have been banned, and that moment is as soon as he tried to make an account. It was well known before Twitter even existed that Trump is a liar, conspiracy nut, racist, criminal, and many other not good things. Providing such a person a platform to broadcast to the world is extremely dangerous.
Basically there is no time at which banning him wouldn’t have been beneficial or reduced harm. You can’t deplatform nazis soon enough. It is proven time and time again that deplatforming them is extremely effective. Several (most? all?) experts on authoritarianism predicted these things would happen before Trump became president. It wasn’t some surprise. We did see this problem coming. We did know what to do about it. The Internet platforms did not listen, and therefore share responsibility for the damage.
It’s not that I want an exact moment, but this is the first time you’ve actually clarified your point of view. And, again, I can’t but help think that it’s based in a complete fantasy world of your own design. I feel it’s literally not worth my time even reading more of your thoughts on this topic, as you can’t seem to ever acknowledge any situation exists that isn’t 100% black and white, or problem that exists that can’t be solved with absolutists solutions.
I honestly can’t get my head around it. You seem to have interesting things to say about board games and game design, but when it comes to the real world, every single problem is dealt with as bluntly as “I’LL MAKE A DICE THAT ONLY ROLLS SIXES AND ONLY PEOPLE I LIKE GET TO USE THAT DICE”.
I know that we’re talking about twitter banning trump, but does this bear any similarity with the news networks when they cut off his speeches when he was making baseless claims about the election?
Or when they just refused to show his briefings on the pandemic?
Some shit just IS black and white. Nazis are bad is about as black and white as it gets.
Right. Literally not worth my time even reading your posts about anything to do with the real world, and politics in particular. Thankfully your posts and commentary about gaming, k-pop, non-factual media and other things are still worth while.
Are you saying nazis are sometimes good?
No. It feels like you’re trying to drag me down to a level of debate I’m just not interested in.
You literally just asked me to come and discuss this again.
Nope. That was my post after the conclusion to the conversation. You’ve made your suggestions, and I’m still not convinced. And since then I’ve been saying that I’m not interested in any more of your suggestions, as they are so far disconnected from reality that I neither see value in them, nor find further conversation with you enlightening, engaging, interesting for either me or other people who might be reading along. Every conversation I’ve had about this topic without you in it is more fun, and exposes me to more thoughts and issues and concepts that are in any way novel, deep, complex, or have any nuance at all.
Are you talking to people who don’t want to ban all nazis everywhere always?
I honestly feel like you are baiting me into making an ad hominem attack.
You already messaged me privately, in your role as a forum moderator, about me doing that before, and I deleted that post.
You also told me to join the conversation without just discarding your comments without adding any substance arguments. I’ve just spent the last few days doing as much of that as I could, putting in hours and hours into a conversation I really hoped would be worth my time. And, on balance, it was satisfying formulating my thoughts and sharing links to articles on various topics, both of which I hope were interesting to people other than myself.
I did all of that in good faith.
Now I feel you are very much not engaging in good faith. You’re serving up a non sequitur, a false dichotomy, a straw man, a loaded question, and maybe even a no true scotsman, all at the same time. You’ve not posted a single argument or conclusion that I find either convincing or interesting, and you now think this is going to make me continue the conversation?
I’m just not sure what you are even discussing anymore. I’m trying to discuss the original questions. Should Trump have been banned from Twitter? Is it right to ban such people, even if they are the president of the US? When? Why? What harms have come about? Who is responsible? What should the policy be? etc.
Your only replies seems to be things about how you feel about me, and not about this topic.
Right. I said I’m finished with that conversation with you. And the reasons why.
If you want to continue that conversation, you can do so with other people, not me.
If I want to continue that conversation, I will, but I’ll have to do it elsewhere than this forum.
FWIW Luke, I appreciate reading your perspectives on this stuff and have found value in the time you’ve spent, but yeah this forum… I get it.
Deplatforming works. Anyone who spreads dangerous misinformation should be permanently banned from any many platforms as possible.