By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
EricHiggin on 04 November 2018
Edit Thread
Hiku said:
EricHiggin said: 

Other than during wartime correct? What if Trump never said anything close to inciting violence, but many of his well known, non political followers were? Are they off the hook? How much weight would they hold? What about if the followers of those followers who had fairly respectable numbers of followers on their social media platforms, were inciting violence? Do they get a free pass? They aren't all that important, and would be ant's considered to Trump right?

I would have to assume everyone below Trump wouldn't be guilty of anything because if they weren't getting it from Trump, then there wouldn't be anything to worry about since he would be the most influential. This would explain why it seems the lefty groups or individuals rarely get fingers pointed at them, because the Dems weren't really inciting violence until more recently and yet there was violence erupting from the left since Trump was voted in. So why is it that it must be Trump who's at fault?

Trump never gets under my skin or causes me to get upset, but my own PM, JT, a Liberal, who wouldn't dare say anything mean ever, makes my blood boil sometimes. So should we ban 'polite speech' so people like me aren't ever pushed over the edge? What makes people go crazy or get to the point of harmful physical violence can be so many different things that simply pointing to certain words said by someone isn't ever going to solve the problem. Now it may help in certain situations potentially, but why bother trying to help if your going to end up being blamed regardless? If the finger always gets pointed at you, then you might as well do whatever you want anyway, right?

When I say politicians shouldn't incite violence, I say so because of their influence. Needless to say, a non-politician with great influence would apply, and would not get a free pass. Alex Jones comes to mind as he got banned from various social media platforms after he made repeated gun slinging gestures while saying "He's gonna get it. It's not a joke", etc, regarding Robert Muller after describing what a monster he is and that he rapes little boys every day. And then he threw in "politically" just for plausible deniability. And he knows that his audience has gone into a pizza restaurant and shot up the place after he made similar conspiracy theories about Hillary having a sex pedophile ring in the basement. As well as multiple death threats to the parents of the children slaughtered at Sandy Hook, because he convinced his audience that they are diabolical people who would lie about their children getting shot.
And I was referring to unjustifiable violence. I don't agree with most wars to begin with. But if a country is under attack by another country's militia, responding to it is different than endorsing body slamming reporters for asking questions you don't like.
And which Dems are you referring to that are inciting violence?

And no, we shouldn't ban terms like "orange juice" because it may trigger the PTSD of a war vet who used that code word during the war. That's not reasonable. If someone goes crazy over that, it's not reasonable to hold you responsible for it.
However, one of the most influential people on the planet says he likes it when people body slam reporters, and then someone physically harms another reporter because of that, it is reasonable to hold him responsible for it.

I wouldn't exactly say your being totally unreasonable, but I find it extremely hard to believe you can strongly connect all those actions directly to only those 'initiators'. Just because they may have been the largest platforms where it was picked up by the masses, doesn't mean it was their idea. The idea holder should be much more at fault then the individual further spreading that idea. If it was such a horrible idea to begin with, it should have been made illegal. Again, this is a tricky thing to try an accomplish when you want free speech and the freedom that comes with it. 

You also can't know who else may have spread the idea if that certain individual hadn't done so already, and you can't know if those followers would have ever picked it up elsewhere, or eventually came up with it themselves. This also assumes that everyone in the spotlight is an extremely intelligent, moral, just, etc, individual, which many are not. Do we all have to vote now on who can become famous and influential, to make sure they don't ever cross the line, wherever it has moved since it last stood? When they get out of line, do we just ban them from the spotlight forever because apparently people never learn, whether that's the praised person or the follower?

Holder, Waters, Clinton, etc.

You don't want to ban "orange juice" but what about racist or sexist or homophobic words used by people that upsets or triggers or demeans them or anyone else? I won't mention them but I'm sure you can guess what kind of words I'm talking about. If we can help just one person isn't that worth it? If some people are willing to ban guns so less people get shot, and ban private pools so less people drown, then why not ban more words?

If Trump says he loves KFC, which he does, and someone goes out and eat's KFC, and get's fat or ill because of it, is it Trumps fault? Should he never mention what he eats, like McD's as well? Should we ban all that food?