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?
It's fair to say one can't always pinpoint where a perpetrator got the idea from, unless it's specified, or they use some unique wording that can be traced to somewhere specific. However, I don't know that most of the blame should always fall on the originator of the idea. For example, let's say that I have 2 Twitter followers. And I post that "Oprah Winfrey raped and murdered 78 children." Then someone at CNN sees my Tweet, and management greenlights the story, and they broadcast it, as a fact, to millions of viewers. Would you hold me more responsible or to a higher standard than CNN? Because I don't think you should. They have a much greater responsibility than me because of their influence and the trust that has been placed on them over the years.
No obviously the entire blame would be put on them.
Regarding "voting on who gets to be influential", no. We hold them accountable for their mistakes.
Regarding "I love KFC", Trump didn't say something vague like "I love reporters". He said he loves a guy who can do a good body slam. This is referring to both a specific form of violence, and a specific incident. A more proper comparison involving KFC would be something like him saying "I love a guy who can shove a KFC chickenwing down someone's throat" after someone did just that, to one of his political opponents.
I get what you're saying, but it's not like this isn't a no brainer. That politicians or people of influence should not incite or endorse actual violence among the public. Especially when they're referring to actual incidents that transpired.
As for banning certain words, I think that should be up to each individual, or institution as they see fit for their situation. On this site for example, certain language will get you infractions or banned. Again, I think it's enough that we hold people responsible for their actions. If someone uses a word you think shouldn't be used in that context/for that purpose, you speak your mind and tell them how you feel about it.
And I guess Holder, Waters and Clinton are the ones you say incite violence?
Regarding Waters, I would say it was an irresponsible suggestion. But she wasn't inciting violence. You can't equate that to Trump specifically saying to knock someone out and that he'll pay the legal fees, or that he likes that a guy physically hurt a reporter. Some politicians won't listen unless they get directly confronted by people and yelled at. Like Jeff Flake. He seemingly changed his mind after that happened to him as he was getting in an elevator. Though I do think it's irresponsible to encourage angry people to gather in groups, as things not originally intended can occur. However there is no question about the intent behind "Knock the crap out of them. I'll pay for the legal fees".
As for Holder and Clinton, I'm not sure what you're referring to.
I would say myself you are just as guilty, based on the way in which you worded it, if what you said about Oprah wasn't definitely true. CNN also shouldn't ever pick that story up, without confirming it, so they would also be guilty. Now if you phrased it in a different way in which it was a little bit hard to tell whether you were joking or not, and you were joking, and CNN ran it because they didn't properly vett the claim, then you really wouldn't be at fault at all, and CNN would be mostly if not entirely at fault.
Ok, but who has the power to make them pay for their wrongdoings, are they moral and just people, and do they always make the right decisions? Social media only goes so far for the public, and not everyone in the public agree's, and how do you withhold your money to show your disgust if your also hurting many other innocent individuals because of it?
To what I would call a normal individual, sure, you have to say hateful things in a certain way, and mean them, for it to be considered promoting violence, but there are some who want to read between the lines, and they seem to be getting a lot of attention and are promoted, especially from the media. Why aren't those people or the media punished? Saying something like 'I like a guy who can do a good body slam', isn't much different to some people, then him posting a picture eating KFC or McD's. Some would say he's non verbally endorsing unhealthy food and obesity and because he's influential, people will also eat it and pay for it in a non violent way. Then you have to ask what's worse, a few violent followers which could lead to some injury or death, or a bunch of fat, unhealthy, or dead followers?
I mostly agree on the speech thing, as long as everyone in the group, etc, is reasonable about it. If someone isn't warned at least twice before being punished then I wouldn't be on board. I also would say that punishment should rarely be a permanent ban immediately. If you don't like that, it's a free Country, so only come here if you have to, follow the rules as your required, then leave, or don't come around at all if you don't have to. This idea of the rules having to always be the exact same everywhere doesn't make sense to me. The groups that are too restrictive will suffer one way or another eventually, so the system would mostly take care of itself as long as the overall amendment exists.
Waters was walking a super thin line. She was promoting stalking and harassment, was borderline pushing violence, and she wasn't exactly doing so in a calm cool manner. 'You get out and you create a crowd, you push back on them, and you tell them they're not welcome'. Pushing someone would be physical violence. Some may take what she meant to mean push back verbally, but some may take it as physically. Even Trump had to tell her to watch her words.
Holder said 'when they go low, we kick them', and he was talking about Republicans. He was taking Michelle Obama's 'we go high' line and instead of saying we go lower or something like that, he said 'we kick them'. That speaks for itself. Clinton said 'you cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about, that's why I believe that if we are fortunate enough, to win back the house and or the senate, that's when civility can start again.' She also makes a point about how it seems that Republicans only seem to understand and respect strength. Politics is not violence first, it's civil debate and discussion, and when that fails, it becomes violence when civility no longer is useful. The opposition also does not want to destroy the Dems, they simply prefer their way of governing, and the people chose that this time around. It's the Dems job to find out where they went wrong and what the people want and then offer it to them. The people don't buy into whatever the party is selling, the party caters to the people. That's how it works.
Last edited by EricHiggin - on 05 November 2018