I do not think we should make people who spread hate feel comfortable spreading that hate. The president is unequivocally spreading hate and inciting violence. He should not be able to do that when doing that is against the TOS of the site he is doing it on. Said another way, why does he get to incite violence on twitter, yet I do not?
There is a distinct difference between expressing a political view, such as that we should have the government spend less money, and inciting random citizens to commit violent acts against a perceived enemy.
> I feel like this is a misreading of the situation.
I was referring to the quote from the article "that people who agreed with [Zuckerberg's decision] were afraid to speak out for fear of appearing insensitive," so I don't think it's a misreading of the situation. On the contrary, I'm expressing my lack of surprise, given my personal experience as a conservative in tech with a 98% liberal peer group. I am unable to talk freely about my political beliefs in the same way that, say, Biden or Bernie supporters are. I would be labeled a racist simply for agreeing with any republican point of view. Whereas I routinely see friends on Facebook getting hundreds of likes on statuses that call republican politicians "vile" or "scum."
As an aside, what's particularly frustrating is how many people assume or expect that I hold the same views as them when in casual conversation. Someone will bring up Trump as if it's a foregone conclusion that he's a racist sociopath and anyone who supports him is one too, and I just have to nod along and laugh with them, or find a way to change the subject, lest I be "outed" as some sort of violent extremist for supporting the president.
> The president is unequivocally spreading hate and inciting violence
Unequivocally? I think you could find a lot of people who disagree with this assessment of his words. Who's to decide what is "unequivocally" an incitement of violence?
> There is a distinct difference between expressing a political view, such as that we should have the government spend less money, and inciting random citizens to commit violent acts against a perceived enemy.
This is a strawman, because I haven't seen Trump "inciting random citizens to commit violent acts." Regardless, of course there is a difference between political speech and inciting violence. But who is to be the arbiter of it? Because from what I've seen, certain people on the left can twist almost anything outside of their agenda to fit their definition of "violence." As a contrived example, some on the left would be "offended" by the suggestion that "a country is not a country without a strong border," equating it to "locking kids in cages." Is it violence to advocate for strong borders and criminal consequences for illegal immigration? Or is it political speech? What about when the president says it?
> Trump as if it's a foregone conclusion that he's a racist sociopath
You are totally correct. I do think this. I have ample evidence that backs up my case as well. I think the quote "when they start looting, we start shooting" which was hidden by Twitter for inciting violence, is enough for me.
> This is a strawman, because I haven't seen Trump "inciting random citizens to commit violent acts."
I don't think we can have a real conversation because we disagree about the basic facts on the ground.
Trump, from my position, is clearly, repeatedly and blatantly pushing people to violence using Twitter. In fact, even Twitter thinks so.
Umm... except that’s not what he said though. If it was, I would completely agree with you that it is an incitement (more accurately, a proclamation) of violence. But what he actually said was:
"when the looting starts, the shooting starts"
And, per Wikipedia:
"He said that he was not aware of the phrase's 'racially-charged history'. He added that he didn't know where the phrase had originated, and that his intent in using it was to say 'when there's looting, people get shot and they die.'"
So his statement is not an incitement, but a prediction. You may believe that Trump is lying about his intention, but that's a different debate.
So at worst we have someone who is intentionally inciting violence.
At best we have a leader of our country too irresponsible to do due diligence on his own posts to the entire free world. He has literally infinite resources at his disposal to communicate effectively about this.
Being a hateful bigot and or an ignoramus should both be unacceptable positions for the leader of the US. Furthermore this isn't the first time he's said or done hateful / bigoted / ignorant things / lied so you'll excuse people if they don't give him the 'benefit of the doubt'.
When you have a 'bully pulpit' as powerful and far reaching as Facebook now provides to the president then it is totally reasonable to want to hold them accountable (given you disagree with their stance).
I don't exactly understand what is objectionable about protesting the decision making of corporate entities given the immense power they hold?
This is like saying you shouldn't boycott BP for their oil spill, you should just complain to your congressperson. I don't understand why you can't complain on both fronts?
There is a distinct difference between expressing a political view, such as that we should have the government spend less money, and inciting random citizens to commit violent acts against a perceived enemy.