How about social media platforms Ban everyone that calls for violence or tries to justify it. Violence has nothing to do with the left or right. It is pure and simple not justified regardless of the issues involved. If you eliminate the nuts at the extremes you have a chance for people to have a civil discussion. Step 2 would be banning those who label any who disagree with the with “names”. I will never understand how people try to have a civil conversation and one participant calls the other an asshole or nazi. Of course civil conversations promote understanding of the positions of others. Points of agreement are reached. And just maybe that result is exactly what many on social media want to avoid.
What about the current president asking for protestors to be shot in the legs? That seems pretty threatening, especially when viewed apolitically. Where are the repercussions for that?
He also called for Israel to “get the war over with” instead of dragging it out. That seems like pretty implicit calls for increased violence. Are there repercussions for that?
There are a hell of a lot of free speech purists until it’s something they do not like. A lot of violence being called for, until it’s against people they feel do not deserve it. Standards are being applied differently depending on what side you’re on. This isn’t to say that you do or don’t support the president or the things he or his supporters say, but there are clearly 2 different applications of censorship being used. One side has 0 restriction and celebrates it, and the other side is dangerous and needs to be silenced at all costs.
How about social media platforms Ban everyone that calls for violence or tries to justify it. Violence has nothing to do with the left or right. It is pure and simple not justified regardless of the issues involved. If you eliminate the nuts at the extremes you have a chance for people to have a civil discussion. Step 2 would be banning those who label any who disagree with the with “names”. I will never understand how people try to have a civil conversation and one participant calls the other an asshole or nazi. Of course civil conversations promote understanding of the positions of others. Points of agreement are reached. And just maybe that result is exactly what many on social media want to avoid.
Which democratic political leaders are calling for violence?
You missed the point. Calling for violence is wrong and it doesn’t matter who does it. Everything in life shouldn’t be viewed from a political lens.
What about the current president asking for protestors to be shot in the legs? That seems pretty threatening, especially when viewed apolitically. Where are the repercussions for that?
He also called for Israel to “get the war over with” instead of dragging it out. That seems like pretty implicit calls for increased violence. Are there repercussions for that?
There are a hell of a lot of free speech purists until it’s something they do not like. A lot of violence being called for, until it’s against people they feel do not deserve it. Standards are being applied differently depending on what side you’re on. This isn’t to say that you do or don’t support the president or the things he or his supporters say, but there are clearly 2 different applications of censorship being used. One side has 0 restriction and celebrates it, and the other side is dangerous and needs to be silenced at all costs.
If anyone is directing comments to OP - don’t bother. I just posted the video for discussion