Twitter Hypocrisy and Inconsistency

Twitter says they banned Trump because he twitted about not going to the Inauguration and that,

may serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a 'safe' target, as he will not be attending.

Now people on Twitter are exclaiming how happy they are that Trump will lose his secret service protection if he is impeached and removed.

Nevermind that Twitter isn't labeling this news as false, (which it is because even removed presidents still get protection) but Twitter also doesn't seem to think this is encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts against a sitting/former President. I mean, why else would someone be happy that Trump wouldn't have Secret Service Protection, it's not like the Secret Service is a taxpayer maid service. All they do is protect someone from being harmed.

When you can look directly at Senators in a hearing where you're sworn to tell the truth and flat-out lie, you can do just about anything. Those of us that watched the hearings saw Jack and Mark do just that, over and over again. Even after they were called out on it.

a reply to: Identified

In all fairness Trump did tweet bull# which many people believed and then violence ensued.

I think its a matter of impact, me saying something in twitter has no impact. The leader of the free world in the other hand....

a reply to: Identified

It's cool. The all loved and revered chinese president can keep his account. His most recent genocidal tweet was deleted. But, ya know, he can commit actual genocide, advocate for it regularly, oppress his people, commit crimes against humanity on a regular basis but ya know, I guess that's not twitter ban worthy.

Telling people to come to their Capitol buildings though...oh boy...#ing insurr-#ing-rection, attempted #ing coup, the biggest crime against democracy and america #ing ever for reals...#ing ban the mother # outta the guy that did that. Did you see those selfies those #ing terrorists took? Holy # they had zip ties #ing ban ban ban ban, anyone #ing everyone...ahhhhhh the country's under attack....

a reply to: Identified

This is about conquerors and the vanquished.

Fairness isn't part of that paradigm.

a reply to: loam

EDIT: I meant to quote the thread-maker, not you.

Bro, a sitting president gas-lit his radicalized supporters and encouraged them to storm the capitol building. He didn't encourage them to take a damn Foot Locker, or a Ruby Tuesdays. He encouraged them to take the capitol building. Not the capitol ONE credit card building. THE capitol building in D.C.

And the Trump loyalist will say, "Well he didn't encourage him because it was not said in plain English with the proper words constructed, blah blah"

Why do you act like the English language isn't a language where inferred context is the norm? When Trump said,
"You can't take it back with weakness,"

What do you think he meant? You think he meant he wanted his supporters to storm the capitol building with just 'verbal force'? he just wanted them to yell? Yeah? that's what you thought? Is that why they brought guns? To stand in front of the building and yell? Is that why they brought zip-ties? To tie their protest signs together? Come on.

This is just getting ridiculous now. He got socially exiled because he disgraced the office of president, and instead of going out gracefully, he went out like a coward, encouraging his brainwashed supporters to riot, and didn't even lead the charge. Sat behind his tent and danced with his affluent family members while his chess pawns ran into the building and delivered unto themselves a fate no less than 10 years in prison.

That's the kind of leader you Trump Loyalists will die for? A leader that sits in his tent, while you do his bidding?

Yikes.

originally posted by: LastWatcher
a reply to: loam

Bro, a sitting president gas-lit his radicalized supporters and encouraged them to storm the capitol building....

This is just getting ridiculous now.

Huh. Let's compare:

I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.

--Donald Trump

With...

Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere. 

-Maxine Waters

Spare me your outrage.

a reply to: LastWatcher

Yikes, Is everything so politically polarizing for you? I'm not a Trump Loyalist LMAO!

Pay attention to the OP.

I'm pointing out the Hypocrisy and inconsistencies of their own rules.

Just because Trump did something bad doesn't mean others should get a pass under Twitter's own rules.

Also, this isn't the mud-pit.

a reply to: Jykan

I understand that Trump had millions of followers but I used Twitter's own reasoning why he was banned.

My point is the hypocrisy on full display.

And I'm not just talking about a few dozen folks from Peoria discussing this but people responding to news articles on the News Agency's own twitter account where the article also hasn't been fact checked and labeled as false by Twitter.

This OP doesn't even discuss the hypocrisy of the posters...

a reply to: Identified

I'm telling you why this guy was x'ed from online social media existence. People keep trying to find outs here, and explanations, but it's clearly simple. It is like, left, or right, or 'center' as you claim-- its like you guys aren't understanding what actually went down at the capitol.

It's hilarious to me.

a reply to: HalWesten
It's all going to come back to bite them in the butt. They think they have the Dems on their side and since the Dems have Congress and the WH it's going to be all good.

Nothing ever really works that way tho.

It's going to be interesting to watch.

a reply to: LastWatcher

No, you called me a Trump Loyalist and then played a wall of text that didn't even address the OP.

No where in my post did I try to find an out for Trump.

And now you are claiming us "guys aren't understanding what actually went down at the capitol."

This isn't about any of that...

I think Big Tech now is sensing and have the feeling that they are now now unstoppable. Hypocrisy and fairness dont matter to twitter or any of big tech.

I think back to that south park episode where comcast cable can basically do whatever they want and they know there is nothing you can do about it.

its similar here that there is rampant censorship,hyporcrisy, unfairness, going on. and they are are probably super excited now. " we just unpersoned a sitting president ." " We are more powerful the a sitting president."

Big tech right now has the sense that they have "Absolute Power."

originally posted by: American-philosopher
I think Big Tech now is sensing and have the feeling that they are now now unstoppable. Hypocrisy and fairness dont matter to twitter or any of big tech.

I think back to that south park episode where comcast cable can basically do whatever they want and they know there is nothing you can do about it.

its similar here that there is rampant censorship,hyporcrisy, unfairness, going on. and they are are probably super excited now. " we just unpersoned a sitting president ." " We are more powerful the a sitting president."

Big tech right now has the sense that they have "Absolute Power."

They knew that when they lied to congress under oath, were called out for doing so and didn't pay a penalty of any sort. They are untouchable now.

They knew that when they lied to congress under oath, were called out for doing so and didn't pay a penalty of any sort. They are untouchable now.

a reply to: HalWesten

yeah totally. I mean the question I have is back in the summer when I and others were sounding the clarion call about big tech and the president mad a stab at trying to limit big tech with section 230 that did basically nothing apparently. Is Did the president actually try hard or was that excutive order just for show. Apparently it has no bite.

But what hope do we have as people if a president can't do anything to stop big tech?

originally posted by: American-philosopher

But what hope do we have as people if a president can't do anything to stop big tech?

You can lick the boot, hide from the boot, or fight the boot.

Your chances of success are roughly in that order.

Dark times ahead, I'm afraid.