[mrchess]

When I saw the cryptic 1 sentence tweet that he wasn't going to be there, the first thing that came to mind was that he was telling his supporters indirectly that they could do whatever they wanted since he wouldn't be in harms way.

So perhaps it is a huge stretch to some, but we need to remember it is also not a stretch at all to many, especially given the recent events. Therein lies the danger.

[azangru]

> the first thing that came to mind was that he was telling his supporters indirectly that they could do whatever they wanted since he wouldn't be in harms way

Wow, it would have never occurred to me to read it like this, but then I am hopeless at teasing out hidden meanings from what people say. To me, this is just so consistent with the overall picture of him that's been consistently painted in the media, and which he only verifies by his own behavior — that of a stubborn, spoilt, petulant child — that I can't but take his words at face value, i.e. that he's informing the world that he won't show up because of spite.

I am also amused that there seems to be a non-negligible amount of people who apparently care whether he will or will not attend the ceremony. To a foreigner like me, it just sounds so insignificant and puny.

[jaycroft]

A symbolic gesture signaling approval of the peaceful transition of power for arguably the most powerful political apparatus on earth is quite significant to a lot of Americans. It is probably considerably less interesting to people watching from the outside.

[Aeolun]

The symbolism of him attending is much more important to me than the symbolism of him staying away.

Few people will start a riot if he is there transferring power to the new president.

A legion of people will show up to disrupt the proceedings if he isn’t.

[weaksauce]

> that of a stubborn, spoilt, petulant child

could be that and also him accidentally stoking the flames of stochastic terror.

[Miner49er]

This is the same type of conspiracies that the right is accused of having. Was there anyway that he could have announced he was boycotting the inauguration and it wouldn't be taken this way by some?

[alsetmusic]

> This is the same type of conspiracies that the right is accused of having. Was there anyway that he could have announced he was boycotting the inauguration and it wouldn't be taken this way by some?

Yes. He could have accepted the results of the election and not promoted conspiracies.

[tt433]

His supporters were literally talking about that exact scenario in the replies

[rcstank]

> His supporters

All 70 million?

[whymauri]

You don't need 70 million people for organizers on Parler to be dangerous.

[Miner49er]

Just because someone voted from Trump doesn't mean they support him.

[tedunangst]

He could specifically say there will be a transition to a Biden administration, not just a "new" one, which Capitol storming types have decided means a Trump-Flynn administration, after ousting the traitor Pence. They are continuing to have these fever dreams.

[danijelb]

I've been browsing thedonald.win today to see how his supporters are reacting to recent events, and that is one of the ways some users interpreted his tweet. Other than that, a ton of crazy theories. They literally take any two-three words from his tweets and make it mean whatever they want it to mean. To give you an example, in one of the recent tweets he put words "GIANT VOICE" in caps and they interpreted it as a reference to a military communication system with the same name. From that other people started theorizing how Trump will use the military system to circumvent the "big tech censorship" and deliver some dirty secrets about his "enemies"

So, looking from that perspective any tweet of any person could be taken down because some conspiracy theorist interpreted it in a particular way. And in their heads, this ban only gives them more "proof" that they are right.

[mzs]

Incidentally* about half an hour ago:

>from discord: "While there is no evidence of the server being used to organize the Jan 6 riots, Discord decided to ban the entire server today due to its overt connection to an online forum used to incite violence and plan an armed insurrection in the United States"

Cloudfare is still serving thedonald.win though.

* https://twitter.com/alibreland/status/1347694525930680320

[KraftKacke]

> "So, looking from that perspective any tweet of any person could be taken down because some conspiracy theorist interpreted it in a particular way."

And yet only Trump attracts this sort of lunatic following. Let's be honest, he does speak in a particular way and avoids statements with clear interpretations. And arguably he actively plays with the occult crowd's obsession with hidden meanings and symbolism.

Fact is, his communications do have severe, real consequences and he fails to recognize that. It is therefore completely irrelevant how something could possibly interpreted otherwise. Human communication doesn't work like that. There is context, state and prediction, which cannot be ignored.

[dillondoyle]

I think that's important to contextualize: these people are insane and are acting on these tweets. The Q people dissect these tweets twisting them to confirm their conspiracy beliefs.

They thought that Trump's tweet about transition meant that he would fire Pence and that's the transition, applying numerology.

At this point no matter what he says it's dangerous because of the thousands (millions?) of deranged psychopathic terrorists he has created who read them and act violently no matter what he says.

[dragontamer]

> these people are insane

While I agree with your emotions, the use of the word "insane" might be counterproductive. As a group, we're mostly optimistic, trying to find the best interpretation of actions.

"Insane" implies that these people are not in control of themselves or their actions. That's not what is going on: they are fully in control and are CHOOSING to feed themselves with conspiracy theories... hoping to undo the 2020 election.

I don't know what word to use to describe them. Conspirators might be more accurate and helpful.

Ex:

> I think that's important to contextualize: these people are conspirators and are acting on these tweets. The Q people dissect these tweets twisting them to confirm their conspiracy beliefs.

By and large, these people are NOT suffering from any mental illness. They'll be going to work on Monday, and will probably take off this weekend, maybe go to Church on Sunday. They are choosing to participate in the conspiracy.

[dillondoyle]

maybe. what's a better word though?

Are they really in control? That word is too coarse I think for the situation. HN talks all the time about the power of social media, the studies showing quick radicalization, etc. That implies some level of manipulation e.g. not 100% free will.

[dragontamer]

None of us are subject to 100% free will. I'm influencing your opinion of the situation right now. My words have some degree of power over you.

That doesn't mean I'm responsible for your actions or your words. We draw the line at individual responsibility for a reason. Its not perfect, but the buck stops at your own actions.

------

I'm sure you trust in a fair number of leaders. I don't know who your role models are, but if they started calling for violent insurrection, it would be your choice whether to follow them down that path of degeneracy.

[alsetmusic]

> While I agree with your emotions, the use of the word "insane" might be counterproductive.

I suggest “highly suggestible.”

[dragontamer]

Hmmm... maybe "brainwashed"

[trianglem]

Sometimes it makes sense to keep things simple. These people are insane even if they are able to manage certain aspects of life. Call a spade a spade and let things fall where they will.

[dragontamer]

Simple is better. But "better" is also better. I'm not trying to make things more complex, we need to simplify our message if we want to change opinions at this time.

I'm settling on "brainwashed" for now. "Insane" colloquially removes the sense of responsibility and even has a positive connotation at times. Brainwashed captures the precise situation best.

Brainwashed individuals are still responsible for their actions. But we recognize the outside influence upon their actions. We can use the word brainwashed to recognize that these individuals still deserve punishment, but also recognize that there's a greater-source of influence we also must dismantle.

---------

The dude who has 10,000 edits on Wikipedia is "insane". A runner who completes 4:40 mile run is "insane". The mob who stormed the Capitol are BRAINWASHED.

"Brainwashed" fits better than "insane".

[ttt0]

Okay, so the solution to calm these crazy people down is for twitter to ban Trump and then post his tweets that supposedly call for violence on their blog, so the Streisand effect will kick in and even more people will see it? I think that at this point you have to ask yourself whether twitter's goal is actually stopping the violence and not provoking it.

[dragontamer]

Its not about stopping these messages.

Its about stopping the messages Trump would have sent next two weeks. You know, when the attacks on the inauguration are planned (The 17th is also popping up as another attack date, but I dunno if that has any actual symbolism going on...)

[ttt0]

Planned attack? No, I'm afraid I don't know anything about that.

The latest video that Trump posted there was that the protestors will be prosecuted and that he basically concedes and will transition power over to Biden. At no point, including his latest tweets on the @POTUS account that were deleted within minutes, have I seen anything that would suggest that he's planning any kind of "attack". And in fact, I see it the opposite way. If my reading of the situation is correct, he's trying to control the damage and calm down his base precisely so nothing like this will happen, because he believes that there is still future for him, as the tweet in question suggest. It could very well be that he was the only person that was keeping his supporters from starting the actual uprising and not whatever the Capitol thing was. And now it might be gone.

Obviously that's my opinion, but if you actually don't want any violence to happen, you better hope that I'm wrong about this.

[dragontamer]

Trump isn't planning the attack.

Parlor / thedonald.win are planning it. The question is whether or not the president will take advantage of those groups and try to coordinate them better.

Without a head, those groups ability to coordinate an attack would be hampered.

Google and Apple are banning parlor and other apps too, cutting off cell phone traffic.

[dillondoyle]

That's fair!

[1propionyl]

Same. If anything I was a bit surprised to see Twitter go there and read between the lines.

But that was my immediate first thought, and likely that of a large number of folks.

[umvi]

Trump's critics are always over-analyzing what he says trying to look for secret incitements of violence and nazi dog whistles and conspiracies when reality is much simpler - he's just a sore loser who isn't attending out of spite.

[Aeolun]

That is entirely possible. But his supporters will not read it that way.

The most powerful person on the planet should be held to a higher standard than just blating out whatever is on his mind.

[hchz]

Read the Turner Diaries.

[blendergeek]

I saw the tweet as acknowledgement that Biden will be president. I have never once thought the Trump would attend Biden's inauguration as that doesn't seem in character for him. I think that Twitter does themself a disfavor by using such weak evidence of Trump's violations of the terms of service.

[dragontamer]

There's worry that Trump's supporters are seeing it as "Trump's not at the inauguration, time to riot again since he won't be there".