[alphabettsy]

Banks accounts? All internet presence? Neither of those things is happening. They still have websites, not to mention a press secretary with the world’s press at their feet.

Minimizing it to just wrong opinions? NAMBLA, look it up, is still around so stating this is about wrong opinions is ignorant.

I’m fairly certain that attempting to overthrow the government to get your desired election result is fascism. Saying we will have a trial by combat just before telling protestors to head to the Capitol sounds a lot like a call for violence.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/giuliani-rally-speech/

[bluesign]

"Rudy Giuliani, made a reference to the HBO drama “Game of Thrones” when he called for a “trial by combat” while talking about conspiracy theories alleging massive scale voter fraud."

Game of Thrones???

[alphabettsy]

Maybe Game of Thrones or the Germanic tradition. Either way it means blood will be spilled.

[abernard1]

> I’m fairly certain that attempting to overthrow the government to get your desired election result is fascism.

I can't believe I'm actually going to go to this topic, but your argument has been made before with the Reichstag Fire [1]. Using threats of violence as a pretext for assuming more government control is a tactic as old as governments.

> The Nazi Party used the fire as a pretext to claim that communists were plotting against the German government, which made the fire pivotal in the establishment of Nazi Germany.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

[alphabettsy]

I’m well aware. Can you point to the government control please.

Private companies using their liberty to deny service to the leader of the United States government seems like freedom to me.

[abernard1]

Fine, this particular action is not government control.

But the argument that taking away power from people because they're "fascists" isn't like fascism is not a strong one. These people are supposedly an existential threat to the fabric of America, and there absolutely is not a single group that hasn't simultaneously deplatformed them.

It suggests a question around who really holds the power here.

[eganist]

> I can't believe I'm actually going to go to this topic, but your argument has been made before with the Reichstag Fire [1]. Using threats of violence as a pretext for assuming more government control is a tactic as old as governments.

There's a bit of false equivalence here. The fire was, on one hand, a false flag (from the very link you posted), and on the other hand, a stroke of luck.

Whereas here, it was an attempt at taking human hostages (reference: the many more recent videos of insurrectionists with human zip ties and small arms) and disrupting election certification with human shields in the form of a mob of conservative protesters. Which by every definition would be an attempted coup.

And don't get me wrong, I'm saying quite explicitly that there were legitimate, Trump-believing protesters in the crowd who either got swept up into the moment or genuinely fear for the state of the country but who were not in it to overthrow a legitimately elected government. However, within the crowd were people who came equipped to overthrow leadership followed by blending right back into the crowd, and they coordinated on platforms such as Parler with impunity, which is precisely why deplatforming the platforms is the appropriate next step.

It's not because of everyday conservatives who feel duped. It's because of the conservatives who came together to enact violence and disrupt the democratic process.

[abernard1]

> It's not because of everyday conservatives who feel duped. It's because of the conservatives who came together to enact violence and disrupt the democratic process.

And those 75M voters are not able to receive communication from a person they voted for and want to hear speak. They can't buy things from stores that are selling ordinary, run of the mill political apparel. The servers and apps providing social media--protected under section 230 just like AWS, Apple, and Google--have been banned.

It is not the extremists who are receiving the brunt of this purge.

[pmiller2]

Someone who is not going to be relevant in 10 days.

Spare me the "poor me" act.

[nobody9999]

>It is not the extremists who are receiving the brunt of this purge.

And if the extremists hadn't stormed the capitol and been supported (Trump literally said "we love you.") by certain folks, those who are being inconvenienced (and yes, it's just an inconvenience) wouldn't be.

If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

Edit: Fixed wording of old saw.