[mercer]

I often find myself disagreeing with your views, but in this case I mostly agree.

I'm open to ideas of how to best deal with extremist thought (and subsequent action), and I do feel simply arguing that speech should be fully free is nice but a tad too reductive and dogmatic.

Whatever my thoughts on what we /should/ do, I feel what's happening now is way too knee-jerk and a possible lead-up to policy that just gives 'the powers that be' more power, and that's worrying.

[_fq4v]

I have never said that speech should be fully free. I do have criteria that would be used to censor speech. However, neither the sixth riots or the summer riots had many actors whose speech I believe ought to have been banned.

For example, while I believe the democratic party spurred on or sat back in silence while BLM and Antifa rioted, most democratic politicians did not do anything that deserves censorship. Even Kamala Harris's financial support of those who looted and destroyed police stations in Minneapolis should not be censored -- the bail she asked for was a completely legal thing to provide.

As for the sixth, Trump's posts were entirely peaceful. He consistently asked for a peaceful demonstration. There are those claiming that using phrasing like 'fight' or 'take your country back', etc, incite violence. I do not believe that for one minute. Banning the opposition from saying they should 'fight' the incumbents or 'take the country back' from them seems incredibly dangerous. Even such colorful language as asking for politicians heads on a platter should not be banned (I recall several incidences of twitter accounts depicting Trump's beheading).

Politics in general leads to strong emotions. People have strong emotions over politicians. English has lots of colorful language for people we don't like. I believe the standards for 'violence' against politicians ought to be much lower than for calling for violence against people, especially non-governmental agents. For example, I do believe some of the BLM incitement of anger that instructed people to burn or loot local businesses (especially when that anger and mob then led to deaths), ought to have been soundly condemned, and I believe twitter should have flagged it and taken some measures to punish the account (although I still think outright censorship for one post would be overkill).

This is because these posts direct anger indiscriminately at people of a certain class, not one specific person who may actually have power. I find those kinds of posts highly problematic, and those would be the first I would censor, but again, I think we have seen only a handful of those over the past year. Certainly, I don't think any major politician has reached that bar.

So no, I do not believe in no censorship ever, I just have very open standards as to what speech to allow that would mainly have me allowing the vast majority of speech. I am not going to tighten my standards simply because left-wingers find them distasteful or want to accuse me of being a free speech zealot. I've stood on these same principles since when I was a democrat, and I'll stand on them now.

[shripadk]

If it is an extremist thought it is better to know who is saying what than cutting off communication completely and hoping the problem goes away. But this has to go along with society coming together and addressing the problem firsthand. Is the extremist thought because of a mental illness? Is it some monetary issue driving such thoughts? Is it social issues that is driving such thoughts? Is it religion? The thoughts by themselves are immaterial unless the individual is a psychopath. Many turn extremist because of an underlying cause which I call the "root cause". Attack the root cause. That'll fix the person. For how long will society keep ignoring this aspect of human beings? Unless you dedicate funding towards tackling such issues you'll get to no where. By shutting off communications you haven't shut off these thoughts that crop up in an extremists mind. Al Qaeda existed before internet was even a thing. We have had genocides when technology did not exist. All throughout human history. It always has been bloody. On the contrary, I can argue that we are at a much better place than we were in the past many thousand years. So to only blame technology for spread of misinformation is disingenuous. Before technology existed misinformation spread rapidly through word of mouth but there was no way to cross check it. Today you have that ability to cross verify. You just need to give time to people to get used to this.

But once you introduce Censorship there is no turning back. Once authority tastes power they'll want to keep using it more and more. Just like Surveillance, Censorship will become a powerful tool in the hands of the powerful. It always starts with a valid justification.

[_fq4v]

What part of Trump's policies are extremist? I ask this question honestly. None of his policies are extremist in the slightest. Even the mob on the sixth are just crazy supporters. Trump instructed them to be peaceful repeatedly, even while they were doing it. I understand that he is brusque and has a brash personality, but I cannot understand what it is about him that makes him more extreme than any other previous US president. I just do not understand.

This is an incredibly honest question. I typically ask it, people give me examples, and then I think back to previous presidents in my lifetime (none of whom I've supported, mind you), and can recall pretty much equivalent situations. Then the person I speak with gets angry and walks away really mad at me for what feels like simply remembering things that have happened in my life. I cannot understand it, and frankly, the simple refusal of people to actively engage has made me go from not liking Trump for his personality, to honestly finding him a hero. Please, will someone calmly explain to me what is extreme about Trump's policies?

I don't label Democrat policies as extreme despite no longer being part of that party and not agreeing with any of them. I don't understand the hyperbole.

[shripadk]

I don't find his policies extremist. On the contrary I feel he did more for minority upliftment than any other US President in modern times.

I have always supported Trump over here when no one was coming out in his support. Got down voted heavily too. You can see my comments to know where I stand on this. In fact, he is the least extreme US President I have seen till date.

No matter what the majority thinks I have personally looked into policies that Trump has gotten pushed either through his executive orders or through the Congress and every single policy I have agreed to. I'm not even an American. I'm an Indian. Trump has targeted India when it comes to trade and imposed tariffs. Quite frankly I feel he was completely in the right for doing so. The deficit between our countries was too huge in terms of trade and it needed to be balanced out. There is a time and place for jingoism but not when truth is staring in your face. So you'll find more people in India pro-Trump than you'll find even in America perhaps. We can't forget his help in making sure China comes around and removed the block on UN sanctions against terrorist Maulana Masood Azhar. Obama couldn't get it done as China never took him seriously. Trump got it done. You can read more about it here: https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.economictimes.com/news/intern...

But I would definitely call the ones who stormed US Capitol as insurrectionists. There is no excuse for that behaviour. If at all, it damaged Trump more than it helped him. I mean the entire premise of Trump supporters being different from left-wing supporters was one knows to protest peacefully while the other indulges in riots and arson. I was extremely disappointed when I saw it go out of hand at the US Capitol. This is not what I expected. But nevertheless it happened and cannot be reversed.

[tathougies]

I'm the child of indian immigrants. My parents adored trump in 2016, I was meh because all my friends told me he was a white supremacist. I thought my parents had gone mad. But then I saw that nothing my friends claimed actually came true and in fact trump governed like any other republican but way better because he didn't exclude people due to culture war issues and he didn't warmonger and brought peace.

But what really redpilled me was the impeachment farce where he literally was impeached for investigating his predecessor for crimes we now know occurred. That sends a very chilling message.

[shripadk]

> I'm the child of indian immigrants. My parents adored trump in 2016, I was meh because all my friends told me he was a white supremacist. I thought my parents had gone mad. But then I saw that nothing my friends claimed actually came true and in fact trump governed like any other republican but way better because he didn't exclude people due to culture war issues and he didn't warmonger and brought peace.

Exactly right. Thanks for keeping an open mind and not getting caught up in this frenzy of opposing Trump just for the heck of it. I can understand how hard it is to be in America right now and be a Trump supporter.

> But what really redpilled me was the impeachment farce where he literally was impeached for investigating his predecessor for crimes we now know occurred. That sends a very chilling message.

Spot on.