>>>Trump used Twitter to criticize civil rights hero, Representative John Lewis
John Lewis is a hero, but someone in his position calling the president illegitimate is irresponsible and destructive. You can't ignore all the horrific things trump says and does, but bottom line is he won the election.
With the controversy surrounding Trump's ties to Russia and possible hacking activity by Russia during the election, I can understand why some people would view Trump's presidency as illegitimate. Lewis happens to be one of those people and was simply asked his opinion during an interview. It would be surprising if know one had expressed the view that he did. Given that I don't see how what he said could be controversial, irresponsible or destructive.
If you consider Trump illegitimate, you might be tempted to use force to remove him from office. In the extreme case, someone psychologically instable could feel morally obligated to assassinate Trump.
Someone may do that. That happens to every other president, legitimate or otherwise. But the very idea that we quash criticism of an elected official, simply because crazy people exist, is pretty much the opposite of a free Republic.
It's perfectly fine to criticize trump. But to say he's illegitimate when you're a high ranking, respected senator, with a huge audience is crossing the line in my opinion. If Hillary won, and Paul Ryan said she was illegitimate because the DNC cheated Bernie, and gave her answers to debate questions etc... The public outrage directed at Ryan would be insane, he'd probably be removed from office.
Thousands of people, if not more, felt Obama was illegitimate, and the Republicans certainly pandered to that crowd by embracing the Tea Party and using quasi-revolutionary rhetoric in their campaigning against him.
In their case, it was considered (or treated like) a moral duty to question the legitimacy of a sitting President... Why is it suddenly wrong for the other side to do the same?
John Lewis is a hero for what he did in 1965, but now is also an elected official for many years. It's totally fair to criticize or discuss his work and results -- we're not North Korea...
You know what I can't ignore? Your failure to provide a single example of anything, "horrific".
But that's ok, because am more interested in the idea that there are some "horrific" things that can be ignored.
I understand you have to make it real in your mind because otherwise, you would have to live with the knowledge, that you're a liar and that is untenable.
I understand the motivation. However, how do you suggest this be accomplished? Official accounts would be replaced by surrogates. And how do you distinguish between individuals and surrogates or proxies?
If that were to work reliably, wouldn't that also catch political expression from individuals (as opposed to just politicians and journalists)? Or are you targeting political speech in general? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what the end-goal is.
Yes it would. I doubt too badly though. How often is actual mail getting misidentified as spam?
Plus the quality of political expression imho on these platforms has gotten so low in terms of signal to noise that I don't think it would be a great loss to society.
The speed and reach of a message on social media today is unprecedented. Such platforms need ways to retard the flow of ignorance. That would really be the goal.
And there is enough evidence to show that journalists and politicians are benefiting the most from such flows.
And why would do that? Those two groups are keeping the lights on over there. You aren't exposed to anything you don't wish to be. You can have a feed entirely composed of whatever echo chamber you please. Democrat, Stalinist oh I just repeated myself. Pornography is ripe there. As are Islamic terrorists and other criminals.
> With these abusive messages, he incited others to attack and unleashed a stream of hate, directly violating The Twitter Rules.
The bar of what is considered « abusive » is becoming very, very low. It seems the simple act of criticizing the public actions of an individual is enough for one to become an « abuser ».
They insult Trump, and when Trump insult them back, they get angry.
When will they learn: Don't insult Trump and Trump won't insult back. It's that simple. If you're going to dish it out, you better be ready to receive it too.
Politics, period, has further turned the platform in to a cesspool. Removing a single account is not going to correct that course. I guess this is just what happens when a social or media outlet becomes mainstream. To illustrate, I'm sure everyone has enjoyed a coffee shop, bar, or restaurant that later morphed due to loss of niche crowds or mainstream success. Rather than trying rollback time, best to try and accept it for what it is. If Twitter's reality does not suit your preferences, move on. We don't own it.
I find Ellen Pao to often be wrong and ineffectual due to external and internal factors. Lauren Betchelder, referenced in Paos article, is an 18 year old mature and accomplished individual. She had a strong biased against Trump and when she said "you're no friend to women" she was probably not wrong, but she shouldve realized she would face backlash. Random people ard brought into the spotlight from being put into image macros-- much less than arguing with a presedential candidate.
Ellen, you're not only wrong about censorship which shouldve been proven to you-- but you're not making the right case. Trump potentially shouldn't have Twitter. however, the internet isn't going to stop being offensive, nor is Trump the only offensive person on the internet.
The most core tenet of America is freedom of belief. Like Henry, I think I think Pao is wrong and what she says is horribly damaging because it notmalizes censorship much as the "fake news/only trust us" meme; BUT I would spend my lifetime fighting for her right to say it.
It's amazing how flippant people are about other people's rights. Each major party wants to erode them. It's best not to get to comfortable with either.
The author certainly wouldn't like it if his account was banned because someone convinced a moderator his words were poison.
It's annoying that the English language doesn't have proper gender neutral possessive pronouns. The same could be said for people who allow themselves to be distracted by it.
Agreed, didn't mean to be picky. I put the name of the author in the title originally (because context is useful), but the mods edited it out, too bad.
The English language is more than just a collection of words, it entails grammar as well. "Their" is plural. For singular, it's "his," "her," "its."
For example, the sentence, "Pat has a flower. Their flower smells good, " doesn't sound right because "their" is plural. "Pat has a flower. Its flower smells good, " doesn't sound right either because "its" is reserved for things and not people.
Also, the dictionary isn't a good source for grammar. It contains definitions of words, proper or not, like "ain't" and "irregardless."
Prescriptive versus descriptive views of language. English doesn't have the equivalent of Académie française, and even its edicts are well-regarded recommendations, not definitions. Well-regarded style resources such as the Chicago Manual of Style explicitly recommend using singular they and their.
>English doesn't have the equivalent of Académie française, and even its edicts are well-regarded recommendations, not definitions.
Even if it did, I suspect either the US or the UK would reject the country that wrote it.
>They with a singular antecedent has remained in common use for centuries in spite of its proscription by traditional grammarians.
I was being a traditional grammarian. "John has a flower. Their flower smells good," sounds as incorrect to me as, "John ain't got no flowers." For me, the more important the point I'm trying to make the more grammatically correct I try to be.
Of course the spoken word is completely different. I think a message can get a lot of additional value misusing the language.
Maybe I should just realize, "ain't nobody got time for that."
If you want to say "John has a flower", saying "his flower smells good" is fine.
But try it with "Someone has a flower. Their flower smells good." Sounds right to me.
There's no need to replace one with the other everywhere. For example, why would you use "ain't" if you are trying to sound formal and a suitable alternative exists? Just say "No one has time for that."
I think it is a strawman argument to equate "there is an alternative word that can be used" (like they or ain't) with "one must use the alternative exclusively" (see how "one" was chosen over "they" in that sentence?)
Agreed, but it's because the following, resulting in the mangling of the language. I'm referring to formal writing style.
Of course, my quote is starting a sentence with a preposition, which is also poor form.
>Because he is no longer accepted as a generic pronoun referring to a person of either sex, it has become common in speech and in informal writing to substitute the third-person plural pronouns they, them, their, and themselves, and the nonstandard singular themself.
Because you DO ban trolls from open conversations. There's nothing about the lbotus' tweets that resemble 'positive interactions'. Though the global repercussions are all too likely.
By definition if you're banning people it's not an open conversation.
That's fine. Not all conversations have to be open. Twitter can go ahead and eliminate their users who don't fit their preferred political profile, it's their platform. Someone will just set up a competitor with different policies.
I suppose Trump's supporters would regard at least some of his interactions as positive.
"With these abusive messages, he incited others to attack and unleashed a stream of hate, directly violating The Twitter Rules."
No he didn't. He expressed an opinion, but no, he didn't incite others to attack anyone. Sorry, Ellen.
"Trump is also using Twitter to avoid accountability with the press"
Nobody needs to be accountable to the press, whether you like it or not. That's not how the system works. He's allowed to tell his side of the story as well if the press doesn't want to report it.
"Shouldn’t people with millions of angry followers be held to a higher standard? Indeed, as a blue-check verified user, Trump gets extra privileges, including timeline and user filters."
in that case, we have a lot of musicians that will also be held to higher standards.
I also found it sort of interesting that they disabled comments on this article. It's as if they want to do the same thing that they're accusing Trump of doing - one way discourse.
40 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 90.7 ms ] threadJohn Lewis is a hero, but someone in his position calling the president illegitimate is irresponsible and destructive. You can't ignore all the horrific things trump says and does, but bottom line is he won the election.
In their case, it was considered (or treated like) a moral duty to question the legitimacy of a sitting President... Why is it suddenly wrong for the other side to do the same?
And Trump has the right to criticize Lewis back.
People who are trying to censor Trump are acting like Fascists.
But that's ok, because am more interested in the idea that there are some "horrific" things that can be ignored.
I understand you have to make it real in your mind because otherwise, you would have to live with the knowledge, that you're a liar and that is untenable.
Both have more to gain than loose by pandering to the lowest common denominator, and that's what they do consciously and subconsciously the whole day.
There is 10 years of training data out there, which should cover everything most politicians and journalists are ever capable of coming up with.
Plus the quality of political expression imho on these platforms has gotten so low in terms of signal to noise that I don't think it would be a great loss to society.
The speed and reach of a message on social media today is unprecedented. Such platforms need ways to retard the flow of ignorance. That would really be the goal. And there is enough evidence to show that journalists and politicians are benefiting the most from such flows.
The bar of what is considered « abusive » is becoming very, very low. It seems the simple act of criticizing the public actions of an individual is enough for one to become an « abuser ».
https://i.imgbox.com/lt0FctbH.jpg https://i.imgbox.com/w9jzb1AS.jpg
When will they learn: Don't insult Trump and Trump won't insult back. It's that simple. If you're going to dish it out, you better be ready to receive it too.
Ellen, you're not only wrong about censorship which shouldve been proven to you-- but you're not making the right case. Trump potentially shouldn't have Twitter. however, the internet isn't going to stop being offensive, nor is Trump the only offensive person on the internet.
The most core tenet of America is freedom of belief. Like Henry, I think I think Pao is wrong and what she says is horribly damaging because it notmalizes censorship much as the "fake news/only trust us" meme; BUT I would spend my lifetime fighting for her right to say it.
The author certainly wouldn't like it if his account was banned because someone convinced a moderator his words were poison.
Take a step back.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/their
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/their
For example, the sentence, "Pat has a flower. Their flower smells good, " doesn't sound right because "their" is plural. "Pat has a flower. Its flower smells good, " doesn't sound right either because "its" is reserved for things and not people.
Also, the dictionary isn't a good source for grammar. It contains definitions of words, proper or not, like "ain't" and "irregardless."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless?utm_...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aint
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
Even if it did, I suspect either the US or the UK would reject the country that wrote it.
>They with a singular antecedent has remained in common use for centuries in spite of its proscription by traditional grammarians.
I was being a traditional grammarian. "John has a flower. Their flower smells good," sounds as incorrect to me as, "John ain't got no flowers." For me, the more important the point I'm trying to make the more grammatically correct I try to be.
Of course the spoken word is completely different. I think a message can get a lot of additional value misusing the language.
Maybe I should just realize, "ain't nobody got time for that."
But try it with "Someone has a flower. Their flower smells good." Sounds right to me.
There's no need to replace one with the other everywhere. For example, why would you use "ain't" if you are trying to sound formal and a suitable alternative exists? Just say "No one has time for that."
I think it is a strawman argument to equate "there is an alternative word that can be used" (like they or ain't) with "one must use the alternative exclusively" (see how "one" was chosen over "they" in that sentence?)
Of course, my quote is starting a sentence with a preposition, which is also poor form.
>Because he is no longer accepted as a generic pronoun referring to a person of either sex, it has become common in speech and in informal writing to substitute the third-person plural pronouns they, them, their, and themselves, and the nonstandard singular themself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
The idea of a platform for new ideas, open conversations, and positive interactions on a global scale was powerful and compelling
She praises new ideas and openness of conversation, then tells Twitter to ban the US President because she disagrees with him.
The author has chosen not to show responses on this story
What a surprise.
That's fine. Not all conversations have to be open. Twitter can go ahead and eliminate their users who don't fit their preferred political profile, it's their platform. Someone will just set up a competitor with different policies.
I suppose Trump's supporters would regard at least some of his interactions as positive.
Only if you're compelled to censor away any comments you don't approve.
No he didn't. He expressed an opinion, but no, he didn't incite others to attack anyone. Sorry, Ellen.
"Trump is also using Twitter to avoid accountability with the press"
Nobody needs to be accountable to the press, whether you like it or not. That's not how the system works. He's allowed to tell his side of the story as well if the press doesn't want to report it.
"Shouldn’t people with millions of angry followers be held to a higher standard? Indeed, as a blue-check verified user, Trump gets extra privileges, including timeline and user filters."
in that case, we have a lot of musicians that will also be held to higher standards.
I also found it sort of interesting that they disabled comments on this article. It's as if they want to do the same thing that they're accusing Trump of doing - one way discourse.