American Election

Of course the rules should be applied consistently. There's no question about that.

But is there any evidence that anyone did deliberately incite violence during the George Floyd killing protests?
My understanding is that the vast majority of the BLM protests were peaceful. The reports I've read suggest that the burning and looting that took place were spontaneous outbursts of anger in very localised areas where police heavy-handidness is the norm, which, of course, the media focused on because it's much better news than peaceful protest. And, of course, Trump and other Republicans then seized on the limited outbreaks to give the deliberately misleading impression that entire cities were being ransacked by Antifa mobs. That's not to say that the damage wasn't considerable or that it was justified. Of course it wasn't. But was it deliberately incited?

 

No doubt that toad, Nigel Farage, will be lying low in a swamp somewhere.

 

No, and I certainly wouldn't suggest that - but looking at Trump's tweets that got him banned then is inciting a crowd to gather due to feeling of injustice (whether real or perceived) which then turns violent enough to constitute incitement of violence. It's not like trump tweeted anything directly such as "Hang Pelosi" or "Storm the Capitol" so it is all based on inference and to a large part dictated by what actions the people on the ground actually take.

If encouraging a mob to gather under a common aim fits that criteria then it has to be applied regardless of cause.

 

Sure. But did anyone 'encourage a mob to gather' during the BLM protests? Organising a peaceful demo isn't the same as gathering a mob.
Trump and Giulliani addressed a clearly angry crowd and told them to 'prepare for trial by combat' and to go to the Capitol and 'fight like hell', knowing full well (from earlier incidents, like Charlottesville) that some of the crowd would take those entreaties literally. That's a far cry from organising a peaceful demo. Their purpose was clearly to stir up trouble. Even if it went further than they intended, they bear a huge responsibility for stoking the fire.
A significant section of the mob were chanting 'Hang Mike Pence' as they tried to break into the Senate legislative chamber. This followed comments made earlier by Trump during his speech urging Pence to overthrow the democratic process. OK, Trump didn't actually tell them to go and hang him but he was clearly aggrieved that Pence wouldn't follow his orders and singled him out for special attention. Trump knew full well that he was firing up an already angry crowd and he was completely reckless and unconcerned about what they might do when they got to the Capitol.
When the Capitol was being stormed, Trump, from the safety of the White House, reportedly watched on with glee as the mob broke in, either oblivious to or unconcerned about the danger his own Senators were in. Only when it was pointed out to him that he could be in legal trouble for sedition did he start to worry about what he had unleashed.
This is banana republic stuff. It's a completely different order of things from spontaneous damage to property as a protest at police brutality.

 

Guilliani was probably worse that Trump with that statement - "fight like hell" isn't necessarily an incitement to physically fight though.

I do feel like there was encouragement to gather and not necessarily peacefully in the summer. Especially after the frst lootings/riots took place then everyone knew what was happening.

Trump's behavious generally during the riot at the Capitol was appalling - it's just whether that should be accounted for by twitter?

 

I think Twitter are looking at the whole picture - both what has been said online and in person - and making a judgement that they don't want their platform used to stir up more sedition and violence, especially at Biden's inauguration. Although I'm uncomfortable about the suspension of his account, I can see why they are doing it.
Trump has been breaking their rules for ages - posting outright lies and baseless conspiracy theories, not just his political opinions. He has been asked to refrain from doing this and has persistently ignored them. He clearly believes that he is entitled to tweet whatever he wants, no matter how inaccurate, untruthful or deliberately inflammatory. He know that many of his base are angry people with guns, yet he continues to send them messages that fall just short of instructing them to mount violent insurrection, knowing full well that that's how they will be received and acted upon.
Trump is the President. He is expected to behave more responsibly than ordinary people who are incensed by endemic police harrassment, not less so. He has been given numerous chances to tone down his inflammatory remarks and disinformation. Sooner or later something has to give.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/11/us-capitol-attack-warning-signs-charlottesville-michigan?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

 

There were idiots on the streets but everyone has a right to protest if they want and the worst we got was farage and that tosser from live aid shouting at each other on the thames. Thats why I called it a deflection mate cos pretty much to a tee nobodys died at a pro or anti brexit rally etc, and as divided as our own country is nobody pulled anything like storming parliament so I couldn't see the connection you were getting at mate. Remainers might have moaned about the result but its neither a crime nor undemocratic to moan about something

 

0 proof, please provide evidence or I'll report this post. sick to the back teeth of idiots advancing misinformation based on nothing but fairy stories.

 

LIBERATE MICHIGAN etc etc,

literally telling them at his capitol rally they need to 'fight like hell'

The issue with trump is there is no factual basis for what he is saying to people. Part of the reason I hate him as much as I do is because he's manipulated anger in people who have every right to be angry at the state of the world and weaponised it for his own gain. Those people who died at the capitol have died for absolutely no reason whatsoever, which is the part that makes me really angry about all this. This is also why as much as people bang on about the right to free speech, we as a society need to have a hard look at ourselves about the responsibilities that come with that right. One person's careless words have got 5 others killed here.

 

i get what you're saying in the latter part but the actually phrases aren't that bad. I bet you could find hundreds of thousands of tweets from Scottish Nationalists, Pro EU supporters and BLM advocates that reference liberation and fighting for their cause.

The bit about why people don't like him and his obvious failings is true, I'm just not sure it justifies the action from a private company, or at least makes it very difficult to apply consistently regardless of agreement with the views.

 

Very true however just to look at the phrases themselves is ignorant of the wider context of why he was saying it, who he was saying it to, what he stood to gain and his motivation for it etc etc. the phrases on their own are relatively innocuous but this is another reason I hate trump. He isn't stupid and he knows exactly what he's doing with stuff like this. The capitol violence was exactly what he wanted as it was a display of his 'power' to people he thinks have betrayed him, however he's just clever enough not to come right out and say go physically attack people. He just says enough to get a bite and lets the crowd work themselves up into a lather so he can't be blamed for it after. Don't forget his base gets fed a steady diet of pure shite about democrats being satanic paedophiles, so it wont take much at all for them to get riled up. So for me, just looking at the words is exactly what trump wants people to do, because on their own they aren't really the worst. But in the context of where, why , how, and who his audience were, he absolutely incited insurrection in my view.

 

Exactly.
"Come to Washington. It will be wild". Next thing there's an account on far right social media called The Wild March extorting people to violent insurrection to defend the republic.
He knows full well he's not talking to a bunch of pacifists. These were carefully chosen words designed to fire up an already angry mob, many of them armed and known extremists, without actually saying 'go and smash the place up'.

 

It's now emerging that some Republican lawmakers escorted people round the Capitol building in the days immediately before the riot, ostensibly on sightseeing tours. Some of those who were taken round were believed to be later part of the mob - suggesting that these tours were more recconaissance missions than idle sightseeing.
Incredible if true.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/12/mikie-sherrill-capitol-hill-attack-458655

 

yeah it would be hard to provoke such a calm and peace loving set of people wouldn't it

 

But this is the issue and why it makes it impossible to consistently and fairly apply. People view the context through the prism of whether they agree with the ideals. So if someone you agree with says "fight to the end" you see it as being stoic but if someone from the alternative view says the same thing different context is applied.

Now, that's not to say that Trump was right or whiter than white but how can it be policed? If someone encourages BLM protests and 19 people die and $1bn of damage is done is that okay because the cause is deemed to be noble?

People on all sides know how to be careful with their words - I certainly wouldn't give Trump credit for being anymore credit than others on that front - so reading between the lines impartially is an utter minefield.

 

I dont think theres any differing ideals in thinking telling angry white supremacists to fight like hell is at the least highly irresponsible, especially so when you've already spent the past month or so indirectly winding them up on the internet and arguably the past four years prior to that. Its hard to police if you politicise it but i dont actually see this through a left v right prism at all. I genuinely think this part of his base are white supremacists which to me is a fairly universal foe. If we cant all agree someone winding up a bunch of angry white supremacists is wrong, i think our problems run deeper as a society than how to police twitter properly.


No because violence is never ok, however context is key. Did anyone storm the capitol building at a blm march looking to take hostages? and/or hurt elected representatives who disagreed with them? If I recall correctly, the BLM march at washington was largely peaceful and then trump had them all tear gassed so he could go stand outside a church with an upside down bible. the overwhelming majority of blm marches were peaceful and yet the overwhelming majority of this protest was violent, so I completely reject any comparison as these were never good faith actors to begin with.

 

But the BLM marches DID result in 19 deaths, 700 police officers injured and 1 billion dollars of damage so should twitter take action against those who promoted them and encouraged the "fight"?

The majority of them were peaceful but the results were the results. They can't be ignored or glossed over.

I can agree that winding up a load of white supremacists is bad. Obviously. What I can't seem to grasp is whether winding up any group of people who are capable of killings and damage is treated the same regardless of cause.

 

The BLM protest was a very long series of largely peaceful demonstrations in numerous cities over several weeks, in which a small number of the participants took it upon themselves to break ranks and cause damage. This was met with predictably heavy handed policing, leading to more anger, more rioting and a regrettable number of deaths. No one is defending the damage or the deaths. But nobody, as far as I am aware, premeditatedly organised those riots. No one was going on social media and calling for people to pour into those areas from all over the country and cause more trouble. They were spontaneous outbursts of anger by people, in their local areas, protesting at the way they've been treated for decades. Some of the police responses were so far over the top that the police are being sued:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/york-ag-sue-nypd-handling-black-lives-matter/story?id=75251212

That is completely different from what happened at the Capitol last week. It was a premeditated gathering of right wing extremists intent on causing trouble to subvert democratic processes. There were weeks of activity on far right social media anticipating the event; lots of talk of 'saving the Republic or die trying' etc by people with the weaponry to cause serious mayhem. Trump was not unaware of any of this. Making statements like 'be there, it will be wild'; don't be weak; you've got to stand strong'; fight like hell' etc to that crowd - knowing full well that they would take him literally - was, at the very least, highly irresponsible and, more likely, actively seditionary. The fact that he stayed in the White House watching it with approval for several hours, before eventually making a half hearted plea for calm (motivated by the fear of legal backlash rather than concern for democracy or the lives of senators and congress reps) makes it obvious that he was happy with them taking him literally.
I find it strange that you can't appreciate the difference between the two sets of events.

 

I think you're overplaying the spontaneity of the protests in the summer and if you genuinely think there weren't people on social media encouraging the protests then I don't know what to say.

Going to go round in circles again.

Trump's behaviour was abhorrent, as was the behaviour of the scum who attached the Capitol. But that isn't really what we're talking about. It's about how relatively common words such as "fight", "wild" and liberate can be contextualised as am insightment of violence when it suits but are impossible to apply in that way consistently.

 

I'm absolutely certain that there were people on social media encouraging people to join the BLM protests. But were they inviting/inciting them to come and cause trouble? There were hundreds of BLM demos across the USA throughout the summer - the vast majority peaceful - which suggests that those organising them were not intent on causing mayhem. By contrast with those recruiting online for the Capitol protest, who were making no secret that they were itching for a fight.
As far Trump's words are concerned, the key is surely 'context'. Yes, words like fight and struggle are commonplace across a wide range of political and social movements. Usually they are metaphorical rather than literal. But when you know full well that you are addressing an audience of angry, armed extremists who are spoiling for a fight and you use such terms then you are behaving (at the very least) recklessly and potentially treasonously.