I’ve been reflecting on this lately as well. 75M people voted for Trump just two months ago, and now he’s been deplatformed from the major social media networks, and the alternate network that some of his supporters were moving to is effectively shut down for weeks/months.
I think you’re right in that the health of a democracy is closely linked to the ability of diverse voices to make themselves heard.
I don’t know what effect these moves will have but I suspect it will not have the intended one.
These guys have been brainwashed for decades by Fox News, which always claimed the "I can lie about everything because free speech" defense. This is not about diversity of opinions anymore. Their side besieged key democratic institutions such as the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Vice President, with the intention to overthrow the government and to kill democratically elected politicians.
This is not about diversity of opinions anymore. The people who did this need to be persecuted and receive lengthy jail sentences, whoever aided and abetted them needs to be sentenced, and there need to be real and actual consequences. Because if we don't do that, we only show that we are weak, and that you can storm the Capitol without any consequences. What is the lesson you think they will take from that? You think it stops here? Are they encouraged, or discouraged? If nothing happens to them, what do you think they'll do next? This isn't over.
The people who are fanning the flames need their megaphones taken from them. If whole platforms exist for the purpose of encouraging hatred and sedition, these platforms need to be banned. It's not rocket science. Fucking ban Fox News. Block Breitbart. Or drown them in lawsuits and persecute them for every lie they tell. It's either that or fascism. You choose.
I am in complete agreement that there must be consequences for the Capitol riot.
> You think it stops here? Are they encouraged, or discouraged? If nothing happens to them, what do you think they'll do next? This isn't over.
I don’t think it stops here. That’s sort of what I was getting at. Will censorship result in less violence or more violence? The assumption is that it turns the temperature down, but where is the precedent for that?
“Free Speech” - not just the technical definition but the culture of it - is a core American value. Having it suppressed so quickly and broadly may actually result in more violence.
I fear that we’re at the beginning of the American “Troubles”
This article read like a self-parody. The obsession with what words to use. The instant reach for Nazism as the point of reference (Ezra Klein invoking the "Nuremberg defence"?) The conspiracy theories about The Narrative and The Media, all so strangely similar to the nutcases on the other side. The rage at the Establishment. The foaming-at-the-mouth tone. Dave Spart lives!
I will point out that you only talk about stylistic issues and do not actually address the central point of the article, which is that language matters ("terrorist" or "freedom fighter"?) and that the discourse using these words is influenced by it.
A discussion about freedom fighters is a different one than a discussion about terrorists, even though the people involved might have committed the exact same crime (shooting a bunch of people).
As such, designating the mob as American Patriots and the event itself as a "riot" or "insurrection" instead of as a "coup" is - indeed - important and very telling.
A defining feature of this era is that language doesn’t matter, starting with "fake news" in the summer of 2016. Riot/protest, fascist, coup - these terms and more have been co-opted and reflected back at the other side. Same words, different meaning in the opposing context.
Might the simpler explanation be that liberals tend to be measured in their criticisms of conservatives and perhaps that leads to sometimes underplaying things?
In that case do you also believe that those responsible for propagating news which sparked riots and looting across the country earlier in the year should also be prosecuted? It seems like both sides have incited violence this year yet from your response it seems like you would only like one side to be punished.
> the ability of diverse voices to make themselves heard.
This is the paradox of tolerance. If you tolerant violent, discriminating voices like say, the Proud Boys, that intimidates other diverse groups from participating. Their intolerance becomes mainstream, making society less tolerant over time.
I think you’re right in that the health of a democracy is closely linked to the ability of diverse voices to make themselves heard.
I don’t know what effect these moves will have but I suspect it will not have the intended one.