The great purge on twitter has begun. http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/11/15/twitter-s...
Meanwhile, it's not the partisan purge you think it is:
Kevin Allred posted "would conservatives care as much abt the 2nd amendment if guns killed more white people? a question meant to expose double standard" https://twitter.com/KevinAllred/status/798751660340195328
and gets the police coming to him https://twitter.com/KevinAllred/status/798729156557205504 and twitter ordering him to take it down (but not the quote??) https://twitter.com/KevinAllred/status/798925131288641536
EDIT: It seems that the poster above may have left out some important details. According to an alleged screenshot linked below, the tweet actually said: "Will the 2nd amendment be as cool when I buy a gun start shooting at random white people?"
This is not obviously just an abstract political point. It could understandably be interpreted as a direct threat.
Here are the since deleted tweets. I'll let you come to your own conclusions.
(Now we have a truth problem don't we? I could be lying, the guy posting the screenshots could be lying, the original poster could be lying. Turtles all the way down)
I mean, there's some MSM coverage of this which says essentially what I did: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/rutgers-professor-psych-...
This is exactly the kind of misinformation bubble that people are talking about. Kevin Allred is clearly misrepresenting his original tweet.
But the left has the ability to get you fired if you question their assertions too much. So their falsehoods are actually more effective
Then again, who'd believe the results? :) Who fact checks the fact checkers?
"But the left has the ability to get you fired if you question their assertions too much."
Would you expand on this?
The latter view is rarely argued in academic circles so I've never seen it rigorously defended. But it is passed off as fact to the general public.
Now I am not able to correct this later group because if I do so, not only will they attack me as racist, but the former group will not defend me. In fact the former group will say "the only reason you would present this fact in isolation is because you want to imply black people are genetically inclined to crime". This would most likely result in disciplinary action in my workplace.
We already have the answer to that question and it is a resounding YES. When the Black Panthers decided to open carry in California in the 70s (I think it was the 70s) conservatives freaked out and passed legislation (led by Reagan I believe) to limit the rights of Californian citizens to open carry.
What I don't agree with is the targeting of a single ideology. If they are doing this in the name of sanitizing content, fine, but sanitize hate speech from all sides.
That said, my preference would be for them to provide better tools for people to manage content of hate or abuse. Of course then we get the echo chamber effect.
Twitter reserves the right to kick out whomever it feels violates their policy. As a corporate entity, they have that right.
legitimate use of force
Next question.
The purge of SA happened after Hindenburg threatened Hitler with martial law if Hitler didn't reign in SA (though Hitler had his own motives for going along with it - they were a threat to him as well), which were seen as particularly nasty and brutal.
Comparing yourself with the people that other parts of German society at the time literally saw as worse than Hitler is perhaps not quite what to go for when trying to elicit sympathy.
He should at the very least then not complain if people call him a nazi.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXpi3F0E5ro
[2] http://qz.com/519388/this-saudi-prince-now-owns-more-of-twit...