You're a fluent speaker of English. Please don't pretend not to know that "call to arms" is an idiomatic expression.
This contrasts severely with the crowd that Trump was addressing at the time. Their spaces were filled with calls to weaponization, civil wars and conspiracies against the system itself. The messages were written after people had made threats and refused to engage with the system. This is why it was so dangerous at the time, as we can now see clearly with insight after what ultimately happened.
Lori Lightfoot's call to arms is not happening within that context.
Simply looking at the dictionary will enlighten you: "something that makes people want to take action and get involved in an attempt to deal with a bad situation. He issued a call to arms on behalf of the environment."
Using this example from Macmillan Dictionary, no one is gathering firearms to shoot at the wind. What they are doing is paying attention to the issue and challenging the opposition within the scope of the law and political system.
The LGBTQ+ community is simply lawyering up, making noise about upcoming laws, legally protesting and pushing back using the existing political system. This is usually in the form of strongly written letters to representatives.
All of this is not only legal, it is encouraged behavior in the American political system.
In the end, being LGBTQ+ is not a political identity. It is not "leftist" or "rightist". It is simply the way some people are. Some of them extremist on the left while others are extremist on the right. LGBTQ+ individuals are found on the entire spectrum of American politics.
When someone gets banned, a reason might be given, but context never is.
If I you give me a teddy bear with a pun that I hate on it and I tell you "I will kill you" with a smile on my face, that's not a threat.
It depends on the context.
The first person would go to jail. The second person would not.
Analyzing the context of any situation is why we have a legal system with judges and juries.
Twitter un-banning Trump isn't an indicator of a political climate shift, although perhaps a social shift, or perhaps simply a one-off random Elon shift.
Supreme court repealing Roe v. Wade, Don't say gay bill, restrictions of voter rights, denial of 2020 election loss among top leaders in the GOP, the list goes on...
Not to even to mention the likelihood of conservatives gaining control of the senate and perhaps house in the midterms. This is what a hard right political climate shift looks like.
So, the unbanning is a response to this perceived shift - to get in good with the guys will soon be in power.
The center is the right now and the right is "hard right."
Clearly this indicates a political shift to the right. /s
I think it's fundamentally not an issue with right/left politics but of subtle philosophical differences over speech, society, and technology. If twitter has a certain form of monopoly on some aspect of public discourse then it's (arguably) in the public good to keep people on it by default. "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer" kind of thinking.
One rules for me, others for thee, no?
Disclaimer: Trump also made a massive mistake by suggesting what he suggested.
a) it's likely they have never heard of this counter-argument case you are linking, and
b) even if they have heard about it they are not a member of SocialMediaSite's content moderation team.
Now, where Trump is guilt is his actions after the events started. He should have within minutes been calling for it to stop and doing all he could to get police or national guard there to help. This is where I wish the impeachment investigation would have gone, sadly that was a rushed mess.
See: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/10/us/politics/jan-6-trump-c...
> Investigators have not uncovered evidence that any official records were tampered with or deleted, and it is well known that Mr. Trump routinely used his personal cellphone, and those of his aides, to talk with other aides, congressional allies and outside confidants, bypassing the normal channels of presidential communication.
So the J6 committee just hasnt' gotten his personal phone records yet, they only had the official Whitehouse call-logs.
> Some of the records that the Jan. 6 committee has received had been ripped to shreds and taped back together, reflecting the former president’s habit of tearing up documents. In addition, he removed more than a dozen boxes of presidential records from the White House when he left office, which the National Archives believes contained classified material, according to a person briefed on the matter.
Still on twitter.
Not every political movement erects a gallows outside the Capitol and then breaks and enters to look for legislators and the Vice President to hang.
I don't think that matters. He did not tell them to go into the Capitol and he told them to be peaceful. I don't think you have thought through the outcome of this. It seems like you are saying that a person giving a speech to a crowd is responsible when some people in that crowd along with others not listening to the speech do something bad an hour later. Especially when some people claim they thought they were allowed to do that bad thing because some police opened some doors for them.
To believe that was his intent you have to think Trump was incompetently unaware of the effects of his actions, or that he knew the potential outcome and encouraged it. Both are damning.
Just to be clear, I am not saying you specifically are not consistent. I do not know what you believe, but until we have the same standards that we as a society agree to I will defend anybody's right to say questionable things so long as they do not call for violence or other crimes.
Bernie Sanders said that Republicans were killing Americans by going after a health care bill. One of his supporters (who also worked on Bernie's campaign) shot a Republican representative. That was inflammatory language and yet nobody holds Bernie to the same standard as they hold Trump to. To use your argument: To believe Bernie's language was not meant to incite violence you have to think Bernie was competently unaware of the effects of his actions, or that he knew the potential outcome and encouraged it. Both are damning.
So, still one step behind many who are still on Twitter
AFAIK Trump has not been convicted of any "illegal activity" in that regard.
State charges, especially committed before taking federal office, are certainly possible.
The fact that he still has enough political power to avoid execution for sedition, or any responsibility whatsoever for this crime, does not have any effect on the truth value of my statement.
All I'm saying is, I think it's pretty obvious which side has most of the guns in this day in age. I don't recall seeing many armed that day. Actually I don't recall hearing about any. Except for, of course, all the obvious undercover agents watching it unfold. Who in their right mind attempts a coup without arms? I guess by having the police let them in the doors?
1. Trump attempted to use fake electors to overturn the election in his favor. [1]
2. The wife of a Supreme Court Justice pursued efforts to overturn the election. [2]
3. There were tons of communications between senior members and the Trump admin on how to overturn the election. [3]
4. The Oath Keepers, an armed militia group, stood by on Jan 6 ready to "swoop in" on a signal. [4]
5. And of course, the President of the United States of America told his followers that "if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore". And "We will never give up, we will never concede. It doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved." And "Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about … We will stop the steal." And "Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness, you have to show strength and you have to be strong.”" And then told them he would march to the Capitol with them. [5]
[1] https://www.npr.org/2022/02/10/1079835695/how-trump-sought-t...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/24/virginia-...
[3] https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/25/politics/mark-meadows-texts-2...
[4] https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-capitol-arrests/oa...
[5] https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-fi...
But the very denial of the election result, and all that stems from that, is enough.
If you can't see that, then you're a bigger fool than most of us.
* opines about the effect these continual denials have on a rabid, angry ... loser ... voter base.
* the result? Jan 6.
If you can't see that, good luck. It's f@cking so simple.
The only "different" things I see are the political affiliations.
Proven guilty in the court of public perception, perhaps, but certainly not in a court of law.