WE MUST DO SOMETHING ABOUT EXTREMIST SPEECH ONLINE
EXTREMIST SPEECH ONLINE IS DANGEROUS
THE EXTREME RHETORIC MUST BE STOPPED
FREE SPEECH IS NOT EXTREMIST SPEECH
EXTREMISTS ON SOCIAL MEDIA ARE THREATENING OUR NATION
THIS EXTREMIST SPEECH CANNOT BE TOLERATED
EXTREMISM ON SOCIAL MEDIA IS NOT FREE SPEECH
WE MUST FIGHT EXTREMISM AS IT INCITES VIOLENCE
HOW CAN THE GOVERNMENT ACT TO STOP EXTREMISM ONLINE
For the record, beyond direct calls for harassment/violence, I am 100% fine with all of this.

They should be free to share their hateful, insane views and we should be free to expose them as bigots.

Free speech has nothing to do with being nice/polite.

Speech is not dangerous.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Chad Felix Greene

Chad Felix Greene Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @chadfelixg

18 Jan
The nuance of this issue is that while the left positions all of this as an organized, massive movement of white supremacists in the traditional way of understanding them, their attempt at 'multiracial whiteness' demonstrates how they are struggling to manage the complexity.
The observable truth here is that the Capitol Riot was a mix of various fringe groups all united under a singular temporary identity.

Ironically, by banning them all from social media over the last four years, the left united them together under a cause.
Traditional white supremacist movements sought to intimidate minorities or to engage in violence against them.

They rarely act as a group. Usually individuals who self-identify with a movement or org or philosophy act on their own.

The issue has been focused on messaging.
Read 16 tweets
14 Jan
Psychologically, it takes a very big mental leap to smash the window of a storefront.

You have to severely alter your state of normalcy and believe you are immune from responsibility.

The constant media mocking of this as a serious issue lowers that internal severity.
What the left has made clear is the only distinction between rioting and terrorism is the motivation.

The actions are the same.
The abandonment of normal functioning in the same.
The belief in absolute moral justification is the same.

They view good cause riots as being good.
They genuinely laugh at the notion of attacking businesses and public buildings as a threat at all - when they support the motivation behind it.

The problem is they have conditioned people to view that exaggeration of normal behavior as normal and ok.

They lower the threshold.
Read 4 tweets
14 Jan
Here's the thing.
Big rallies draw lots of kinds of people.
Mostly peaceful, but passionate voices.
They also bring out crazies.

The more passionate the rally the more likely the crazies will falsely believe they are empowered to act out the chants and slogans all around them.
The Capitol Riot had a contingency of well-known instigators, fantasy revolutionaries and very real actually dangerous people deluded into believing they were there to save the country, oh, and lots of white supremacists and Nazi LARPers and so on.
We shouldn't shut down all political activism and rallying.

But we must have better security and better organized rallies.

We have to be aware of the people who show up and pay attention to rising passions.

Our leaders must balance passion with measured reason.
Read 6 tweets
14 Jan
I AM the new administration.
I will stand for no malarkey!
I never thought I'd make it this far.
Read 7 tweets
10 Jan
Here is my argument for why access to digital services should be considered a civil right equal to access to physical services.

As a Jewish person and as a gay person I am protected under anti-discrimination law (varied for being gay).

A store cannot ban me for either.
A store could not, for example, have a policy that bans 'immoral behavior' on their property and then selectively enforce this only on gay couples who happen to either simply walk in or who hold hands or show affection of any kind.

No liberal perspective would agree.
If this happened to me I would be able to argue that my civil rights had been violated.

Even without official legal protections, this would be enough to file a lawsuit, launch legislation and create public outcry until it was officially illegal to do so.
Read 41 tweets
9 Jan
The left believes bad ideas reproduce in the open.

You let someone share a bad idea and it multiplies with the validation of an official platform.

That makes it 'dangerous' as exposure is like a virus.

They think if you suppress the people with the bad idea, it will suffocate.
It seems simple to them.
Trump incited his followers to commit violence through his rhetoric, ban Trump and you remove the rhetoric.

No one else gets infected.
But then you must remove all those already infected...

Then you must stop the rhetoric from repeating.
Its a simple issue of threat reduction, not speech suppression.

But they refuse to recognize that in doing so they validate the rhetoric, turn it into dogma and it becomes mythology with more and more loyal adherents.

It goes underground.
It grows in power and legitimacy.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!