Deleted tweet detection is currently running at reduced
capacity due to changes to the Twitter API. Some tweets that have been
deleted by the tweet author may not be labeled as deleted in the PolitiTweet
interface.
Showing page 108 of 1543.
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
RT @Noahpinion: It's good to see a few people start to push back on the "personal is political" mania. Here's @ClareCoffey with an excellen… — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@VinodSreeharsha @XBillups @viewthenews1029 @JYossarianUSAAF @ijbailey No one is disputing that incitement to violence exists. It is nevertheless different than violence. I would not like it if you Tweeted, "People should stab Conor" but I would like it even less if you stabbed me. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@ijbailey @XBillups @AustonWhite3 @athie_gnome Incoherent means "expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way; unclear." Your definition of violence cannot be comprehended by others and is confusing and unclear because you cannot articulate it for others, you just know it when you see it yourself. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@VinodSreeharsha @XBillups @viewthenews1029 @JYossarianUSAAF @ijbailey Chanting "Death to America" are words, not violence. Reverend Wright saying "Goddamn America" was words, not violence. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@JYossarianUSAAF @ijbailey @XBillups @viewthenews1029 "Are these words violence?" "I'm not sure, call Professor Bailey, he knows it when he sees it." — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@ijbailey @XBillups @viewthenews1029 @JYossarianUSAAF You have no problem making distinctions because you have an entirely subjective, case by case, I know it when I see it approach to what words are violence. You make distinctions, but they may as well be arbitrary for the vagueness with which you describe them. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@ijbailey @XBillups @viewthenews1029 @JYossarianUSAAF You may not think responding to violence with violence is justified, but many people do, and if you muddy the distinction between words and violence with your "I know it when I see it" definition, those people will decide what words they think are violence and respond in kind — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@JYossarianUSAAF @XBillups @viewthenews1029 @ijbailey Maybe we should consult some ER doctors to understand the effects of the word wounds that they treat and whether they think the physical wounds are different in kind. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@XBillups @viewthenews1029 @JYossarianUSAAF @ijbailey My point is to maintain a real and important distinction that stands as an important bulwark against responding to words with violence, which would be justified if words were violence. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@ijbailey @XBillups @AustonWhite3 @athie_gnome I agree it doesn't mean you must think that way. Nevertheless, I think the incoherence of your definition of violence, which you tellingly can't even articulate except "I know it when I see it," muddies an important and real distinction in a way that has harmful effects. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@XBillups @AustonWhite3 @ijbailey @athie_gnome I disagree on both counts. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@XBillups @AustonWhite3 @ijbailey @athie_gnome Either you believe in the equivalence or you don't. If you do, that has implications. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@XBillups @AustonWhite3 @ijbailey @athie_gnome What's alarming is how it enables stabbing Salmon Rushdie or murdering French satirists or slapping Chris Rock or injuring that professor who was interviewing Charles Murray by believing and claiming they aren't initiating violence, just responding in kind to it. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@ijbailey And to that I say, no, words are not violence. What Rushdie wrote and stabbing him for it are utterly distinguishable. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@ijbailey Your "I know it when I see it" approach is a bad one to tout because it's the same subjective one that allows Rushdie's attackers to muddy the distinction between his writing a book and them stabbing him for it. They "knew" his book was "violence" when they saw it. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@ijbailey Again, you are presuming that if something causes physical harm that means it is violence, but that assumption is erroneous. Lots of things-food, drugs, stress over debt-can cause physical harm without being violence, which you have no coherent definition of — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@bbsevilla @ijbailey They know it when they see it! — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@athie_gnome @XBillups @ijbailey You would choose the mild physical attack rather than incitement to a possibly deadly physical attack. Me too. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@ijbailey I think physicality is required for something to be violent and I see that professionals who define violence in dictionaries also think that. So I'll leave you to your definition, just understand that most people don't share it and won't understand what you're talking about. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@ijbailey Football can of course be violent and often is. Marathons are not violent unless you're running them as a masochist. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@ijbailey Let us return to the dictionary definition: "the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy." — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@ijbailey People are averse to your definition of violence because "Professor Bailey knows it when he sees it" is not a viable way to adjudicate anything. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@ijbailey Here is my definition of violence: "the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy" — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@ijbailey The makers of Jackass understood it was a violent show https://t.co/EDNdilCpEu — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@ijbailey What is your definition of violence? — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@ijbailey @athie_gnome @XBillups I don't get the need to pretend that something being bad or damaging means that it is violence. There are lots of awful things in the world. Not all of them are violence. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@ijbailey Let me mimic your logic: *Violence comes in various forms. A punch in the mouth is only one. There are other things-including divorcing someone who still loves you-that ends up doing as much or more damage as physical contact. Therefore, divorce can be violence.* See the problem? — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@mattyglesias Yet the fast food chicken restaurants of America were as uneven in quality and cleanliness as ever. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@ijbailey @athie_gnome @XBillups I agree with you that parents berating a child for years does more harm than one punch in the face. That something does more harm than a small act of violence does not mean that thing is therefore violence. — PolitiTweet.org
Conor Friedersdorf @conor64
@ijbailey If you think that some words are violence, but that *caused a detrimental physical effects* is not what distinguishes between violent and nonviolent words, what does distinguish between them? — PolitiTweet.org
