That's pretty much entirely devoid of the context of everything else he tweeted and the rest of his actions and you can pretend that none of that matters but it obviously does.

Oddly enough, this is the first time I have read their reasoning for the ban. I did not know they had an article on it until now.

Having read the link given to Twitter's interpretation of "context" of the other tweets he made, my conclusion is that it is impossible to dispassionately read the cited tweets and come to the conclusion they did without having a number of unstated priors, based entirely in partisan animus.

The tweets literally do not say what Twitter claims they say. Up until now I had taken it on faith (well, more like widely reported media exposure) that he had actually "incited violence"; but after reading the cited tweets, I am left scratching my head. "Wait, that's it?" was the thought I had. It is election conspiracy mongering, sure, and perhaps that is not something Twitter wants to be in the business of carrying, but that is not the reasoning they used here.

No violence incitement exists in those tweets. Pure and simple. "I am not going to the inauguration" is such a plain, short, and inoffensive statement that reading anything else into it says more about the person doing the reading than it does the speaker.

"Having read the link given to Twitter's interpretation of "context" of the other tweets he made, my conclusion is that it is impossible to dispassionately read the cited tweets and come to the conclusion they did without having a number of unstated priors, based entirely in partisan animus."

Really? I completely disagree. You'd have to burying your head in the sand to come to this conclusion IMO. Twitter isn't even saying that his tweets say "xyz", as you just described it. They go on length on how the tweets are being viewed and interpreted.

Yeah, I thought it was eye-opening as well and it obviously stuck in my mind. If you judge speech based on the worst possible interpretation that could be made by the worst or most delusional people in society, there is nothing that can pass the test.

Certainly doesn't help that Donald Trump did in fact employ dog whistles and subtext during his time as president.

I'm not sure where this leaves us aside from in a post-factual reality where imagination can't be differentiated from the real world. People are compartmentalized by their priors and have no common facts worth discussing

"If you judge speech based on the worst possible interpretation that could be made by the worst or most delusional people in society, there is nothing that can pass the test."

That's not what they did.

That is precisely what they did. "(Objectively innocuous statement X) is being understood by certain people to mean (Y) instead".

Count how many times weasel words like "is being understood as" or "could mean" are used. Understood by who? How many people? Based on what? "Could" mean? This kind of unsourced and unsourceable fuzziness is a telltale sign that you are reading someone's opinion, not a recounting of facts.

Well they certainly didn't read his mind, and they certainly didn't interpret it the way I would come from any other English speaker.

If all just comes back to my point about lack of common ground. You and I can read the exact same press release and come to vastly different conclusions, and we don't even have a republican in the room

here is the context for the rest of his tweets: https://www.thetrumparchive.com/

He was absolutely and obviously questioning and denying the election results. Maybe that should be a bannable offense, but that isn't what they did.

"He was absolutely and obviously questioning and denying the election results"

And ginning up the capital mob.... but keep ignoring the context.

Like I said, I dont like Trump, but didn't and dont read it that way.

I think it is absolutely a situation where peoples priors are feeding into the conclusions they come to.

What you obviously read as ginning up a violent capital mob, someone else can read as encouraging peaceful protest.

Trump was so divisive and loaded that some people come to conclusions completely independent of his actions statements. When he said the quote below [1], some people argued that he was encouraging violence, and it should be read with some kind of reverse meaning. My point is not to debate the actual intent, but illustrate that once you reach this level of interpretation and distrust, there is really no rational common ground for debate or analysis. Anyone can claim anything and there is no substance.

"I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!"

> What you obviously read as ginning up a violent capital mob, someone else can read as encouraging peaceful protest.

There has been an entire set of Congressional hearings, with extensive testimony from the people surrounding him, to answer precisely which of those was the case.

The evidence conclusively points to the former, there's really no question at this point. This isn't a matter of opinion anymore or "agree to disagree" -- it's just overwhelming facts, based on undisputed testimony, now.

You can play ostrich all you want, I'm just not sure why you seem to think it makes you look reasonable to stick your head in the sand and ignore everything around you.