> The data is public now—if you're so certain, go find me a single post on Parler calling for mass executions.

Easily done:

https://imgur.com/gallery/nHb2lO8

Some of these are Verified users - Parler has their Drivers License and Social Security number, and yet they still felt secure in brazenly violating the law like this.

Hey, spoiler alert for people regarding that link -- there's some very strong, graphically violent language. Don't click if you're not in a good head space at the moment.

i think its good to see it so people understand that there are literally millions of other americans that actively want them dead

I pushed back in one direction, and now I'll push back in the other.

I do not think "literally millions" do. That is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.

I am saddened by extremists like this, on all sides.

I want to win a tough but fair political fight, and I think that's what almost everyone in America wants, too. I'm sorry some people think 60 court cases were simultaneously wrongly decided, but I don't feel sympathy for anyone who thinks the next step is to storm the Capitol.

I didn't say it shouldn't be posted; just a warning to be prepared for what you're going to see.

Sorry, I should have clarified: find me a post that wasn't moderated away. Lin Wood's post was: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/09/politics/parler-lin-wood-...

Unfortunately the service is down, but I would imagine that other post was removed as well.

No, I do not accept that you are "clarifying." You are intentionally moving the goal-posts.

The question we were discussing was whether or not many of the USERS are calling for mass executions.

I provided ample evidence, despite your "find me a single post" challenge.

Now we might want to engage in a different discussion, about whether Parler was correctly moderating that content. But that is not a "clarification," that's a new topic.

I do not have access to information about how long content was allowed to remain before it was removed. Do you?

Since a "single post" has been provided by someone now, it would be nice to see you give them the decency and acknowledge it. There are so many comments here, and they all read in the same way, "well, what about..." and "show me proof" — only for someone to actually go and spend the time to respond, and then be ignored quietly. Discussions here (political ones) feel so childish, I wish we'd be better as a community on those.

Personally, when I discuss politics online I don't expect the other person to acknowledge anything. My audience is all the people on the fence lurking and reading and forming opinions on the topic.

Agreed.

I will admit that it's draining, talking to one user who keeps moving the goal-posts.

And I will then say that I think it's their intention to drain people like me.

So I try to shrug it off and keep refuting arguments with the evidence they pretend they will be convinced by.

As one (non-American) lurker who is reading this thread to try and get a handle on just what the hell is going on over there, thank you for putting the energy in, and please don't give up.

It's clear that you are arguing in good faith and the other person who keeps moving the goalposts and demanding more proof is not, and moreover it's very enlightening to see this scenarios played out nearly identically whenever I lurk and follow a discussion between the left and right in US politics.

Unfortunately, irrational behavior applies to both sides but on different issues. I saw it first hand in terms of COVID and my liberal friends. They took the most negative possible outlook and then called you an unscientific idiot if you didn't think it was the only possible outcome. COVID has a 5% mortality rate (even when reasonable data indicated 0.5%). A vaccine is impossible (even when multiple companies said they had promising candidates). Immunity doesn't exist (even when everything except a few reports said it did). And so on.

Yes. In many cases, the only "winning" move is to say what you have to say and then step back.

You can't usually "win" the argument, just your own time.

I have. I don't typically sit on HN and refresh my own comments to see people responding in real time.

These are not credible death threats.

The following was requested and provided, please stop changing the goal post when you're called out.

> single post

> on Parler

> calling for mass executions

You’re replying to someone else.

I still think these are not legit death threats by the content of it. Saying things like “a good commie is a dead a commie” might be tasteless but it’s far from being a serious thing. No one is killing communists in the US.

I'm not sure if you saw my reply on a separate part of this thread:

https://imgur.com/gallery/nHb2lO8

Those are legit death threats. Including from a lawyer associated with the President.

> “Will you and several hundred more go with me to D.C. and fight our way into the Congress and arrest every Democrat who has participated in this coup?” [Marshall, Arkansas Police] Chief Lang Holland posted Friday on Parler, a right-wing messaging site. “We may have to shoot and kill many of the Communist B.L.M. and ANTIFA Democrat foot soldiers to accomplish this!!!”

> “Death to all Marxist Democrats. Take no prisoners leave no survivors!!” Chief Holland added.

How would this have to be modified to become a "legitimate death threat"?

For anybody reasonable? Not at all.