It's the constituents that voted for those politicians or support those influential people who are marginalized. You know in this case, almost 50% of the country. By silencing politicians especially (in a democracy anyways) you silence the people behind them.

People don't always agree 100% with their politicians. But by banning them you take away their voice entirely.

I said very clearly I was not talking about the actual people behind the accounts themselves. I am not feeling sorry for Trump or for Elon here in any way.

Are you saying that 50% of US is ... marginalized?

How does that even work?

And if 50% share similar political opinion, how is that even possible that this opinion would be somehow inaccessible?

The opinion of people like Trump or Elon is very easy to access, and supported by plenty of people. The majority of them is never banned, because the bans are not targeting an opinion, but rather conspiracy theories and abuses. You can have exactly the same philosophy as Trump, talk and promote this philosophy, and yet never say something that will make you banned.

By publicly removing several democratically elected officials of a representative democracy from a platform commonly used for political communication in an official capacity yes I am in fact saying that those people are marginalized.

It's been interesting to follow this discussing but I find your thesis unconvincing.

"Trump voters" is not a marginalised set, it contains super pacs and Peter Thiel. It may contain subsets that are marginalised but those sets are marginalised by being marginalised, not by being trump voters.

People who have little opportunity for advancement being white and Christian does not mean that whites or Christianity is under threat.

Also, trump got away with his shit for years before being banned. That looks like privilege, not oppression.

I take it you see the irony of being woke about the anti-woke

> People who have little opportunity for advancement being white and Christian does not mean that whites or Christianity is under threat.

As a resident HN Christian, I don't concur.

We've seen a number of Christian individuals & businesses recently taken to court/UCMJ action for refusing to do things that are contrary to their religious (Christian) beliefs, or for openly stating their beliefs [1] , [2] , [3] , [4]

The same protections afforded to observant jews and practicing muslims should also be afforded to Christians.

It is in the Constitution after all.

[1] https://thepoliticalinsider.com/colorado-baker-sued-again-th...

[2] https://reason.com/volokh/2021/10/16/justice-thomass-opinion...

[3] https://www.christianpost.com/news/obamacare-and-the-catholi...

[4] https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/air-force-cracking-down-on-c...

If a Muslim or Jewish person refused to sell you pork, you’d say they shouldn’t work at a deli. Your religion is not under fire. Its adherents sometimes have a persecution complex.

This is why there are Halal Butchers, and Kosher Butchers, as well as Halal Delis and Kosher Delis.

It is ok to operate a business with respect for religious preferences.

That does not mean they are marginalized. For every communities, you will find neighbors quarrels, and the examples you show are mainly that (for the ones I was able to access): someone wants X, someone wants Y, hence quarrels.

It would have been more relevant to show examples where the "attacker" did not had any stakes or if it would have been proven that the "attacker" has reacted this way because the person is christian, but would not have reacted if the person was muslim, or atheist, or ... but defended the same actions. For each of your examples, I really doubt there would not have been exactly the same conflict if the person was atheists but had the same strong views.

At the end, it may even feel like Christians are slowly discovering that they are people like others and that there is no reason the society should always settle to their advantage. In a way, it feels like the "threat" in question is "stopping being privileged".

You're changing the goalposts.

I never said anything about marginalized.

That's the problem with thread discussion. The comment you are answering to is answering to a comment that says that they are marginalized. If you are now reacting to this comment by changing the context, you are the one moving the goalposts.

But in fact, it does not really change my argument: the examples that you are providing does not show anything bad against Christians. What you provide is just examples of neighbors quarrel where one party happens to be Christian. If you think it means Christians are under threat or unfairly treated, it makes me feel that you are thinking that the normal situation is when society always side with Christians all the time, which would be a pretty strong privilege for Christians, and very unfair for non-Christians.

But by your logic, it would mean that being elected gives you immunity of doing whatever you want and nobody cannot do anything against that without being accused of "marginalizing". That's a "free out of jail" card that does not make any sense in democracy. In democracy, contrary to dictatorship, elected people don't have special privileges: they are judged and treated the same way other citizen are, especially if avoiding the problem would not have stopped them expressing what they wanted to express.

The reason several people were removed is because they have made really poor choices. For example, Trump could have defended his thesis while still calling for people to not take violent action. It is incorrect to pretend that the bans are stopping politicians of doing politics: you can defend your party or explain your political ideology without breaking twitter's rules. It is incorrect to pretend that the bans are targeting a political side: if you are promoting a political ideology that is not based on hatred and lies, then you never _need_ to post anything inciting to violence or spread misinformation.

If now you are saying that Republicans are more often banned, maybe one reason is that Republicans are more prone to accept hatred or lies as part of their political ideology strategy. But being banned is a strategy consequence, it's the price you pay if you go down this road that is, again, totally a choice (as long as your political ideology is not based on hatred and lies).

>If now you are saying that Republicans are more often banned, maybe one reason is that Republicans are more prone to accept hatred or lies as part of their political ideology strategy. But being banned is a strategy consequence, it's the price you pay if you go down this road that is, again, totally a choice (as long as your political ideology is not based on hatred and lies).

I don't think that aligns with the doc drops from Twitter

I'm not american, so I don't care about republicans or democrats. But I think the doc drops from Twitter is not really telling much. On the contrary, it illustrates that moderation was generating a lot of discussions and even disagreement, which would not have been the case if it was just a matter of "banning the ones we don't like". So, it looks more like when ban occurred, they really were motivated by something more than just "we don't like them".

I'm not american, so, some of the arguments also seem crazy. For example, the fact that the majority of the employees vote democrats does not imply that the majority of the employees are immoral persons who will cheat without scruple. It is very worrying that in US, apparently, people are so polarized and uneducated to democratic concept that if they see someone that happens to be "on the wrong side", they will think they can only be the worst of the monster without even questioning that for one second.

For every bans I've seen, the person banned was ALWAYS doing a mistake, was giving a good excuse to justify the ban when it could have been easily avoided. For example, Trump could have phrased his messages such that he calls for more calm without changing his political message. He did not, he choose to send what he has sent (he had his reasons, but it is not about "freedom of political opinions", because, unless his political ideology is based on hatred and lies, his political opinions are not restricted by avoiding hatred and lies).

This is my main issue with this: if republicans are unfairly targeted, why are they so stupid to always give huge elements that can be used, later, to justify the ban. Just use your brain and don't tweet something that is, objectively, at least borderline. If republicans are victims of the democrats, why are they not even trying to not give them ways of going away with it?

But that's not the first paradox in the US. Another one: Trump claims the election was stolen. He was the president when the election was organized (and was already predicting frauds months before the election days). He claims the steal occurred in states where he almost won, which are states where he has a lot of supporters and allies. And yet, he failed to catch any little proofs. If the election was stolen, then he is super incompetent, and should never be reelected: he has proven he is easily out-smarted by democrats.