• edric@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    124
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I never know who is replying to who on twitter screenshots at first glance. I know the format predates Elon, but the interface really sucks for any proper discussion.

    • banazir@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      People trying to have long-form discussions on Twitter/X has baffled me since the beginning. It is decidedly not the right platform for that and it was never designed to be. In fact, its design clearly discourages any meaningful discourse. I have never been able to wrap my head around that site and its users.

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I’m not entirely sure, because I’ve never gotten the hang of Twitter. But reading between the lines, I think this is the sequence of events:

      Libertarian twit tweets a death threat against Harris.

      Libertarian twit is reminded of the rules (and common decency) and removes the offending tweet.

      Libertarian twit passive aggressively tweets about having removed the tweet they twote, invoking the promises of free speech to imply that Leon was censoring their tweets and trampling on their freedoms.

      Leon responds to the complaint with the tweet the twit twote, simultaneously demonstrating that the twit is a twat and amplifying the message.

  • 9point6@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    > we don’t want to break the terms we agreed to

    > it’s a shame that even on a “free speech”…

    Can’t even stay ideologically consistent in the same post

      • Starbuncle@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Whaaaat the fuuuuuck? Kind of ironic for a libertarian to be spouting nazi shit. They either don’t know what libertarianism is or don’t know what fascism is.

        • Blackmist@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Next you’ll be telling me the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is truthful in only one of those words.

          It’s quite common for political parties to include things in their name that they’re not the slightest bit interested in.

          The Libertarian Party is, as far as I can tell, a bunch of conservatives who want to pay even less tax.

        • reka@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Libertarianism at its core is just a rejection of your responsibility for the things you benefit from in society that you didn’t personally play a role in crafting. There’s a reason white supremacists find it fertile ground for justifying their position.

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      to be fair they genuinely think about children a lot. also about the age of consent.

      • 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        And yet (at least from an outsider perspective) libertarians are closer to democrats than republicans

        Republicans seem all about telling you what you can and can’t do (can’t get hrt, can’t get an abortion, can’t smoke weed, must marry and have children etc.) whereas both democrats and libertarians are largely “just live your life” but that could just be because all the american parties seem so financially right wing that they’re basically the same in that respect

        • boonhet@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          And yet (at least from an outsider perspective) libertarians are closer to democrats than republicans

          I’m an outsider too, but here’s my take on this

          For the most part (certain exceptions exist, like guns), democrats seem to be about individual freedom from government, but they want government to regulate corporations.

          Republicans are more about corporate freedom from government, but they want government to regulate people they don’t like (women, LGBT, immigrants).

          Libertarians ideally want corporate AND personal freedom from government, but a lot of people only want personal freedom from government if it applies to “their kind”. So they’re really republicans.

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Republicans are also always on about how the government is bad (even when they’re the incumbents) and how deregulating things make everything better. Libertarians are people who drank a full jug of that particular kool-aid. Also like republicans, they tend to only care about gun rights, though they will sometimes pretend to care about other rights to make it feel like an ideological thing.

        • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          being libertarian is only marginally less embarrassing [than being a Republican] anyway

          What about libertarianism is embarrassing to you?

          • EurekaStockade@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            The idea that a functional society can arise from a population that only does what it wants is, let’s say, unlikely. It removes checks and balances, so there is not really anything that prevents someone with huge resources to become a tyrant. What happens if someone with billions of dollars ignores the NAP to get their way? They can fund a private army, I can’t, so how can I prevent them from aggressing against me? Without a state law enforcement and legal system, there is no entity that can stop them. We would regress to a society of warlords, dukes and serfs.

            Likewise it makes the country as a whole more vulnerable to enemies. If there is no central state to run the military, just a rag tag collection of powerful, self-interested groups, then could they successfully repel an invasion? What if they are bribed with power by the oppressors, and facilitate the invasion? Look at colonisation in Africa and the Americas to see examples of how that played out. Tribes played off against each other for the benefit of the highly coordinated invaders.

            Libertarianism is a user-pays society, where if you can’t pay and can’t generate income (even if it’s no fault of your own) then you better hope someone takes pity on you and you receive charity, or else your remaining option is to just die. Our current system is a playground for the rich and a crushing, lifelong burden for the rest as we compete for relative scraps, Libertarianism would dial that up to 11.

            Note that I live in a country where although government has its problems, there is quite a bit of pro-worker and pro-citizen law on the books, and government institutions are generally seen as competent and are trusted. If that wasn’t the case then perhaps Libertarianism would seem more appealing.

      • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 months ago

        I mean, trump is leading the republicans and has for almost a decade.

        I’d be embarassed too if THAT GUY represented me too.

    • reka@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      When a movement builds itself of reduction in governance, the antisocial people we successfully govern against get a hard on

    • Snapz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      First and foremost, it’s because libertarians aren’t a thing

      • They are republicans that are too embarrassed to identify as such publicly .
      • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        libertarians aren’t a thing

        [Libertarians] are republicans that are too embarrassed to identify as such publicly

        Be careful to not make hasty generalizations.

  • Rhaedas@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Free speech stops when it infringes someone else’s rights. That’s why threatening violence isn’t covered. This should be obvious.

    I also note that while the tweet was self-deleted, it’s still out there now thanks to this tweet, and this post, and even my reply, much like telling a jury to disregard something that was objected to. They probably knew it too, the old post and delete method of getting people worked up and denying responsibility.

  • popemichael@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Didn’t Kathy Griffin pretty much do the same thing only with many more times the consequences?

  • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    3 months ago

    Everyone knows that if someone threatened one of the stooges behind this tweet they would absolutely be crying to the website, and police, about it.

    • Forester@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Since 2020, the NH Libertarian party has received coverage in the press for controversial, far-right, and antisemitic statements made by its Twitter account. They got skunked, the old leaders were ousted and replaced from what I remember its a purposeful Russian backed psy op.