Vox writer suspended after calling for riots at Trump rallies - Polidicks

[media]https://twitter.com/emmettrensin/status/738583628855156742[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/emmettrensin/status/738751437233000449[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/emmettrensin/status/738757764286156800[/media] [url]http://www.vox.com/2016/6/3/11853096/statement-on-emmett-rensin[/url] [quote]On Thursday night, Emmett Rensin, the deputy editor of Vox’s first person section, sent a series of tweets that, among other things, urged people to riot if Donald Trump comes to their town. We at Vox do not take institutional positions on most questions, and we encourage our writers to debate and disagree. But direct encouragement of riots crosses a line between expressing a contrary opinion and directly encouraging dangerous, illegal activity. We welcome a variety of viewpoints, but we do not condone writing that could put others in danger. In this case, Emmett’s tweets violated Vox’s standards and Emmett has been suspended as a consequence.[/quote]

am i stupid or is the guy stupid because I don't understand that last tweet

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50450745]am i stupid or is the guy stupid because I don't understand that last tweet[/QUOTE] He's pulling the "You're either with us, or against us" tactic. Saying either act and riot, or stop saying he's a fascist.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;50450745]am i stupid or is the guy stupid because I don't understand that last tweet[/QUOTE] recently (or for a while now, depending on how you look at it) more writers have begun accusing trump of being a fascist – the line ending up that he is a threat to american democracy. when riots like those in san jose happen, though, these same writers are the ones publishing thinkpieces about the danger of political violence quashing freedom of speech. if not for that first tweet (which seems pretty clear-cut in favor of violence), I would say rensin is playing devil's advocate from this angle: if writers are arguing that trump is a fascist demagogue and a threat to democracy as we know it, is rhetoric enough to stop him/shouldn't these writers be praising violence?

[QUOTE=glitchvid;50450758]He's pulling the "You're either with us, or against us" tactic. Saying either act and riot, or stop saying he's a fascist.[/QUOTE] I'm so sick of the whole "let's call Trump a fascist" attitude. It makes absolutely no sense. None of his ideas are inherently "fascist" as they're much more populist and just appeal-to-anyone-that-listens style of rhetoric. Is it shitty stuff that he has planned? No doubt, but to compare him to the likes of Mussolini or Hitler is just asinine

[QUOTE=glitchvid;50450758]He's pulling the "You're either with us, or against us" tactic. Saying either act and riot, or stop saying he's a fascist.[/QUOTE] He's saying that liberals shouldn't pull the "fascist" card or make Hitler comparisons and then shame people who react violently towards Trump

[QUOTE=Swiket;50450802]He's saying that liberals shouldn't pull the "fascist" card or make Hitler comparisons and then shame people who react violently towards Trump[/QUOTE] From these tweets it's kinda hard to understand what he's meaning, it's all over the place at first glance.

I am surprised Vox actually cracked down on this.

In my opinion he shouldn't have been suspended since it's a legitimate figure of speech.

I can't think of a better way of ensuring that Trump gets elected than giving him the moral high ground by attacking his supporters. These people who advocate riots are stupid.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;50450844]In my opinion he shouldn't have been suspended since it's a legitimate figure of speech.[/QUOTE] [url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio]Inciting violence isn't protected by free speech[/url].

[QUOTE=Fangz;50450865][url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio]Inciting violence isn't protected by free speech[/url].[/QUOTE] again this is not the government cracking down on him, so it has no bearing on the situation

[QUOTE=Fangz;50450865][url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio]Inciting violence isn't protected by free speech[/url].[/QUOTE] Except what he meant was ambiguous as it's a common figure of speech and can mean simply mean being very vocal.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;50450889]Except what he meant was ambiguous as it's a common figure of speech and can mean simply mean being very vocal.[/QUOTE] As far as it looks he meant it literally. He claimed that "Destruction of property wasn't violence" and that he was not joking when he said to riot. [media]https://twitter.com/emmettrensin/status/738584415169740801[/media]

[QUOTE=Thlis;50450898]As far as it looks he meant it literally. He claimed that "Destruction of property wasn't violence" and that he was not joking when he said to riot. [media]https://twitter.com/emmettrensin/status/738584415169740801[/media][/QUOTE] Yep, he also said this as well: [media]https://www.twitter.com/emmettrensin/status/738733098288832512[/media]

I don't think people like him realize how property damage can hurt not only the community but property owners. Insurance can only do so much, some people's livelihoods can be irreversibly destroyed because a bunch of people are throwing a tantrum over something that could be peacefully protested. For instance if a food truck were destroyed in a riot then that business owner would probably end up homeless, same for a small convenience store. People don't consider this because they're privileged and know that when they're done rioting their home or business is gonna be just fine.

I understand if you don't like a candidate and decide to speak out against said candidate, but to incite violence because you don't like the person? People can hate Trump as much as they want but it crosses a line when you decide to physically cause harm to get your point across. Have we really stooped so low as a society that we see violence as the only logical answer? If anything, it makes you look childish if you destroy shit just because you don't like Trump, and also end up making him and his supporters being in the right. We live in a democracy where everyone has the right to have their voices heard, and should not live in fear of violence for saying their opinion. Doesn't matter if you're a democrat or a republican, violence has no room in the politics of a first world country.

I don't think this is the first time he's basically endorsed rioting and it won't be the last. They're just going to wait until it blows over, then unsuspend him and he'll just do it again.

[QUOTE=Thlis;50450898]As far as it looks he meant it literally. He claimed that "Destruction of property wasn't violence" and that he was not joking when he said to riot. [media]https://twitter.com/emmettrensin/status/738584415169740801[/media][/QUOTE] Oh, he should come down to Texas then.

[QUOTE=Fangz;50450830]I am surprised Vox actually cracked down on this.[/QUOTE] That's immediately what I thought too. I'd have expected them to either ignore it or even encourage it

I'm not surprised that a Vox writer was suspended for this, but I'm not sure how I feel about a private citizen saying this and then getting in hot water for it. I guess in this instance the employer, Vox, has every right to suspend if it hurts their image. [QUOTE=Fangz;50450865][url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio]Inciting violence isn't protected by free speech[/url].[/QUOTE]Did you read your own source? Saying, "if Trump comes to your town, start a riot," isn't directing to incite, [I]and isn't likely to incite,[/I] imminent lawless action. Under the old Ohio statute that was struck down you would have a point, but this isn't that and it was found that such broad and ambiguous advocacy is protected under the 1st Amendment.

The best way to display disagreement with someones political stance is to destroy that bagel shop over there.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50451223] Did you read your own source? Saying, "if Trump comes to your town, start a riot," isn't directing to incite, [I]and isn't likely to incite,[/I] imminent lawless action.[/QUOTE] I disagree, encouraging people to riot and cause property damage is inciting imminent lawless action. After all, here is the definition of incite according to Google: [quote]in·cite inˈsīt/ verb [b]encourage or stir up (violent or unlawful behavior).[/b] "the offense of inciting racial hatred" synonyms: stir up, whip up, encourage, fan the flames of, stoke up, fuel, kindle, ignite, inflame, stimulate, instigate, provoke, excite, arouse, awaken, inspire, engender, trigger, spark off, ferment, foment; More [b]urge or persuade (someone) to act in a violent or unlawful way.[/b] "he incited loyal subjects to rebellion"[/quote] It does seem to fit the definition.

[QUOTE=Fangz;50451557]I disagree, encouraging people to riot and cause property damage is inciting imminent lawless action.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]It does seem to fit the definition.[/QUOTE]"Advice: If Trump comes to your town, start a riot." Inciting lawless action? Maybe. Imminent lawless action? Absolutely not. It's vague advocacy based on a hypothetical scenario that may or may not come true, Trump might not visit any towns (cities) and even if he does it won't be [I]imminent.[/I]

[QUOTE=Fangz;50450865][url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio]Inciting violence isn't protected by free speech[/url].[/QUOTE] "Start a riot" is probably vague enough to be covered under the first amendment, but it doesn't apply to your employer. Probably why he's suspended - not arrested.

Trump is as much of a fascist as Obama is a communist - not at all. Fascism is rooted in nationalism, totalitarianism, a state-controlled planned economy, and the legitimization of political violence. Trump is undoubtedly nationalist, but he is not totalitarian nor is he authoritarian. He advocates for free market influence almost every day - which goes against core tenets of fascism. He has not called for his supporters to form their own militia to defend the fascist ideals. He's a nationalist. Not a fascist. There's an enormous difference.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50452258]Trump is as much of a fascist as Obama is a communist - not at all. Fascism is rooted in nationalism, totalitarianism, a state-controlled planned economy, and the legitimization of political violence. Trump is undoubtedly nationalist, but he is not totalitarian nor is he authoritarian. He advocates for free market influence almost every day - which goes against core tenets of fascism. He has not called for his supporters to form their own militia to defend the fascist ideals. He's a nationalist. Not a fascist. There's an enormous difference.[/QUOTE] The way Trump talks about the system is someone that'll reign it in with the nation behind him, not so much the law. He sees injustices in our trade and excesses of globalization that he accuses politicians of being too bought out to deal with. He is sort of authoritarian, but what's remarkable is that the rhetoric works in a first world country, the beacon of democracy no less. He's not for the free market, he's not a true conservative. He was questionably a democrat at some point. Now he's come out as a sort of renegade working + middle class populist that'll force particularly rootless companies around, close the borders, renegotiate shitty neoliberal trade deals (which puts him to the left of Clinton lol), and have an America first foreign policy (which is nice because our allies like Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the butthurt belt in eastern europe are part of the problem in terms of risks to us). The only real reason the man is in the GOP is because among the most nativist and authoritarian, the white working class, is there. Check this out from a guy from the mises institute. 3:43 [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjZucErdgyg[/url] I think trump represents, in a very limited American context, a third way from the global-minded, liberal capitalism of the two parties and the socialism of the left. He's not Hitler, he's not even Huey Long. But he represents something that I think only arises in a 'late period' sort of time for a republic, and the simultaneous rise of 'alternative' or 'radical' left and right mixed with wider dissatisfaction with the political center and democracy (or at least our process) mirrors Germany in some ways, again in a very limited American context.

Then you have the people at Death+Taxes, suggesting that [url=http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/282845/end-friendships-with-trump-supporters/]you should cut your friends loose if they support Trump.[/url] Absolute garbage. [editline]4th June 2016[/editline] And [url=http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/292637/vox-weenies-suspend-emmett-resnin-criticizing-liberal-media-hypocrisy]this[/url] is what they have to say about this guy's suspension. Wow. [editline]4th June 2016[/editline] [media]https://twitter.com/josh_damn/status/705085968374591489[/media]

Vox can do some nice reporting (like the piece about how Cuba copes with no official internet access) but because of the upcoming elections they've been churning out a lot of biased videos lately.