From Twitter's rules: "You also may not affiliate with organizations that — whether by their own statements or activity both on and off the platform — use or promote violence against civilians to further their causes."
Twitter's rule is poorly worded. Violence is one of the most basic interactions between organisms on the planet. Not only between societies (so that an Uber driver earning $30,000 can be in the top 1% globally), but within societies (the threat of violence is what makes everything from paying taxes to policing work).
What Twitter really means to address in its rule isn't "violence" but rather "violence outside the accepted rules for when violence can be used." But fuzzy thinking has caused it to bury the concept in a nonsensical universalism.
I actually agree that @USArmy shouldn't be banned from Twitter--I have nothing but respect for those who serve. But I also think that a literal, objective interpretation of Twitter's rules would result in a ban. Really this just shows how subjective Twitter's enforcement of the rules is.
> Violence is one of the most basic interactions between organisms on the planet. Not only between societies (so that an Uber driver earning $30,000 can be in the top 1% globally), but within societies (the threat of violence is what makes everything from paying taxes to policing work).
That may work as polemical statement but is utterly disconnected from the reality of how power and society actually work. No, you are not kept in your place bc of the threat of violence. The law works only because so many comply with it despite the lack of coercive capacity instead of because - the justice system is simply incapable of policing everybody. We need to acknowledge the role of disciplinary power and biopower. For example, we self-discipline being subject to hierarchical surveillance, normalizing judgment, and examination, and also the productive. You don't run around naked outside, because the police could ticket (or, re violence, jail) you for public indecency, but because you dear the judgment of your peers, the potential loss of access to opportunities etc.
A very common misconception is that the US Army goes to war because it wants to. That is simply not how it works. The US military, unlike most other countries, are 100% under civilian control. This is a safeguard the Founding Fathers put in place to prevent a military coup, and a military dictatorship. That civilian control I refer to is of course the politicians elected into office by The People.
War is means to an end, and that end is a political one.
If you can diplomat your way to your political goal without the need for violence, then that is awesome and should always be the first option over bloodshed.
When the US Army fought the Nazis and imperial Japan, were they “promoting violence against civilians to further their causes”?
The word promote means something similar to advertising or encouraging, as in intentionally marketing. I understand the context of your comment, but I don't think that context fits this particular word. Blowing up civilians is a prosecuted crime, which indicates something different than encouraging or advertising.
Absolutely. I was only pointing out the use rather than promotion because there was an 'or' between the two. I can't prove promotion of violence, but I didn't think I needed to.
It's mostly interesting to me to consider what the rules actually mean, and why they're there. It's clearly not intended for entities like the US Army, but why? Why leave the TOS so vague on an important topic? I guess it's just a blanket to cover any appearance of condoning terrorism on their platform.
There is reason to be confused on this matter. The military has the Uniform Code of Military Justice to prosecute soldiers for crimes on the battlefield and it is thoroughly exercised. UCMJ does not apply to contracted mercenaries or service members assigned to special operations units though, which blurs things for outside observers.
