Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Frankly it's hard to know these days but I don't remember taking it as you stating a position.
I think, when you make statements like this, you should keep in mind that this is about half of the politically active base in the country and so it's vaguely disrespectful. Even I'm not going to sit around claiming "oh yeah all the people who vote Democrat are now radicalized progressives" because that's bunk.
There are lots of people who vote party line just because that's what they've done in their family for ages, and lots of people are swing voters. Overall, the Republican base was indeed frustrated with their leaders, but that doesn't make them 'drunk on ideology' and manic.
It means their leaders were either exploiting them or were ineffective.
Plus, none of this accounts for the Tea Party uprising of the 2010s.
This reminds me of something...
Seriously, reconsider making these statements literally right now when the 2020 Presidential Election is fresh in my mind. They hold up poorly, and reflect more on on the Democratic party.
Again, you don't need to when you launder your ideas via a willing cultural machine. All I'm saying is that though Bernie had support, they were able to shove him aside because the Democratic committee and the base can agree on things, and frankly none of what you said disproves this.
The fact that this 'gap' basically enacted a follow4follow right before Super Tuesday doesn't strike you as odd at all?
Anyways, I will not be replying till the morn, and I'm not sure this is something I want to pursue. It's large and
Trump is gone, and the Republican party remains those who do little of what they're asked. Frankly this "Actually it's not the politicians, but the people they hypnotized" thing is really out of left field and quite jarring.
People believe things earnestly, GMH, and that's okay. It's not being drunk on ideology.
Going back to abortion: People who think life begins at conception obviously think every abortion is a murder of a real live person. If I stood by this belief, it'd be hard for me to swallow my guilt and vote for anybody who wanted yet more access to it.
I'm not talking about party line Republican voters.
I'm talking about the voters who will clamor for nominating conventions that produce extremist nominees or who will vote in (often low-turnout) primaries for nutcase candidates.
There are people who voted Trump just because he's the Republican nominee and they prefer Republican policy positions. Then there are people who voted Trump because they genuinely think that Trump's style and substance will save this country.
To some extent I do think Republican elected officials were exploiting these base voters, riling them up to drumming up support. Basically, said officials were playing with fire, and eventually the fire spread.
I'm not sure where to start if I were to reply to this in detail, but I guess I'll just leave this as is by saying that I disagree strongly with your opinion in this regard.
"launder"? "cultural machine"?
If by "can agree on things" you mean "can put aside differences to rally behind a nominee", yes; if you mean "share the same values", no.
Perhaps "gap" was not the right word for me to use because I was referring to the large, large number of persuadable Democratic voters, basically a majority of the Dem base, who had yet to be fully convinced of Sanders. This wasn't a narrow crevice at all.
It's not "hypnotized". It's a series of (actually not that unreasonable) political choices that stem from a series of moves by voters and political leaders which influenced each other.
And how significant this belief is, aggregated across the population, can in turn be influenced by political currents and how much political leaders campaign on it. Just like how you've made a point about the media having an influence on culture.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/06/capitol-riots-police-firings-455698
As much as I wonder to what extent the police may have used a lighter touch in response to the negative reaction to how the BLM protests were handled and/or in an effort to avoid violence (I have heard that these pro-Trump protesters may have been armed with guns, though I haven't confirmed either way, but I wouldn't expect an agreeable crowd anyway), I do have to say that it was stunningly easy to gain unauthorized access to a variety of interior areas of the Capitol.
I'm not sure the answer is firing people, but obviously the people who were there would have a better perspective than I would.
And I do remember running across a tweet with a video that apparently shows the police basically opening up the temporary barricades to let people cross. Dunno how true this is, and I'm hesitant to easily lob such a serious charge against the police charged to guard the place, but an investigation is definitely warranted.
Anyhow, this isn't to say that more force or less force is better. In fact it might be the case that the amount of force used was improper in both cases -- excessive in one, inadequate in the other.
Meanwhile, I also have a lingering concern that someone may have taken advantage of the commotion to plant explosives or other noxious materials in the building that have not yet been discovered, and I also feel bad for people whose work spaces were ransacked. Nothing I can do about these myself though.
Meanwhile, various people are resigning from the administration; the highest-profile one to announce resignation is Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao (who incidentally is Mitch McConnell's wife). Meanwhile, there are also calls to use the 25th Amendment to remove Mr. Trump from his post (to which I say "you shoulda done this a long time ago"), and some people (including conservative Dem Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) to well-known liberal activist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY-14)) basically saying "please don't go; we need you to hold down the fort and prevent further problems that Trump may case", which may include acting on a 25th Amendment attempt at removal.
oh: there's at least Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and three other senators identified as conservatives (but not identified by name)
Interesting piece describing the mood.
The sub-title summarizes the bizarrely incoherent feeling:
Someone has cynically pointed out that this only happened after, due to the confirmation of election results in Georgia, it became clear the Democrats would be in charge of legislative committees that might have oversight of the tech industry. While correlation is not causation, this does raise a potentially pertinent question.
Even without the Georgia results, though, I think that people generally piling on Trump at this point was definitely enabled by his losing re-election. Before the presidential election, I'd heard of various amounts of discomfort with Trump on the part of other elected Republicans, but I hypothesize that they wanted to avoid rocking that boat for as long as they could get away with it. A charitable explanation would be they wanted to ensure political stability; a cynical explanation would be that they wanted to ride the Trump wave for as long as possible.
Meanwhile, more criticism of the response, this time not a comparison to BLM but to healthcare-related protests.
On the flipside, dafuq is this:
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2021/01/07/six-michigan-residents-arrested-u-s-capitol-riots/6581644002/
By the way, GMH, you really could exercise some prudence here. You're posting anything and everything.
Anyways I'm really not interested in continuing this argument;
I am interested in clearing up a few things;
This is not an equivalent situation. Donald Trump made several significant mistakes, but they do not warrant what is happening to him right now. However, his biggest mistake was making mistakes whilst everybody was ready to pounce on him.
As far as I've seen, he's usually much more adept at playing the media game (despite what people say), but what I feared about this whole election integrity thing seems to have come to a head: he did in fact get tunnelvision.
On the opposite side, Patrice Cullors entire existence is spreading communist and Marxist ideas wrapped up in ethnic identity, and making up whatever she can to incite the violence she requires to carry out her goals.
What happened yesterday was a long-time coming, but I thought the American right was better or at least smarter than this. When BLM does this;
Or when they storm the White House and Donald Trump has to be taken into a bunker, CNN and The Atlantic and ABC and NBC and whoever else is available are right there to cover up.
When the same is done by the right, when the majority of the media see the right as enemies of the state already, they will not be getting the empathy their mirror-image on the left does. They are now 'insurrectionists', 'terrorists', and whatever else can drum up wild images of the political boogeyman. They are going to use yesterday as not only an excuse to treat the right even worse.
I'm not even sure this is possible, but Josh Hawley's book has been pulled by his publisher, Shopify has effectively banned all Donald Trump merchandise, and protesters/rioters are apparently going to be banned from flights and put on no fly lists, something that hasn't happened to last year's protesters or rioters. Quite the start.
When BLM protests, they get donations. When MAGA leads the fray, they get convictions.
Meanwhile, the media has been handed a golden opportunity to launder all their super-bad, inaccurate "analyses" on everything (up to and including GamerGate).
I do not condone violence, but one night of undeniably serious anarchy does not compare to last June and July, or August, or early September. When the White House is threatened, people's neighbourhoods and shopping districts are razed to the ground, statues are torn down, and police precincts in Portland are under siege for months by one side, the only line being drawn being the Capital building one time by the other side does not look like good faith to me.
When I say this was coming, it's because I cannot believe that there weren't radicals on the right looking at all that characterized 2020 and not thinking they too had some version of carte blanche. After all, the culture they live in says "actually, protests should make people uncomfortable" and "Oh, the CHAZ is just a 'Summer of Love'" and "Antifa is just an idea" (that punched Ted Wheeler in the face literally yesterday). Hopefully they'll learn that hey don't have carte blance and will never have it morally, and they certainly don't have it culturally.
With what they've done in a single day, they've ruined life for every conservative (let alone those who died during), but all of this is a major part of why what happened, happened.
No, his biggest mistake morally was living his life and conducting his presidency by a self-interested might-makes-right philosophy, and his biggest mistake strategically was letting that prevent him from cooperating with potential allies.
They didn't even break through the fencing, from what I recall, much less enter the building and furthermore begin casually ransacking random offices and carrying off loot.
It's funny how this complaint mirrors complaints on the other side of how liberal activists and black activists get labeled -- by that same media you imply to be so biased in their favor -- as "thugs" and "criminals", thereby perpetuating the stereotype of untrustworthy-looking black men up to no good and furthering the "thin blue line" ideology.
I should point out that there's nothing that says that the "right" or the "left" or whatever categorization based on a political position/ideology should necessarily be treated with respect. People, yes, but their philosophies need not get equal treatment. (And yes, I say the same thing about whining about how unfairly "the left" gets treated.)
Compare: "When BLM protests, they get arrested en masse. When MAGA leads the fray, they get gently led out of the Capitol after ransacking it."
Also, IIRC, Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz had campaign fundraiser e-mails that went out in the midst of the chaos.
Nor does neglecting to note that troublemakers repeatedly took advantage of BLM protests to commit crimes, and at least some of them just so happen to run in the same political circles as the various people who proudly put themselves on display in the nonsense that occurred.
Did this recent round of nonsense get shut down quickly? Yes, and that's good.
Did this get resolved relatively peacefully, compared to some other past riots? Yes, and that's good, and I'm actually vaguely willing to give the police response some benefit of the doubt for this (especially if this was due to the protesters reportedly carrying firearms, but that then raises another potentially more serious question), though that is then counterbalanced by the protesters engaging in a variety of criminal activity anyway, from ransacking and stealing to countless counts of vandalism to public urination. Also, it's not like this was just a walk in the park. So far five people have already died as a result of this incident.
Ashli Babbitt, a 35-year-old woman from San Diego, CA, who died of a gunshot wound she sustained while attempting to enter the Speaker's Lobby via a smashed glass pane.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/ashli-babbitt-capitol-shooting/2021/01/07/c28bb0ac-5116-11eb-b96e-0e54447b23a1_story.html
Roseanne Boyland, a 34-year-old woman from Kennesaw, GA, who died of an unspecified medical emergency.
https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/kennesaw/kennesaw-woman-among-deaths-at-us-capitol/85-23f73eda-c2ef-426c-9b0c-5fd3414c5765
Kevin Greeson, a 55-year-old man from Athens, AL, who died due to a heart attack.
https://www.wlbt.com/2021/01/07/athens-man-among-who-died-us-capitol-wednesday/
Benjamin Philips, a 50-year-old man from Bloomsburg, PA, who died due to a stroke.
https://www.republicanherald.com/news/wfmz-ringtown-man-among-those-who-died-in-dc-wednesday/article_2bee9d10-32b6-5f96-b16d-0fd50e45abb2.html
I'm posting this neither to glorify them in death nor to rub it in that they died. I actually was just curious who these people were, to get a more human idea of their lives.
That said, and last but not least, there has been a fifth death already, which was almost certainly not deserved:
Officer Brian P. Sicknick of the U.S. Capitol Police
https://www.uscp.gov/media-center/press-releases/loss-uscp-colleague-brian-d-sicknick
Ironically, he may have been a Trump supporter himself, underscoring the pointlessness of this tragedy.
Apparently he was talked into what seems to me like a compromise where he got to keep on claiming that he won while pleading nicely for the protesters to go home and also promising a peaceful transition of power.
There were people who wanted members of Trump's cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment's section on the removal of the president, but last I heard, Vice President Mike Pence rejected the idea.
Various people who worked in the Trump administration are resigning.
I think there are about 200 members of the House who now support articles of impeachment against him for recent actions; among them is one Republican, Adam Kinzinger (R-IL-16).
a) All of his major social media was pulled (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube)
b) Lots and lots of resignations from his cabinet and general administration, including Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos
c) He stoked some bad blood against Mike Pence for not going through with the long-shot nonsense Lin Wood had been peddling (though I'm guessing Trump didn't get it from and was not discussing it with Wood), including barring Mike Pence's Chief of Staff from the WH for an unknown amount of time yesterday
d) He released several statements to social media, the first which GMH quoted was suppressed for 'false information' due to the emphasis on the 'no stooping to violence but there is no doubt we were cheated' (Facebook and YouTube outright removed it) whereas the second which has made the rounds is more 'I will step down and support the transition process', that's the one I've seen circulating.
I'm pretty sure he just saw how far he'd pushed it and decided to work with what he had left, rather than being brash and bullish to the end.
If there was any talking, it was when the first message was shot down and then he had to work within guidelines for the second.
It's possible that soon there won't even be enough cabinet left for this to happen.
This isn't funny, man.
David French called and he doesn't appreciate you stealing his schtick.
EDIT: As proud as I am of my link-mining and ingenious comebacks, I'd rather keep having fun that litigating yet another argument where the only way it ends is we both get exhausted.
The story is: Zoe Quinn tweeted, Vox decided "hey let's pretend all our pet policies have to do with GamerGate!"
However, the Vox article basically suggests that the police keep everybody who posts 'hate' online or is in a 'hate community' should be put on a list (why so many lists lately?) so they can 'protect' everybody else.
It's a very serious news article that contains super-true statements like;
(This mysterious "police officer source" is the basis for like 10% of the article and is never named and actually totally exists).
Man I love Vox.
I'm really glad that the one thing that Jeffrey Toobin ever gave me was never having to reach for a bad analogy for uh... 'self love' ever again.
Oh wait did I ever talk about this movie?
...
...
Oh my danged word what the heck are they going to do about the co-lead role now???? Plus! This article is full of dangerous misgendering!
I did not know looking up this movie would be so fun.
Unfortunately, tone does not always convey properly through a text-only medium, but I was very much NOT smiling when I wrote that.
I added a line that hopefully clarifies this.
the reactions from people in the form of tweets with photos/videos attached?
Which basically everyone did anyway.
I read through that webpage.
Pray do tell, what exactly is wrong with it?
And when those protests got violent they were also condemned.
I couldn't find a link to this in 14w's post, but here's the actual article he's referring to:
https://www.vox.com/culture/2020/1/20/20808875/gamergate-lessons-cultural-impact-changes-harassment-laws
The first tweet in the article is earlier than Zoe Quinn's tweet; she's just the more famous tweeter, that's all. And the point isn't Gamergate itself anyway; it's the response to Gamergate and to similar forms of online malfeasance. I haven't decided how much of the article I agree with yet, but the argument it's trying to make it pretty clear.
No, the article "basically suggests" that the police should be more aware of and able to act on internet harassment and related issues, as part of its first point (of five):
There's the actual context for your quote, which is not "the basis for like 10% of the article". I declined to reincorporate all the links because I'm lazy, but there are a total of 9 links in the text that I just quoted, all of which occur before said line.
The actual argument here is that malfeasance (or the suggestion thereof) in internet spaces isn't disconnected from meatspace reality and shouldn't just be dismissed.
Also I did a text search and couldn't find the word "list", aside from eight instances of "journalist" or "journalists" and one instance of "nationalist". Not sure where you got that from.
The actual context of the quote: TL;DR their point is that the dedication to free speech and a hands-off approach was hijacked by people who realized they could get away with nasty things.
(And I'll be frank, I've been criticized for not simply outright banning you for transphobia.)
I refrained from posting that other political compass picture, but clearly the real problem was the domino one (and less funny, too).
I had more to say about the other stuff but I'd rather wait until I'm not under anesthesia.
I edited my post an hour before yours to try and maintain a ceasefire.
Also, yeah, I'm still not sure exactly why GamerGate keeps coming up and I only brought it up as a joke.
I don't have the Galaxy Brain to deal with defending anything
writtenscribbled in Vox.I'm gonna move on now.
woah
Okay, actually, I need to know: was it specifically homophobia or transphobia?
Also, if it needs to be said, all I did re:Mr/Mrs. Page was say what people actually say except I made fun of it. Frankly it's not something I'm going to stop doing and it certainly isn't bigotry.
This mistake will have been edited by the time you see this message.
Meanwhile, the time-honored tradition of straight actors playing gay is slowly being eroded.
By social justice standards; Page should have exited a movie about girl power in a role designated to a woman after doing everything to reject the label of 'woman' (by choosing to 'identify' as both male and non-binary). She's appropriating female identity, and that hasn't been allowed for at least two years now.
Actors have abandoned roles before when they didn't fit their morals, so what's different now?
Any attempts at justification for her double-standard are basically "Some actors and actresses are more equal than others". This isn't even an exaggeration, this is the position taken.
But like, hey, it's a golden era for censorship and therefore time to ban all the problematic gays and designate them hate groups, huh.
And look, I may be taking this the wrong way, but I actually did only bring it up as a joke and practically as a footnote:
You're the one who asked for further elaboration.
Anyhows, I just learned that labeling what happened a "coup" is not some funny joke but an actual position that its proponents expect to be taken seriously.
Surprisingly enough, YouTube is like... only second to Facebook (Facebook is absolutely winning speech suppression right now), whereas I expected a full-on Twitter purge first of all (which is not happening, yet). In addition, the "build your own platform" people have really, really been proven wrong considering that both Apple and Google Play intend to stop carrying Parler (and possibly Gab and Rumble and etc) and this is probably precedent of some sort.
It's weird to watch the big tech monopolies finally solidify thanks to other big tech monopolies.
EDIT: Darn it 45 you could have pardoned Snowden this whole time.
In my experience, it's more common for a tech company to want to automate things and/or otherwise let problems sort themselves out with minimal directly management.
I'm not sure whether it's a good or bad thing that I got better at arguing on the internet.
Well, the coup hasn't succeeded, so when this term is used, it's usually referred to as an "attempted coup", for what it's worth.