|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 05 2022 23:57 gobbledydook wrote:
I don't think Trump was competent enough to organize an armed insurrection. The rioters were definitely goaded by Trump but inciting a mob and organizing an insurrection are two different things.
No they aren't. There was clearly a plan to overturn the election and the mob was incited to disrupt the election being finalized.
The mob successfully prevented the election being finalized and if it wasn't for a few heroes elected representatives would have been killed.
You can't use his incompetency to excuse his actions. People died because of him and the things he organized and told people on a very specific day to do something very specific.
|
On February 04 2022 10:45 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2022 16:36 Acrofales wrote:On February 03 2022 10:27 Introvert wrote:
"Cancel culture" is more tricky to identify with major public figures like Rogan, but I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say that when Joe Schmoe who works at the starbucks in the middle of nowhere has an old tweet and people mob his employer to get him fire that such a thing could reasonably be defined as "cancel culture."
Do you have any actual examples of this? I mean, I know cyber bullying is a problem but I don't think we should conflate the two things. Cancelling is used so widely that without talking about actual examples, I don't see how we advance here. Let me kick it off by saying there's legitimate reasons for firing people based on what you found on the internet. Would you want either of the two girls waiting a table in your restaurant, even if they left their cup at home? Would this be cancelling them over having taboo sex of their own free will? Or would they be legitimately fired for omitting working in a viral fetish porn video on their resume? E: just to be clear, I don't think I'd personally mind, nor do I think these two women should be shunned from society for their unfortunate choice to eat and play with each other's poop and vomit. However, I don't think it's crazy that past actions exclude you from some jobs. And being a "star" in one of the grossest things most people have ever seen obviously counts as a past action. Not off the top of my head, sorry. I think we've all heard stories of people getting doxxed for example, right? From what I can tell doxxing is often done with the intent of "canceling." I guess maybe the one I remember recently is a game dev who who basically got bullied out of developing his games... think it was Five Nights at Freddy's, though I could be remember the story wrong. Which is another aspect of it... when do we, say, kick out an athlete who expresses certain views that don't have to do with the game? Kapernick with the pig socks or Lebron (and the NBA) taking a hard stance on supposed American injustices while seemingly acting a coward on China both come to mind. The instinct to jump on people is too easy to follow through on nowadays... Or at least, as I said before, it's easy to make it appear to be a pile on that could force a company to fire someone when in actuality that's not required. Maybe there's a peer pressure aspect too. People may say/do things to appease a mob because they seek the approval of the mob. They don't act out of fear of a loss of market share but a loss of social standing. It's not about the cash, it's about the looks you get.
I don't think we can call doxxing cancelling. For starters, doxxing, if not illegal, it should be: it's about as close to a lynching that we get in the age of the internet. I think most people here agree doxxing is a pretty terrible practice,
Regarding the developer of FNAF, I am guessing you mean this: https://www.ign.com/articles/five-nights-at-freddys-creator-retires-scott-cawthon-political-controversy
I don't really see how that constitutes cancelling? The guy developed games with a big fanbase among the LGBTQ community, and then he turned out to be donating to Trump, who is not a friend of the LGBTQ community. The community got upset and some presumably decided they might not buy the next FNAF game. Even so, I doubt that would actually have affected the commercial success of another game in the series if he had stayed on. He also seems like hte boss at that company, so it's not like he got fired for donating to Trump, he just decided dealing wit that shit was not worth the stress, and he'd rather spend time with his family than being in charge of a game development studio.
Regarding Kaepernick, I guess you might say he s cancelled. The way I interpret this article about it (I had to read up because I know he got down on his knees out of protest, but not much more than that about it): https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/is-colin-kaepernick-really-a-victim-of-cancel-culture it seems like he would have kept on playing football if he hadn't "protested the flag". I'm still not sure what to think about that: I mean, maybe, but it's not as if Kaepernick can't make a living because of how he voiced his opinion. He still got a very lucrative contract with Nike. Lebron clearly wasn't cancelled either. Regarding Lebron, I'm not quite sure how he fits into any of this.
That said, I do think you have a point about how easy it is to get the whole outrage machine going. Whether that is drumming up hate posts on Reddit, or a bunch of talking heads piling onto someone for saying something stupid. I don't really think it's something *new* to have people pile on the hate for someone saying something they disagree with, but the reach and speed of how fast it can grow is definitely a new(ish) phenomenon. This ties into the doxxing thing at the start, as it's all different aspects of the whole "modern lynching" thing.
But "cancelling" still doesn't seem like something new, or getting worse in any way. People have been getting ostracized from their social circles since the dawn of time... being free from the consequences of your speech is not the same as being free to speak. I would, for instance, be free to insult jews, but if my main business was selling kippahs, that would be really stupid. And I guess i could moan about getting cancelled if my clientele started going to a different shop, but would that really be justified?
|
On February 05 2022 19:12 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2022 09:12 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 05 2022 08:12 Gorsameth wrote:On February 05 2022 07:51 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 05 2022 06:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 05 2022 06:42 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 05 2022 05:58 NewSunshine wrote:
Texas is still having outages, but no, I don't suppose it's the same as when people were freezing to death in their living rooms as Ted Cruz Cruz'ed his way to Cancun. They just seem to have an endemic tree branch problem this year.
In other fun stuff, the RNC has censured Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for supporting the investigation into the January 6th Insurrection, citing the mobs of people threatening and carrying out violence, attacking police, trying to hunt down senators, and calling to hang Mike Pence as "legitimate political discourse". If that causes your brain to spin for a loop, especially after them bitching and moaning nonstop about BLM protests, I wouldn't blame you. But I am recalling the notion that politics and law are all about determining acceptable targets of violence, so it's starting to track. This is America, where one of your 2 major parties is a terrorist organization, and the other party is kinda cool with that. And that is what happens when you break lockstep with your fellow Republicans for even a moment, for even suggesting that your Dear Leader might be open to scrutiny. I assume you are referring to the NYT's misinformation on the RNC censure: The censure does not actually call the capitol attack "legitimate political discourse." It says the Jan 6 committee is "persecuting Americans who engaged in legitimate political discourse." The longstanding RNC argument against the committee is that the committee is going beyond just the capitol riot and persecuting Americans who believe in election fraud. So the NYT story, in failing to accurately report that argument, amounts to deliberate misinformation (which is funny because the Twitter employees who write the trending topics are currently parroting the NYT). Nothing new of course. The media sensationalizes the truth in order to increase its audience size. Why would the RNC censure Cheney and Kinzinger? The censure probably isn't the best idea, but their argument is that the committee is being used as a political tool to go beyond just the attack on the capitol itself. I think the argument is that the dems are using it for 2022 election purposes. So they censure any Republicans participating in it. On February 05 2022 07:17 Gorsameth wrote:On February 05 2022 06:42 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 05 2022 05:58 NewSunshine wrote:
Texas is still having outages, but no, I don't suppose it's the same as when people were freezing to death in their living rooms as Ted Cruz Cruz'ed his way to Cancun. They just seem to have an endemic tree branch problem this year.
In other fun stuff, the RNC has censured Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for supporting the investigation into the January 6th Insurrection, citing the mobs of people threatening and carrying out violence, attacking police, trying to hunt down senators, and calling to hang Mike Pence as "legitimate political discourse". If that causes your brain to spin for a loop, especially after them bitching and moaning nonstop about BLM protests, I wouldn't blame you. But I am recalling the notion that politics and law are all about determining acceptable targets of violence, so it's starting to track. This is America, where one of your 2 major parties is a terrorist organization, and the other party is kinda cool with that. And that is what happens when you break lockstep with your fellow Republicans for even a moment, for even suggesting that your Dear Leader might be open to scrutiny. I assume you are referring to the NYT's misinformation on the RNC censure: The censure does not actually call the capitol attack "legitimate political discourse." It says the Jan 6 committee is "persecuting Americans who engaged in legitimate political discourse." The longstanding RNC argument against the committee is that the committee is going beyond just the capitol riot and persecuting Americans who believe in election fraud. So the NYT story, in failing to accurately report that argument, amounts to deliberate misinformation (which is funny because the Twitter employees who write the trending topics are currently parroting the NYT). Nothing new of course. The media sensationalizes the truth in order to increase its audience size. That defence only works if you actually believe the Jan 6th committee is beyond the scope of that attack on the US Constitution, which I have seen no indication of. They are investigating the event that organised the group that then attempted an insurrection. Which falls very much under that scope. Nor did the people organising said event engage in 'legitimate political discourse' unless you think organising an attack on the verification of the US Presidential election is 'political discourse'. It doesn't depend on what you believe because the NYT's claim is about what the RNC said. If the RNC did not say what the NYT claims, then the story is misinformation. It is legitimate political discourse to assert that there was election fraud, even if that assertion is ultimately wrong. I think the RNC argument is that the Jan 6 committee is going after regular Americans who did that. Is there any evidence that the Jan 6 committee is going after regular Americans who had nothing to do with the Jan 6 insurrection? I'm not aware of any, can't say I've followed the committee too closely though. But that is the RNC's claim. On February 05 2022 08:59 JimmiC wrote:On February 05 2022 08:03 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 05 2022 07:56 JimmiC wrote:On February 05 2022 07:51 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 05 2022 06:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 05 2022 06:42 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 05 2022 05:58 NewSunshine wrote:
Texas is still having outages, but no, I don't suppose it's the same as when people were freezing to death in their living rooms as Ted Cruz Cruz'ed his way to Cancun. They just seem to have an endemic tree branch problem this year.
In other fun stuff, the RNC has censured Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for supporting the investigation into the January 6th Insurrection, citing the mobs of people threatening and carrying out violence, attacking police, trying to hunt down senators, and calling to hang Mike Pence as "legitimate political discourse". If that causes your brain to spin for a loop, especially after them bitching and moaning nonstop about BLM protests, I wouldn't blame you. But I am recalling the notion that politics and law are all about determining acceptable targets of violence, so it's starting to track. This is America, where one of your 2 major parties is a terrorist organization, and the other party is kinda cool with that. And that is what happens when you break lockstep with your fellow Republicans for even a moment, for even suggesting that your Dear Leader might be open to scrutiny. I assume you are referring to the NYT's misinformation on the RNC censure: https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1489703362572558338The censure does not actually call the capitol attack "legitimate political discourse." It says the Jan 6 committee is "persecuting Americans who engaged in legitimate political discourse." The longstanding RNC argument against the committee is that the committee is going beyond just the capitol riot and persecuting Americans who believe in election fraud. So the NYT story, in failing to accurately report that argument, amounts to deliberate misinformation (which is funny because the Twitter employees who write the trending topics are currently parroting the NYT). Nothing new of course. The media sensationalizes the truth in order to increase its audience size. Why would the RNC censure Cheney and Kinzinger? The censure probably isn't the best idea, but their argument is that the committee is being used as a political tool to go beyond just the attack on the capitol itself. I think the argument is that the dems are using it for 2022 election purposes. So they censure any Republicans participating in it. On February 05 2022 07:17 Gorsameth wrote:On February 05 2022 06:42 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 05 2022 05:58 NewSunshine wrote:
Texas is still having outages, but no, I don't suppose it's the same as when people were freezing to death in their living rooms as Ted Cruz Cruz'ed his way to Cancun. They just seem to have an endemic tree branch problem this year.
In other fun stuff, the RNC has censured Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for supporting the investigation into the January 6th Insurrection, citing the mobs of people threatening and carrying out violence, attacking police, trying to hunt down senators, and calling to hang Mike Pence as "legitimate political discourse". If that causes your brain to spin for a loop, especially after them bitching and moaning nonstop about BLM protests, I wouldn't blame you. But I am recalling the notion that politics and law are all about determining acceptable targets of violence, so it's starting to track. This is America, where one of your 2 major parties is a terrorist organization, and the other party is kinda cool with that. And that is what happens when you break lockstep with your fellow Republicans for even a moment, for even suggesting that your Dear Leader might be open to scrutiny. I assume you are referring to the NYT's misinformation on the RNC censure: The censure does not actually call the capitol attack "legitimate political discourse." It says the Jan 6 committee is "persecuting Americans who engaged in legitimate political discourse." The longstanding RNC argument against the committee is that the committee is going beyond just the capitol riot and persecuting Americans who believe in election fraud. So the NYT story, in failing to accurately report that argument, amounts to deliberate misinformation (which is funny because the Twitter employees who write the trending topics are currently parroting the NYT). Nothing new of course. The media sensationalizes the truth in order to increase its audience size. That defence only works if you actually believe the Jan 6th committee is beyond the scope of that attack on the US Constitution, which I have seen no indication of. They are investigating the event that organised the group that then attempted an insurrection. Which falls very much under that scope. Nor did the people organising said event engage in 'legitimate political discourse' unless you think organising an attack on the verification of the US Presidential election is 'political discourse'. It doesn't depend on what you believe because the NYT's claim is about what the RNC said. If the RNC did not say what the NYT claims, then the story is misinformation. It is legitimate political discourse to assert that there was election fraud, even if that assertion is ultimately wrong. I think the RNC argument is that the Jan 6 committee is going after regular Americans who did that. It is not legitimate political discourse when they know it is not true. Which of course they did the reason was to retain power not because they actually believed voter fraud. Hell they are still claiming it and anyone that is not deep in a very strange web of conspiracies knows it is not true, most of the claims were not is possible let alone plausible. That may be true of the people in leadership positions who propagated the election fraud claim. But there everyday Americans who sincerely believe there was election fraud. The RNC's claim is about them. My point is that the NYT misrepresented the RNC's claim. Which is misinformation that leads people to say things like "the Republican Party is a terrorist organization" (as we just saw in this thread). I mean really, the Republican party would not release a statement saying the capitol riot was legitimate discourse, all hyperbole about fascism and terrorism aside. Is what you are saying that we should hold the people in leadership accountable for the damage there willful lies are creating? Because if so I completely agree. Well lying to the public is not a crime and I don't think it should be. So there is no evidence that the Jan 6th commission is going after ordinary Americans that have nothing to do with the Jan 6th insurrection yet when 2 GOP members do not blindly walk in lockstep with the party and get censored you immediately believe them at their word and you can't see how the GOP's wording could possibly label a real insurrection as 'legit political discourse'? I don't believe the GOP and I don't believe you. And neither should the NYT.
There is no need to believe the GOP at their word regarding the merits of their claim. The question is what their claim is. And the argument I described is the GOP's longstanding argument on this issue. The NYT knows that, and it's just true that the GOP called the capitol attack legit discourse. Remember, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
|
On February 05 2022 21:46 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2022 12:02 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 05 2022 10:40 NewSunshine wrote:On February 05 2022 09:12 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 05 2022 08:12 Gorsameth wrote:On February 05 2022 07:51 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 05 2022 06:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 05 2022 06:42 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 05 2022 05:58 NewSunshine wrote:
Texas is still having outages, but no, I don't suppose it's the same as when people were freezing to death in their living rooms as Ted Cruz Cruz'ed his way to Cancun. They just seem to have an endemic tree branch problem this year.
In other fun stuff, the RNC has censured Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for supporting the investigation into the January 6th Insurrection, citing the mobs of people threatening and carrying out violence, attacking police, trying to hunt down senators, and calling to hang Mike Pence as "legitimate political discourse". If that causes your brain to spin for a loop, especially after them bitching and moaning nonstop about BLM protests, I wouldn't blame you. But I am recalling the notion that politics and law are all about determining acceptable targets of violence, so it's starting to track. This is America, where one of your 2 major parties is a terrorist organization, and the other party is kinda cool with that. And that is what happens when you break lockstep with your fellow Republicans for even a moment, for even suggesting that your Dear Leader might be open to scrutiny. I assume you are referring to the NYT's misinformation on the RNC censure: https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1489703362572558338The censure does not actually call the capitol attack "legitimate political discourse." It says the Jan 6 committee is "persecuting Americans who engaged in legitimate political discourse." The longstanding RNC argument against the committee is that the committee is going beyond just the capitol riot and persecuting Americans who believe in election fraud. So the NYT story, in failing to accurately report that argument, amounts to deliberate misinformation (which is funny because the Twitter employees who write the trending topics are currently parroting the NYT). Nothing new of course. The media sensationalizes the truth in order to increase its audience size. Why would the RNC censure Cheney and Kinzinger? The censure probably isn't the best idea, but their argument is that the committee is being used as a political tool to go beyond just the attack on the capitol itself. I think the argument is that the dems are using it for 2022 election purposes. So they censure any Republicans participating in it. On February 05 2022 07:17 Gorsameth wrote:On February 05 2022 06:42 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 05 2022 05:58 NewSunshine wrote:
Texas is still having outages, but no, I don't suppose it's the same as when people were freezing to death in their living rooms as Ted Cruz Cruz'ed his way to Cancun. They just seem to have an endemic tree branch problem this year.
In other fun stuff, the RNC has censured Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for supporting the investigation into the January 6th Insurrection, citing the mobs of people threatening and carrying out violence, attacking police, trying to hunt down senators, and calling to hang Mike Pence as "legitimate political discourse". If that causes your brain to spin for a loop, especially after them bitching and moaning nonstop about BLM protests, I wouldn't blame you. But I am recalling the notion that politics and law are all about determining acceptable targets of violence, so it's starting to track. This is America, where one of your 2 major parties is a terrorist organization, and the other party is kinda cool with that. And that is what happens when you break lockstep with your fellow Republicans for even a moment, for even suggesting that your Dear Leader might be open to scrutiny. I assume you are referring to the NYT's misinformation on the RNC censure: The censure does not actually call the capitol attack "legitimate political discourse." It says the Jan 6 committee is "persecuting Americans who engaged in legitimate political discourse." The longstanding RNC argument against the committee is that the committee is going beyond just the capitol riot and persecuting Americans who believe in election fraud. So the NYT story, in failing to accurately report that argument, amounts to deliberate misinformation (which is funny because the Twitter employees who write the trending topics are currently parroting the NYT). Nothing new of course. The media sensationalizes the truth in order to increase its audience size. That defence only works if you actually believe the Jan 6th committee is beyond the scope of that attack on the US Constitution, which I have seen no indication of. They are investigating the event that organised the group that then attempted an insurrection. Which falls very much under that scope. Nor did the people organising said event engage in 'legitimate political discourse' unless you think organising an attack on the verification of the US Presidential election is 'political discourse'. It doesn't depend on what you believe because the NYT's claim is about what the RNC said. If the RNC did not say what the NYT claims, then the story is misinformation. It is legitimate political discourse to assert that there was election fraud, even if that assertion is ultimately wrong. I think the RNC argument is that the Jan 6 committee is going after regular Americans who did that. Is there any evidence that the Jan 6 committee is going after regular Americans who had nothing to do with the Jan 6 insurrection? I'm not aware of any, can't say I've followed the committee too closely though. But that is the RNC's claim. On February 05 2022 08:59 JimmiC wrote:On February 05 2022 08:03 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 05 2022 07:56 JimmiC wrote:On February 05 2022 07:51 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 05 2022 06:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 05 2022 06:42 Doc.Rivers wrote:[quote] I assume you are referring to the NYT's misinformation on the RNC censure: https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1489703362572558338The censure does not actually call the capitol attack "legitimate political discourse." It says the Jan 6 committee is "persecuting Americans who engaged in legitimate political discourse." The longstanding RNC argument against the committee is that the committee is going beyond just the capitol riot and persecuting Americans who believe in election fraud. So the NYT story, in failing to accurately report that argument, amounts to deliberate misinformation (which is funny because the Twitter employees who write the trending topics are currently parroting the NYT). Nothing new of course. The media sensationalizes the truth in order to increase its audience size. Why would the RNC censure Cheney and Kinzinger? The censure probably isn't the best idea, but their argument is that the committee is being used as a political tool to go beyond just the attack on the capitol itself. I think the argument is that the dems are using it for 2022 election purposes. So they censure any Republicans participating in it. On February 05 2022 07:17 Gorsameth wrote:On February 05 2022 06:42 Doc.Rivers wrote:
[quote]
I assume you are referring to the NYT's misinformation on the RNC censure:
The censure does not actually call the capitol attack "legitimate political discourse." It says the Jan 6 committee is "persecuting Americans who engaged in legitimate political discourse." The longstanding RNC argument against the committee is that the committee is going beyond just the capitol riot and persecuting Americans who believe in election fraud. So the NYT story, in failing to accurately report that argument, amounts to deliberate misinformation (which is funny because the Twitter employees who write the trending topics are currently parroting the NYT).
Nothing new of course. The media sensationalizes the truth in order to increase its audience size. That defence only works if you actually believe the Jan 6th committee is beyond the scope of that attack on the US Constitution, which I have seen no indication of. They are investigating the event that organised the group that then attempted an insurrection. Which falls very much under that scope. Nor did the people organising said event engage in 'legitimate political discourse' unless you think organising an attack on the verification of the US Presidential election is 'political discourse'. It doesn't depend on what you believe because the NYT's claim is about what the RNC said. If the RNC did not say what the NYT claims, then the story is misinformation. It is legitimate political discourse to assert that there was election fraud, even if that assertion is ultimately wrong. I think the RNC argument is that the Jan 6 committee is going after regular Americans who did that. It is not legitimate political discourse when they know it is not true. Which of course they did the reason was to retain power not because they actually believed voter fraud. Hell they are still claiming it and anyone that is not deep in a very strange web of conspiracies knows it is not true, most of the claims were not is possible let alone plausible. That may be true of the people in leadership positions who propagated the election fraud claim. But there everyday Americans who sincerely believe there was election fraud. The RNC's claim is about them. My point is that the NYT misrepresented the RNC's claim. Which is misinformation that leads people to say things like "the Republican Party is a terrorist organization" (as we just saw in this thread). I mean really, the Republican party would not release a statement saying the capitol riot was legitimate discourse, all hyperbole about fascism and terrorism aside. Is what you are saying that we should hold the people in leadership accountable for the damage there willful lies are creating? Because if so I completely agree. Well lying to the public is not a crime and I don't think it should be. Are you familiar with the idea of consequences of ones actions? There wasn't a mass psychosis among all Trumpers within earshot of the capitol, there were people telling them it was a good idea to attack the capitol in an attempt to overturn the result of an election, including the loser of that election. You can't detach from a situation where you convinced someone to set off a bomb and kill 5 people, just because you told the lie and the person who blew shit up didn't know it was wrong. Someone knew it was wrong, probably including the people who did it anyway, and it happened regardless. There's not this magical space where any and all responsibility for the damage caused just disappears. Cause and effect still applies. I don't think Trump or any other leadership figure incited the crowd to do what it did, the crowd acted on its own. Thats what the publicly avaiable evidence shows. So no one should charged for inciting the crowd. Aside from that, no other potential crimes were committed, unless trumps phone call to the Georgia secretary of state or whoever it was was a crime. Trumps political opposition has been all too eager to put him behind bars ever since he won the 2016 election. And they're willing to bend and abuse the law to get that result. So I also don't trust those efforts generally. Perhaps claiming the election was stolen and endlessly repeating it had something to do with it, despite no evidence and much to the contrary? Far as I can tell the GOP would rather rebuke the minority of legislators who think this is a bad thing than try to rein in this nonsense. The rationale of not persecuting ordinary Americans for a ‘legitimate belief’ doesn’t wash because how does an investigation do this? If Cheney subpoenaed a bunch of Joe Schmoe’s based on their social media postings about the steal, then maybe that charge passes the smell test. Far as I can tell this is not the case. January 6th could have been a positive straw breaking the camel’s back moment and the party could have pulled away from the path of madness, I actually thought they would but now they’re seemingly doubling down again. For Trump and his base, of all things. In a sane world/country Trump should be in jail for something, or at the very least his reputation and political career absolutely dead in the water.
It is true that, but for Trump’s claims of election fraud, the riot would not have happened. But in criminal law, a closer connection is required than a mere "but for" statement. And when Trump stood before the crowd, immediately before the riot, and told them to go "peacefully" and that it was "up to congress" to do something, he's just not going to get put in jail, I'm sorry to tell you.
I agree that Trump’s political career should be dead in the water.
EDIT: there's also the question of whether the event was an insurrection, because if not, then trump did not incite an insurrection. Tellingly no one has been charged with insurrection. Of the small group charged with sedition, they texted amongst themselves complaining that trump was going to do anything, and therefore the "patriots were taking things into their own hands."
|
On February 06 2022 00:52 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2022 21:46 WombaT wrote:On February 05 2022 12:02 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 05 2022 10:40 NewSunshine wrote:On February 05 2022 09:12 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 05 2022 08:12 Gorsameth wrote:On February 05 2022 07:51 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 05 2022 06:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 05 2022 06:42 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 05 2022 05:58 NewSunshine wrote:
Texas is still having outages, but no, I don't suppose it's the same as when people were freezing to death in their living rooms as Ted Cruz Cruz'ed his way to Cancun. They just seem to have an endemic tree branch problem this year.
In other fun stuff, the RNC has censured Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for supporting the investigation into the January 6th Insurrection, citing the mobs of people threatening and carrying out violence, attacking police, trying to hunt down senators, and calling to hang Mike Pence as "legitimate political discourse". If that causes your brain to spin for a loop, especially after them bitching and moaning nonstop about BLM protests, I wouldn't blame you. But I am recalling the notion that politics and law are all about determining acceptable targets of violence, so it's starting to track. This is America, where one of your 2 major parties is a terrorist organization, and the other party is kinda cool with that. And that is what happens when you break lockstep with your fellow Republicans for even a moment, for even suggesting that your Dear Leader might be open to scrutiny. I assume you are referring to the NYT's misinformation on the RNC censure: https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1489703362572558338The censure does not actually call the capitol attack "legitimate political discourse." It says the Jan 6 committee is "persecuting Americans who engaged in legitimate political discourse." The longstanding RNC argument against the committee is that the committee is going beyond just the capitol riot and persecuting Americans who believe in election fraud. So the NYT story, in failing to accurately report that argument, amounts to deliberate misinformation (which is funny because the Twitter employees who write the trending topics are currently parroting the NYT). Nothing new of course. The media sensationalizes the truth in order to increase its audience size. Why would the RNC censure Cheney and Kinzinger? The censure probably isn't the best idea, but their argument is that the committee is being used as a political tool to go beyond just the attack on the capitol itself. I think the argument is that the dems are using it for 2022 election purposes. So they censure any Republicans participating in it. On February 05 2022 07:17 Gorsameth wrote:On February 05 2022 06:42 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 05 2022 05:58 NewSunshine wrote:
Texas is still having outages, but no, I don't suppose it's the same as when people were freezing to death in their living rooms as Ted Cruz Cruz'ed his way to Cancun. They just seem to have an endemic tree branch problem this year.
In other fun stuff, the RNC has censured Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for supporting the investigation into the January 6th Insurrection, citing the mobs of people threatening and carrying out violence, attacking police, trying to hunt down senators, and calling to hang Mike Pence as "legitimate political discourse". If that causes your brain to spin for a loop, especially after them bitching and moaning nonstop about BLM protests, I wouldn't blame you. But I am recalling the notion that politics and law are all about determining acceptable targets of violence, so it's starting to track. This is America, where one of your 2 major parties is a terrorist organization, and the other party is kinda cool with that. And that is what happens when you break lockstep with your fellow Republicans for even a moment, for even suggesting that your Dear Leader might be open to scrutiny. I assume you are referring to the NYT's misinformation on the RNC censure: The censure does not actually call the capitol attack "legitimate political discourse." It says the Jan 6 committee is "persecuting Americans who engaged in legitimate political discourse." The longstanding RNC argument against the committee is that the committee is going beyond just the capitol riot and persecuting Americans who believe in election fraud. So the NYT story, in failing to accurately report that argument, amounts to deliberate misinformation (which is funny because the Twitter employees who write the trending topics are currently parroting the NYT). Nothing new of course. The media sensationalizes the truth in order to increase its audience size. That defence only works if you actually believe the Jan 6th committee is beyond the scope of that attack on the US Constitution, which I have seen no indication of. They are investigating the event that organised the group that then attempted an insurrection. Which falls very much under that scope. Nor did the people organising said event engage in 'legitimate political discourse' unless you think organising an attack on the verification of the US Presidential election is 'political discourse'. It doesn't depend on what you believe because the NYT's claim is about what the RNC said. If the RNC did not say what the NYT claims, then the story is misinformation. It is legitimate political discourse to assert that there was election fraud, even if that assertion is ultimately wrong. I think the RNC argument is that the Jan 6 committee is going after regular Americans who did that. Is there any evidence that the Jan 6 committee is going after regular Americans who had nothing to do with the Jan 6 insurrection? I'm not aware of any, can't say I've followed the committee too closely though. But that is the RNC's claim. On February 05 2022 08:59 JimmiC wrote:On February 05 2022 08:03 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 05 2022 07:56 JimmiC wrote:On February 05 2022 07:51 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 05 2022 06:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Why would the RNC censure Cheney and Kinzinger? The censure probably isn't the best idea, but their argument is that the committee is being used as a political tool to go beyond just the attack on the capitol itself. I think the argument is that the dems are using it for 2022 election purposes. So they censure any Republicans participating in it. On February 05 2022 07:17 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]That defence only works if you actually believe the Jan 6th committee is beyond the scope of that attack on the US Constitution, which I have seen no indication of. They are investigating the event that organised the group that then attempted an insurrection. Which falls very much under that scope.
Nor did the people organising said event engage in 'legitimate political discourse' unless you think organising an attack on the verification of the US Presidential election is 'political discourse'. It doesn't depend on what you believe because the NYT's claim is about what the RNC said. If the RNC did not say what the NYT claims, then the story is misinformation. It is legitimate political discourse to assert that there was election fraud, even if that assertion is ultimately wrong. I think the RNC argument is that the Jan 6 committee is going after regular Americans who did that. It is not legitimate political discourse when they know it is not true. Which of course they did the reason was to retain power not because they actually believed voter fraud. Hell they are still claiming it and anyone that is not deep in a very strange web of conspiracies knows it is not true, most of the claims were not is possible let alone plausible. That may be true of the people in leadership positions who propagated the election fraud claim. But there everyday Americans who sincerely believe there was election fraud. The RNC's claim is about them. My point is that the NYT misrepresented the RNC's claim. Which is misinformation that leads people to say things like "the Republican Party is a terrorist organization" (as we just saw in this thread). I mean really, the Republican party would not release a statement saying the capitol riot was legitimate discourse, all hyperbole about fascism and terrorism aside. Is what you are saying that we should hold the people in leadership accountable for the damage there willful lies are creating? Because if so I completely agree. Well lying to the public is not a crime and I don't think it should be. Are you familiar with the idea of consequences of ones actions? There wasn't a mass psychosis among all Trumpers within earshot of the capitol, there were people telling them it was a good idea to attack the capitol in an attempt to overturn the result of an election, including the loser of that election. You can't detach from a situation where you convinced someone to set off a bomb and kill 5 people, just because you told the lie and the person who blew shit up didn't know it was wrong. Someone knew it was wrong, probably including the people who did it anyway, and it happened regardless. There's not this magical space where any and all responsibility for the damage caused just disappears. Cause and effect still applies. I don't think Trump or any other leadership figure incited the crowd to do what it did, the crowd acted on its own. Thats what the publicly avaiable evidence shows. So no one should charged for inciting the crowd. Aside from that, no other potential crimes were committed, unless trumps phone call to the Georgia secretary of state or whoever it was was a crime. Trumps political opposition has been all too eager to put him behind bars ever since he won the 2016 election. And they're willing to bend and abuse the law to get that result. So I also don't trust those efforts generally. Perhaps claiming the election was stolen and endlessly repeating it had something to do with it, despite no evidence and much to the contrary? Far as I can tell the GOP would rather rebuke the minority of legislators who think this is a bad thing than try to rein in this nonsense. The rationale of not persecuting ordinary Americans for a ‘legitimate belief’ doesn’t wash because how does an investigation do this? If Cheney subpoenaed a bunch of Joe Schmoe’s based on their social media postings about the steal, then maybe that charge passes the smell test. Far as I can tell this is not the case. January 6th could have been a positive straw breaking the camel’s back moment and the party could have pulled away from the path of madness, I actually thought they would but now they’re seemingly doubling down again. For Trump and his base, of all things. In a sane world/country Trump should be in jail for something, or at the very least his reputation and political career absolutely dead in the water. It is true that, but for Trump’s claims of election fraud, the riot would not have happened. But in criminal law, a closer connection is required than a mere "but for" statement. And when Trump stood before the crowd, immediately before the riot, and told them to go "peacefully" and that it was "up to congress" to do something, he's just not going to get put in jail, I'm sorry to tell you. I agree that Trump’s political career should be dead in the water. EDIT: there's also the question of whether the event was an insurrection, because if not, then trump did not incite an insurrection. Tellingly no one has been charged with insurrection. Of the small group charged with sedition, they texted amongst themselves complaining that trump was going to do anything, and therefore the "patriots were taking things into their own hands."
There is no question it was an insurrection. You don't need him to explicitly say "go hang pence" for people to see him holding a rally on the day before the event and having his people be told to engage in a "trial by combat" is inciting a mob to commit an insurrection.
He organized, spoke at, and directed a group of people to attempt to overturn the election. If that's not an insurrection then what do you want to call it?
And we both know the gop is even more in thrall to trump you can't stand by a party that calls Jan 6 "legitimate political discourse" and deny it.
|
On February 06 2022 01:57 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2022 00:52 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 05 2022 21:46 WombaT wrote:On February 05 2022 12:02 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 05 2022 10:40 NewSunshine wrote:On February 05 2022 09:12 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 05 2022 08:12 Gorsameth wrote:On February 05 2022 07:51 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 05 2022 06:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 05 2022 06:42 Doc.Rivers wrote:[quote] I assume you are referring to the NYT's misinformation on the RNC censure: https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1489703362572558338The censure does not actually call the capitol attack "legitimate political discourse." It says the Jan 6 committee is "persecuting Americans who engaged in legitimate political discourse." The longstanding RNC argument against the committee is that the committee is going beyond just the capitol riot and persecuting Americans who believe in election fraud. So the NYT story, in failing to accurately report that argument, amounts to deliberate misinformation (which is funny because the Twitter employees who write the trending topics are currently parroting the NYT). Nothing new of course. The media sensationalizes the truth in order to increase its audience size. Why would the RNC censure Cheney and Kinzinger? The censure probably isn't the best idea, but their argument is that the committee is being used as a political tool to go beyond just the attack on the capitol itself. I think the argument is that the dems are using it for 2022 election purposes. So they censure any Republicans participating in it. On February 05 2022 07:17 Gorsameth wrote:On February 05 2022 06:42 Doc.Rivers wrote:
[quote]
I assume you are referring to the NYT's misinformation on the RNC censure:
The censure does not actually call the capitol attack "legitimate political discourse." It says the Jan 6 committee is "persecuting Americans who engaged in legitimate political discourse." The longstanding RNC argument against the committee is that the committee is going beyond just the capitol riot and persecuting Americans who believe in election fraud. So the NYT story, in failing to accurately report that argument, amounts to deliberate misinformation (which is funny because the Twitter employees who write the trending topics are currently parroting the NYT).
Nothing new of course. The media sensationalizes the truth in order to increase its audience size. That defence only works if you actually believe the Jan 6th committee is beyond the scope of that attack on the US Constitution, which I have seen no indication of. They are investigating the event that organised the group that then attempted an insurrection. Which falls very much under that scope. Nor did the people organising said event engage in 'legitimate political discourse' unless you think organising an attack on the verification of the US Presidential election is 'political discourse'. It doesn't depend on what you believe because the NYT's claim is about what the RNC said. If the RNC did not say what the NYT claims, then the story is misinformation. It is legitimate political discourse to assert that there was election fraud, even if that assertion is ultimately wrong. I think the RNC argument is that the Jan 6 committee is going after regular Americans who did that. Is there any evidence that the Jan 6 committee is going after regular Americans who had nothing to do with the Jan 6 insurrection? I'm not aware of any, can't say I've followed the committee too closely though. But that is the RNC's claim. On February 05 2022 08:59 JimmiC wrote:On February 05 2022 08:03 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 05 2022 07:56 JimmiC wrote:On February 05 2022 07:51 Doc.Rivers wrote:
[quote]
The censure probably isn't the best idea, but their argument is that the committee is being used as a political tool to go beyond just the attack on the capitol itself. I think the argument is that the dems are using it for 2022 election purposes. So they censure any Republicans participating in it.
[quote]
It doesn't depend on what you believe because the NYT's claim is about what the RNC said. If the RNC did not say what the NYT claims, then the story is misinformation.
It is legitimate political discourse to assert that there was election fraud, even if that assertion is ultimately wrong. I think the RNC argument is that the Jan 6 committee is going after regular Americans who did that.
It is not legitimate political discourse when they know it is not true. Which of course they did the reason was to retain power not because they actually believed voter fraud. Hell they are still claiming it and anyone that is not deep in a very strange web of conspiracies knows it is not true, most of the claims were not is possible let alone plausible. That may be true of the people in leadership positions who propagated the election fraud claim. But there everyday Americans who sincerely believe there was election fraud. The RNC's claim is about them. My point is that the NYT misrepresented the RNC's claim. Which is misinformation that leads people to say things like "the Republican Party is a terrorist organization" (as we just saw in this thread). I mean really, the Republican party would not release a statement saying the capitol riot was legitimate discourse, all hyperbole about fascism and terrorism aside. Is what you are saying that we should hold the people in leadership accountable for the damage there willful lies are creating? Because if so I completely agree. Well lying to the public is not a crime and I don't think it should be. Are you familiar with the idea of consequences of ones actions? There wasn't a mass psychosis among all Trumpers within earshot of the capitol, there were people telling them it was a good idea to attack the capitol in an attempt to overturn the result of an election, including the loser of that election. You can't detach from a situation where you convinced someone to set off a bomb and kill 5 people, just because you told the lie and the person who blew shit up didn't know it was wrong. Someone knew it was wrong, probably including the people who did it anyway, and it happened regardless. There's not this magical space where any and all responsibility for the damage caused just disappears. Cause and effect still applies. I don't think Trump or any other leadership figure incited the crowd to do what it did, the crowd acted on its own. Thats what the publicly avaiable evidence shows. So no one should charged for inciting the crowd. Aside from that, no other potential crimes were committed, unless trumps phone call to the Georgia secretary of state or whoever it was was a crime. Trumps political opposition has been all too eager to put him behind bars ever since he won the 2016 election. And they're willing to bend and abuse the law to get that result. So I also don't trust those efforts generally. Perhaps claiming the election was stolen and endlessly repeating it had something to do with it, despite no evidence and much to the contrary? Far as I can tell the GOP would rather rebuke the minority of legislators who think this is a bad thing than try to rein in this nonsense. The rationale of not persecuting ordinary Americans for a ‘legitimate belief’ doesn’t wash because how does an investigation do this? If Cheney subpoenaed a bunch of Joe Schmoe’s based on their social media postings about the steal, then maybe that charge passes the smell test. Far as I can tell this is not the case. January 6th could have been a positive straw breaking the camel’s back moment and the party could have pulled away from the path of madness, I actually thought they would but now they’re seemingly doubling down again. For Trump and his base, of all things. In a sane world/country Trump should be in jail for something, or at the very least his reputation and political career absolutely dead in the water. It is true that, but for Trump’s claims of election fraud, the riot would not have happened. But in criminal law, a closer connection is required than a mere "but for" statement. And when Trump stood before the crowd, immediately before the riot, and told them to go "peacefully" and that it was "up to congress" to do something, he's just not going to get put in jail, I'm sorry to tell you. I agree that Trump’s political career should be dead in the water. EDIT: there's also the question of whether the event was an insurrection, because if not, then trump did not incite an insurrection. Tellingly no one has been charged with insurrection. Of the small group charged with sedition, they texted amongst themselves complaining that trump was going to do anything, and therefore the "patriots were taking things into their own hands." There is no question it was an insurrection. You don't need him to explicitly say "go hang pence" for people to see him holding a rally on the day before the event and having his people be told to engage in a "trial by combat" is inciting a mob to commit an insurrection. He organized, spoke at, and directed a group of people to attempt to overturn the election. If that's not an insurrection then what do you want to call it? And we both know the gop is even more in thrall to trump you can't stand by a party that calls Jan 6 "legitimate political discourse" and deny it.
I've explained why it's untrue that the GOP called Jan 6 legitimate discourse. I've also explained why it's untrue that trump incited the crowd to do what it did. The crowd acted on its own. You respond by saying trump "directed a group of people to attempt to overturn the election." To support that statement, you really need statements from Trump that direct the crowd to do so (and it wasnt trump who said "trial by combat"). In reality trump told the crowd (immediately before the event) to "go peacefully" and "it is up to congress" to do something.
|
On February 06 2022 00:39 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2022 10:45 Introvert wrote:On February 03 2022 16:36 Acrofales wrote:On February 03 2022 10:27 Introvert wrote:
"Cancel culture" is more tricky to identify with major public figures like Rogan, but I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say that when Joe Schmoe who works at the starbucks in the middle of nowhere has an old tweet and people mob his employer to get him fire that such a thing could reasonably be defined as "cancel culture."
Do you have any actual examples of this? I mean, I know cyber bullying is a problem but I don't think we should conflate the two things. Cancelling is used so widely that without talking about actual examples, I don't see how we advance here. Let me kick it off by saying there's legitimate reasons for firing people based on what you found on the internet. Would you want either of the two girls waiting a table in your restaurant, even if they left their cup at home? Would this be cancelling them over having taboo sex of their own free will? Or would they be legitimately fired for omitting working in a viral fetish porn video on their resume? E: just to be clear, I don't think I'd personally mind, nor do I think these two women should be shunned from society for their unfortunate choice to eat and play with each other's poop and vomit. However, I don't think it's crazy that past actions exclude you from some jobs. And being a "star" in one of the grossest things most people have ever seen obviously counts as a past action. Not off the top of my head, sorry. I think we've all heard stories of people getting doxxed for example, right? From what I can tell doxxing is often done with the intent of "canceling." I guess maybe the one I remember recently is a game dev who who basically got bullied out of developing his games... think it was Five Nights at Freddy's, though I could be remember the story wrong. Which is another aspect of it... when do we, say, kick out an athlete who expresses certain views that don't have to do with the game? Kapernick with the pig socks or Lebron (and the NBA) taking a hard stance on supposed American injustices while seemingly acting a coward on China both come to mind. The instinct to jump on people is too easy to follow through on nowadays... Or at least, as I said before, it's easy to make it appear to be a pile on that could force a company to fire someone when in actuality that's not required. Maybe there's a peer pressure aspect too. People may say/do things to appease a mob because they seek the approval of the mob. They don't act out of fear of a loss of market share but a loss of social standing. It's not about the cash, it's about the looks you get. I don't think we can call doxxing cancelling. For starters, doxxing, if not illegal, it should be: it's about as close to a lynching that we get in the age of the internet. I think most people here agree doxxing is a pretty terrible practice, Regarding the developer of FNAF, I am guessing you mean this: https://www.ign.com/articles/five-nights-at-freddys-creator-retires-scott-cawthon-political-controversyI don't really see how that constitutes cancelling? The guy developed games with a big fanbase among the LGBTQ community, and then he turned out to be donating to Trump, who is not a friend of the LGBTQ community. The community got upset and some presumably decided they might not buy the next FNAF game. Even so, I doubt that would actually have affected the commercial success of another game in the series if he had stayed on. He also seems like hte boss at that company, so it's not like he got fired for donating to Trump, he just decided dealing wit that shit was not worth the stress, and he'd rather spend time with his family than being in charge of a game development studio. Regarding Kaepernick, I guess you might say he s cancelled. The way I interpret this article about it (I had to read up because I know he got down on his knees out of protest, but not much more than that about it): https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/is-colin-kaepernick-really-a-victim-of-cancel-culture it seems like he would have kept on playing football if he hadn't "protested the flag". I'm still not sure what to think about that: I mean, maybe, but it's not as if Kaepernick can't make a living because of how he voiced his opinion. He still got a very lucrative contract with Nike. Lebron clearly wasn't cancelled either. Regarding Lebron, I'm not quite sure how he fits into any of this. That said, I do think you have a point about how easy it is to get the whole outrage machine going. Whether that is drumming up hate posts on Reddit, or a bunch of talking heads piling onto someone for saying something stupid. I don't really think it's something *new* to have people pile on the hate for someone saying something they disagree with, but the reach and speed of how fast it can grow is definitely a new(ish) phenomenon. This ties into the doxxing thing at the start, as it's all different aspects of the whole "modern lynching" thing. But "cancelling" still doesn't seem like something new, or getting worse in any way. People have been getting ostracized from their social circles since the dawn of time... being free from the consequences of your speech is not the same as being free to speak. I would, for instance, be free to insult jews, but if my main business was selling kippahs, that would be really stupid. And I guess i could moan about getting cancelled if my clientele started going to a different shop, but would that really be justified?
I don’t think that, for example, artists having their career ended and their whole work disappearing from the public space as if they had never existed from one day to the next if they are found to have been behaving badly has been a thing since the dawn of time.
I would say it’s quite very new.
|
I've explained why it's untrue that the GOP called Jan 6 legitimate discourse. I've also explained why it's untrue that trump incited the crowd to do what it did. The crowd acted on its own. You respond by saying trump "directed a group of people to attempt to overturn the election." To support that statement, you really need statements from Trump that direct the crowd to do so (and it wasnt trump who said "trial by combat"). In reality trump told the crowd (immediately before the event) to "go peacefully" and "it is up to congress" to do something.
@Doc The crowd acted on their own volition sure… on technical terms. On a scale of 1-10 how responsible is Trump for Jan6? Do you think holding an event called StopTheSteal right next to the Capitol was a good idea? After weeks of hyping up a stolen election? What would you gauge that as?
|
@Biff: Harriet Beecher Stowe was “cancelled” in like 1870 for accusing Lord Byron of having an affair with his sister. Obviously the specific dynamics have changed a lot in 150 years - no Notes app apologies in 1870 - but some of this is just dynamics of public discourse and celebrity that have existed basically as long as there’s been public discourse and celebrity.
This is part of the problem with “cancel culture” as a concept: it encompasses way too broad a set of phenomena, some objectionable, some not, some new, some very old. The most obviously objectionable version (some random regular person having their life destroyed over some minor perceived offense by millions of internet users) doesn’t happen all that often but it’s certainly awful. The least objectionable version (famous people, especially politicians, being criticized for their opinions) is by far the most frequent situation in which cancel culture is invoked.
Side note: who actually got disappeared from public spaces? I know individual episodes of some tv shows got taken off streaming platforms, but you can still watch, like, Kevin Spacey movies or Buffy the Vampire Slayer if you want, no one’s stopping you.
|
On February 06 2022 03:23 ChristianS wrote:
@Biff: Harriet Beecher Stowe was “cancelled” in like 1870 for accusing Lord Byron of having an affair with his sister. Obviously the specific dynamics have changed a lot in 150 years - no Notes app apologies in 1870 - but some of this is just dynamics of public discourse and celebrity that have existed basically as long as there’s been public discourse and celebrity.
This is part of the problem with “cancel culture” as a concept: it encompasses way too broad a set of phenomena, some objectionable, some not, some new, some very old. The most obviously objectionable version (some random regular person having their life destroyed over some minor perceived offense by millions of internet users) doesn’t happen all that often but it’s certainly awful. The least objectionable version (famous people, especially politicians, being criticized for their opinions) is by far the most frequent situation in which cancel culture is invoked.
Side note: who actually got disappeared from public spaces? I know individual episodes of some tv shows got taken off streaming platforms, but you can still watch, like, Kevin Spacey movies or Buffy the Vampire Slayer if you want, no one’s stopping you.
If anything, the type of cancellation that comes closest to that described by Biff was the kind practiced by the Church with respect to folks like Galileo.
|
On February 06 2022 00:39 Acrofales wrote:
I don't think we can call doxxing cancelling. For starters, doxxing, if not illegal, it should be: it's about as close to a lynching that we get in the age of the internet.
Doxxing is threatening since it's a necessary precursor to in-person violence, but lynchings didn't end with the internet.
On February 05 2022 23:12 gobbledydook wrote:
If we talk about not recognizing election results as a deadly sin surely Stacey Abrams should receive the same treatment. Till this day she still refuses to admit defeat in the Georgia governor race claiming the race was rigged.
Her opponent ran the election and conducted a voter purge. Remember how nakedly corrupt it was when Jeb did that for his brother? Kemp got to do it for himself.
|
It's not that they disputed the election results, I've had my own doubts from time to time, it's what you do to act on it. I didn't try to rapel up the side of the capitol building to try and threaten elected officials. Neither did Stacey Abrams. Nor did we spend weeks spouting inflammatory rhetoric about how the election was stolen and how it needs to be taken back. Like, this is basic to me.
It's also telling for me that Trump was in a secure bunker during a BLM protest, but when they were attacking the Senate he was basically down the street having food. I guarantee you he knew.
|
On February 06 2022 02:32 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2022 01:57 Sermokala wrote:On February 06 2022 00:52 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 05 2022 21:46 WombaT wrote:On February 05 2022 12:02 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 05 2022 10:40 NewSunshine wrote:On February 05 2022 09:12 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 05 2022 08:12 Gorsameth wrote:On February 05 2022 07:51 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 05 2022 06:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Why would the RNC censure Cheney and Kinzinger? The censure probably isn't the best idea, but their argument is that the committee is being used as a political tool to go beyond just the attack on the capitol itself. I think the argument is that the dems are using it for 2022 election purposes. So they censure any Republicans participating in it. On February 05 2022 07:17 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]That defence only works if you actually believe the Jan 6th committee is beyond the scope of that attack on the US Constitution, which I have seen no indication of. They are investigating the event that organised the group that then attempted an insurrection. Which falls very much under that scope.
Nor did the people organising said event engage in 'legitimate political discourse' unless you think organising an attack on the verification of the US Presidential election is 'political discourse'. It doesn't depend on what you believe because the NYT's claim is about what the RNC said. If the RNC did not say what the NYT claims, then the story is misinformation. It is legitimate political discourse to assert that there was election fraud, even if that assertion is ultimately wrong. I think the RNC argument is that the Jan 6 committee is going after regular Americans who did that. Is there any evidence that the Jan 6 committee is going after regular Americans who had nothing to do with the Jan 6 insurrection? I'm not aware of any, can't say I've followed the committee too closely though. But that is the RNC's claim. On February 05 2022 08:59 JimmiC wrote:On February 05 2022 08:03 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 05 2022 07:56 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
It is not legitimate political discourse when they know it is not true. Which of course they did the reason was to retain power not because they actually believed voter fraud. Hell they are still claiming it and anyone that is not deep in a very strange web of conspiracies knows it is not true, most of the claims were not is possible let alone plausible. That may be true of the people in leadership positions who propagated the election fraud claim. But there everyday Americans who sincerely believe there was election fraud. The RNC's claim is about them. My point is that the NYT misrepresented the RNC's claim. Which is misinformation that leads people to say things like "the Republican Party is a terrorist organization" (as we just saw in this thread). I mean really, the Republican party would not release a statement saying the capitol riot was legitimate discourse, all hyperbole about fascism and terrorism aside. Is what you are saying that we should hold the people in leadership accountable for the damage there willful lies are creating? Because if so I completely agree. Well lying to the public is not a crime and I don't think it should be. Are you familiar with the idea of consequences of ones actions? There wasn't a mass psychosis among all Trumpers within earshot of the capitol, there were people telling them it was a good idea to attack the capitol in an attempt to overturn the result of an election, including the loser of that election. You can't detach from a situation where you convinced someone to set off a bomb and kill 5 people, just because you told the lie and the person who blew shit up didn't know it was wrong. Someone knew it was wrong, probably including the people who did it anyway, and it happened regardless. There's not this magical space where any and all responsibility for the damage caused just disappears. Cause and effect still applies. I don't think Trump or any other leadership figure incited the crowd to do what it did, the crowd acted on its own. Thats what the publicly avaiable evidence shows. So no one should charged for inciting the crowd. Aside from that, no other potential crimes were committed, unless trumps phone call to the Georgia secretary of state or whoever it was was a crime. Trumps political opposition has been all too eager to put him behind bars ever since he won the 2016 election. And they're willing to bend and abuse the law to get that result. So I also don't trust those efforts generally. Perhaps claiming the election was stolen and endlessly repeating it had something to do with it, despite no evidence and much to the contrary? Far as I can tell the GOP would rather rebuke the minority of legislators who think this is a bad thing than try to rein in this nonsense. The rationale of not persecuting ordinary Americans for a ‘legitimate belief’ doesn’t wash because how does an investigation do this? If Cheney subpoenaed a bunch of Joe Schmoe’s based on their social media postings about the steal, then maybe that charge passes the smell test. Far as I can tell this is not the case. January 6th could have been a positive straw breaking the camel’s back moment and the party could have pulled away from the path of madness, I actually thought they would but now they’re seemingly doubling down again. For Trump and his base, of all things. In a sane world/country Trump should be in jail for something, or at the very least his reputation and political career absolutely dead in the water. It is true that, but for Trump’s claims of election fraud, the riot would not have happened. But in criminal law, a closer connection is required than a mere "but for" statement. And when Trump stood before the crowd, immediately before the riot, and told them to go "peacefully" and that it was "up to congress" to do something, he's just not going to get put in jail, I'm sorry to tell you. I agree that Trump’s political career should be dead in the water. EDIT: there's also the question of whether the event was an insurrection, because if not, then trump did not incite an insurrection. Tellingly no one has been charged with insurrection. Of the small group charged with sedition, they texted amongst themselves complaining that trump was going to do anything, and therefore the "patriots were taking things into their own hands." There is no question it was an insurrection. You don't need him to explicitly say "go hang pence" for people to see him holding a rally on the day before the event and having his people be told to engage in a "trial by combat" is inciting a mob to commit an insurrection. He organized, spoke at, and directed a group of people to attempt to overturn the election. If that's not an insurrection then what do you want to call it? And we both know the gop is even more in thrall to trump you can't stand by a party that calls Jan 6 "legitimate political discourse" and deny it. I've explained why it's untrue that the GOP called Jan 6 legitimate discourse. I've also explained why it's untrue that trump incited the crowd to do what it did. The crowd acted on its own. You respond by saying trump "directed a group of people to attempt to overturn the election." To support that statement, you really need statements from Trump that direct the crowd to do so (and it wasnt trump who said "trial by combat"). In reality trump told the crowd (immediately before the event) to "go peacefully" and "it is up to congress" to do something.
You are taking your opinions and statements as facts and refusing to elaborate on any of them.
It was called the stop the steal rally. They used the phrase legitimate political discourse that the committee was investigating about January 6th. Trying to backdrop it later as just the people doing violence doesn't change the intent or obvious reasoning behind their statement.
|
On February 06 2022 03:37 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2022 03:23 ChristianS wrote:
@Biff: Harriet Beecher Stowe was “cancelled” in like 1870 for accusing Lord Byron of having an affair with his sister. Obviously the specific dynamics have changed a lot in 150 years - no Notes app apologies in 1870 - but some of this is just dynamics of public discourse and celebrity that have existed basically as long as there’s been public discourse and celebrity.
This is part of the problem with “cancel culture” as a concept: it encompasses way too broad a set of phenomena, some objectionable, some not, some new, some very old. The most obviously objectionable version (some random regular person having their life destroyed over some minor perceived offense by millions of internet users) doesn’t happen all that often but it’s certainly awful. The least objectionable version (famous people, especially politicians, being criticized for their opinions) is by far the most frequent situation in which cancel culture is invoked.
Side note: who actually got disappeared from public spaces? I know individual episodes of some tv shows got taken off streaming platforms, but you can still watch, like, Kevin Spacey movies or Buffy the Vampire Slayer if you want, no one’s stopping you. If anything, the type of cancellation that comes closest to that described by Biff was the kind practiced by the Church with respect to folks like Galileo.
In more recent memory I think a lot of Red Scare stuff had similar dynamics. Or even more recent, the Dixie Chicks. I mean, there are clearly some bad social dynamics in some of these cases - scapegoating, herd mentality, etc. It does feel like the typical internet experience promotes a sort of drive-by judgmentalism that makes this sort of thing more common.
I could almost imagine finding rare common ground with conservatives about the evils of “cancel culture,” except their ideas about it are so incoherent. Most of the supposed “cancellations” are just someone being criticized, maybe becoming the Twitter main character for a day. When people have faced actual consequences, often they’re either a result of voluntary resignations or their employer following legal avenues to cut ties because they want to avoid bad PR. What exactly do conservatives think should have happened instead? Who are we even supposed to be mad at? The answer usually seems to be “the amorphous mob of people who are criticizing them,” which reduces to a conception of tolerance in which no one is allowed to criticize anyone.
Even more incoherent, the same people yelling about “cancel culture” are frequently the ones trying to get principals and school administrators fired for “CRT,” the definition of which is infinitely malleable but frequently means little more than “they gave a public statement in 2020 vaguely endorsing racial equity.” This, too, follows a lot of the same social dynamics. If that principal tweeted a Notes app apology it would not feel out of place. So even if conservatives were just promoting a vague idea of ideological tolerance or “don’t try to get people fired because you’re mad at them,” they either don’t realize the inconsistencies with their other positions, or don’t care.
|
On February 06 2022 06:19 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2022 03:37 farvacola wrote:On February 06 2022 03:23 ChristianS wrote:
@Biff: Harriet Beecher Stowe was “cancelled” in like 1870 for accusing Lord Byron of having an affair with his sister. Obviously the specific dynamics have changed a lot in 150 years - no Notes app apologies in 1870 - but some of this is just dynamics of public discourse and celebrity that have existed basically as long as there’s been public discourse and celebrity.
This is part of the problem with “cancel culture” as a concept: it encompasses way too broad a set of phenomena, some objectionable, some not, some new, some very old. The most obviously objectionable version (some random regular person having their life destroyed over some minor perceived offense by millions of internet users) doesn’t happen all that often but it’s certainly awful. The least objectionable version (famous people, especially politicians, being criticized for their opinions) is by far the most frequent situation in which cancel culture is invoked.
Side note: who actually got disappeared from public spaces? I know individual episodes of some tv shows got taken off streaming platforms, but you can still watch, like, Kevin Spacey movies or Buffy the Vampire Slayer if you want, no one’s stopping you. If anything, the type of cancellation that comes closest to that described by Biff was the kind practiced by the Church with respect to folks like Galileo. In more recent memory I think a lot of Red Scare stuff had similar dynamics. Or even more recent, the Dixie Chicks. I mean, there are clearly some bad social dynamics in some of these cases - scapegoating, herd mentality, etc. It does feel like the typical internet experience promotes a sort of drive-by judgmentalism that makes this sort of thing more common. I could almost imagine finding rare common ground with conservatives about the evils of “cancel culture,” except their ideas about it are so incoherent. Most of the supposed “cancellations” are just someone being criticized, maybe becoming the Twitter main character for a day. When people have faced actual consequences, often they’re either a result of voluntary resignations or their employer following legal avenues to cut ties because they want to avoid bad PR. What exactly do conservatives think should have happened instead? Who are we even supposed to be mad at? The answer usually seems to be “the amorphous mob of people who are criticizing them,” which reduces to a conception of tolerance in which no one is allowed to criticize anyone. Even more incoherent, the same people yelling about “cancel culture” are frequently the ones trying to get principals and school administrators fired for “CRT,” the definition of which is infinitely malleable but frequently means little more than “they gave a public statement in 2020 vaguely endorsing racial equity.” This, too, follows a lot of the same social dynamics. If that principal tweeted a Notes app apology it would not feel out of place. So even if conservatives were just promoting a vague idea of ideological tolerance or “don’t try to get people fired because you’re mad at them,” they either don’t realize the inconsistencies with their other positions, or don’t care.
It can be problematic to treat conservatives as a monolith and isolate particular segments saying contradictory things and then say, "conservatives are incoherent and so I dismiss their views on this subject." There are good faith and valid points that are worth considering and potentially finding common ground on. Personally I don't think that online mobs should act with the intent of suppressing particular ideas by removing the speaker from digital platforms, even when the speaker is a public figure.
|
Hiding behind "don't treat conservatives as a monolith" is a classic method of trying to make conservatives accountable for nothing. Conservatives can be criticized for the positions held by their elected officials. Conservatives in states pulling books off shelves can be criticized for that. Conservatives can be criticized for opposition to the Jan6 commission. The slippery "but not all conservatives think that" is a cowardly cop out and a weird way to try to conduct a conversation.
Doc, we have had people try to hide behind that in the past and already dragged them through the dirt over it. Please don't make us repeat all the same exercises. It is tiring and really makes the conversation stale. There are clearly things mainstream conservatism does and does not think right now.
|
On February 06 2022 07:39 Mohdoo wrote:
Hiding behind "don't treat conservatives as a monolith" is a classic method of trying to make conservatives accountable for nothing. Conservatives can be criticized for the positions held by their elected officials. Conservatives in states pulling books off shelves can be criticized for that. Conservatives can be criticized for opposition to the Jan6 commission. The slippery "but not all conservatives think that" is a cowardly cop out and a weird way to try to conduct a conversation.
Doc, we have had people try to hide behind that in the past and already dragged them through the dirt over it. Please don't make us repeat all the same exercises. It is tiring and really makes the conversation stale. There are clearly things mainstream conservatism does and does not think right now.
The GOP opposed the Jan 6 commission after Pelosi rejected all but two of McCarthy's picks. Regardless of whether you agree with the politics of the GOP, cherry picking the other party's nominees is a good way to turn them off any sort of cooperation. The GOP was always going to call it a witch hunt after that, and the Democratic party would have done so if the roles were reversed too.
|
On February 06 2022 07:46 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2022 07:39 Mohdoo wrote:
Hiding behind "don't treat conservatives as a monolith" is a classic method of trying to make conservatives accountable for nothing. Conservatives can be criticized for the positions held by their elected officials. Conservatives in states pulling books off shelves can be criticized for that. Conservatives can be criticized for opposition to the Jan6 commission. The slippery "but not all conservatives think that" is a cowardly cop out and a weird way to try to conduct a conversation.
Doc, we have had people try to hide behind that in the past and already dragged them through the dirt over it. Please don't make us repeat all the same exercises. It is tiring and really makes the conversation stale. There are clearly things mainstream conservatism does and does not think right now. The GOP opposed the Jan 6 commission after Pelosi rejected all but two of McCarthy's picks. Regardless of whether you agree with the politics of the GOP, cherry picking the other party's nominees is a good way to turn them off any sort of cooperation. The GOP was always going to call it a witch hunt after that, and the Democratic party would have done so if the roles were reversed too. Both refused to certify the election results despite no proof of anything.
Those responsible for inciting a mob to insurrection have no place on a committee investigating said insurrection.
McCarthy was free to nominated sane Republicans to the committee. Not Pelosi's problem that he didn't do so.
|
On February 06 2022 07:46 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2022 07:39 Mohdoo wrote:
Hiding behind "don't treat conservatives as a monolith" is a classic method of trying to make conservatives accountable for nothing. Conservatives can be criticized for the positions held by their elected officials. Conservatives in states pulling books off shelves can be criticized for that. Conservatives can be criticized for opposition to the Jan6 commission. The slippery "but not all conservatives think that" is a cowardly cop out and a weird way to try to conduct a conversation.
Doc, we have had people try to hide behind that in the past and already dragged them through the dirt over it. Please don't make us repeat all the same exercises. It is tiring and really makes the conversation stale. There are clearly things mainstream conservatism does and does not think right now. The GOP opposed the Jan 6 commission after Pelosi rejected all but two of McCarthy's picks. Regardless of whether you agree with the politics of the GOP, cherry picking the other party's nominees is a good way to turn them off any sort of cooperation. The GOP was always going to call it a witch hunt after that, and the Democratic party would have done so if the roles were reversed too.
This is incredibly silly. The GOP would have called it a witch hunt in every possible scenario. Not allowing people sent to obstruct it is the obvious choice. I don't think you legitimately believe the GOP would have been endorsing the investigation if more people were allowed into that.
People who didn't want to certify the election, being allowed into the investigation, is so far beyond ridiculous I really don't think you believe what you're saying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
