Yeah, when they chanted "hang Mike Pence" what they really meant was "engage in rigorous critical debate with Mike Pence".

That said, as if that larping 'organic food' soy fuck was ever gonna hurt anyone.

Apart from the cop that blue lives matter crowd beat to death with American flags.

I sometimes wonder if you could do a global search-and-replace of the word ‘media’ with the word ‘mirror’ in all Trump and Trump allies’ fulminations about their treatment. So all of it would be transformed to ‘the dishonest, corrupt mirror’, ‘the mirror lies all the time’, ‘the mirror is so biased’, and so on. It would be a far more honest reflection (irony intended).

we had to put up with the nonsense of Russian collusion for years, — NOS4A2

The Mueller report was damning and would have been the basis for impeachment in any other administration. The problem was, Mueller left it up to Congress to act on the findings of obstruction, and Congress declined to act, because they were so thoroughly bullied and intimidated by Trump.

Yes, and I think that'll have to be the crux of the matter: Did Donald do what Donald did in order to set up a violent insurrection by his supporters in the Capitol? And the answer ought to be that this cannot be established, further is unlikely to be the case.

Trump thrives on attention and adoration. He lives for it. He's a moron and a narcissist, which 100% explains his actions. He lost an election to a corpse, so he has to rationalise that both for himself and his millions of cult followers. So naturally it was a fraudulent election.

The impeachment is floating a very different version of Trump, one who is blessed with understanding of others and the cunning to use this to deliberately guide his mob into violent insurrection without ever explicitly stating that this is what he wants: Trump as master manipulator, shadowy Bond villain, astute strategist and a man of subtle means. That isn't Trump. He has none of those qualities. And yet if we wish to convict him on the impeachment charges, in the absence of an overt call to arms, we have to pretend that is what Trump is. — Kenosha Kid

*hrmph*
Two variations of Clarke's Laws come to mind:

Any sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice.
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.


Jesus, no, nobody can be that dumb. I'd sooner think that what he does is satire than think anybody could actually mean the stuff he says. The whole thing looks like the theatre of the absurd.

Any sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice.
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. — baker

Well there is a long tradition of thought in philosophy that holds, essentially, that "evil is reducible to ignorance", i.e. nobody knowingly does bad things, everyone does what they think is the right thing to do, and is only incorrect about what the right thing to do actually is.

Two variations of Clarke's Laws come to mind:

Any sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice.
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. — baker

Of course this comes up all the time, not least in court. I someone tells me that they genuinely thought the passport they bought from the guy at the street corner for 200 dollars was a genuine, state-issued document, I'm not going to believe them. They'd need to show some kind of medical document with a diagnosis that makes such a mistake remotely plausible.

I think ultimately there is a normative element at work here. There is a level of basic competence that's simply ascribed to everybody, and if you want to argue that you lack this basic competence, you will have to provide the evidence. A reversal of the presumption of innocence, if you will.

Well there is a long tradition of thought in philosophy that holds, essentially, that "evil is reducible to ignorance", i.e. nobody knowingly does bad things, everyone does what they think is the right thing to do, and is only incorrect about what the right thing to do actually is. — Pfhorrest

I'm sympathetic to this position, though I'd say we'd have to differentiate between ignorance about the facts and a false moral philosophy. You can be perfectly cognizant of the facts but adopt the moral position that all live is struggle between the weak and the strong and that might makes right.

we had to put up with the nonsense of Russian collusion for years, — NOS4A2

The Mueller report was damning and would have been the basis for impeachment in any other administration. The problem was, Mueller left it up to Congress to act on the findings of obstruction, and Congress declined to act, because they were so thoroughly bullied and intimidated by Trump. — Wayfarer

Case example of Trump supporters being in an alternate reality.

But of course, they just see here that anti-Trumpers are attacking Trump and simply don't look at the facts objectively. Did the worst accusations I heard be found to be true by the Mueller report? No, but enough was found as Wayfarer states. And let's remember that the Mueller probe was of Trump's own making. Had Trump just shut up and remain calm, there wouldn't have been a Mueller probe in the first place and the FBI would have simply stated that "Yes, Russians were active in the 2016 elections. Period. Nothing else". And the Democrats would see the FBI director Comey as a Trump stooge (as Trumpsters don't selectively remember the October surprise that Comey gave to Trump with opening the Hillary investigations, which is the way Trumpsters work).

There's the similarity to the repetition of the statement of the elections being fraudulent and stolen clearly visible. And it works as we can see. This polarization will just continue.

Well there is a long tradition of thought in philosophy that holds, essentially, that "evil is reducible to ignorance", i.e. nobody knowingly does bad things, everyone does what they think is the right thing to do, and is only incorrect about what the right thing to do actually is. — Pfhorrest

I often think something similar but different... I do things that I know are wrong, but they're little things, such speed a little to make a long journey less arduous. I'm not ignorant of the law or the good reasons for it, rather I'm cogniscent of what I can get away with and that the benefit to self appears to me to outweigh the risk to society.

There's an interesting quirk of human psychology that makes us think that if we did it before we'll do it again. If, say, there was a 1 in 10 chance of being caught speeding on a particular road, that might for some time put me off speeding, but should I get away with it once, I'll be more likely to think I'll get away with it again, even though patently the more I do it, the larger my overall probability of being caught.

Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it — NOS4A2

That particular defendent has had that accusation struck. That does not make the video evidence of the crowd a mass hallucination.

There's an interesting quirk of human psychology that makes us think that if we did it before we'll do it again. If, say, there was a 1 in 10 chance of being caught speeding on a particular road, that might for some time put me off speeding, but should I get away with it once, I'll be more likely to think I'll get away with it again, even though patently the more I do it, the larger my overall probability of being caught. — Kenosha Kid

Sounds like an application of the representativeness heuristic. We guess probabilities based on how easy we can come up of an example of a case. Reminds me of that other bias where we're more likely to believe stories that have more details added to them even though technically all those details make the story less likely to be true.

It's too bad politicians seem to rarely consult criminologists (or don't care) when drafting new laws, because they'd tell them that constantly increasing the penalties for stuff people don't think they'll get caught for won't work.

Sounds like an application of the representativeness heuristic. — Echarmion

That's the one! Thanks!

I think ultimately there is a normative element at work here. There is a level of basic competence that's simply ascribed to everybody, and if you want to argue that you lack this basic competence, you will have to provide the evidence. A reversal of the presumption of innocence, if you will. — Echarmion

I just want to say that I feel stupefied, flabbergasted, stumped by Trump and his supporters.
I just don't get it.
I don't understand how someone can really mean those things he says, and yet get so far in life and politics. I keep thinking that what he does is all a carefully thought out strategy.
It's all just beyond, way beyond my scope.

I just want to say that I feel stupefied, flabbergasted, stumped by Trump and his supporters.
I just don't get it.
I don't understand how someone can really mean those things he says, and yet get so far in life and politics. I keep thinking that what he does is all a carefully thought out strategy.
It's all just beyond, way beyond my scope. — baker

His supporters, before they were his supporters, liked what they saw, which was a vicious, racist, misogynistic, nationalistic, ablist, xenophobic, illiterate hatemonger or, as they'd previously referred to that figure in their life, "Dad".

Don't know how representative this is ...

The Trump Mob In Their Own Words (5m:55s; The Bulwark; Jan 13, 2021)

... but those people are reciting the conspiracy theories.

I do things that I know are wrong, but they're little things, such speed a little to make a long journey less arduous. I'm not ignorant of the law or the good reasons for it, rather I'm cogniscent of what I can get away with and that the benefit to self appears to me to outweigh the risk to society. — Kenosha Kid

Illegal is not the same thing as wrong, and that sounds like you’re reasonable that it’s sometimes okay, not wrong, to break the law a little.

The myth that spontaneously formed right after it happened was that it was the actions of disaffected, poor, white, working class people — StreetlightX

I admit that I was somewhat taken in by this myth myself. But I do not think the myth is Pro-Trump. Facts, even incorrect facts, do not have ideology all by themselves.

It is also not quite what has been argued by Democratic Socialists like myself, who see the general lack of social safety nets and dearth of Economic opportunities in America as a factor in the rise of Trump. Historically there are real parallels between the current era and past eras where Right Wing politics succeeded. Honestly, I feel squeezed on three sides -- the same old crap from the Right, postmodern identity politics from supposed "allies" who don't realize they are corporate stooges, and utopian dreams from the Revolutionary Socialists.

But I do not think the myth is Pro-Trump — Garth

Of course it is. It is designed to absolve Trump and co. from all responsibility for the riots.

Honestly, I feel squeezed on three sides -- the same old crap from the Right, postmodern identity politics from supposed "allies" who don't realize they are corporate stooges, and utopian dreams from the Revolutionary Socialists. — Garth

Ah, the squeeze of political polarization!

Choose your side and pick up the flag given to you and march along, Garth.

https://www.e-flux.com/announcements/371876/bifo-on-the-us-capitol-riots/

"[Who] thinks that Trumpists “believe” in the words of Trump in a literal sense? In the book Les Grecs ont-ils cru à leurs mythes? (Did the Greeks believe in their myths?), Paul Veyne questions the meaning of “belief.” His conclusion is that the force of mythology does not consist in believing a metaphor literally, in forgetting about the brackets before and after the metaphoric enunciation. Mythological belief (like memetic contagion) today similarly enables a sort of pragmatic coherence in the life of “believers.” It gives sense to the world of those who heed such mythology, amidst a world that has lost any sense.

For example, believing Trump’s assertion “I won the election” is not a semiological mistake. Rather, it is a strategy for identitarian self-assertion. When liberals speak of “fake news,” they totally miss the point, because those who share a mythology (or a meme) are not searching for the factual truth, like a social scientist might. Instead, they are consciously or unconsciously using the force of the fake enunciation as an exorcism, as an insult, as a weapon.

The more important question to ask is not why Trump lies, but instead why so many people vote for him in the first place. What are the conditions—economic, political, semiological, and so on—that produce this voting and acting? The solution to the problem is not to impeach the orange man (again), or ban him from Twitter (too late, Mr. Dorsey, too late). Rather, it is to allow people to think and to choose in a way that is not clouded by humiliation and resentment.

The American crisis is not generated by the perverted effects of mass communication. It is generated by the contradictions that emerge from the racist nature of the most violent country of all time".

But I do not think the myth is Pro-Trump. Facts, even incorrect facts, do not have ideology all by themselves. — Garth

That certain incorrect facts are propagated and not others is most certainly an 'ideological' effect.

It is also not quite what has been argued by Democratic Socialists like myself, who see the general lack of social safety nets and dearth of Economic opportunities in America as a factor in the rise of Trump. — Garth

As for this - I'd be more forceful. It's not just a lack - as though something just so happens to be missing. There is very much an active campaign, pursued at the level of policy and public consciousness, to maintain those lack of safety nets and economic opportunity. It's not a passive lack. There are forces that actively work against such things. The problem is political before it is economic.

Honestly, I feel squeezed on three sides -- the same old crap from the Right, postmodern identity politics from supposed "allies" who don't realize they are corporate stooges, and utopian dreams from the Revolutionary Socialists. — Garth

Yeah, it's a spiky field to negotiate. But everyone's doing it. You get better and more comfortable with the dance after a while.

the book Les Grecs ont-ils cru à leurs mythes? (Did the Greeks believe in their myths?), Paul Veyne questions the meaning of “belief.” His conclusion is that the force of mythology does not consist in believing a metaphor literally, in forgetting about the brackets before and after the metaphoric enunciation. Mythological belief (like memetic contagion) today similarly enables a sort of pragmatic coherence in the life of “believers.” It gives sense to the world of those who heed such mythology, amidst a world that has lost any sense. — StreetlightX

M I Finley argues that they did believe the Homeric account, which is kind of like the psyche turned inside out. Human motivation is cast across the cosmos instead of stuffed in people's heads.

Who] thinks that Trumpists “believe” in the words of Trump in a literal sense — StreetlightX

A lot of them do.

The American crisis is not generated by the perverted effects of mass communication. It is generated by the contradictions that emerge from the racist nature of the most violent country of all time". — StreetlightX

Well, perhaps not of all time. The Assyrians were an extremely violent people/country/empire, if the inscriptions attributed to Ashurbanipal are any indication, and gloried in the violence they inflicted.

But we're a violent bunch, no doubt about it. I think the violence is encouraged through communication technology, though. Here I'm not referring to "Big Tech" which seems to be the latest boogeyman, but instead to the fact that people may instantly communicate with, encourage and incite others of like-minds. That was harder to do in the past, and a technology which facilitates immediate response facilitates emotional reaction.

That was harder to do in the past, and a technology which facilitates immediate response facilitates emotional reaction. — Ciceronianus the White

I was thinking about this in relation to the spread of American made religions and sects to other parts of the world.

There are 65,000 Seventh Day Adventists in Australia. It's popular among aboriginals because one of the American evangelists specifically targeted them for conversion.

As a species, we have been travelling trade routes, sitting in oases sharing religious beliefs, for millennia. The internet is isn't introducing something new. It's just speeding things up.

Well, perhaps not of all time. The Assyrians were an extremely violent people/country/empire, if the inscriptions attributed to Ashurbanipal are any indication, and gloried in the violence they inflicted. — Ciceronianus the White

I don't believe I stuttered. The Assyrians did not ring the earth with military bases and conduct violent military campaigns on every continent bar Antartica. And technology is not the problem either. It's simple violent American imperialism carried out by violent American imperialists. And Americans regularly glory in the violence they commit. There's even an globally spanning industry worth billions of dollars a year to celebrate it - Hollywood. And lets not talk about the nuclear disintergration of Japanese civilians hey? Or the domestic genocide of American Indians? Or when not conducting genocide, enabling and supporting it elsewhere? America is a uniquely murderous nation, unmatched by anyone, ever. It has deserved every second of Trump.

And lets not talk about the nuclear disintergration of Japanese civilians — StreetlightX

Strictly speaking, that was atomic, not nuclear.

Edit, oh, fission bombs are called nuclear. Didn't realize that.

The internet is isn't introducing something new. It's just speeding things up. — frank

I don't think the internet introduced something new, either, beyond the ease and speed of access to information and ideas and their propagation, regardless of their worth, and the immediacy of participation in global communication by anyone, regardless of their character, ignorance or intelligence, and motives. But I think that ease and speed of access encourages thoughtless and emotive communication. Immediate and limited communication and responses are encouraged. There also seems to be a tendency to communicate without restraint. It's far easier to say something bigoted, inflammatory and malicious in writing.

Someone called the internet "the id with a mouse."

The Assyrians did not ring the earth with military bases and conduct violent military campaigns on every continent bar Antartica. — StreetlightX

True. The extent of violence is much greater, if not the severity of it, and in light of the examples you give the greater severity of the Assyrians' violence isn't clear, though it may be more personal (more violence was hand-to-hand back then). And violence has been glorified in popular culture here, although I don't think our government has boasted of butchery quite as much and as openly as did the Assyrian kings. Toleration or encouragement of it, though, is another matter.

Someone was perceptive.

I don't believe I stuttered. The Assyrians did not ring the earth with military bases.... — StreetlightX

Your lack of nuance amounts to ignorance that is ultimately misleading, your one bean of truth lost in your potful of fantastical fanaticism - an ignorance that becomes stupid in what it chooses and ignores. For whom or what are you an apologist or advocate - what are you for?

As for this - I'd be more forceful. It's not just a lack - as though something just so happens to be missing. There is very much an active campaign, pursued at the level of policy and public consciousness, to maintain those lack of safety nets and economic opportunity. It's not a passive lack. There are forces that actively work against such things. The problem is political before it is economic. — StreetlightX

The active campaign has been so pervasive and long lasting that it is "invisible". There has been a recent spate of books on housing like EVICTED and THE COLOR OF LAW which reveal how the campaign has worked. The myths (a.k.a. lies) of the ruling class are so deeply embedded, it is practically impossible for many people to question them. So, of course it's your fault if you are broke and living in a ratty building, poorly employed or on welfare, or living under a bridge. You just didn't try hard enough, you lazy worthless son of a bitch.