All of this might make some foreigner drool with glee — NOS4A2

You mean seeing a bunch of Trump supporters, incited by Trump, sacking the Capitol building? Or watching degenerates like you equivocate about it?

I agree.

No one is saying that Congress cannot impeach someone for whatever they like. — NOS4A2

Yes. Like incitement, which is what Trump did -- in reality. Of which we know you're allergic.

Jesus, the guy really is an idiot. — Kenosha Kid

Yes. Put NOS in post-war Germany and he would have been equivocating about Hitler for years. Must be like playing whack-a-mole for bad apologetics.

But of course it's YOU who are the brainwashed one. :lol:

And there are still con artists who deny there is a leftist hegemony of the media. — Rafaella Leon

There is no left hegemony. Conservative media dominates talk radio, cable news, has the most read newspaper in the country, etc. Hollywood is no doubt liberal.

Stop whining and grow up.

The open persecution that big media and internet companies move towards Christian and conservative publications is the integral and definitive proof — Rafaella Leon

:yawn:

And it’s the liberals who are supposed to be snowflakes.

Take your pontification and sell it to people who care.

Extra points for writing “verisimilitude” several times. You sound wicked smart.

Let me explain how time works. That ^ was issued today. The riot happened last week. — Kenosha Kid

How silly, appealing to reason, logic, general rationality, etc. The "debate" with NOS or anyone else still supporting Trump is already over. It ended years ago. There are no principles or consistency in anything -- just pure tribalistic thinking.

A little thought experiment makes it clear: just imagine if Obama (who I'm no fan of) held a rally saying the exact same things and the capital was overrun with his supporters. Would these people be equivocating, so eager to qualify every fact/statement they could? Would they suddenly take an interest in nuance?

Please. I heard more outrage when he asked for dijon mustard. It's a futile enterprise.

Still, your replies are funny.

s Trump evil? Yes.

Does that automatically mean he's stupid? No. — Hippyhead

He’s not stupid. In fact, he’s got very strong con-man instincts, since that’s been his entire life. He’s managed limited success in business because of his created persona and brand creation, thanks largely to manipulating the media.

He brought that to politics, and it proved a good match. Name recognition was important, as was general anger with DC. Add social media to the mix, and it’s little surprise he’s taken over the party.

Yea, ok, I can hear that. Cowardly does seem accurate. So is there any point to another impeachment then in your opinion? — Hippyhead

Yeah, just in terms of precedent. It puts the Republicans in a position to have to vote against it, which is good, while keeping Trump's ability to run again in tact when it fails, which is (I would argue) ALSO good for this country. Why? Because if he runs again, it'll further divide the Republican party during the primaries, and after four years and the memory of this event, he'll likely lose -- assuming the Democrats don't completely blow it these next few years. But as soon as I wrote that last part, I'm beginning to think he may have a shot after all.

I guess I'm just getting old my friend. The torrential bullshit storm has worn me out. — Hippyhead

I can see that -- and that's a shame, I think. But you're in big company, and that's exactly the problem. And you're well above average in your activism -- most are too busy keeping food on the table to have any time, and others are either too distracted, too apathetic, or completely disenfranchised to do anything.

These stories you tell are pretty defeatist, though, don't you think? It's very selective, skewed towards negative experiences. The very fact that you got a meeting on national television is an enormous success, for example -- yet you focus on a dickhead sheriff's poor reaction to you? I do sympathize, because those things really do suck and obviously can be demoralizing, but I don't see the alternative. By quitting, or laying down, you're essentially helping the opposite forces along.

This thread is a good example, yes. OK, so people aren't focused enough on nuclear weapons. Then it's your job to educate them. Who says you can't?

But they don't have to show up. The Republican senators could liberate themselves from Trump just by not showing up to vote. Seventeen senators not showing up would get the job done, right? — Hippyhead

No, because that leaves 83 total. Two-thirds of 83 would be 55, so you'd still need a good deal (5, if done after Democrats take over), even in that very unlikely scenario where that many don't show up. I'm not quite seeing 5 yet, although it's close. But again, this is a pipe dream. It's not going to happen. They're still terrified of his base.

Too bad it's not a secret ballot. Then I have no doubt they'd have the votes -- most Republicans can't stand him. They're just too cowardly to say it publicly.

If they convict him in the senate, he's barred from holding public office again.
— Xtrix

Are you sure that's all that's required? I'm hearing jabber about there needing to be another vote specifically about banning him from running. — Hippyhead

I'm pretty certain, yes.

I'm hearing that what's needed is two thirds of the Senators who show up to vote. If that's true, that's a very different situation, yes? — Hippyhead

Different but not huge. When there are important votes, almost every senator shows up. If you need 17 or so Republicans, even a few people quarantining or sick won't get you there.

I too share the interest in nuclear weapons and, you're right, it's taken a back seat to climate change and other issues (social justice, etc). But taking a step back, it seems as if you took a real shot at it and were met with multiple dead-ends. That's discouraging, no doubt, but the solution isn't to lay down. It's to find other avenues. Just from what you've posted, I think one area has been too much reliance on the Internet. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's what I gather.

Incidentally, I've done the same myself -- joined a new group last summer, had 170 members within a week (more than I expected), but then quickly turned into exactly nothing, eventuallbeing reduced to just one person occasionally sharing various articles. I had encouraged them to do Zoom meetings or meet in person if possible, because that is FAR more meaningful and more "real" than communicating from behind a screen and, when posting, to write THEIR thoughts, not simply sharing links to articles, memes, or quotations, as people tend to ignore those because they're everywhere. This advice was not heeded, and the group is now a ghost town. Totally pointless. I myself am complicit in it, as I could have pushed harder for these things myself, even if not an administrator.

But we can't let results like this discourage us. I have no doubt that things can be done -- that people can organize, even in small groups, to get things done. So instead I've turned my attention to forming a union at my workplace. I do this by talking to my coworkers and per diem staff individually. It's a slow process, and not guaranteed to work. But that doesn't bother me. If I fail, I'm sure I'll learn something important from it.

Long story short, I'd encourage you to keep trying or move to something where you can possibly get more traction. The climate change movement is an important one. I think nuclear weapons are equally as important, as it's an existential threat, but it's simply not getting the attention it deserves right now, so that's a bit of bad luck for you if that's what you happen to settle upon. But there are endless possibilities for activism. Perhaps even looking to more local problems.

“We need to help induce national calm NOW,” Cumulus’s executive vice president of content Brian Philips wrote in the memo. The company “will not tolerate any suggestion that the election has not ended. The election has been resolved and there are no alternate acceptable ‘paths.’”

Philips added, “If you transgress this policy, you can expect to separate from the company immediately.” —

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/talk-radio-owner-threatens-to-fire-hosts-who-dispute-election-results/

Interesting. Mark Levin, Dan Bongino, and Ben Shapiro all employees. It's about time talk radio joins the fray.

I may have missed this. What exactly would have to happen for Trump to be legally barred from running again? I'm getting the impression from NPR coverage that no one really knows for sure. Is that right, or am I missing pieces of the puzzle? — Hippyhead

If they convict him in the senate, he's barred from holding public office again. But that's unlikely to happen, given that 67 senators are needed to do so.

Agreed. And if I could add, not just educate them, but be educated by them where possible. That's surely implied in the concept of not holding them in contempt. — Hippyhead

Yes, but worth pointing out more explicitly. Appreciated.

Dominion software got them to make a complete retraction. — Hanover

After being threatened with a billion dollar lawsuit. I hope that sends a message, and I hope they go for the jugular.

My attitude arises out of about a billion hours spent in the north Florida woods, which I have discovered to be more interesting than human beings, on average, generally speaking. — Hippyhead

Having grown up spending a lot of time in the woods, I often prefer it over the social world as well. But if ever there were a time where we need all rational hands on deck, it's right now. So what I had said was more a personal goal: be more social, be more active, try to organize, try to bring people in, unionize, etc. But I encourage others who have similar temperaments to do the same, given the unprecedented circumstances. Every little bit helps.

https://twitter.com/carlquintanilla/status/1348599278877470721

Interesting. Cumulus Media now giving a few hosts an ultimatum.

But honest to God, true story, there is a retarded squirrel living in cage at the top of the stairs here who is far more interesting, to me, than most human beings. — Hippyhead

This is not meant to be insulting, because I've felt (and continue to feel) this way as well, but I think it's worth attempting to grow out of this kind of view. I think this attitude is a remnant of adolescent contempt. I have to fight the feeling often enough to realize it's far easier said than done -- although also quite appropriate at times -- but I think it's a worthwhile undertaking, especially in the current circumstances. There should be no quarter given to those participating in, supporting, condoning, or cryptically justifying what took place Wednesday -- and to those who are begging for a fight or a civil war should not be run away from. But we're still stuck with 75 million + people who, for whatever reason, took the time to vote for Donald Trump, and not all of them are unreachable. I don't see a way out of this other than making attempts to educate them, and that can't be done if we hold them in contempt.

I know your point was about social media, by the way, so I digress.

That's interesting. I suspect you're right. I've been on Facebook since near the beginning, when you needed a college email to get on. I've deleted several times since then, and didn't miss it much at all. But that was years ago.

I agree that keeping in contact with people is still very much a useful thing. Now I simply prefer to use their Messenger application. The rest ("news" feed mainly, and the advertisements they bring, plus groups -- most of which are toxic) has become quite useless. I suggest this as a compromise to you if you're regretting not using it. It's basically text or, if people remember back, AIM (AOL Instant Messenger).

I'm sure the lists are incomplete. :D When serial liars become the go-to authority for a lot of people with zeal and guns, then it could well make sense for privately owned platforms to kick them off. — jorndoe

Well said. This appears exactly right. And I hold no illusions about the benevolence of social media platforms.

The right is arguing that because they’re monopolies, there’s a different set of rules. They cite Iran and Syria leaders being allowed to say things freely, and a few posts about burning down a cop’s house that were supposedly left up— not sure if it was BLM or not. That’s the line they’re taking on Fox News, anyway.

Don’t get the joke. Shocker.

Congratulations, Brett. You’ve once again proven too boring to even have a petty argument with. :yawn:

I’m not obliged to explain this to you.

Not reading any more of Brett. — Baden

I’ll go back to ignoring him as well. It’s pretty easy. I couldn’t help myself given the disgrace on Wednesday and his response to it.

Yes, you have.

I’m not obliged to tell you what my politics are — Brett

Can’t bring yourself to say it, can you? Just like Trump. Won’t be bullied into condemning violence. What a hero.

In any case, you don’t have to. I already know. You’re supporting domestic terrorists. I’m sure you don’t believe that— but that’s not relevant to me, nor anyone else here.

Yes, this applies to those who, rather than explicitly condemn the actions outright, offer nothing but qualifications and excuses. While also not outright supporting what was done, of course — which allows for plenty of worming out of what’s plainly obvious.

You’re fooling no one except yourself. I have no doubt you believe you’re simply seeking the truth.

Still haven’t seen any evidence of me defending or promoting domestic terrorism on this forum. — Brett

Yet given the opportunity to outright condemn it, you pull a Trump, then cite the Crucible.

Fine people on both sides, I hear.

What’s happened to you Baden? You were so reasonable once. Now you’ve become an alley dog along with StreetlightX and @Xtrix — Brett

Please. Rationality and politeness don’t apply to those who, for example, storm buildings shouting “hang Pence” because they believe in a fantasy.

The appropriate response is utter contempt.

Keep defending domestic terrorists Brett. You hero. Noble work.

My message for Trump terrorists and their supporters, including on this site, is simple: Fuck off and die. — Baden

Seconded. Proudly.

I’d say the same to the hijackers of 9/11 and their supporters and enablers.

If these people want a civil war, they’ve got it. It’s their funeral.

I am zero upset that our internet masters have decided not to allow their platforms to be used to promote terrorism. — Baden

Exactly. Let the neo-Nazis make their own platform. They're free to do so. They're not entitled to an op-ed in the WSJ, nor the algorithms of Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. Believe it or not, free speech is indeed limited. I fully support their right to march, to assemble, and to free speech in other capacities. The crazy drunk yelling slogans in the park likewise is not violating any laws. But likewise he isn't entitled to do so on private platforms.

You don't like it? Don't sign their terms of service agreement. We'd all be better of not being on there anyway.

I never said I believe the election was stolen. But you should be embarrassed that you need Silicon Valley soy-boys to curate information for you. — NOS4A2

A Trump supporter telling someone to be embarrassed. :rofl:

Both "curating" and "information" are incorrect. Neither apply.

People are being censored by giant monopolies for specious reasons, and oddly enough, some of these monopolies have former executives and lobbyists within the opposing party. Of course people can go elsewhere, but “elsewhere” is becoming increasingly narrow. — NOS4A2

Tough shit.

"Specious reasons" means exactly nothing coming from someone who believes the election was stolen.

In the recent Democratic primary Andrew Yang seemed to be the only person who actually understood the historical forces generating social instability, and the only person with a bold plan for addressing that instability. — Hippyhead

Yang is fine. I would have liked to see him get more traction. But Sanders' message was far better, in my view.

It feels more vindictive than cautionary to me, and a really bad idea considering how beat Trump was and the potential backfire. — praxis

Republicans and social media had years to take a stand on Trump. Waiting until the very end like this is clearly opportunistic. On the other hand, given what happened Wednesday, these measures aren't entirely unjustified.

I myself think it's a good move. Too little too late, but a start. We shouldn't have to live our lives worried about the reaction of the political right. When both sides keep moving to extremes, and one side goes beyond the pale, then eventually it has to come to blows. You have to pick a side. They WANT a civil war. What are we to do if people are beyond reason? Keep allowing them to push us back farther and farther?

If that's the case, then let's just give Trump another 4 years. Because that's what's being demanded, and that's what his base believes. Let's allow them to storm the capitol building, the White House, etc., with little resistance and a slap on the wrist afterward. Let's allow them to threaten the lives of people and organize militias on private online forums, violating the TOS of each one. We don't want to piss them off, after all.

Give me a break. Pick a side.

I've admitted, numerous times, that I don't know if the election was a fraud or not. — counterpunch

Let me make it easy: THERE WAS NO ELECTION FRAUD. Saying something like “I don’t know” is itself a copout. I don’t know that Santa Claus lives in the North Pole. Who knows? Maybe. There’s no evidence proving that he DOESN’T.

You get the point I hope. This is just an intellectual mistake.

Yes, it’s largely media and various thought leaders deluding people, but citizens themselves deserve partial blame as well.

No one was talking about fraud in 2016. Some believed that Russian interference (which did take place) had an influence on the election results, and that Trump colluded with Russia in this purpose (with some good reason to believe this). I did not believe either of that myself, but that’s what was said.

Compare this to the claims that hundreds of thousands of votes are fraudulent. Voter fraud is extremely rare, and anyone with a brain cell knew that trump would make something up if he lost — he said it explicitly.

That’s happened, predictably, and you people take it seriously enough to be “agnostic” about it? No, sorry — experts (remember them?) say the opposite, in fact: that the election was the most secure in history. And it’s not opinion — there’s overwhelming evidence to back it up. Partly it was due, ironically, to Trump’s screaming about fraud.

People who want to believe a fiction WILL believe a fiction. But this election was free, fair, and secure. There is no evidence to the contrary, which is why Trump has lost every court case. Because you can’t win in court with delusions.

:lol:

“Post-truth is pre-fascism, and Trump has been our post-truth president. When we give up on truth, we concede power to those with the wealth and charisma to create spectacle in its place. Without agreement about some basic facts, citizens cannot form the civil society that would allow them to defend themselves. If we lose the institutions that produce facts that are pertinent to us, then we tend to wallow in attractive abstractions and fictions. Truth defends itself particularly poorly when there is not very much of it around, and the era of Trump — like the era of Vladimir Putin in Russia — is one of the decline of local news. Social media is no substitute: It supercharges the mental habits by which we seek emotional stimulation and comfort, which means losing the distinction between what feels true and what actually is true.”
(Nyt)

This, and the underlying economic consequences of neoliberal policies, are in my view the two biggest factors explaining Trumpism.

Trump was simply able to gather it around Himself, riding the wave of Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, and Obama’s utter betrayal of the working class. We’re lucky if his term ends with only a few deaths and the sack of the Capitol building, in a way.