Options

Far Right DC Putsch thread 2

1457910101

Posts

  • Options
    XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    KalTorak wrote: »
    why does that person have a blue check

    are they a verified sociopath?

    absolutely, but I have no idea what the checkmark means

  • Options
    ph blakeph blake Registered User regular
    Blue Check = verified account, as in Twitter has confirmed that the account belongs to who they say there are. Usually for notable public figures, though how they tend to define "notable" varies.

    That's also slightly different from the twitter blue checkmark icon, so I assume it's from one of the crazy platforms like Gab or Parler

    7h8wnycre6vs.png
  • Options
    Librarian's ghostLibrarian's ghost Librarian, Ghostbuster, and TimSpork Registered User regular
    Why do they even need private security in DC right now? There are so many soldiers there already.

    (Switch Friend Code) SW-4910-9735-6014(PSN) timspork (Steam) timspork (XBox) Timspork


  • Options
    augustaugust where you come from is gone Registered User regular
    Yeah I think it has to be Gab. Joe M is one of the biggest QAnon grifters, which probably why he's willing to entertain the idea of "well-intentioned hoax" to segue into his next grift. Alex Jones has gone full "QAnon is CIA psyop to brainwash patriotic Americans, and the reason we didn't get along in the past is because they knew I was the only person smart enough to figure it out."

  • Options
    DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Why do they even need private security in DC right now? There are so many soldiers there already.

    If you're a company or whatever the soldiers aren't going to protect your shit or personnel.

    Or I suppose you could be cynical and think maybe private security has been hired by people who want to direct the private security to conduct actions that, uh, soldiers sworn to defend the nation and the Constitution would not carry out.

  • Options
    I needed anime to post.I needed anime to post. boom Registered User regular
    ph blake wrote: »
    Blue Check = verified account, as in Twitter has confirmed that the account belongs to who they say there are. Usually for notable public figures, though how they tend to define "notable" varies.

    That's also slightly different from the twitter blue checkmark icon, so I assume it's from one of the crazy platforms like Gab or Parler

    That's Gab. Joe M has been banned from twitter for a WHILE

    liEt3nH.png
  • Options
    Typhoid MannyTyphoid Manny Registered User regular
    Olivaw wrote: »
    user wrote: »
    expendable wrote: »
    Some repubs have been whining about cancel culture just because they tried to support a coup.

    There should be a browser extension that changes "cancel culture" to "consequences for my actions"

    I wish this was just republicans, all of the centrist type people who I follow on podcasts, occasionally, keep trying to do the ol' false equivalency, a couple of them even parroting the same line 'wokeistan and magastan'.

    What did a country ending in 'stan, ever do to you, centrists?

    Even worse are the lefty types who are also "free speech advocates"

    Like you wanna talk about infuriating, try listening to someone you agree with on pretty much every important issue advocate for keeping fash on platforms because "censorship"

    this is a tough thing to talk about because of professional asshole trolls who just say bullshit under the guise of free speech (looking at you here glenn), but there's some very important stuff in there

    i think we need to start making a separation between issues of free speech (which i would argue doesn't meaningfully exist, but that's another thing) and mammoth technology companies coordinating with governments about what's acceptable and what's not on the platforms those companies own which are the main way people talk to each other basically worldwide. it's true that the first amendment doesn't apply to twitter and facebook and the like, but that's a failure of the people that wrote the constitution to predict what things would be like in 250 years and of politicians since who can't or won't update that 250 year old document so that it can be sanely applied to our modern hellworld much more than it's a reasonable way of delineating these things

    i'm not shedding any tears for the fascists that got banned from facebook and twitter or the parler dude going broke trying to keep his shit up, they're just getting the same treatment leftists have been getting this whole time, but the rules we're supposed to be following to figure out what speech is okay were written for a world that doesn't exist anymore. there's no public square where people can gather to hear someone speak where the first amendment actually would apply, literally every venue for exchanging ideas is privately owned by someone, and we need to be figuring out how to square the world we actually live in with some amendments that slave-owning assholes wrote five human lifetimes ago

    this issue applies to more than just Free Speech of course, it's a pretty basic reason for why the entire american empire is crumbling in the first place, but with all the shit going on lately it's pretty easy to look at it through this lens

    from each according to his ability, to each according to his need
    hitting hot metal with hammers
  • Options
    DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited January 2021
    I do find it odd how these so-called "free speech absolutists" only ever raise a stink when it's alt-right fucks or those who write apologia for neocons who face consequences for what they say and do. When it's loathsome individuals claiming to be "victims of cancel culture."

    But not when it's actual marginalized peoples being censored for talking about their existence and pushing back against normalization of bigotry.

    Sorry, did I say "odd?" I mean to say "real fucking suspicious."

    DarkPrimus on
  • Options
    XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    edited January 2021
    I would very much like for politicians to be able to be sued for outright lies

    like doctors, engineers, auto mechanics, and most every other job in the world

    Xaquin on
  • Options
    Typhoid MannyTyphoid Manny Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    I do find it odd how these so-called "free speech absolutists" only ever raise a stink when it's alt-right fucks or those who write apologia for neocons who face consequences for what they say and do. When it's loathsome individuals claiming to be "victims of cancel culture."

    But not when it's actual marginalized peoples being censored for talking about their existence and pushing back against normalization of bigotry.

    Sorry, did I say "odd?" I mean to say "real fucking suspicious."

    you are right to be suspicious. it absolutely sucks that basically the only people talking about this shit are clearly acting in bad faith, it makes it a lot harder to take seriously and get at the actual issues, but there's important stuff buried in there that i think is valuable to talk about

    from each according to his ability, to each according to his need
    hitting hot metal with hammers
  • Options
    DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited January 2021
    Since it's related and I never commented it on before the previous thread was locked, I'll also add that Glen Greenwald is one of those alt-right water-carrying fucks who hide behind the veneer of championing free speech, and I absolutely disagree with his tweets where he was wringing his hands about Amazon kicking Parler off their hosting services may lead to bad precedence.

    De-platforming fascists and enablers of fascists is not a slippery slope!

    DarkPrimus on
  • Options
    Typhoid MannyTyphoid Manny Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Since it's related and I never commented it on before the previous thread was locked, I'll also add that Glen Greenwald is one of those alt-right water-carrying fucks who hide behind the veneer of championing free speech, and I absolutely disagree with his tweets where he was wringing his hands about Amazon kicking Parler off their hosting services may lead to bad precedence.

    De-platforming fascists and enablers of fascists is not a slippery slope!

    that's kinda exactly my point though. amazon kicking parler off their service was probably the right call on their part, but facebook and twitter have contributed massively more to recruitment and organization of fascists than parler ever has, but they don't get kicked off the internet because they have clout with the political class

    it is good that parler is gone, but parler is small fry compared to the other guys. there probably won't ever be a proper reckoning where the people who've done the most damage get got, which means the actual problem won't ever be solved

    you're 100% right that it's not a slippery slope, but it should be

    from each according to his ability, to each according to his need
    hitting hot metal with hammers
  • Options
    DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Since it's related and I never commented it on before the previous thread was locked, I'll also add that Glen Greenwald is one of those alt-right water-carrying fucks who hide behind the veneer of championing free speech, and I absolutely disagree with his tweets where he was wringing his hands about Amazon kicking Parler off their hosting services may lead to bad precedence.

    De-platforming fascists and enablers of fascists is not a slippery slope!

    that's kinda exactly my point though. amazon kicking parler off their service was probably the right call on their part, but facebook and twitter have contributed massively more to recruitment and organization of fascists than parler ever has, but they don't get kicked off the internet because they have clout with the political class

    it is good that parler is gone, but parler is small fry compared to the other guys. there probably won't ever be a proper reckoning where the people who've done the most damage get got, which means the actual problem won't ever be solved

    you're 100% right that it's not a slippery slope, but it should be

    I agree with your issues about Facebook and Twitter and to that I would say that actual goddamn enforcement of their terms of service/codes of conduct/whatever would go a fair ways towards solving the problem.

    I'd also say that we need some anti-hate speech laws on the books and have existing laws on all sorts of things updated for the Internet Age but in both cases those need to be handled properly so that they aren't just ways for the same people causing the problem to craft smokescreen bills that just further enable beating down marginalized people (see: the history of most legislation).

  • Options
    JedocJedoc In the scuppers with the staggers and jagsRegistered User regular
    edited January 2021
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    I do find it odd how these so-called "free speech absolutists" only ever raise a stink when it's alt-right fucks or those who write apologia for neocons who face consequences for what they say and do. When it's loathsome individuals claiming to be "victims of cancel culture."

    But not when it's actual marginalized peoples being censored for talking about their existence and pushing back against normalization of bigotry.

    Sorry, did I say "odd?" I mean to say "real fucking suspicious."

    you are right to be suspicious. it absolutely sucks that basically the only people talking about this shit are clearly acting in bad faith, it makes it a lot harder to take seriously and get at the actual issues, but there's important stuff buried in there that i think is valuable to talk about

    So the thing about free speech absolutism is that it's complicated, in a way that not too many absolutisms are. I'm a librarian. I am, in many ways, committed to free speech absolutism. If you walk into my library and ask me what Joe M thinks about the state of the world, I will find you his books or his blogspot or his Parler feed or whatever and tell you what he's saying. I will try to bring up the last ten days of his Twitter feed via various internet archives and print them all out for ten cents a page if that's what you're after. I will not tell you that I think he's a dangerous maniac who is going to get a lot of people killed, because it is my role in society to fulfill what you think your information needs are without editorializing or making you feel bad for asking the question.

    I do this because I know across the country there are librarians who personally disagree with me on just about every point of politics, philosophy, gender theory, and cornbread recipes. And that it's important for people at all levels of information literacy to be able to get access to the information they want.

    I feel like this is different than social media algorithms amplifying echo chambers into ever-constricting circles of madness and paranoia, but this year has tested that feeling to a tremendous degree. All I know is that I keep directing people to the Bill O'Reilly books because Dick Cheney tried like hell to seize control of libraries when I was a student and it still scares the piss out of me.

    Anyway, I'm personally pleased as punch by the Great Deplatforming and I hope the Twitter guillotine keeps on rolling, but I'm professionally worried about how the internet evolves from here.

    Jedoc on
    GDdCWMm.jpg
  • Options
    Typhoid MannyTyphoid Manny Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Since it's related and I never commented it on before the previous thread was locked, I'll also add that Glen Greenwald is one of those alt-right water-carrying fucks who hide behind the veneer of championing free speech, and I absolutely disagree with his tweets where he was wringing his hands about Amazon kicking Parler off their hosting services may lead to bad precedence.

    De-platforming fascists and enablers of fascists is not a slippery slope!

    that's kinda exactly my point though. amazon kicking parler off their service was probably the right call on their part, but facebook and twitter have contributed massively more to recruitment and organization of fascists than parler ever has, but they don't get kicked off the internet because they have clout with the political class

    it is good that parler is gone, but parler is small fry compared to the other guys. there probably won't ever be a proper reckoning where the people who've done the most damage get got, which means the actual problem won't ever be solved

    you're 100% right that it's not a slippery slope, but it should be

    I agree with your issues about Facebook and Twitter and to that I would say that actual goddamn enforcement of their terms of service/codes of conduct/whatever would go a fair ways towards solving the problem.

    I'd also say that we need some anti-hate speech laws on the books and have existing laws on all sorts of things updated for the Internet Age but in both cases those need to be handled properly so that they aren't just ways for the same people causing the problem to craft smokescreen bills that just further enable beating down marginalized people (see: the history of most legislation).

    hell, facebook and twitter probably aren't even the worst culprits. this whole time all the major news corporations have been interviewing fascists to get their side of the story and shitting on those same fascists' victims and the only people willing to effectively fight them. that's probably even worse than the platforming facebook and twitter have done, and the shit they've gotten up to is seen as them doing a good job. as much as anyone they created this situation, on purpose to some extent, because it's been real good for selling ads, and they're barely ever even challenged on it

    as far as hate speech laws i pretty much agree with you. i don't know how effective they'd be but any amount of effective is necessary, and we functionally don't have free speech anyway unless we can afford a megaphone so there's not really a lot of downside (aside from the usual risk of a shitty law drafted on purpose to hurt the people it claims to be helping)

    shit's fucked down to the root level though. we need to be doing short-term patch type stuff to help people right now, but it'll only ever be short-term until we get at the causes

    from each according to his ability, to each according to his need
    hitting hot metal with hammers
  • Options
    DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Our media's "we have to hear from both sides on every issue, even if the 'issue' has been invented whole cloth as a political move, and any sane and loving person can see there's only one objectively true side to it" policy is definitely related to the mess we're currently in, but I think it's a separate albeit adjacent issue to free speech absolutism.

    Definitely ties into the "don't give platforms to fascists!" for sure

  • Options
    RoyceSraphimRoyceSraphim Registered User regular
    https://imgur.com/gallery/HTFUPus

    My brain is still processing all that happened and remembering all those concerts, soccer games, and black friday events where people died because the crowd pushed against immovable objects or multiple people tripped and were trampled.

  • Options
    ElendilElendil Registered User regular
    Xaquin wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    why does that person have a blue check

    are they a verified sociopath?

    absolutely, but I have no idea what the checkmark means
    generally, that

  • Options
    Typhoid MannyTyphoid Manny Registered User regular
    twitter delenda est

    from each according to his ability, to each according to his need
    hitting hot metal with hammers
  • Options
    useruser Registered User regular
    To chime in a bit more about free speech.

    I think where I am very much still firmly of the mind that its worth being a bit more towards free speech absolutist in that respect, is when we're talking about the powers that the state has to limit it.

    At the end of the day every good and just social movement has relied on the right to free speech to inform people of possibilities better than the status quo of the day and to grassroots organize towards upending the existing unjust social order.

    So I'm very much against the idea that we ought to invest the power of limiting free speech in the hands of the government, because while we may succeed in curbing speech that we disagree with in that moment, the self-same powers could be used to prevent justice when/if the character of the people who hold office change.

    As for what a business or other type of NGO chooses to do with their platform. Well it is what is, the government shouldn't compel them to make choices about they don't want to make. But they absolutely should be shamed for upholding a structure of communication and organizing for nakedly hateful and violent ideologies -- shame absolutely can be a powerful tool to making sure that bad ideas stay taboo. And honestly the one of the worst thing to happen under 4 years of Trump is that many of the things that were implicitly verboten in the social sphere, were suddenly 'okay' to say aloud again in the eyes of the people who held to those hateful beliefs.

    It was honestly a lot of work to get things to that point before Trump, and I can understand that cancel culture to some extent is an earnest attempt to counteract that backslide.

  • Options
    DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited January 2021
    user wrote: »
    To chime in a bit more about free speech.

    I think where I am very much still firmly of the mind that its worth being a bit more towards free speech absolutist in that respect, is when we're talking about the powers that the state has to limit it.

    At the end of the day every good and just social movement has relied on the right to free speech to inform people of possibilities better than the status quo of the day and to grassroots organize towards upending the existing unjust social order.

    So I'm very much against the idea that we ought to invest the power of limiting free speech in the hands of the government, because while we may succeed in curbing speech that we disagree with in that moment, the self-same powers could be used to prevent justice when/if the character of the people who hold office change.

    Other countries have anti-hate speech laws already that are carefully crafted. Some of those countries are among our closest allies. This isn't uncharted territory we're talking about.

    And bigotry isn't "speech that we disagree with in the moment." Bigotry takes many forms because human hate can adapt to anything, but like, transphobia isn't "of the moment." It's homophobia and misogyny with a hat on. It's always the same fucking playbooks, just with some of the buzzwords swapped out as necessary.

    DarkPrimus on
  • Options
    useruser Registered User regular
    Sorry maybe I inartfully worded my last point, but I didn't mean to imply that my dislike of hate speech was only momentary. I meant only that the momentary success of banning hate speech, could go sideways if a more nefarious party takes control of the government.

    I agree with your point about the targets of hate speech being on the same continuum.

  • Options
    nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    It's so fun how every time there is a discussion about the minimum wage a bunch of people with no idea what they are talking about jump on twitter to spread the propaganda they've absorbed about how raising the minimum wage will will raise the cost of everything and be terrible for everybody.

    Quire.jpg
  • Options
    facetiousfacetious a wit so dry it shits sandRegistered User regular
    Yeah, and also, like ... do they not realize that businesses collaborate to raise prices constantly, with or without minimum wage increases?

    "I am not young enough to know everything." - Oscar Wilde
    Real strong, facetious.

    Steam: Chagrin LoL: Bonhomie
  • Options
    I needed anime to post.I needed anime to post. boom Registered User regular
    the gipper told them how money works and he would NEVER lie!

    liEt3nH.png
  • Options
    ReynoldsReynolds Gone Fishin'Registered User regular
    I would actually like to know why raising the minimum wage wouldn't result in a ton of things becoming more expensive. Especially more than doubling it in some places.

    uyvfOQy.png
  • Options
    WyvernWyvern Registered User regular
    My feelings about free speech absolutism are fairly straightforward:

    Almost nobody believes that freedom of speech protects threats of violence.

    If a person is a member of a political movement whose goal is literally to turn your country into a fundamentalist white ethnostate, any discriminatory speech they make is implicitly a threat of violence, because its purpose is to mark the victim as an intended target of the genocide they're actively pushing to enact.

    Switch: SW-2431-2728-9604 || 3DS: 0817-4948-1650
  • Options
    SorceSorce Not ThereRegistered User regular
    edited January 2021
    CsKd3D1.png

    Sorce on
    sig.gif
  • Options
    I needed anime to post.I needed anime to post. boom Registered User regular
    Reynolds wrote: »
    I would actually like to know why raising the minimum wage wouldn't result in a ton of things becoming more expensive. Especially more than doubling it in some places.

    Prices are a fake thing made up by companies

    liEt3nH.png
  • Options
    BahamutZEROBahamutZERO Registered User, Moderator mod
    Reynolds wrote: »
    I would actually like to know why raising the minimum wage wouldn't result in a ton of things becoming more expensive. Especially more than doubling it in some places.

    I have heard anecdotally that the minimum wage in the US has been raised many times in the past before the current long stagnation, and those events did not cause the price of goods and services to go up appreciably. I don't know the economic theory behind it though.

    BahamutZERO.gif
  • Options
    3cl1ps33cl1ps3 I will build a labyrinth to house the cheese Registered User regular
    Corporations have done an astounding job convincing people that they operate at tiny margins and need to pass new costs on to the customer, when in reality most of them operate with hefty margins that enrich the executives and shareholders.

  • Options
    turtleantturtleant Gunpla Dad is the best.Registered User regular
    A soda you pay a dollar for at McDonald's costs them like $0.03 to make or some shit.

    If prices jump because of a minimum wage hike its cause executives couldnt stand making $20mil instead of $30mil every year.

    X22wmuF.jpg
  • Options
    I needed anime to post.I needed anime to post. boom Registered User regular
    I mean if you want to say that we should accompany the increase to minimum wage with more aggressive regulation of corporations to prevent the extortion of customers I can come with you

    liEt3nH.png
  • Options
    ReynoldsReynolds Gone Fishin'Registered User regular
    No I understand why it shouldn't, but why wouldn't it?

    uyvfOQy.png
  • Options
    CelloCello Registered User regular
    edited January 2021
    I don't have the data to back it up because it is 1am and I am about to pass out, but Ontario passed a $14 minimum wage back in...2018? (It should have been 15 but the Conservatives took over and nixed that)

    There were some small businesses that shuttered and blamed the min wage hike, but that was more an issue of them being so lean on their bottom line that they probably weren't super healthy to begin with

    Prices haven't changed in a way that I've heard people realistically cite the wage change for; I think things like interest rates and such play a larger role but economics has never been my forte

    Prices of meals out etc didn't like, triple or anything

    Cello on
    Steam
    3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
    Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
  • Options
    KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    turtleant wrote: »
    A soda you pay a dollar for at McDonald's costs them like $0.03 to make or some shit.

    DEy20BMUAAA-xkS.jpg

    waaaaaaaitaminute...

  • Options
    nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    facetious wrote: »
    Yeah, and also, like ... do they not realize that businesses collaborate to raise prices constantly, with or without minimum wage increases?

    I had this conversation sometime in the summer with some co-workers. The diner we worked at were rolling out new menus with price increases and they were happy to blame the California minimum wage increase. I had a good laugh at that. I've worked in service my whole adult life and so had they. I asked them hadn't they noticed that all these places increased their prices every year whether the minimum wage increased or not? Then I went about explaining how businesses set prices according to your average econ class. It's weird you get these people nodding along about the logic of each step and they still end up insisting prices will inflate massively the next time you have a conversation.
    Reynolds wrote: »
    I would actually like to know why raising the minimum wage wouldn't result in a ton of things becoming more expensive. Especially more than doubling it in some places.

    The first thing you should do is ask yourself two questions.

    Do you think businesses charge the most they think they can get away with?

    Do you think businesses pay their employees the most they can afford?

    The answer to both those questions seems pretty self-evident. If the answer to the first is "yes" and the second is "no" then that suggests a third question.

    If businesses are always charging as much as they possibly can and always paying their employees as little as they can then why would they have anything to do with one another?

    Quire.jpg
  • Options
    JavenJaven Registered User regular
    I don't want them NOT pass the minimum wage, but I hate that they will pass it and treat it as a solution.

    The moment the bill is signed, if it is signed, is the moment people should pick up their 'fight for 25' signs.

  • Options
    I needed anime to post.I needed anime to post. boom Registered User regular
    Throughout history, minimum wage increases have not correlated with conscious equivalent manipulation of prices. The economy as a whole broadly speaking likes it when people are spending more money in more places. It's a classic beancounter situation. If you can sell 10 items at $100, or 200 items at $10, the latter is preferable to you, because that's more money. We cannot stop prices from rising naturally over time, and some people may raise their prices because they believe that it will help them. But by and large more people spending money will be a net benefit to all involved.

    liEt3nH.png
  • Options
    BahamutZEROBahamutZERO Registered User, Moderator mod
    yeah absolutely, the original minimum wage would be $25 now if it had been tied to inflation.

    BahamutZERO.gif
This discussion has been closed.