U.S. Politics: Leaving On A Jet Plane

[Kalbear]

I think this is another good explainer of why that bullshit 'economic anxiety' thing isn't really a thing. We've been here before - with the KKK - and it's not going to get better for a while.

Quote

 

It might be tempting to think of the Capitol rioters as fringe elements, rejects and losers already on the margins of society. But that was far from the case. In attendance that day, it now appears, were several off-duty police officers. There was the CEO of a Chicago-area tech company, the son of a Brooklyn judge, and more than a dozen state lawmakers. And, of course, the mob was encouraged ahead of the riot by members of Congress and President Trump himself.

It all goes back to a larger truth about white supremacist movements in America: They haven’t been composed, as some claim, of poor white people disenfranchised by society. Instead, they’ve often included supposed pillars of the community — professionals, businesspeople, and especially law enforcement officials.

Indeed, all these were represented in one of the best-known white supremacist groups in American history, the Ku Klux Klan. Linda Gordon, a history professor at New York University and the author of The Second Coming of the KKK: The Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s and the American Political Tradition, has studied the makeup of the group, especially during the 1920s when its activities became much more overt and open. And, she told Vox, the Klan, which at one point required the payment of significant entry fees, was “not an organization of poor people.”

 

 

[S John]

6 hours ago, Mindwalker said:

I wasn't talking about guests with radically different viewpoints. I was talking about nutcases arguing in bad faith, firmly rooted in a made-up world instead of reality, spewing lies and hatred. There's a difference. But yeah, I guess I should have trusted some of those viewers more, then they wouldn't have felt so oppressed as to pay a visit to the Capitol.

PS: Sorry, keyboard is very wonky.  I almst posted half of this in all caps...

PPS: Nice touch, "to each their own". https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedem_das_Seine#/media/Datei:Buchenwald_Schild_Jedem_das_Seine.jpg

Jesus, please spare me. Bill Maher talking to Ann Coulter and there being a legitimate non hate-filled audience from that is a far cry from the fucking Holocaust. 

[S John]

6 hours ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

I think its really really clear that about 20-30% of the general population cannot be trusted to discern the bad in the world, @S John. So you might be able to - and then your buddy genuinely believes that there is a satanic pedophile ring being run that only Trump can fix. 

I mean seriously - how can anyone at this point think that people as a rule are good at being able to reasonably tell the difference between fact and silliness given the last 4 years? That idea was already on thin ice - now it should be abundantly clear that it isnt the case. And as someone who supposedly bases their viewpoints on facts, it seems odd to willfully ignore that in favor of the thing you want to believe. 

I definitely agree with this in terms of not being able to trust the general population to make the right decision. I am resisting the idea that we MUST design media with the lowest common denominator in mind. I absolutely hate the idea that I shouldn't be able watch hosts that I enjoy engage with people I don’t enjoy because there are too many morons out there who won’t recognize who the fool is in the exchange. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I did say early on that the interviewer has to be critical. Sometimes Maher is, sometimes he's not, but he still delivers a platform that can get notable conservatives on it and subject them to criticism. That doesn't happen a lot these days.

 

1 hour ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

It really doesn't matter. Criticalness doesn't matter in the least. The only thing that matters is that their actual presence gives them and their views legitimacy that is unwarranted.

It is FAR better to keep them in the shadows and away from any mainstream. Again, we now have absurdly ample evidence that this is the case. How is anyone able to think otherwise while taking the evidence we have into play? 

It matters a lot. Being critical is one thing, being prepared is another. Having the former without the latter is actually the worst scenario because it gives the false impression that the person's views can stand up to scrutiny.

I have mixed feelings with the second part. Clearly there are people who don't deserve a mainstream platform; flat earthers, creationists (young earth or otherwise), people promoting idiotic race theories, misogynists, etc; but what happens when someone as absurd as Dinesh D'Souza or Ben Shapiro can get on a debate stage with actual serious people or Ingram and Hannity can access an audience of millions in prime time TV? 

I for one, would not be without Ben Shapiro's disastrous interview on the BBC or watching Dave Rubin digging for a justification to not debate Sam Seder. 

1 hour ago, GrimTuesday said:

Wait, going on Maher's show hurt Sam Harris? They are basically the same person except Maher doesn't exclusively speak in a monotone.

After his encounter with Ben Affleck, his career took a considerable nosedive. Harris complained it derailed the promotional campaign for whatever book he was hawking at the time. It turns out when the Bat Man calls you a racist on live Tee Tee, it leaves a mark. 

[OldGimletEye]

31 minutes ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

I think this is another good explainer of why that bullshit 'economic anxiety' thing isn't really a thing. We've been here before - with the KKK - and it's not going to get better for a while.

 

In Richard Evans trilogy about Nazi Germany he makes the point that the Great Depression gave the Nazi Party a new lease on life. He also says that most of the working classes stayed more or less loyal to the Social Democratic Party and didn't switch over to the Nazis. If anything, they went to the communist. This seems contradictory. But, if we understand that people may switch to right wing parties not because of personal pocketbook issues, but because of a perception of general decline, then it makes more sense.

David Autor found increasing radicalism because of Chinese import penetration. Colante and Stanig found generally the same phenomena in England (higher import penetration increased the vote for Brexit).

Its true to say that personal pocketbook issues don't cause people to go right wing.

It's not true to say various economic issues won't cause right wing radicalization.

The left needs to understand the distinction I think,

 

[DMC]

@horangi

Finally got around to looking up that old thread you mentioned a couple nights ago.  You did indeed suggest an impending meteor strike and I did indeed respond by dismissively calling it "hollywood bureaucracy."  Good times.  Here's your post from the thread:

 

[kairparavel]

Hurray!

https://apnews.com/article/biden-inauguration-joe-biden-capitol-siege-ap-top-news-857bacc273e16ff82dc9fefed1242ae8

Quote

U.S. defense officials say they are worried about an insider attack or other threat from service members involved in securing President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration, prompting the FBI to vet all of the 25,000 National Guard troops coming into Washington for the event.

 

[polishgenius]

I'm with Kalbear on the giving time to the extremists thing. Like yeah, being on TV and challenged will make them look silly or unacceptable to lots, but many will just defend them and jump on the interviewer as inappropriate anyway. You got a whole Trump presidency out of engaging with the whackos. The UK got Brexit out of engaging minority views until they were majority. Germany gave the AfD space. The vast majority of them aren't gonna Milo themselves and come out for child molsetation, so you're just giving them air. Don't do it. You're not gonna logic them out of existence, they're far better off screaming at each other where the majority cannot see them.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

19 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

In Richard Evans trilogy about Nazi Germany he makes the point that the Great Depression gave the Nazi Party a new lease on life. He also says that most of the working classes stayed more or less loyal to the Social Democratic Party and didn't switch over to the Nazis. If anything, they went to the communist. This seems contradictory. But, if we understand that people may switch to right wing parties not because of personal pocketbook issues, but because of a perception of general decline, then it makes more sense.

 

You could also look at modern day Greece. I don't think it's a coincidence that Golden Dawn has seen a resurgence since the GFC.

I don't know how it lines up with Evans', but  Mark Blyth also talks about this in his book on austerity.

The first minute or so on Pre WW2 Germany and Japan. 

 

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

 

I for one, would not be without Ben Shapiro's disastrous interview on the BBC or watching Dave Rubin digging for a justification to not debate Sam Seder. 

 

Ben Shapiro is routinely the #1 person on Facebook. Clearly that didn't hurt him at all. 

[Martell Spy]

Biden taps Warren ally Chopra to lead Consumer Bureau
The selection of Chopra signals the Biden administration plans to return the CFPB to the more-muscular posture of its early days.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/17/biden-rohit-chopra-consumer-bureau-460086

Quote

 

President-elect Joe Biden will nominate Rohit Chopra to be the next director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, according to four sources familiar with the decision, choosing a strong consumer advocate aligned with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

If confirmed, Chopra, now a member of the Federal Trade Commission, would be returning to helm an agency he helped Warren set up after its establishment by the landmark Dodd-Frank financial reform law of 2010.

 

 

[Morpheus]

Man, who could have known before two weeks ago that fascists and white supremacists were rampant in law enforcement and the military? Good thing we caught that in time.

[TheLastWolf]

If the USA saw what is going on in the USA, the USA would invade the USA to save the USA from the USA. Said by someone who knows that the problem with USA is the USA itself 

[Hereward]

3 minutes ago, TheLastWolf said:

If the USA saw what is going on in the USA, the USA would invade the USA to save the USA from the USA. Said by someone who knows that the problem with USA is the USA itself 

They wouldn’t. Coups from the right don’t count.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Impressed with Biden's talk on immigration.  I was not expecting something that broad, and especially not so soon.  I'm hopeful in general,  but also skeptical about seriously reining in ICE when it comes to harassing and persecuting immigrants.

[Heartofice]

9 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

 

It matters a lot. Being critical is one thing, being prepared is another. Having the former without the latter is actually the worst scenario because it gives the false impression that the person's views can stand up to scrutiny.

I have mixed feelings with the second part. Clearly there are people who don't deserve a mainstream platform; flat earthers, creationists (young earth or otherwise), people promoting idiotic race theories, misogynists, etc; but what happens when someone as absurd as Dinesh D'Souza or Ben Shapiro can get on a debate stage with actual serious people or Ingram and Hannity can access an audience of millions in prime time TV? 

I for one, would not be without Ben Shapiro's disastrous interview on the BBC or watching Dave Rubin digging for a justification to not debate Sam Seder. 

After his encounter with Ben Affleck, his career took a considerable nosedive. Harris complained it derailed the promotional campaign for whatever book he was hawking at the time. It turns out when the Bat Man calls you a racist on live Tee Tee, it leaves a mark. 

Didn’t the Ben Affleck thing actually make his career? Not sure he’d be even known at all without it.

Dave Rubin’s stupidity has been exposed by sunlight, just watch his interview with Rogan and you can see the life drain out of him.  That might have been the end of him.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 hours ago, polishgenius said:

I'm with Kalbear on the giving time to the extremists thing. Like yeah, being on TV and challenged will make them look silly or unacceptable to lots, but many will just defend them and jump on the interviewer as inappropriate anyway. You got a whole Trump presidency out of engaging with the whackos. The UK got Brexit out of engaging minority views until they were majority. Germany gave the AfD space. The vast majority of them aren't gonna Milo themselves and come out for child molsetation, so you're just giving them air. Don't do it. You're not gonna logic them out of existence, they're far better off screaming at each other where the majority cannot see them.

Here's the rub though. It doesn't sound like the argument is don't give air time to extremists. It sounds like the argument is not to give air time to conservatives. 

[Week]

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Here's the rub though. It doesn't sound like the argument is don't give air time to extremists. It sounds like the argument is not to give air time to conservatives. 

I was thinking about this last night. At this point, conservative pundits have absolutely no value. Really any of them. None of them are particularly connected to actual policy making -- I mean, the GOP itself is not connected to actual policy making. The GOP has committed itself to thirsting for *nigh* unimpeachable authority via executive and judiciary while creating dust ups in the culture wars.

Bring on governors and some of the few politicians that at least pretend to have an interest in the actual governing and legislation in the country.

What's the point of another argument over the humanity of immigrants, murder of babies, or divine right to guns. It's asinine.

eta- I would say the same for many -- though not necessarily most -- of liberal pundits as well.

Reminder of the ideological consistency of the right -- 

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

33 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Here's the rub though. It doesn't sound like the argument is don't give air time to extremists. It sounds like the argument is not to give air time to conservatives. 

Put on people who don't advocate conspiracy theories and who haven't tried to subvert a legitimate election.  Just because half of the party are extremists doesn't mean you have to out them on.  Madison Cawthorne doesn't need to be heard out on a round table.

Criticize them in a format that allows it.  I'd also point out that the wonderful clip of Shapiro that TN linked is a conservative host doing it.  Shapiro won't even go on any left of right program because he knows he'd be destroyed rhetorically very quickly- and yet he's still popular as ever, as Kal pointed out.

[Week]

Wow. Black mirror distilled awfulness of Facebook.