4 ms·

"If you work in the other ecosystem, you probably feel right now that even suggesting what happened last Wednesday was not a coup in the literal sense of the wo

"If you work in the other ecosystem, you probably feel right now that even suggesting what happened last Wednesday was not a coup in the literal sense of the word (e.g. an attempt at seizing power with an actual chance of success) not only wouldn’t clear an editor, but might make you suspect in the eyes of co-workers, a potentially job-imperiling problem in this environment." This is pedantic and downplays what occurred.

gfodor 6y ago
Congratulations on your successful fishing expedition.
- metabagel 6y ago
  That isn't a substantive reply to my comment. Taibbi frequently argues that "both sides" are equally culpable. "Both sides do it" is a lazy argument which fails to make reasonable distinctions between two very different groups of people. In this case, his both-siderist argument is that liberal leaning journalists and commentators are just as guilty as those on the right, because they (according to him) feel pressured to use the word "coup" rather than the more accurate term "insurrection". We can do without this sort of pedantry. It's not sensationalizing the situation to call it an "attempted coup". It's very near to what happened, even if it's not the most accurate description. A bunch of thugs armed with blunt weapons, firearms, and zip ties for securing hostages broke into the capitol building with the stated intent of preventing the peaceful transition of power. Let's not downplay it simply because they were unsuccessful. Let's not be coy with word games.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    It is troubling that Trump disputes the recent election. It was also troubling when Democrats and news media firms disputed the previous election, but more so because that went on at least until Mueller embarrassed himself during Congressional testimony. At least in this sense, "both sides" is just the truth.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > It was also troubling when Democrats and news media firms disputed the previous election No substantial fraction of Democrats or the mainstream news media argued that the result that was certified and carried into execution of the 2016 election was not the proper, lawful result of the election. There was an argument that the successful campaign had committed illegal actions in an attempt to manipulate the public in regard to that election, and that those actions had some effect. And there was an argument that that conduct rendered the successful candidate unfit for office. But there was no substantial segment of the Democratic Party (especially no substantial segment of the Democratic Party elites like members in government or the defeated candidate) that argued that that misconduct rendered the election result invalid, and there was no armed attempt egged on by Democratic elites by supporters of the Democratic candidate to obstruct the electoral vote or the transfer of power to the elected Republican.
      - gfodor 6y ago
        The fact that this is where the argument has gone is revealing. The claims in 2016 was that it was for all intents and purposes stolen by a foreign adversary's interference, the investigative focus being if the candidate knowingly colluded to that end, not if it happened (many presumed it was the determining factor.) The claim in 2020 is that it was stolen by on-the-ground cheating, bending of the rules, exploitation of weaknesses in mail-in ballots, and, on the craziest track, a foreign government manipulating our election machines. In both cases, voters on the ground lost trust in the outcome of their election and felt foul play resulted in their loss. Democrats felt that the Russian government tipped the scales. Republicans now feel that Democrat bad actors tipped the scales. The semantics you state here are far afield from the thing that matters: distrust in elections as a pure expression of the will of the people and our government and media's inability to unwind that distrust. Where we sit now is those who feared foreign interference in 2016 are likely nowhere near they were in 2016 for two reasons. First, they had an investigation, and this probably mitigated a lot of people from believing their worst fears. Second, they've had another election which went their way and no such interference is being claimed, so at the very least one ought to conclude that this isn't enough to control an election. Where we also sit now is the newly aggrieved parties (approximately a third of the country if you believe polling) feel the election's outcome was determined by fraud. This is a real problem that will not go away, and needs to eventually be unwound somehow unless you want a war. I don't know how it happens, just like I would have had a hard time predicting how the former one unwound. But just like we shouldn't have ignored the first one, we can't ignore this one or pretend suppressing it will solve it: it won't.
  - gfodor 6y ago
    > In this case, his both-siderist argument is that liberal leaning journalists and commentators are just as guilty as those on the right, because they (according to him) feel pressured to use the word "coup" rather than the more accurate term "insurrection". This is a beautifully constructed strawman argument. Taibbi's claim is there a unified underlying incentive structure that has manifested in emergent behavior across all of the media. Your mental model about tribes is purely incidental: it is tribeless, so the idea of "sides" even coming into it is your own construction. The reason Taibbi uses the tribalist framing to articulate arguments is because it helps readers understand the alternative sub-incentives that lead to different emergent phenomena grounded in the same root incentives. The reason Taibbi's explanation should be taken seriously at this point, beyond it's intuitive explanatory power and first-principles oriented construction, is because it's proven itself quite predictive in the broad strokes of this march towards a civil war, even if it cannot predict the specifics.
    - metabagel 6y ago
      "Taibbi's claim is there a unified underlying incentive structure that has manifested in emergent behavior across all of the media." There are really two underlying incentive structures. 1) The media as a whole is incentivized by news which provokes an emotional reaction. 2) Fox "News" and other right-wing news and opinion sources operate as a disinformation/propaganda arm, formerly for the Republican Party, and now on behalf of Trump. In the first case, people are given news which is generally true, but tending toward the inflammatory and not necessarily newsworthy. In the second case, there is a campaign of falsehoods and attempts to discredit perceived enemies. These things are not the same.
      - gfodor 6y ago
        You're behind the times. Fox News (and specifically people like Karl Rove and Frank Luntz) invented this weapon around the time of 9/11, but it's now commoditized technology and the Nash equilibrium seems to be that it just eats the entire media, at least when it comes to mainstream newspapers and television news networks. A sure sign you are probably under its influence is if you see a clean partition in the way you mention. Those of us who see the propaganda for what it is, will try to convince you that you've lost the ability to recognize it in the narratives you agree with. It's hard to do, certainly, and nobody's perfect. And you don't have to believe us. I would say to apply Occam's Razor: could it be the case that the outlets you disagree with are transparent liars, but the ones you do agree with are the ones still applying, at least in general, journalistic standards? Or could it be that the incentives point in one direction, and the Fox News model has in fact eaten the world, but you haven't yet woken up to it? If one were brainwashed, seeing the world the way you do is exactly what you should expect. It doesn't mean you are, but you can't rule it out. It's a lot easier for me to rule it out when I can point to transparent lies from both sides, regularly, and dispassionately. We're going to keep trying to explain it to you since if we don't become critical thinkers again we're fucked.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    > It's very near to what happened, even if it's not the most accurate description. Does anyone have an obligation to use "the most accurate description", and if so, when? I'm not antagonistic to your POV, but I'm troubled by the sloppy language and lack of accurate descriptions. I am not sure how to reconcile my desire to avoid "coyness with word games" and my sense that accurate descriptions are really important.
    - metabagel 6y ago
      Everyone should use the most accurate description possible, and in fact many people have referred to the attack on the capitol building as an insurrection, which I think is a fair way to describe it. My issue with Taibbi is it seems like he is stretching for a way to say that both sides are equally culpable. That's the context of him arguing over word choice. On the one hand, you have people who are lying about the election and whipping people into a frenzy of rage and craziness. On the other hand, these people over here are really using the wrong word to describe the attack on the capitol building. These things are not the same.
trident5000 6y ago
Basically a bunch of beer belly rednecks who broke into a building after a protest/rally was over, yelled, and left in 6 hours with no plan whatsoever. Id hardly call that much of a planned out effort to overthrow a country.
- Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
  They did some photo-ops, knocked over some furniture, stole AOC's shoe collection, and took pelosi's lectern as a war trophy. It was a ruthless attack on our democracy.
  - metabagel 6y ago
    You're leaving out that they murdered a capitol police officer. People who were in the building have said they feared for their lives. Again, let's not downplay the seriousness of what happened.
    - Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
      I'm sure most of those people had weapons back at home. If they actually wanted to stage a coup, I'm pretty more than one police officer would have died. >Again, let's not downplay the seriousness of what happened. Let's not overplay it either.
  - trident5000 6y ago
    K well the summer riots caused 20 billion in damage and destroyed peoples livelihoods and we didnt hear of a coup when the fringe stormed the white house. I have no problem calling out both sides but the hyperbole seems to go one way.
- metabagel 6y ago
  All they had to do was kill a single Democratic Senator in order to shift the balance of power in Congress. They did bludgeon to death a capitol police officer. We're very fortunate that no member of Congress was taken hostage or killed.

gfodor 6y ago

Congratulations on your successful fishing expedition.

metabagel 6y ago
That isn't a substantive reply to my comment. Taibbi frequently argues that "both sides" are equally culpable. "Both sides do it" is a lazy argument which fails to make reasonable distinctions between two very different groups of people. In this case, his both-siderist argument is that liberal leaning journalists and commentators are just as guilty as those on the right, because they (according to him) feel pressured to use the word "coup" rather than the more accurate term "insurrection". We can do without this sort of pedantry. It's not sensationalizing the situation to call it an "attempted coup". It's very near to what happened, even if it's not the most accurate description. A bunch of thugs armed with blunt weapons, firearms, and zip ties for securing hostages broke into the capitol building with the stated intent of preventing the peaceful transition of power. Let's not downplay it simply because they were unsuccessful. Let's not be coy with word games.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  It is troubling that Trump disputes the recent election. It was also troubling when Democrats and news media firms disputed the previous election, but more so because that went on at least until Mueller embarrassed himself during Congressional testimony. At least in this sense, "both sides" is just the truth.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > It was also troubling when Democrats and news media firms disputed the previous election No substantial fraction of Democrats or the mainstream news media argued that the result that was certified and carried into execution of the 2016 election was not the proper, lawful result of the election. There was an argument that the successful campaign had committed illegal actions in an attempt to manipulate the public in regard to that election, and that those actions had some effect. And there was an argument that that conduct rendered the successful candidate unfit for office. But there was no substantial segment of the Democratic Party (especially no substantial segment of the Democratic Party elites like members in government or the defeated candidate) that argued that that misconduct rendered the election result invalid, and there was no armed attempt egged on by Democratic elites by supporters of the Democratic candidate to obstruct the electoral vote or the transfer of power to the elected Republican.
    - gfodor 6y ago
      The fact that this is where the argument has gone is revealing. The claims in 2016 was that it was for all intents and purposes stolen by a foreign adversary's interference, the investigative focus being if the candidate knowingly colluded to that end, not if it happened (many presumed it was the determining factor.) The claim in 2020 is that it was stolen by on-the-ground cheating, bending of the rules, exploitation of weaknesses in mail-in ballots, and, on the craziest track, a foreign government manipulating our election machines. In both cases, voters on the ground lost trust in the outcome of their election and felt foul play resulted in their loss. Democrats felt that the Russian government tipped the scales. Republicans now feel that Democrat bad actors tipped the scales. The semantics you state here are far afield from the thing that matters: distrust in elections as a pure expression of the will of the people and our government and media's inability to unwind that distrust. Where we sit now is those who feared foreign interference in 2016 are likely nowhere near they were in 2016 for two reasons. First, they had an investigation, and this probably mitigated a lot of people from believing their worst fears. Second, they've had another election which went their way and no such interference is being claimed, so at the very least one ought to conclude that this isn't enough to control an election. Where we also sit now is the newly aggrieved parties (approximately a third of the country if you believe polling) feel the election's outcome was determined by fraud. This is a real problem that will not go away, and needs to eventually be unwound somehow unless you want a war. I don't know how it happens, just like I would have had a hard time predicting how the former one unwound. But just like we shouldn't have ignored the first one, we can't ignore this one or pretend suppressing it will solve it: it won't.
- gfodor 6y ago
  > In this case, his both-siderist argument is that liberal leaning journalists and commentators are just as guilty as those on the right, because they (according to him) feel pressured to use the word "coup" rather than the more accurate term "insurrection". This is a beautifully constructed strawman argument. Taibbi's claim is there a unified underlying incentive structure that has manifested in emergent behavior across all of the media. Your mental model about tribes is purely incidental: it is tribeless, so the idea of "sides" even coming into it is your own construction. The reason Taibbi uses the tribalist framing to articulate arguments is because it helps readers understand the alternative sub-incentives that lead to different emergent phenomena grounded in the same root incentives. The reason Taibbi's explanation should be taken seriously at this point, beyond it's intuitive explanatory power and first-principles oriented construction, is because it's proven itself quite predictive in the broad strokes of this march towards a civil war, even if it cannot predict the specifics.
  - metabagel 6y ago
    "Taibbi's claim is there a unified underlying incentive structure that has manifested in emergent behavior across all of the media." There are really two underlying incentive structures. 1) The media as a whole is incentivized by news which provokes an emotional reaction. 2) Fox "News" and other right-wing news and opinion sources operate as a disinformation/propaganda arm, formerly for the Republican Party, and now on behalf of Trump. In the first case, people are given news which is generally true, but tending toward the inflammatory and not necessarily newsworthy. In the second case, there is a campaign of falsehoods and attempts to discredit perceived enemies. These things are not the same.
    - gfodor 6y ago
      You're behind the times. Fox News (and specifically people like Karl Rove and Frank Luntz) invented this weapon around the time of 9/11, but it's now commoditized technology and the Nash equilibrium seems to be that it just eats the entire media, at least when it comes to mainstream newspapers and television news networks. A sure sign you are probably under its influence is if you see a clean partition in the way you mention. Those of us who see the propaganda for what it is, will try to convince you that you've lost the ability to recognize it in the narratives you agree with. It's hard to do, certainly, and nobody's perfect. And you don't have to believe us. I would say to apply Occam's Razor: could it be the case that the outlets you disagree with are transparent liars, but the ones you do agree with are the ones still applying, at least in general, journalistic standards? Or could it be that the incentives point in one direction, and the Fox News model has in fact eaten the world, but you haven't yet woken up to it? If one were brainwashed, seeing the world the way you do is exactly what you should expect. It doesn't mean you are, but you can't rule it out. It's a lot easier for me to rule it out when I can point to transparent lies from both sides, regularly, and dispassionately. We're going to keep trying to explain it to you since if we don't become critical thinkers again we're fucked.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  > It's very near to what happened, even if it's not the most accurate description. Does anyone have an obligation to use "the most accurate description", and if so, when? I'm not antagonistic to your POV, but I'm troubled by the sloppy language and lack of accurate descriptions. I am not sure how to reconcile my desire to avoid "coyness with word games" and my sense that accurate descriptions are really important.
  - metabagel 6y ago
    Everyone should use the most accurate description possible, and in fact many people have referred to the attack on the capitol building as an insurrection, which I think is a fair way to describe it. My issue with Taibbi is it seems like he is stretching for a way to say that both sides are equally culpable. That's the context of him arguing over word choice. On the one hand, you have people who are lying about the election and whipping people into a frenzy of rage and craziness. On the other hand, these people over here are really using the wrong word to describe the attack on the capitol building. These things are not the same.

trident5000 6y ago

Basically a bunch of beer belly rednecks who broke into a building after a protest/rally was over, yelled, and left in 6 hours with no plan whatsoever. Id hardly call that much of a planned out effort to overthrow a country.

Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
They did some photo-ops, knocked over some furniture, stole AOC's shoe collection, and took pelosi's lectern as a war trophy. It was a ruthless attack on our democracy.
- metabagel 6y ago
  You're leaving out that they murdered a capitol police officer. People who were in the building have said they feared for their lives. Again, let's not downplay the seriousness of what happened.
  - Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
    I'm sure most of those people had weapons back at home. If they actually wanted to stage a coup, I'm pretty more than one police officer would have died. >Again, let's not downplay the seriousness of what happened. Let's not overplay it either.
- trident5000 6y ago
  K well the summer riots caused 20 billion in damage and destroyed peoples livelihoods and we didnt hear of a coup when the fringe stormed the white house. I have no problem calling out both sides but the hyperbole seems to go one way.
metabagel 6y ago
All they had to do was kill a single Democratic Senator in order to shift the balance of power in Congress. They did bludgeon to death a capitol police officer. We're very fortunate that no member of Congress was taken hostage or killed.