7 ms·

>in 15 years, the U.S. becomes Germany, pre-WW2 >the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. The irony of censoring people being, “the price of freedom”. Seri

>in 15 years, the U.S. becomes Germany, pre-WW2 >the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. The irony of censoring people being, “the price of freedom”. Serious question, why do you think that disenfranchising groups of their ability to communicate online is going to prevent social strife and violence instead of intensifying it? Banning theDonald didn’t help, the Daily Stormer being banished from the web didn’t change anything, kicking so many reactionaries off of Twitter that they went off to make Gab didn’t help, and destroying Parler and kicking Trump off social media isn’t going to help. How is silencing a group that feels oppressed going to help anything? This, “conservatives are turning into literal nazis” narrative is extremely toxic to public discourse and needs to completely stop.

LargeWu 6y ago
You know what's even more toxic? Literal Nazis and fascists, the ranks of which have been, if not growing, then clearly emboldened. This group "feels oppressed" because they are not able to exert their will to oppress others. This is not a morally defensible position. So please, spare us the gaslighting about the level of discourse. It has the same energy as an abusive husband saying "Look what you made me do!" The discourse has become toxic because fascism is toxic.
- michannne 6y ago
  This comment highlights how ridiculously politicized HN has become. Just an hour ago this post was downvoted, and somehow has been upvoted despite not adding anything to the discussion >You know what's even more toxic? Literal Nazis and fascists, the ranks of which have been, if not growing, then clearly emboldened. What does the word literal even mean at this point? What is fascism to you? What is Nazism to you? >This group "feels oppressed" because they are not able to exert their will to oppress others. How is this sentence even appearing on a thread about an app getting removed because they refused to force more stringent moderation onto their users?
  - Jochim 6y ago
    There actually were literal Nazis there though... > An image of Packer inside the Capitol, whose sweatshirt bore the name of the Nazi concentration camp where about 1.1 million people were killed during World War II, has evoked shock and disbelief on social media. The bottom of his shirt stated, "Work brings freedom," which is the rough translation of the phrase "Arbeit macht frei" that was on the concentration camp's gates.[1] Apparently the back read "Staff"[2]. While maybe not "literal" Nazis themselves, the people there seem perfectly happy to associate with and receive the support of literal Nazis. [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/10/politics/man-camp-auschwitz-sweatshirt-capitol-riot-identified/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_allpolitics+%28RSS%3A+CNN+-+Politics%29 https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/10/politics/man-camp-auschwi... [2] https://twitter.com/MrTAchilles/status/1346996921282531328 https://twitter.com/MrTAchilles/status/1346996921282531328
    - LargeWu 6y ago
      Not to mention, in recent years there's been a rise in adoption of Nazi symbology: 88, Nazi salute, swastikas obviously, plus co-opting of Norse runes and symbols they perceive as associated with the Aryan race. But it's not just Nazis that are the problem. They're clearly in the minority. There's growing interest in garden variety fascism. Some of the hallmarks of that are nationalism, militarism, submission to authority, anti-intellectualism, fomenting fear of "the other" and outsiders. Umberto Eco has a list [1] that encapsulates and explains these. And, I'm sorry, but a lot of these describe the trajectory of the current Republican Party, especially under Trump's rule. (note: I think the GOP has largely abandoned what we would call "conservatism". Even though many of those left in the party might self-identify as conservative, they have veered into fascist ideology, they just won't admit it) [1] https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list...
    - Frondo 6y ago
      What are we supposed to make of people carrying the Confederate flag, as well? The Confederate States of America fought a civil war to preserve the enslavement of Black people (as specifically mentioned in most of the state constitutions of the CSA states)- what message are they trying to send by bringing that flag to the capitol building?
bigfudge 6y ago
But the thing is, have you actually read the stuff on Parker this is about? These people are actively inciting violence. Their leaders are encouraging violent assaults on democratic institutions. They really aren’t that different from what happened in Germany in the late 20s and 30s. Whether they also come to resemble Germany in the late 30s is irrelevant.
- riversflow 6y ago
  >These people are actively inciting violence. Err, so what?, the supreme court has a pretty strict definition per Brandenburg. And I agree with the court's opinion there, > "These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone advocating for it, especially from behind a keyboard, actually expected storming the capital to happen, and it seems like it only happened as a result of law enforcement essentially giving it it's blessing. As pointed out by your sibling comment, calling a group of people who mostly milled around the capital "insurrectionists" is just fallacious, and tells you how loaded this whole thing is. I'm extremely concerned that this spectacle is going to be used to curtail our liberties the same way 9/11 was used to pass the Patriot act. I feel like I'm in crazy town when I see so much being done to stop "inciting violence". Isn't it ultimately the responsibility of the public to not act on such incitements? When a group becomes sufficiently disenfranchised the most radical members transition from trying to make peaceful change to calling for revolution. If the disenfranchisement continues unabated more and more members of the group will be convinced of the need for action. This is fundamentally why the U.S. exists, and I think it is the right of the oppressed group to self-advocate and self-determine. So in that sense I don't think that anyone can honestly say that calls for violence are never appropriate. Any revolution, even a velvet one, is going to have some fringe of people calling for violence or it will never come about. Should western media have shut down the Arab spring for the same reason? What about #freepalestine? There were plenty of calls for violence against Trump, and nobody seemed too concerned. Should Kathy Griffin have been blackballed? If we define this group of people as predominantly non-college educated, non-hispanic white males, then we are talking about a group whose deaths of despair (suicide and drug overdose) rate has tripled in the last twenty years, a trend that has likely intensified significantly during the lockdown [1]. Now I could be wrong, but I don't think they are killing themselves because they aren't allowed to be racist, rather I think it's because non-college educated rural americans[2] are being and have been marginalized.[3] Perhaps we should try and lift this group up instead of grinding them down and using them as a scape goat for problems primarily related to wealth inequality. [1]https://www.sciencenews.org/article/deaths-of-despair-depression-mental-health-covid-19-pandemic https://www.sciencenews.org/article/deaths-of-despair-depres... [2]https://www.americancommunities.org/chapter/american-communities-experience-deaths-of-despair-at-uneven-rates/ https://www.americancommunities.org/chapter/american-communi... [3]https://www.the74million.org/article/solving-the-rural-education-gap-experts-weigh-in-on-new-reports-findings-tying-gap-to-prosperity/ https://www.the74million.org/article/solving-the-rural-educa... e: formatting
peeters 6y ago
People need to stop hiding behind the first amendment and "but censorship" as a way of allowing democracy-threatening activity. Speech has ALWAYS had limitations. You cannot yell "fire" in a movie theatre. You cannot publish falsehoods that harm a person's reputation. You cannot reveal classified information. You cannot imitate a police officer. Why is "you cannot incite violent terrorism" suddenly controversial? Particularly when these are private corporations making the decisions, who are not duty-bound to enable free spech in the first place?
- riversflow 6y ago
  >democracy-threatening activity. Yes, like handing the keys to public discourse over to a private corporation and then defending their right to censor it as they please. >You cannot yell "fire" in a movie theatre. Actually, you can. This is protected by Brandenberg as I understand it. >You cannot publish falsehoods that harm a person's reputation. Sure, thats defamation. I agree that should be illegal. >You cannot reveal classified information. You can also sign an NDA! >Why is "you cannot incite violent terrorism" suddenly controversial? Because without the freedom to "incite violent terrorism" we are essentially captive to the whims of the government. To quote Thomas Jefferson. "What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure."[1] The whole letter I take this quote from is worth a read. [1]https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/tree-liberty-quotation https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/tre... edit: formatting
  - rovolo 6y ago
    >>You cannot yell "fire" in a movie theatre. >Actually, you can. This is protected by Brandenberg as I understand it. Brandenberg says that the government can't restrict inflammatory speech unless it's "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". The case specifies three requirements for punishing speech: 'intent', 'immenent lawless action', and 'likely to incite'. Shouting 'fire' is discussed in the opinion as potentially prosecutable: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/ > The line between what is permissible and not subject to control and what may be made impermissible and subject to regulation is the line between ideas and overt acts. > The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre. > This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. See Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 357 U. S. 536-537 (DOUGLAS, J., concurring). They are indeed inseparable, and a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused. Apart from rare instances of that kind, speech is, I think, immune from prosecution. Certainly there is no constitutional line between advocacy of abstract ideas, as in Yates, and advocacy of political action, as in Scales. The quality of advocacy turns on the depth of the conviction, and government has no power to invade that sanctuary of belief and conscience. P.S. the theater company can ban you for being a nuisance even if it's not illegal.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
henry_bone 6y ago
Downvoted Really!? What the fuck for?? Parler's app was the number one download on the app store & play store after Trump was kicked off Twitter. Then apple and google decided that Parler was not going to be a platform Trump could use, so they kicked the app off. Then amazon decided that Parler had no place on their computing resources. Those 2 tweets were interpreted as they were, to suit the political leanings of those tech companies and their political allies. And a legitimate competitor was destroyed into the bargain. This is not reasonable and it is antithetical to the freedoms on which your great nation was founded. If you, dear HN reader, can't see the threat to your freedom in this then you are blind. The US democracy may be under stress, so to speak, but it does seem to be working. The democrats will have their man in the white house. Trump will leave. Oh, and to call that invasion of the capitol an attempted coup is a real stretch. What were they ever going to do other than get arrested??
- eli_gottlieb 6y ago
  >Oh, and to call that invasion of the capitol an attempted coup is a real stretch. What were they ever going to do other than get arrested?? This reminds me of far-leftists refusing to admit that Islamist terrorism should be counted as terrorism, because, after all, what was killing a few people in an LGBT nightclub going to accomplish for ISIS?
  - henry_bone 6y ago
    My problem is with the description of that action as a "coup". I'm not defending those people. I'm not informed well enough to do that. But a coup? I don't think so. Coups generally rely on military support, or some sort of established basis for taking and holding political power. This was not a coup. Or it was the shittest one ever.
    - LargeWu 6y ago
      If you consider that their aim was to overturn an election by force, then yes, it was a coup attempt. I think they were counting on the military and law enforcement rank-and-file (which overwhelmingly support Trump) to join them.
eli_gottlieb 6y ago
>This, “conservatives are turning into literal nazis” narrative is extremely toxic to public discourse and needs to completely stop. I would never refer to a conservative who recognizes the legitimate results of our free and fair elections as a Nazi! Now the question is, why in the flying MOTHERFUCK do I need that qualifier?
- agensaequivocum 6y ago
  I am a conservative who doesn't think it was stolen. But I have to point out the double standard. For ~3 years democrats claimed trump only won 2016 because Putin helped him. And they claimed for months that Stacy Ambrams was the actual winner of the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial race. Now Republicans are the devil for not accepting this election?
  - selectodude 6y ago
    >For ~3 years democrats claimed trump only won 2016 because Putin helped him. Of which there was concrete proof of election meddling by Russia. Obviously we can't litigate what-ifs, but I'm not sure how the two can be separated. >Stacey Abrams was the actual winner of the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial race. The guy she was running against was the secretary of state at the time and passed several laws that were very clearly meant to suppress voter turnout before an election that he was standing in. >Now Republicans are the devil for not accepting this election? Yes, and for inciting violence and beating a police officer to death with a flag of the steps of the Capitol while saying the pledge of allegiance. Either work to make sure it never happens again or be inextricably linked to it.
    - agensaequivocum 6y ago
      Case and point.
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    > Now Republicans are the devil for not accepting this election? Now? You do realize that the current president is the ringleader of birtherism, right?
PopsiclePete 6y ago
So what do we do instead? Just continue down this path until 75% of Americans "feel oppressed" and that "BLM and Antifa and Democrats are Marxists and enemies of the people"? Yeah? 'cause that's not working out. Or are you kind of thinking it is working out and it's your desired outcome? The Right is excellent at projecting and playing "the victim" so I wouldn't be surprised.
hinkley 6y ago
Here's the thing. If you've paid attention for more than fifteen minutes to feminists complaining about mistreatment, you'd know that one of the oldest tricks in the deflection playbook is to play the "agreeableness" card, asking people to calm down and be reasonable. At its best, it's a delaying tactic, playing for time while you continue to enjoy the fruits of inequality. I don't like it when it happens to women. I'm sure as hell not going to tolerate it being turned toward me. When they say "literal nazis", they mean literal nazis, not figurative nazis. I don't think the entire GOP it turning into Nazis. I can't recall the last time I heard someone say they believed it. However, I don't think every German, or even most Germans, in WWII were Nazis either. That didn't stop the Nazis from being in charge. It barely slowed them down. In order to get his 49% of the votes, #45 had to scrape the bottom of the barrel, courting every non-liberal element of society. The GOP leadership has publicly recognized these groups and groups like them as members of Team GOP. They seated them at a table as if they deserve to be peers with the folks you claim to represent. Let me ask you a serious question. Was it worth it to win that way? Really? What entitles anyone who says 'yes' or 'maybe' to be painted with a separate brush from the people who delivered the victory at "any cost"? If getting you, or all of us really, looking in the mirror is going to be predicated on treating you with the respect you plan to earn once they've treated you as if you've earned it, then buddy, you're going to be disrespected for an awful long time. Read the warnings, take some umbrage. I certainly am.

LargeWu 6y ago

You know what's even more toxic? Literal Nazis and fascists, the ranks of which have been, if not growing, then clearly emboldened. This group "feels oppressed" because they are not able to exert their will to oppress others. This is not a morally defensible position. So please, spare us the gaslighting about the level of discourse. It has the same energy as an abusive husband saying "Look what you made me do!" The discourse has become toxic because fascism is toxic.

michannne 6y ago
This comment highlights how ridiculously politicized HN has become. Just an hour ago this post was downvoted, and somehow has been upvoted despite not adding anything to the discussion >You know what's even more toxic? Literal Nazis and fascists, the ranks of which have been, if not growing, then clearly emboldened. What does the word literal even mean at this point? What is fascism to you? What is Nazism to you? >This group "feels oppressed" because they are not able to exert their will to oppress others. How is this sentence even appearing on a thread about an app getting removed because they refused to force more stringent moderation onto their users?
- Jochim 6y ago
  There actually were literal Nazis there though... > An image of Packer inside the Capitol, whose sweatshirt bore the name of the Nazi concentration camp where about 1.1 million people were killed during World War II, has evoked shock and disbelief on social media. The bottom of his shirt stated, "Work brings freedom," which is the rough translation of the phrase "Arbeit macht frei" that was on the concentration camp's gates.[1] Apparently the back read "Staff"[2]. While maybe not "literal" Nazis themselves, the people there seem perfectly happy to associate with and receive the support of literal Nazis. [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/10/politics/man-camp-auschwitz-sweatshirt-capitol-riot-identified/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_allpolitics+%28RSS%3A+CNN+-+Politics%29 https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/10/politics/man-camp-auschwi... [2] https://twitter.com/MrTAchilles/status/1346996921282531328 https://twitter.com/MrTAchilles/status/1346996921282531328
  - LargeWu 6y ago
    Not to mention, in recent years there's been a rise in adoption of Nazi symbology: 88, Nazi salute, swastikas obviously, plus co-opting of Norse runes and symbols they perceive as associated with the Aryan race. But it's not just Nazis that are the problem. They're clearly in the minority. There's growing interest in garden variety fascism. Some of the hallmarks of that are nationalism, militarism, submission to authority, anti-intellectualism, fomenting fear of "the other" and outsiders. Umberto Eco has a list [1] that encapsulates and explains these. And, I'm sorry, but a lot of these describe the trajectory of the current Republican Party, especially under Trump's rule. (note: I think the GOP has largely abandoned what we would call "conservatism". Even though many of those left in the party might self-identify as conservative, they have veered into fascist ideology, they just won't admit it) [1] https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list...
  - Frondo 6y ago
    What are we supposed to make of people carrying the Confederate flag, as well? The Confederate States of America fought a civil war to preserve the enslavement of Black people (as specifically mentioned in most of the state constitutions of the CSA states)- what message are they trying to send by bringing that flag to the capitol building?

bigfudge 6y ago

But the thing is, have you actually read the stuff on Parker this is about? These people are actively inciting violence. Their leaders are encouraging violent assaults on democratic institutions. They really aren’t that different from what happened in Germany in the late 20s and 30s. Whether they also come to resemble Germany in the late 30s is irrelevant.

riversflow 6y ago
>These people are actively inciting violence. Err, so what?, the supreme court has a pretty strict definition per Brandenburg. And I agree with the court's opinion there, > "These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone advocating for it, especially from behind a keyboard, actually expected storming the capital to happen, and it seems like it only happened as a result of law enforcement essentially giving it it's blessing. As pointed out by your sibling comment, calling a group of people who mostly milled around the capital "insurrectionists" is just fallacious, and tells you how loaded this whole thing is. I'm extremely concerned that this spectacle is going to be used to curtail our liberties the same way 9/11 was used to pass the Patriot act. I feel like I'm in crazy town when I see so much being done to stop "inciting violence". Isn't it ultimately the responsibility of the public to not act on such incitements? When a group becomes sufficiently disenfranchised the most radical members transition from trying to make peaceful change to calling for revolution. If the disenfranchisement continues unabated more and more members of the group will be convinced of the need for action. This is fundamentally why the U.S. exists, and I think it is the right of the oppressed group to self-advocate and self-determine. So in that sense I don't think that anyone can honestly say that calls for violence are never appropriate. Any revolution, even a velvet one, is going to have some fringe of people calling for violence or it will never come about. Should western media have shut down the Arab spring for the same reason? What about #freepalestine? There were plenty of calls for violence against Trump, and nobody seemed too concerned. Should Kathy Griffin have been blackballed? If we define this group of people as predominantly non-college educated, non-hispanic white males, then we are talking about a group whose deaths of despair (suicide and drug overdose) rate has tripled in the last twenty years, a trend that has likely intensified significantly during the lockdown [1]. Now I could be wrong, but I don't think they are killing themselves because they aren't allowed to be racist, rather I think it's because non-college educated rural americans[2] are being and have been marginalized.[3] Perhaps we should try and lift this group up instead of grinding them down and using them as a scape goat for problems primarily related to wealth inequality. [1]https://www.sciencenews.org/article/deaths-of-despair-depression-mental-health-covid-19-pandemic https://www.sciencenews.org/article/deaths-of-despair-depres... [2]https://www.americancommunities.org/chapter/american-communities-experience-deaths-of-despair-at-uneven-rates/ https://www.americancommunities.org/chapter/american-communi... [3]https://www.the74million.org/article/solving-the-rural-education-gap-experts-weigh-in-on-new-reports-findings-tying-gap-to-prosperity/ https://www.the74million.org/article/solving-the-rural-educa... e: formatting

peeters 6y ago

People need to stop hiding behind the first amendment and "but censorship" as a way of allowing democracy-threatening activity. Speech has ALWAYS had limitations. You cannot yell "fire" in a movie theatre. You cannot publish falsehoods that harm a person's reputation. You cannot reveal classified information. You cannot imitate a police officer. Why is "you cannot incite violent terrorism" suddenly controversial? Particularly when these are private corporations making the decisions, who are not duty-bound to enable free spech in the first place?

riversflow 6y ago
>democracy-threatening activity. Yes, like handing the keys to public discourse over to a private corporation and then defending their right to censor it as they please. >You cannot yell "fire" in a movie theatre. Actually, you can. This is protected by Brandenberg as I understand it. >You cannot publish falsehoods that harm a person's reputation. Sure, thats defamation. I agree that should be illegal. >You cannot reveal classified information. You can also sign an NDA! >Why is "you cannot incite violent terrorism" suddenly controversial? Because without the freedom to "incite violent terrorism" we are essentially captive to the whims of the government. To quote Thomas Jefferson. "What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure."[1] The whole letter I take this quote from is worth a read. [1]https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/tree-liberty-quotation https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/tre... edit: formatting
- rovolo 6y ago
  >>You cannot yell "fire" in a movie theatre. >Actually, you can. This is protected by Brandenberg as I understand it. Brandenberg says that the government can't restrict inflammatory speech unless it's "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". The case specifies three requirements for punishing speech: 'intent', 'immenent lawless action', and 'likely to incite'. Shouting 'fire' is discussed in the opinion as potentially prosecutable: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/ > The line between what is permissible and not subject to control and what may be made impermissible and subject to regulation is the line between ideas and overt acts. > The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre. > This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. See Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 357 U. S. 536-537 (DOUGLAS, J., concurring). They are indeed inseparable, and a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused. Apart from rare instances of that kind, speech is, I think, immune from prosecution. Certainly there is no constitutional line between advocacy of abstract ideas, as in Yates, and advocacy of political action, as in Scales. The quality of advocacy turns on the depth of the conviction, and government has no power to invade that sanctuary of belief and conscience. P.S. the theater company can ban you for being a nuisance even if it's not illegal.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

henry_bone 6y ago

Downvoted Really!? What the fuck for?? Parler's app was the number one download on the app store & play store after Trump was kicked off Twitter. Then apple and google decided that Parler was not going to be a platform Trump could use, so they kicked the app off. Then amazon decided that Parler had no place on their computing resources. Those 2 tweets were interpreted as they were, to suit the political leanings of those tech companies and their political allies. And a legitimate competitor was destroyed into the bargain. This is not reasonable and it is antithetical to the freedoms on which your great nation was founded. If you, dear HN reader, can't see the threat to your freedom in this then you are blind. The US democracy may be under stress, so to speak, but it does seem to be working. The democrats will have their man in the white house. Trump will leave. Oh, and to call that invasion of the capitol an attempted coup is a real stretch. What were they ever going to do other than get arrested??

eli_gottlieb 6y ago
>Oh, and to call that invasion of the capitol an attempted coup is a real stretch. What were they ever going to do other than get arrested?? This reminds me of far-leftists refusing to admit that Islamist terrorism should be counted as terrorism, because, after all, what was killing a few people in an LGBT nightclub going to accomplish for ISIS?
- henry_bone 6y ago
  My problem is with the description of that action as a "coup". I'm not defending those people. I'm not informed well enough to do that. But a coup? I don't think so. Coups generally rely on military support, or some sort of established basis for taking and holding political power. This was not a coup. Or it was the shittest one ever.
  - LargeWu 6y ago
    If you consider that their aim was to overturn an election by force, then yes, it was a coup attempt. I think they were counting on the military and law enforcement rank-and-file (which overwhelmingly support Trump) to join them.

eli_gottlieb 6y ago

>This, “conservatives are turning into literal nazis” narrative is extremely toxic to public discourse and needs to completely stop. I would never refer to a conservative who recognizes the legitimate results of our free and fair elections as a Nazi! Now the question is, why in the flying MOTHERFUCK do I need that qualifier?

agensaequivocum 6y ago
I am a conservative who doesn't think it was stolen. But I have to point out the double standard. For ~3 years democrats claimed trump only won 2016 because Putin helped him. And they claimed for months that Stacy Ambrams was the actual winner of the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial race. Now Republicans are the devil for not accepting this election?
- selectodude 6y ago
  >For ~3 years democrats claimed trump only won 2016 because Putin helped him. Of which there was concrete proof of election meddling by Russia. Obviously we can't litigate what-ifs, but I'm not sure how the two can be separated. >Stacey Abrams was the actual winner of the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial race. The guy she was running against was the secretary of state at the time and passed several laws that were very clearly meant to suppress voter turnout before an election that he was standing in. >Now Republicans are the devil for not accepting this election? Yes, and for inciting violence and beating a police officer to death with a flag of the steps of the Capitol while saying the pledge of allegiance. Either work to make sure it never happens again or be inextricably linked to it.
  - agensaequivocum 6y ago
    Case and point.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  > Now Republicans are the devil for not accepting this election? Now? You do realize that the current president is the ringleader of birtherism, right?

PopsiclePete 6y ago

So what do we do instead? Just continue down this path until 75% of Americans "feel oppressed" and that "BLM and Antifa and Democrats are Marxists and enemies of the people"? Yeah? 'cause that's not working out. Or are you kind of thinking it is working out and it's your desired outcome? The Right is excellent at projecting and playing "the victim" so I wouldn't be surprised.

hinkley 6y ago

Here's the thing. If you've paid attention for more than fifteen minutes to feminists complaining about mistreatment, you'd know that one of the oldest tricks in the deflection playbook is to play the "agreeableness" card, asking people to calm down and be reasonable. At its best, it's a delaying tactic, playing for time while you continue to enjoy the fruits of inequality. I don't like it when it happens to women. I'm sure as hell not going to tolerate it being turned toward me. When they say "literal nazis", they mean literal nazis, not figurative nazis. I don't think the entire GOP it turning into Nazis. I can't recall the last time I heard someone say they believed it. However, I don't think every German, or even most Germans, in WWII were Nazis either. That didn't stop the Nazis from being in charge. It barely slowed them down. In order to get his 49% of the votes, #45 had to scrape the bottom of the barrel, courting every non-liberal element of society. The GOP leadership has publicly recognized these groups and groups like them as members of Team GOP. They seated them at a table as if they deserve to be peers with the folks you claim to represent. Let me ask you a serious question. Was it worth it to win that way? Really? What entitles anyone who says 'yes' or 'maybe' to be painted with a separate brush from the people who delivered the victory at "any cost"? If getting you, or all of us really, looking in the mirror is going to be predicated on treating you with the respect you plan to earn once they've treated you as if you've earned it, then buddy, you're going to be disrespected for an awful long time. Read the warnings, take some umbrage. I certainly am.