Insurrection USA 2021

[Gene Steinberg]

Well people don't realize that "America First" came out of the Nazi movement.

And when was America great? When blacks had to use a different bathroom and women "knew" their place? It's the question they cannot answer.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

en more, he encouraged mail in ballots from states that he's favoured in, and discouraged and lied about mail in ballots in states he's unfavored in.

Long and short, a vote was legal if it's for him, and not if was isn't.

Some of the members of Congress who protested the election were elected on the very SAME ballots. They can't explain how part of the vote is good and part of the same vote is bad.

 

[marduk]

Came across this on reddit the other day. I think it's appropriate and interesting given the free speech issue:

 

[Randall]

Capitol Police Officer–Son of Former Senate Sergeant-at-Arms–Died by Suicide After D.C. Insurrection​

An officer with the United States Capitol Police has died by suicide. He was Howard Liebengood, said sources cited by Punch Bowl News‘ Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan.

“The United States Capitol Police is deeply saddened by the off-duty death on January 9, 2021, of Officer Howard Liebengood, age 51,” Capitol police said in a statement released on Sunday. “He was assigned to the Senate Division, and has been with the Department since April 2005. Our thoughts and prayers go out to his family, friends, and colleagues. We ask that his family, and other USCP officers’ and their families’ privacy be respected during this profoundly difficult time.”

Capitol Police Officer--Son of Former Senate Sergeant-at-Arms--Died by Suicide After D.C. Insurrection

An officer with the United States Capitol Police has died by suicide.

lawandcrime.com

 

[marduk]

Well people don't realize that "America First" came out of the Nazi movement.

And when was America great? When blacks had to use a different bathroom and women "knew" their place? It's the question they cannot answer.

Did you watch the Colbert episode right after the 6th? When he listed a bunch of stuff off that happened, and then looked at the camera with what looked like tears welling up in his eyes, and said "are we great again yet?"

They're harkening back to a 50's that never were. When women knew their place. When people of color knew their place. When LGBT issues seemed not to exist, because you couldn't talk about them. When abortions were viewed as evil, and were illegal. Along with any other means for women to control their own bodies.

When you actually read about what the 50's was actually like, most people would recoil. And yet they idealize it. It's no different than Nazi ideology, harkening back to an aryan golden age that never was.

 

[Randall]

... He's a whiney loon complaining about his loss of white male privilege, and that's pretty much the end of it.

The interviews I've seen have led me to criticise Peterson's style of engagement, however I don't see evidence of him being either a "loon" or a mere "complainer".

 

[marduk]

Well people don't realize that "America First" came out of the Nazi movement.

And when was America great? When blacks had to use a different bathroom and women "knew" their place? It's the question they cannot answer.

Sorry to reply twice, but as a Canuck this is one thing that's always annoyed me.

Listen. I give America a hard time. Your country has a lot to be proud of. A lot. But this constant "America is the GREATEST DEMOCRACY ON EARTH" and "America is the LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD" and all this 'America is the bestest at everything ever' stuff that both the right and the left constantly portrays is part of the problem.

America is struggling to solve core problems that much of the western world solved decades ago. Not perfectly, but better. In many areas, America isn't the best, and is in fact one of the worst.

And not confronting those realities is as much the problem as Trumpians not confronting their realities.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Let's start with healthcare. If you have the $$$$, it's the best in the world or right up there. If you don't, you're in trouble. And whenever they try to make it better, certain politicians yell "socialism," not even knowing what that word means. They want to conflate it with communism, something people who grew up in the 1950s would understand, but much younger people understand is absurd.

When my son moved to Spain to take a job in 2008, from the day he arrived, he was covered by the country's healthcare system. No waiting period, no large copays to get treated.

 

[marduk]

The interviews I've seen have led me to criticise Peterson's style of engagement, however I don't see evidence of him being either a "loon" or a mere "complainer".

His core complaints:

Peterson was troubled by two developments: a federal amendment to add gender identity and expression to the Canadian Human Rights Act; and his university’s plans for mandatory anti-bias training. Starting from there, he railed against Marxism, human rights organisations, HR departments and “an underground apparatus of radical left political motivations” forcing gender-neutral pronouns on him.

How dangerous is Jordan B Peterson, the rightwing professor who 'hit a hornets' nest'?

Since his confrontation with Cathy Newman, the Canadian academic’s book has become a bestseller. But his arguments are riddled with ‘pseudo-facts’ and conspiracy theories

www.theguardian.com

That's it. Wrap that into an intellectual sounding book, and it sounds good on the surface. But that is what his argument is.

My response? Boo-hoo, whiney privileged dude. This is textbook privilege.

The loony bit comes in when he decides that his decision of what people identify as overrides their own decision about their own identities, and that bias training is akin to marxism - something he clearly does not understand because he's equating the two.

Being well spoken does not mean you understand what you're saying, nor does it mean that this endless appeal to a slippery slope argument is anything but dog whistling. He either understands these things and is actively lying, or he doesn't and is ignorant.

Either way, if I were a student, I'd be saying "nuh-uh" to that with my tuition dollars and rights.

 

[Randall]

Came across this on reddit the other day. I think it's appropriate and interesting given the free speech issue:

Yes ( interesting to contemplate ). The explanation above only works in situations where there is are absolutes. In other words, It's possible to be tolerant enough to allow someone to hold a viewpoint that is intolerant, e.g. "All nations must submit to the will of Allah", but not fine with them going about imposing that viewpoint on others. So tolerance seems to be a spectrum rather than an absolute.

 

[marduk]

Yes ( interesting to contemplate ). The explanation above only works in situations where there is are absolutes. In other words, It's possible to be tolerant enough to allow someone to hold a viewpoint that is intolerant, e.g. "All nations must submit to the will of Allah", but not fine with them going about imposing that viewpoint on others.

The problem is that conservatism is the domain of absolutes. MAGA itself is an example. Compare "Make America Great Again" to Obama's simple "Change we can believe in."

Or how socialism is communism. Or that either are evil. Abortions are murder. You're either pro Trump or a traitor.

Regarding Islam, I think he's saying that "all nations must submit to the will of Allah" should not be tolerated, because the message itself is intolerant. Like much of the hardline stuff you see in Islam, and Judaism and Christianity as well. Tolerance of beliefs is good, tolerance of intolerance is not.

Conservatism is generally having your foot on the brake. Trying to hold onto something you have. Or, in this case, something you pretend to used to have had.

 

[Randall]

His core complaints:

How dangerous is Jordan B Peterson, the rightwing professor who 'hit a hornets' nest'?

Since his confrontation with Cathy Newman, the Canadian academic’s book has become a bestseller. But his arguments are riddled with ‘pseudo-facts’ and conspiracy theories

www.theguardian.com

That's it. Wrap that into an intellectual sounding book, and it sounds good on the surface. But that is what his argument is.

My response? Boo-hoo, whiney privileged dude. This is textbook privilege.

The loony bit comes in when he decides that his decision of what people identify as overrides their own decision about their own identities, and that bias training is akin to marxism - something he clearly does not understand because he's equating the two.

Being well spoken does not mean you understand what you're saying, nor does it mean that this endless appeal to a slippery slope argument is anything but dog whistling. He either understands these things and is actively lying, or he doesn't and is ignorant.

Either way, if I were a student, I'd be saying "nuh-uh" to that with my tuition dollars and rights.

This is something I'd like to explore further, but we'd need another thread for it. I'll get to it a bit later. I commented on one of his YouTube videos, that although he might have his facts in order, and his logic might be sound, his style of delivery makes him come across to me exactly like you describe. I don't know if that is a reflection of his core personality, or if he just needs work on his presentation and image.

 

[marduk]

This is something I'd like to explore further, but we'd need another thread for it. I'll get to it a bit later. I commented on one of his YouTube videos, that although he might have his facts in order, and his logic might be sound, his style of delivery makes him come across to me exactly like you describe. I don't know if that is a reflection of his core personality, or if he just needs work on his presentation and image.

Lol, I'm biased. Part of my job is sitting with executives and seeing through the BS. Flowery speech no longer means anything to me - about the ideas being conveyed, or the person conveying them. Often all it takes is reflecting back their own ideas in a straightforward way to demonstrate faulty logic, appeals to emotion, or just nonsensical ego-based power grabs.

 

[Randall]

... Tolerance of beliefs is good, tolerance of intolerance is not ...

And if the belief is one of intolerance, we are back at the paradox. That's why I say tolerance seems to be a spectrum rather than a binary. In other words, I can tolerate the existence of an intolerant belief, but will resist to varying degrees, that belief being foisted on anyone, up to the point where it becomes a paradox, which is essentially a description of the cycle of revolution.

 

[marduk]

And if the belief is one of intolerance, we are back at the paradox. That's why I say tolerance seems to be a spectrum rather than a binary. In other words, I can tolerate the existence of an intolerant belief, but will resist to varying degrees, that belief being foisted on anyone, up to the point where it becomes a paradox, which is essentially a description of the cycle of revolution.

I think about it more simply. To use a non-charged example:

I think chocolate tastes good, but I like nachos better. Please respect my view for myself. Yay tolerance!

I think nachos are far better than chocolate, and demand chocolate to no longer exist. Tolerate my view for other people.

One is a choice for myself to do as I wish in a way that harms no-one. The other is a demand for other people to do as I choose, at pain of no longer existing.

Hardcore Trump supporters don't just want conservatism. They want those that don't look, act, and believe as they do to die or be jailed. That's what the wall was about. That's what separating children from their families at the border was about. And the forced sterilizations. That's not engaging in a debate about which ideology is better, that's a demand to see it their way or cease to exist.

They didn't scream "respect our views Mike Pence." They screamed "Hang Mike Pence" while they had a noose set up out front, and guys with zip tie handcuffs storming the doors coming after them.

 

[marduk]

Further to my last post, the whole 'back the blue' and 'thin blue line' appeals from Trump supporters are very expressive about this kind of targetted, faux appeals to conservatism that are not at all honest. They also demonstrate the very tolerance conversations we're having.

Prior to Jan 6th, you'd often see American flags with a thin blue line on them as support for the police overreach (in my opinion) regarding the BLM movement. The appeal to conservatism and tolerance was to support the police, because they protect us and the rule of law... at least when they attack black people.

Suddenly, as soon as the police attempt to enforce that same rule of law against Trump supporters, suddenly the police are evil traitors and should die.

In my view, the support for police against BLM is because many wanted BLM to no longer exist, not because they supported the police. Now that police have turned on them, many want the police to no longer exist. There are renewed calls to again storm the capital, this time with more organization and firepower. Aimed this time at the police as well.

 

[Randall]

I think about it more simply. To use a non-charged example:

I think chocolate tastes good, but I like nachos better. Please respect my view for myself. Yay tolerance!

Okay.

I think nachos are far better than chocolate, and demand chocolate to no longer exist. Tolerate my view for other people.

Not sure I get that.

One is a choice for myself to do as I wish in a way that harms no-one. The other is a demand for other people to do as I choose, at pain of no longer existing.

Okay. I'd resist option two up to a point. Like I wouldn't star a nuclear war over it, but I might start and underground chocolate resistance, especially if they took away DQ chocolate milkshakes.

Hardcore Trump supporters don't just want conservatism. They want those that don't look, act, and believe as they do to die or be jailed. That's what the wall was about. That's what separating children from their families at the border was about. And the forced sterilizations. That's not engaging in a debate about which ideology is better, that's a demand to see it their way or cease to exist.

They didn't scream "respect our views Mike Pence." They screamed "Hang Mike Pence" while they had a noose set up out front, and guys with zip tie handcuffs storming the doors coming after them.

You seem to have your head screwed on straight. But I would also be remiss if I didn't point out that it's a lot easier to be intolerant when that intolerance advocates one's own views or advances one's own position. Tolerance requires that we advocate to at least some extent for positions that we may not ourselves agree with, or may even hurt our own position.

 

[Constance]

Hardcore Trump supporters don't just want conservatism. They want those that don't look, act, and believe as they do to die or be jailed. That's what the wall was about. That's what separating children from their families at the border was about. And the forced sterilizations. That's not engaging in a debate about which ideology is better, that's a demand to see it their way or cease to exist.

Applauding your clear thinking, here and all the way through this thread.

 

[marduk]

But I would also be remiss if I didn't point out that it's a lot easier to be intolerant when that intolerance advocates one's own views or advances one's own position. Tolerance requires that we advocate at least some extent for positions that we may not ourselves agree with, or may even hurt our own position.

Sure. In my mind the test is "am I deciding something for myself or for someone else?" And if it's for someone else, it's "am I being harmed by their choice?"

Harm is not annoyance (for example, one of my child's friends is trans, and I get the genders wrong sometimes and it's annoying). However, I still make good faith efforts to remember their choice regarding self-identity, and in return they make good faith efforts not to get angry about it when I get it wrong. We laugh about it. My choice about respecting their identity is simply that - respecting their identity. I have conservative family members that think it's a terrible loss of my freedoms to respect their choice. One is about my power over myself, the other is about power over others.

I think it's also strongly tied to views about socialism. Socialism demands that you consider others in your decision making. For example, my tax dollars go to educate other people's children, even if I don't have kids in school. This is demonstrably good for society and good for those children.

Some conservative viewpoints are a refusal to incorporate others into their decision making. Akin to 'I don't have to respect your gender identity', I know people that want to be able to opt out of paying education taxes if they don't have children - so they don't have to 'bear the burden' of other people's existence.

I see this kind of individual-centrism vs social-centrism as key.

 

[marduk]

Applauding your clear thinking, here and all the way through this thread.

Thanks very much Constance! I know we don't always see eye to eye but I sincerely appreciate the comment.