Funny events in anti-woke world

[Ag3ma]

I bring this up because you brought up the spectre of "The intelligence community is insincere in their view that Hunter Biden's alleged laptop is a likely Russian plant; that is just a way for them to associate something that would hurt Biden with an explanation that would not.". If we are to doubt the intentions in an instance that hurt Republican interests, why should we trust the same in an instance that would hurt Democrat interests? I am talking about how they chose to publicly announce that they had a laptop related to Clinton; that's something they could've done to sabotage her electoral prospects primarily.

But this goes to the core of the Republicans, and their current populist bent.

There has for a very long time been anti-government sentiment in the US right wing - suspicion of government itself, its agencies, corruption, overreach, etc. and this has grown and become more paranoid in recent years.

Hence the paradox in the populist further right, and not just the USA. Suspicion of government and institutions feeds populists who have contempt for the institutions of state, with their answer being that they should have ever-greater freedom from interference by and control over the institutions of the state. To these people, the messiah is coming to sweep away the "deep state" (or whatever) and can be invested with supreme power. The rest of us see the recipe for corruption, authoritarianism, and dismantling of democracy. Not least because it's literally already just happened (e.g. Hungary).

Inherent in here is often a degree of selectivity or hypocrisy in how events are interpreted. For instance, Obama used executive orders to "cheat" and circumvent Congress. Trump used them (at a rate 50% higher) because he was fighting the "deep state". If the intelligence services screw a Democrat, it means they're doing their job, and if they screw a Republican, it proves they are corrupt. Blah blah blah.

 

[Cheetodust]

But this goes to the core of the Republicans, and their current populist bent.

There has for a very long time been anti-government sentiment in the US right wing - suspicion of government itself, its agencies, corruption, overreach, etc. and this has grown and become more paranoid in recent years.

Hence the paradox in the populist further right, and not just the USA. Suspicion of government and institutions feeds populists who have contempt for the institutions of state, with their answer being that they should have ever-greater freedom from interference by and control over the institutions of the state. To these people, the messiah is coming to sweep away the "deep state" (or whatever) and can be invested with supreme power. The rest of us see the recipe for corruption, authoritarianism, and dismantling of democracy. Not least because it's literally already just happened (e.g. Hungary).

Inherent in here is often a degree of selectivity or hypocrisy in how events are interpreted. For instance, Obama used executive orders to "cheat" and circumvent Congress. Trump used them (at a rate 50% higher) because he was fighting the "deep state". If the intelligence services screw a Democrat, it means they're doing their job, and if they screw a Republican, it proves they are corrupt. Blah blah blah.

I mean even on a simpler level. They claim to be anti-authoritarian but fully support police killing suspects who flee the scene or are aggressive but unarmed. They will espouse innocent until proven guilty for the guys they like but are okay with a man who never made it to court being shot dead in the street because they committed a crime (but were never found guilty so by their ownlogic are not yetin fact guilty). Even if they weren't particularly aggressive and were killed, if they have a history of crime then it's not so bad because they were "no saint".

Personally as an anarchist I would choose representative democracy over a libertarian's idea of "liberty" any day of the week. Like I actively want there to be no government but what these people want to replace it with is much scarier. What they consider liberty is only liberty because they would be free to be how they want to be. The rest of us can get fucked. They claim you should be allowed do what you want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else but will conveniently come up with excuses for why freedom for people who aren't like them is in fact harmful actually.

Trans people in bathrooms for instance. Their excuse is that it could POTENTIALLY be dangerous for women (even though there's no evidence to bear that out) but the potential for danger from everyone walking around armed to the teeth is conveniently ignored because they want guns and limiting that freedom for the potential for harm is bad actually. Like all but a few whackjobs will agree that there should be SOME limit to privately owned weapons. Only the most insane would think that "the right to bear arms" includes a ground to air missile or a cache of chemical weapons. So why does that theoretical limit to what the right to bear arms means not possibly include military grade hardware?

 

[tstorm823]

Unfortunately, it's not actually the case that being cleared magically removes all the suspicion from being investigated/charged. Secondly, they could have, I dunno... said nothing if it were merely another week or so to wrap up and declare no big deal..

It was in the process of investigating child sex abuse charges against Anthony Weiner. They made the statement to get ahead of the information possibly becoming public through that, since a controlled notice followed by a pre-election declaration that nothing was found is better optics than suddenly connecting Clinton's emails to a sex-abuse case like a day before the election. This isn't even my speculation, this was their stated reason for notifying Congress when they did. And still, they had letters signed onto by prosecutors and former agents in the hundreds claiming that this was just a political hit job. Because federal law agencies mobilize to cover for Democrats.

I bring this up because you brought up the spectre of "The intelligence community is insincere in their view that Hunter Biden's alleged laptop is a likely Russian plant; that is just a way for them to associate something that would hurt Biden with an explanation that would not.". If we are to doubt the intentions in an instance that hurt Republican interests, why should we trust the same in an instance that would hurt Democrat interests? I am talking about how they chose to publicly announce that they had a laptop related to Clinton; that's something they could've done to sabotage her electoral prospects primarily.

Where have you ever seen the reverse? In what situation has a Republican been accused of something and the intelligence community decided to write a public letter attempting to discredit the accusation? I sympathize with the idea of being skeptical of political info leaking at advantageous times, my concern is the mechanisms of government moving to support only one political party. It's not even a "sides" thing, it's not left or right, they aren't bending the laws for the Green Party, it's just the Democratic Party.

 

[Silvanus]

This isn't even my speculation, this was their stated reason for notifying Congress when they did.

Oh, well if they said that's why they did it, that's settled then!

You're not going to get around the fact that the release was tremendously damaging to the Democrats. Your notion that they mobilise to defend the Democrats is inconsistent with the fact that their most notable recent intervention was highly disadvantageous to the Democrats and aided the Republicans.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Oh, well if they said that's why they did it, that's settled then!

You're not going to get around the fact that the release was tremendously damaging to the Democrats. Your notion that they mobilise to defend the Democrats is inconsistent with the fact that their most notable recent intervention was highly disadvantageous to the Democrats and aided the Republicans.

See, this is where you failed the Tstorm test. It didn't help republicans. It helped Trump, who's a democrat.

 

[Ag3ma]

And still, they had letters signed onto by prosecutors and former agents in the hundreds claiming that this was just a political hit job. Because federal law agencies mobilize to cover for Democrats.

Yes. I think something that's very noticeable here is the opinions of former intelligence and law enforcement agents used to argue bias in favour of the Democrats.

The thing is, a former employee of a state agency is perfectly free to exercise their right as a private citizen to express their political opinion. Next, the USA is roughly a third Democrat-leaning and a third Republican-leaning (the other third being neither), which necessarily suggests that a large number of former employees of state agencies are likely to favour the Democrats. Republicans attempting present this incredibly straightforward aspect of reality as a conspiracy against them is the sort of thing that makes me think they are paranoid. Using it as justification to take increased control of the state and harass their opponents is what makes me concerned they are authoritarians.

But then, the current Republicans consider losing an election as proof of a conspiracy against them, despite the evidence that they've won the popular vote in a presidential election only once since 1988.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

As an aside, one of my jobs is at a university theater, and Texas is on the verge of banning anything diverse, equitable, or inclusive. This has already led to us cancelling an event inviting women of NASA to come speak.

 

[Kwak]

It was in the process of investigating child sex abuse charges against Anthony Weiner. They made the statement to get ahead of the information possibly becoming public through that, since a controlled notice followed by a pre-election declaration that nothing was found is better optics than suddenly connecting Clinton's emails to a sex-abuse case like a day before the election. This isn't even my speculation, this was their stated reason for notifying Congress when they did. And still, they had letters signed onto by prosecutors and former agents in the hundreds claiming that this was just a political hit job. Because federal law agencies mobilize to cover for Democrats.

Where have you ever seen the reverse? In what situation has a Republican been accused of something and the intelligence community decided to write a public letter attempting to discredit the accusation? I sympathize with the idea of being skeptical of political info leaking at advantageous times, my concern is the mechanisms of government moving to support only one political party. It's not even a "sides" thing, it's not left or right, they aren't bending the laws for the Green Party, it's just the Democratic Party.

But it was big news at the time because it was highly unusual and against all previous protocol, not just a normal thing that happens all the time.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/29/499868601/fbi-head-under-fire-for-restarting-clinton-email-investigation-days-before-elect

 

[Chimpzy]

Mark Zuckerberg is ready to fight Elon Musk in a cage match

The ball is now in Musk’s court.

www.theverge.com

Please let this happen. Actually no, let it happen, but hop them up on drugs first, give them aluminum bats, then let them go to town on each other.

 

[Gordon_4]

Mark Zuckerberg is ready to fight Elon Musk in a cage match

The ball is now in Musk’s court.

www.theverge.com

Please let this happen. Actually no, let it happen, but hop them up on drugs first, give them aluminum bats, then let them go to town on each other.

My money is on Zuck.

 

[tstorm823]

Republicans attempting present this incredibly straightforward aspect of reality as a conspiracy against them is the sort of thing that makes me think they are paranoid.

It's not a conspiracy, as it is neither secret nor explicitly coordinated. It is the natural consequence of government organizations so thoroughly run by people loyal to the Democratic Party that they do not need to even conspire. They act instinctively for the benefit of their own party, and this sort of behavior is what comes of it.

But it was big news at the time because it was highly unusual and against all previous protocol, not just a normal thing that happens all the time.

It happens to every Supreme Court appointment made by a Republican in our lifetimes. The only thing particularly unique here was that we knew the name of the person publicizing the info, instead of it coming from an anonymous source.

You're not going to get around the fact that the release was tremendously damaging to the Democrats.

The situation was tremendously damaging to Clinton, yes. She was found deliberately concealing the things she was doing as Secretary of State, she was found to have deleted large portions of those concealed records, and pieces of the deleted evidence were discovered in the course of a sex crime investigation. Nobody needs to say anything to make that look bad. And you are choosing to interpret the FBI saying there's nothing to prosecute and none of it's even a big deal as a deliberate assault on Democrats.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Oh my god

 

[Chimpzy]

Oh my god

They were already skimping on costs everywhere. They didn't hire 50yo veterans because they're white men, but because they would demand higher pay.

So good old fashioned greed, the wokest of reasons.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Oh my god

One of these days someone really needs to track this Woke person down so we can put him in jail. Hopefully we will find him, but until that day we should probably keep talking about him.

 

[Ag3ma]

It's not a conspiracy, as it is neither secret nor explicitly coordinated.

Er, but that's exactly what a Republican-led committee recently alleged, that a letter by ex-agents to discredit allegations about Hunter Biden's laptop was organised by Democrat operatives and improperly hustled through with active assistance of the CIA: basically, co-ordinated and secret. They don't have convincing evidence this is the case, of course. But making a solid case isn't the point, harassing the president with constant mud-slinging is.

Another Republican committee reports that the wider Biden family has earned millions from foreign activities, with its chair claiming President Biden was involved. Again, this is alleging secret, co-ordinated activity. Despite his commitee having no evidence of the president's impropriety whatsoever thus far, he has no problem telling everyone he's confident the president was neck deep in this corruption. And he doesn't even need to ever find evidence, he just needs to look into it and abuse the privilege of his position to smear the president as long as he can get away with.

To be clear, actually I really like the idea of heavy scrutiny of high ranking politicians. I just think it should be institutional, neutral and evidence-bsaed, not a political tool by partisan gobshites to smear opponents their opponents with baseless innuendo.

 

[Ag3ma]

They were already skimping on costs everywhere. They didn't hire 50yo veterans because they're white men, but because they would demand higher pay.

Partly. Also note the company apparently has a fairly loose record on following safety norms and regulations. Younger rookies aren't just cheaper in salary, they've also not been indoctrinated into the expectations of the industry standards, so are more likely to accept cutting corners that experienced pros might baulk at.

This is really what "inspirational" is a euphemism for.

 

[tstorm823]

Er, but that's exactly what a Republican-led committee recently alleged, that a letter by ex-agents to discredit allegations about Hunter Biden's laptop was organised by Democrat operatives and improperly hustled through with active assistance of the CIA: basically, co-ordinated and secret. They don't have convincing evidence this is the case, of course. But making a solid case isn't the point, harassing the president with constant mud-slinging is.

Another Republican committee reports that the wider Biden family has earned millions from foreign activities, with its chair claiming President Biden was involved. Again, this is alleging secret, co-ordinated activity. Despite his commitee having no evidence of the president's impropriety whatsoever thus far, he has no problem telling everyone he's confident the president was neck deep in this corruption. And he doesn't even need to ever find evidence, he just needs to look into it and abuse the privilege of his position to smear the president as long as he can get away with.

To be clear, actually I really like the idea of heavy scrutiny of high ranking politicians. I just think it should be institutional, neutral and evidence-bsaed, not a political tool by partisan gobshites to smear opponents their opponents with baseless innuendo.

The wider Biden family has earned millions from foreign activities. That's not a secret. That's where Hunter made the money that he didn't pay taxes on. There is evidence Joe Biden was involved, in Hunter's emails, and straight from a former business partner of Hunter's who says that was exactly what was happening. None of that really concerns me that much. A father and son having intertwined finances, paying for each other sometimes, discussing investments, none of that is terribly upsetting. What bothers me is that someone like you can be convinced its all fake.

You're not wrong about the behavior of some Republican politicians. The way they treat Democrats isn't particularly different than when Adam Schiff claimed he had seen "more than circumstantial evidence" that Trump directly colluded with Russia in the 2016 election. And it's annoying, and I wish neither would act like that. The way federal agents and media organizations treat these similar claims is markedly different. And it's not a secret why nor a conspiracy. They're just overwhelmingly Democrats, so they trust the Democrats, and resent the Republicans.

 

[tstorm823]

They were already skimping on costs everywhere. They didn't hire 50yo veterans because they're white men, but because they would demand higher pay.

So good old fashioned greed, the wokest of reasons.

Partly. Also note the company apparently has a fairly loose record on following safety norms and regulations. Younger rookies aren't just cheaper in salary, they've also not been indoctrinated into the expectations of the industry standards, so are more likely to accept cutting corners that experienced pros might baulk at.

This is really what "inspirational" is a euphemism for.

Yes, exactly. That is "woke". Businesses underpaying and exploiting young people and minorities and then having their PR team put out statements about the value of diversity is exactly why the world is covered in rainbow flags right now.

 

[BrawlMan]

Mark Zuckerberg is ready to fight Elon Musk in a cage match

The ball is now in Musk’s court.

www.theverge.com

Please let this happen. Actually no, let it happen, but hop them up on drugs first, give them aluminum bats, then let them go to town on each other.

Make sure to wrap up those bats with barb and razor wire at the top part.

 

[Silvanus]

The situation was tremendously damaging to Clinton, yes. She was found deliberately concealing the things she was doing as Secretary of State, she was found to have deleted large portions of those concealed records, and pieces of the deleted evidence were discovered in the course of a sex crime investigation. Nobody needs to say anything to make that look bad. And you are choosing to interpret the FBI saying there's nothing to prosecute and none of it's even a big deal as a deliberate assault on Democrats.

Descriptions of why you think her actions were so terrible are irrelevant, because we're discussing the actions of the FBI.

You'd like us to believe the FBI mobilised to defend the Democrats. Where's that effort here? Not only did they launch the investigation, but they publicly announced it timed for maximum political damage.

You can argue the timing was coincidence if you like, that's at least feasible. But if they were mobilised to defend the Dems, their actions make zero sense.